Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
This is total nonsense. No one, and I mean no one loses anything when another player forfeits a match against them. They aren't getting a monopoly on the system. The great irony here is that you are complaining about something that the entire rest of everyone who complains about it does so for the exact opposite reason, because your reasoning is nonsensical. The people who complain about tanking complain because they are handing out easy wins. Players who should not win, and would not ordinarily win, are winning and advancing beyond what they ordinarily would, skewing the amount of low progress players who aren't getting stopped in their tracks.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
Using your stable/unstable tiers analogy, I think the reasoning is stronger players camping at a lower level brings stability to a tier sooner than it should otherwise.
You are only looking at it from a high strength player forfeiting a match against a low strength one. But campers can also deal losses to strong players who would have otherwise progressed through the tier easily. Those losses are eventually passed down the line.
Campers are not gaining any medals to progress but as an overall group they are not contributing to the progress of anyone else either at an aggregate level. They are just stronger than everyone else in the group and are imposing an extra cost (in terms of number of matches) to progression.
If it takes 10 matches for a player of slightly above average strength player to progress in a VT tier, with 20% campers it might take 12 games because the 2 games against high strength campers were pointless. At an individual level it might help some people progress faster and some slower depending on where in their streak they match up against campers. But as an overall, camper impose a burden of extra matches to progress on the rest of the group. Since it costs energy/tokens/units to play BG matches, it is an extra resource burden.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is I think camping is frowned upon.
but thats not entirely right. the campers are also giving away free wins to others so for every match they cost someone they also gift someone a win. so when you look at both sides whats the net gain? people who would have otherwise not gotten a win get gifted a win, and maybe get pushed up a tier, 2 tiers, 3 tiers, heck a cav may even get pushed all the way to GC.
and yes camping may be frowned upon, but at the same time, its a fault of the design of the system. the fact that the rewards from the solo event are greater than rewards they will get from pushing to GC.
Maybe an example will help.
Think of a tier with 4 players -A,B,C & D with A>B>C>D in terms of strength. 3 medals to promote.
When everyone is playing competitively and each other. This is typically how the games will play out
Round 1: A v D - A wins; B v C - B wins. A & B have one medal each. Round 2: A v C - A wins; B v D - B wins. A & B have two medals each. Round 3: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. A promotes out of the tier. C & B have one medal each. Round 4: B v C - B wins - B has 2 medals; C has zero. Round 5: C v D - C wins - B has 2 medals; C has one Round 6: B v D - B wins & promotes. Round 7: C v D - C wins Round 8: C v D - C wins & promotes.
11 games - A played 3; B played 5; C played 7 and all promoted.
Consider when A is camping: Round 1: A v D - A wins; B v C - B wins. A & B have one medal each. Round 2: A v C - A forfeits; B v D - B wins. C has one medal. B has 2 medals. Round 3: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. C has 2 medals. A & B have one medal each. Round 4: A v D - A forfeits; B v C - B wins. C has one medal. B has 2 medals. D has one too. Round 5: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. C has 2 medals. A & B have one medal each. Round 6: A v C - A wins; B v D - B wins. C has one medal. A & B have 2 medals. Everyone has played everyone twice now. No one has promoted.
Round 7: A v D - A forfeits; B v C - B wins. A has one medal. B is promoted. C has zero medals.
B took 2 more matches to move up than they would have normally taken. C played 7 matches and would have expected to have moved up by now but on zero medals - needing 3 straight wins with 1 or 2 matches against A. A gave 3 free wins but it did not benefit B, C or D who were playing fair.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
Let's assume that camping/farming is actually a huge problem.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
I offered a suggestion that would help. The Tokens. Does it eliminate the possibility? Not completely. It would mean it's less advantageous because one Win means 2 Tokens, and you'll advance faster if you're stronger. At least until Vibranium. Which, for all intents and purposes, the best should pass.
That just means taking more matches and it's already been established that propelling lower players higher quicker isn't a solution.
As opposed to Tanking them up, which we're talking about now? Also, the number of Tokens isn't what propels them faster from Plat up. It's the Wins. If a lower Player earns Wins against all of the GC in Plat and up, they've either earned it, or cheated. The idea that a 2:1 Token system is going to propel lower Players is just not accurate. They still have to win the Matches they're given. Eventually they will still plateau like everyone else.
How will they plateau? They will move up after the stronger players move up. There is no plateauing in a 2:1 scoring system. Plateauing happens only when there is no net gain of medals in a group, how can that ever happen with a 2:1 scoring?
With 2:1 everyone who tries will get to Vibranium. You need to only win slightly better than 1 in 3. If one group is winning 1 in 3, then there is someone else wining 2 in 3 and they are soon out of the tier. Those wins are then distributed within the 1 in 3 group to bring it closer to 1 in 2. Then everyone promotes.
2:1 till Vibranium means anyone serious about BG will be in Vibranium. Clearly the devs don't want it.
It's not a valid suggestion unless you can add to it a method to keep some people in Plat and Diamond.
Let's assume that camping/farming is actually a huge problem.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
I offered a suggestion that would help. The Tokens. Does it eliminate the possibility? Not completely. It would mean it's less advantageous because one Win means 2 Tokens, and you'll advance faster if you're stronger. At least until Vibranium. Which, for all intents and purposes, the best should pass.
That just means taking more matches and it's already been established that propelling lower players higher quicker isn't a solution.
As opposed to Tanking them up, which we're talking about now? Also, the number of Tokens isn't what propels them faster from Plat up. It's the Wins. If a lower Player earns Wins against all of the GC in Plat and up, they've either earned it, or cheated. The idea that a 2:1 Token system is going to propel lower Players is just not accurate. They still have to win the Matches they're given. Eventually they will still plateau like everyone else.
They tested the idea for 2 seasons, they realized it doesn't work, why is that so hard to understand. You talk about frustration climbing up? What about having to earn 200 points to get out of URU because it was overcrowded? Earning 10 points on a win losing 16 on a lose because the GC had so many players that everything was out of whack? You act as if they reverted back as a conspiracy to punish VT players. They tested it 2 seasons they weren't happy with the result. Why is the camping thing still a conversation? It will get fixed season after season because of seeding, unless someone is trying to push the nonsense idea that they are farming milestone points instead of advancing to get trophies. You want to fix the camping and tanking issue, punish losing; but as i said before people would be against being dropped tiers.
You keep ignoring that those 2 Seasons never had seeding. Also, camping is still very much a problem. You've already established you disagree with the idea. I don't need to continue arguing in a circle with you.
Let's assume that camping/farming is actually a huge problem.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
I offered a suggestion that would help. The Tokens. Does it eliminate the possibility? Not completely. It would mean it's less advantageous because one Win means 2 Tokens, and you'll advance faster if you're stronger. At least until Vibranium. Which, for all intents and purposes, the best should pass.
That just means taking more matches and it's already been established that propelling lower players higher quicker isn't a solution.
As opposed to Tanking them up, which we're talking about now? Also, the number of Tokens isn't what propels them faster from Plat up. It's the Wins. If a lower Player earns Wins against all of the GC in Plat and up, they've either earned it, or cheated. The idea that a 2:1 Token system is going to propel lower Players is just not accurate. They still have to win the Matches they're given. Eventually they will still plateau like everyone else.
They tested the idea for 2 seasons, they realized it doesn't work, why is that so hard to understand. You talk about frustration climbing up? What about having to earn 200 points to get out of URU because it was overcrowded? Earning 10 points on a win losing 16 on a lose because the GC had so many players that everything was out of whack? You act as if they reverted back as a conspiracy to punish VT players. They tested it 2 seasons they weren't happy with the result. Why is the camping thing still a conversation? It will get fixed season after season because of seeding, unless someone is trying to push the nonsense idea that they are farming milestone points instead of advancing to get trophies. You want to fix the camping and tanking issue, punish losing; but as i said before people would be against being dropped tiers.
You keep ignoring that those 2 Seasons never had seeding. Also, camping is still very much a problem. You've already established you disagree with the idea. I don't need to continue arguing in a circle with you.
And seeding would make that matter different how exactly? Please I beg you to explain it to me. My understanding would be that the 2-1 coin system didn't work because too many people advanced beyond what Kabam wanted and that's why the reverted it back. Wouldn't seeding speed up the process of overcrowding GC? If the people who got to GC start at Plat1 wouldn't more people get to Plat1 faster and actually make camping worse? It goes in circles cause you have not presented a single fact and proposed ideas that would make things worse. You want to stop camping and your solution is to add more camping victims at a faster rate, trying to kill hungry wolves with over eating I guess.
You are not doing it cause you don't have an answer, and I am fine with it. Good luck with your proposals based on unfounded opinions, and feelings of frustration. You don't wanna continue it with me that's ok. Stature asked for the same, facts, and you avoided his request as well.
I'm not doing this with you, so you might as well give it up.
2:1 was tried. It was found that more players than desired got to GC. Now there is seeding, some people are already starting at a higher tier. Scoring was reverted to 1:1.
Now you are suggesting we go back to 2:1, on a hunch that player progress will plateau at some indeterminate level despite it being mathematically impossible (at least highly improbable). It's an idea that has been tried and discarded.
If the results of this season reflect that too few people got into GC, they might extend 2:1 through platinum (unlikely). Almost certainly, it will never be extend all the way to Vibranium. Neither decision will be due to your championing it, because you don't present any rationale for taking any step.
Once again, not a hill worth dying on. Only thing that is being impacted through this discussion is your credibility. At this point your insistence is probably hurting the ones you are claiming to defend, because no one really understands your position enough to take your side. I understand the 2:1 scoring bit, but that's dead on arrival.
Being successful with a 40% win rate and a matchmaking shelter, and then claim understanding the meaning of competition.
IMO, they should do away with the loss of tokens entirely and wind should award 5 tokens. That would be the most fair. Also, Cav/TB/UC players all get full VT and GC rewards because they have the struggle of having to face the unfair Paragons.
Being successful with a 40% win rate and a matchmaking shelter, and then claim understanding the meaning of competition.
IMO, they should do away with the loss of tokens entirely and wind should award 5 tokens. That would be the most fair. Also, Cav/TB/UC players all get full VT and GC rewards because they have the struggle of having to face the unfair Paragons.
Yeay competition!
I know you were being sarcastic but not losing coins works for the camping issue 🤣 Of course then you would probably need 500 points to get out of URU, but thats fine cause large roster players are the problem. I stopped using Paragon because some Paragons are not as good as they think.
I'm not doing this with you, so you might as well give it up.
2:1 was tried. It was found that more players than desired got to GC. Now there is seeding, some people are already starting at a higher tier. Scoring was reverted to 1:1.
Now you are suggesting we go back to 2:1, on a hunch that player progress will plateau at some indeterminate level despite it being mathematically impossible (at least highly improbable). It's an idea that has been tried and discarded.
If the results of this season reflect that too few people got into GC, they might extend 2:1 through platinum (unlikely). Almost certainly, it will never be extend all the way to Vibranium. Neither decision will be due to your championing it, because you don't present any rationale for taking any step.
Once again, not a hill worth dying on. Only thing that is being impacted through this discussion is your credibility. At this point your insistence is probably hurting the ones you are claiming to defend, because no one really understands your position enough to take your side. I understand the 2:1 scoring bit, but that's dead on arrival.
I'd like to know why people keep implying 2:1 doesn't work WITH seeding in place, when they haven't seen that. As for your opinion on my suggestion well, that's like...your opinion, man. I'm not going to stop presenting my thoughts because you don't approve.
Being successful with a 40% win rate and a matchmaking shelter, and then claim understanding the meaning of competition.
IMO, they should do away with the loss of tokens entirely and wind should award 5 tokens. That would be the most fair. Also, Cav/TB/UC players all get full VT and GC rewards because they have the struggle of having to face the unfair Paragons.
Yeay competition!
I know you were being sarcastic but not losing coins works for the camping issue 🤣 Of course then you would probably need 500 points to get out of URU, but thats fine cause large roster players are the problem. I stopped using Paragon because some Paragons are not as good as they think.
Yes, then they'd complain about something else. Anything besides admitting that they're just not that good.
-Forums are a place of DISCUSSION -I won't discuss my opinions -I don't need your approval to have an opinion -I will refute your opinion without facts -Its my opinion. And then someone wonders why we run in circles.
Being successful with a 40% win rate and a matchmaking shelter, and then claim understanding the meaning of competition.
IMO, they should do away with the loss of tokens entirely and wind should award 5 tokens. That would be the most fair. Also, Cav/TB/UC players all get full VT and GC rewards because they have the struggle of having to face the unfair Paragons.
Yeay competition!
I know you were being sarcastic but not losing coins works for the camping issue 🤣 Of course then you would probably need 500 points to get out of URU, but thats fine cause large roster players are the problem. I stopped using Paragon because some Paragons are not as good as they think.
Yes, then they'd complain about something else. Anything besides admitting that they're just not that good.
Oh most likely hard tries will grind those 500 points and then the argument would be "I have a small roster and lower players are stuck with me in URU, how am I supposed to grind 500 points if I lose 15 everytime I lose. Losing in GC should take away half the points of the match"
-Forums are a place of DISCUSSION -I won't discuss my opinions -I don't need your approval to have an opinion -I will refute your opinion without facts -Its my opinion. And then someone wonders why we run in circles.
This is the beauty of claiming you're not arguing your own personal opinion. When you anoint yourself as the People's Champion, you don't have to adhere to norma discussion parameters.
I'm not doing this with you, so you might as well give it up.
2:1 was tried. It was found that more players than desired got to GC. Now there is seeding, some people are already starting at a higher tier. Scoring was reverted to 1:1.
Now you are suggesting we go back to 2:1, on a hunch that player progress will plateau at some indeterminate level despite it being mathematically impossible (at least highly improbable). It's an idea that has been tried and discarded.
If the results of this season reflect that too few people got into GC, they might extend 2:1 through platinum (unlikely). Almost certainly, it will never be extend all the way to Vibranium. Neither decision will be due to your championing it, because you don't present any rationale for taking any step.
Once again, not a hill worth dying on. Only thing that is being impacted through this discussion is your credibility. At this point your insistence is probably hurting the ones you are claiming to defend, because no one really understands your position enough to take your side. I understand the 2:1 scoring bit, but that's dead on arrival.
I'd like to know why people keep implying 2:1 doesn't work WITH seeding in place, when they haven't seen that. As for your opinion on my suggestion well, that's like...your opinion, man. I'm not going to stop presenting my thoughts because you don't approve.
2:1 doesn't work in any scenario. Because you cannot have a stable tier with 2:1 scoring. So you cannot keep players in a tier. Where you stop 2:1 and move to 1:1 is the ceiling on where people can grind to. That isn't an opinion, it is mathematically true.
Which is why I said the last 3 Tiers, which have 5 Tokens per Tier, would stay the same. Look, I'm not arguing ad nauseum. I've made the suggestion. You can agree or disagree all you like. It's a suggestion. Not a democracy.
As it is now, it's an unreasonable climb for a number of Players, and it has nothing to do with giving anyone a fast-track to the GC, or any other arrogant view. Bottom line is, there are more Players in the game mode than the top. Yet here we are with the same people who have no issues at all with the VT, trying to dictate the experience others should have. If you don't agree, that's fine. Say that and move on. There are people who do agree, and they're free to discuss their ideas.
I'm not doing this with you, so you might as well give it up.
2:1 was tried. It was found that more players than desired got to GC. Now there is seeding, some people are already starting at a higher tier. Scoring was reverted to 1:1.
Now you are suggesting we go back to 2:1, on a hunch that player progress will plateau at some indeterminate level despite it being mathematically impossible (at least highly improbable). It's an idea that has been tried and discarded.
If the results of this season reflect that too few people got into GC, they might extend 2:1 through platinum (unlikely). Almost certainly, it will never be extend all the way to Vibranium. Neither decision will be due to your championing it, because you don't present any rationale for taking any step.
Once again, not a hill worth dying on. Only thing that is being impacted through this discussion is your credibility. At this point your insistence is probably hurting the ones you are claiming to defend, because no one really understands your position enough to take your side. I understand the 2:1 scoring bit, but that's dead on arrival.
I'd like to know why people keep implying 2:1 doesn't work WITH seeding in place, when they haven't seen that. As for your opinion on my suggestion well, that's like...your opinion, man. I'm not going to stop presenting my thoughts because you don't approve.
2:1 doesn't work in any scenario. Because you cannot have a stable tier with 2:1 scoring. So you cannot keep players in a tier. Where you stop 2:1 and move to 1:1 is the ceiling on where people can grind to. That isn't an opinion, it is mathematically true.
Putting this ceiling such low as Gold1 makes it mathematically true also that participation will be dropping every single season. 2-1 medal system should go up till Diamond1, so people that have a lower win ratio, can claim some rewards throughout the month to keep playing. Three Vibranium tiers of 5 wins with the 1-1 medal system are more than enough to filter out the best players and ensure that only strong players will enter GC. Whatever what we say, Kabam will realize that through their data next months and react to it. It’s a matter of time to happen, like the previous BGs changes happened as expected. Previous experience says that Kabam reacts to actual problems after couple of months, that seems probably to be the time needed to gather and evaluate enough data.
And for those complaining about points farming, I'll listen to your objection and agree with you if you can honestly say you've never ran RTTL for hero use, looked for easy duel targets in low tier EQ or ever took a revive from 3.2.6 after it was completed the first time.
This is literally BGs in a nutshell and what's wrong with the current system. Majority of the players are only looking at it as another means of rewards from events. It's also VT should become unranked.
Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
This is total nonsense. No one, and I mean no one loses anything when another player forfeits a match against them. They aren't getting a monopoly on the system. The great irony here is that you are complaining about something that the entire rest of everyone who complains about it does so for the exact opposite reason, because your reasoning is nonsensical. The people who complain about tanking complain because they are handing out easy wins. Players who should not win, and would not ordinarily win, are winning and advancing beyond what they ordinarily would, skewing the amount of low progress players who aren't getting stopped in their tracks.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
Using your stable/unstable tiers analogy, I think the reasoning is stronger players camping at a lower level brings stability to a tier sooner than it should otherwise.
You are only looking at it from a high strength player forfeiting a match against a low strength one. But campers can also deal losses to strong players who would have otherwise progressed through the tier easily. Those losses are eventually passed down the line.
Campers are not gaining any medals to progress but as an overall group they are not contributing to the progress of anyone else either at an aggregate level. They are just stronger than everyone else in the group and are imposing an extra cost (in terms of number of matches) to progression.
If it takes 10 matches for a player of slightly above average strength player to progress in a VT tier, with 20% campers it might take 12 games because the 2 games against high strength campers were pointless. At an individual level it might help some people progress faster and some slower depending on where in their streak they match up against campers. But as an overall, camper impose a burden of extra matches to progress on the rest of the group. Since it costs energy/tokens/units to play BG matches, it is an extra resource burden.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is I think camping is frowned upon.
but thats not entirely right. the campers are also giving away free wins to others so for every match they cost someone they also gift someone a win. so when you look at both sides whats the net gain? people who would have otherwise not gotten a win get gifted a win, and maybe get pushed up a tier, 2 tiers, 3 tiers, heck a cav may even get pushed all the way to GC.
and yes camping may be frowned upon, but at the same time, its a fault of the design of the system. the fact that the rewards from the solo event are greater than rewards they will get from pushing to GC.
The free wins are part of the problem. Accounts that have no business being pushed forward are being pushed forward because of it. They then realize they're in a tier where their accounts are outmatched. They then come to forums to express themselves and end up having players telling them they're in X tier be grateful.
Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
This is total nonsense. No one, and I mean no one loses anything when another player forfeits a match against them. They aren't getting a monopoly on the system. The great irony here is that you are complaining about something that the entire rest of everyone who complains about it does so for the exact opposite reason, because your reasoning is nonsensical. The people who complain about tanking complain because they are handing out easy wins. Players who should not win, and would not ordinarily win, are winning and advancing beyond what they ordinarily would, skewing the amount of low progress players who aren't getting stopped in their tracks.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
Using your stable/unstable tiers analogy, I think the reasoning is stronger players camping at a lower level brings stability to a tier sooner than it should otherwise.
You are only looking at it from a high strength player forfeiting a match against a low strength one. But campers can also deal losses to strong players who would have otherwise progressed through the tier easily. Those losses are eventually passed down the line.
Campers are not gaining any medals to progress but as an overall group they are not contributing to the progress of anyone else either at an aggregate level. They are just stronger than everyone else in the group and are imposing an extra cost (in terms of number of matches) to progression.
If it takes 10 matches for a player of slightly above average strength player to progress in a VT tier, with 20% campers it might take 12 games because the 2 games against high strength campers were pointless. At an individual level it might help some people progress faster and some slower depending on where in their streak they match up against campers. But as an overall, camper impose a burden of extra matches to progress on the rest of the group. Since it costs energy/tokens/units to play BG matches, it is an extra resource burden.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is I think camping is frowned upon.
but thats not entirely right. the campers are also giving away free wins to others so for every match they cost someone they also gift someone a win. so when you look at both sides whats the net gain? people who would have otherwise not gotten a win get gifted a win, and maybe get pushed up a tier, 2 tiers, 3 tiers, heck a cav may even get pushed all the way to GC.
and yes camping may be frowned upon, but at the same time, its a fault of the design of the system. the fact that the rewards from the solo event are greater than rewards they will get from pushing to GC.
The free wins are part of the problem. Accounts that have no business being pushed forward are being pushed forward because of it. They then realize they're in a tier where their accounts are outmatched. They then come to forums to express themselves and end up having players telling them they're in X tier be grateful.
Worse than that, the Players that pushed them up double back for the easy Wins when they make their GC push.
If the VT is here to stay a way to improve it in my opinion would be to implement a derank system. Rewards from all VT tiers should be sent out either at seasons end or upon GC entry. The fee to queue should cost tokens or rp. Marks got to go.
Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
This is total nonsense. No one, and I mean no one loses anything when another player forfeits a match against them. They aren't getting a monopoly on the system. The great irony here is that you are complaining about something that the entire rest of everyone who complains about it does so for the exact opposite reason, because your reasoning is nonsensical. The people who complain about tanking complain because they are handing out easy wins. Players who should not win, and would not ordinarily win, are winning and advancing beyond what they ordinarily would, skewing the amount of low progress players who aren't getting stopped in their tracks.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
Using your stable/unstable tiers analogy, I think the reasoning is stronger players camping at a lower level brings stability to a tier sooner than it should otherwise.
You are only looking at it from a high strength player forfeiting a match against a low strength one. But campers can also deal losses to strong players who would have otherwise progressed through the tier easily. Those losses are eventually passed down the line.
Campers are not gaining any medals to progress but as an overall group they are not contributing to the progress of anyone else either at an aggregate level. They are just stronger than everyone else in the group and are imposing an extra cost (in terms of number of matches) to progression.
If it takes 10 matches for a player of slightly above average strength player to progress in a VT tier, with 20% campers it might take 12 games because the 2 games against high strength campers were pointless. At an individual level it might help some people progress faster and some slower depending on where in their streak they match up against campers. But as an overall, camper impose a burden of extra matches to progress on the rest of the group. Since it costs energy/tokens/units to play BG matches, it is an extra resource burden.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is I think camping is frowned upon.
but thats not entirely right. the campers are also giving away free wins to others so for every match they cost someone they also gift someone a win. so when you look at both sides whats the net gain? people who would have otherwise not gotten a win get gifted a win, and maybe get pushed up a tier, 2 tiers, 3 tiers, heck a cav may even get pushed all the way to GC.
and yes camping may be frowned upon, but at the same time, its a fault of the design of the system. the fact that the rewards from the solo event are greater than rewards they will get from pushing to GC.
The free wins are part of the problem. Accounts that have no business being pushed forward are being pushed forward because of it. They then realize they're in a tier where their accounts are outmatched. They then come to forums to express themselves and end up having players telling them they're in X tier be grateful.
Worse than that, the Players that pushed them up double back for the easy Wins when they make their GC push.
Yeah they do. Then get their one win in GC and play the mode casually until the season end.
Vibranium only is not enough of a filter, a string of 10 matches deciding wether you get into GC or not? That really slows down GC people who are seeded at Plat1 making Diamond a worse fish in a barrel situation 🤣
If the VT is here to stay a way to improve it in my opinion would be to implement a derank system. Rewards from all VT tiers should be sent out either at seasons end or upon GC entry. The fee to queue should cost tokens or rp. Marks got to go.
I agree; but people will disagree cause it would slow down their advancement 🤣 Imagine the forums if its implemented. "i started at Gold, and now I am stuck at silver!! Wth Kabam!" Rofl
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
I think one perspective that I haven't seen you touch upon (unless I missed it) is that, unlike most other competitive games, MCOC has an entry cost per match played. Thus, unless you're willing to burn energy refills/units on tokens, there is a resource restricted upper limit on the number of BG matches a player can play per day, and consequentially, per season.
Thus, even though the high Paragons farming Plat are overall medal neutral in the system (they give out as many wins as they cause losses), on average if a lower end player faces two of these people in a day, they will likely end up with no net change to their medals, but they still lost two of their entries for the day. I can see this creating two problems:
1) It suppresses the climb rate and climb potential of the players who have to deal with this. An account only has 30ish days to climb, and if you end up being forced to waste X% of the energy/tokens you have available for BG per season to these non-matches, it is entirely possible that you will end up placing lower than your true potential, simply from running out of time/energy before the season end.
2.) This encourage lower end player to simply quit trying to push, because energy is a shared resource in this game, and, unsurprising, people don't like wasting resources and will invest it elsewhere. Keep in mind that this is not the same as a player quitting because they can't progress past their skill/account limit, they're quitting because there is an effective tax on their BG entries created by these farmers, and that is unfun/unfair. Many of these player could have potentially gained higher tier rewards if they weren't discouraged by this situation. In addition, this creates a downwards spiral in the tier. Fewer lower end players in the pool, means more likelihood to run into these farmers, which causes more lower end players to get discouraged and quit.
Now the impact of this on the player base is obviously caveated on what percent of matches in Plat/Diamond are against these farmers. I don't really have the data to take a guess. But it's clearly not zero, so I don't know if I'd say it was completely ludicrous that at least a handful of players every season lost out on the next tier of rewards because they had to waste their energy on these matches with the farmers.
Consider what would happen if you were to magically remove the tanker. The players who matched against him or her would now be matching against someone else. And in the higher tiers, that is far more likely to be a stronger player than a weaker player. Which means while the tanker is giving out one win and taking away one win, anyone who replaces him will almost certainly be winning more often than losing, and thus the players they face off against will be getting less than a 50% win rate.
VT is a conveyer belt of players. Strong players keep winning and keep moving upward. Until everyone maxes out and reaches their theoretical equilibrium point, by definition most tiers will either contain players stronger than that tier represents (who are still moving up) or temporarily contain weaker competition than the tier ordinarily represents because the stronger players haven't reached it yet. For pretty much all of the length of the season, it is stronger players in the higher tiers moving upward. They aren't stuck there, they are just visiting. Which means they are winning at a higher than 50% rate. If a lower progress player runs into one of those guys, they have a less than 50% chance of winning. But if they run into a tanking player, they have essentially a 50% chance of winning. Either the tanking player will choose to win, or they will choose to deliberately lose (a tanker can "choose" to win and still lose, but that just means they won't deliberately lose until they catch up, making the effective win rate about 50% either way).
It is simply mathematically impossible for tanking players to be a net negative to lower progress players. They give out more wins than those players would otherwise get (because obviously, the tanker is deliberately losing some of the time) and because they give out more wins they also cause lower progress players to spend less resources to advance. It is a win all around for them.
You might be thinking that since the scoring is +1/-1 that is worthless because every win counters every loss, but that would only be true if a player matched against the tanker over and over again. Then neither player would advance. But in practice that is not what happens. Every player has an equal chance of matching against that player, and is unlikely to match against them continuously. So some players will get one more win, and other players will get one more loss, and those groups will be equal in size. If that tanker was not there, the odds are all those players would match against a much more competitive player, and fewer players would get wins and more players would get losses. The overall effect is for more players to progress past the tanker than would otherwise be true.
At least, this is true until the tiers stabilize. If the tiers were to stabilize, such that the competition within them were all of roughly equal strength and no one was promoting up into it or out of it (mostly), then it is possible for a tanker to remain in a tier where he or she was dramatically stronger than *everyone else* in that tier, and that would be a different situation. However, in my experience no Battlegrounds season has ever reached this equilibrium state. In every season, right up to the finish players are still promoting, which means every tier has stronger players and weaker players, and some players are still winning at a greater than 50% rate. A tanker in that tier would still be giving out more wins than the stronger players in that tier.
The dynamic nature of battlegrounds seasons means in practice, moment by moment states of tiers can temporarily create unusual states. Sometimes it looks like this and sometimes it looks like that. But in the grand scheme of things a player handing out wins and losses in roughly equal proportion is helping and hurting players basically randomly. And for lower progress players, 50% is better odds than they tend to get, which means the more random things are, the better for them.
The problem with tanking is not that it hurts lower progress players. The problem with tanking is it skews the progress ladder. There's a greater chance that low progress players get lucky and promote past the tanker, because the tanker isn't trying to beat them. Which means more lower progress players at higher tiers, which means a higher chance that they match against each other, which means a greater chance that they can promote even further, because they are not running into the level of competition that they would otherwise have to face. This also throws off seeding, because seeding causes future seasons to inherit some of the competitive skews that tankers introduce in prior seasons.
Vibranium only is not enough of a filter, a string of 10 matches deciding wether you get into GC or not? That really slows down GC people who are seeded at Plat1 making Diamond a worse fish in a barrel situation 🤣
Comments
Think of a tier with 4 players -A,B,C & D with A>B>C>D in terms of strength. 3 medals to promote.
When everyone is playing competitively and each other. This is typically how the games will play out
Round 1: A v D - A wins; B v C - B wins. A & B have one medal each.
Round 2: A v C - A wins; B v D - B wins. A & B have two medals each.
Round 3: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. A promotes out of the tier. C & B have one medal each.
Round 4: B v C - B wins - B has 2 medals; C has zero.
Round 5: C v D - C wins - B has 2 medals; C has one
Round 6: B v D - B wins & promotes.
Round 7: C v D - C wins
Round 8: C v D - C wins & promotes.
11 games - A played 3; B played 5; C played 7 and all promoted.
Consider when A is camping:
Round 1: A v D - A wins; B v C - B wins. A & B have one medal each.
Round 2: A v C - A forfeits; B v D - B wins. C has one medal. B has 2 medals.
Round 3: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. C has 2 medals. A & B have one medal each.
Round 4: A v D - A forfeits; B v C - B wins. C has one medal. B has 2 medals. D has one too.
Round 5: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. C has 2 medals. A & B have one medal each.
Round 6: A v C - A wins; B v D - B wins. C has one medal. A & B have 2 medals.
Everyone has played everyone twice now. No one has promoted.
Round 7: A v D - A forfeits; B v C - B wins. A has one medal. B is promoted. C has zero medals.
B took 2 more matches to move up than they would have normally taken. C played 7 matches and would have expected to have moved up by now but on zero medals - needing 3 straight wins with 1 or 2 matches against A. A gave 3 free wins but it did not benefit B, C or D who were playing fair.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
With 2:1 everyone who tries will get to Vibranium. You need to only win slightly better than 1 in 3. If one group is winning 1 in 3, then there is someone else wining 2 in 3 and they are soon out of the tier. Those wins are then distributed within the 1 in 3 group to bring it closer to 1 in 2. Then everyone promotes.
2:1 till Vibranium means anyone serious about BG will be in Vibranium. Clearly the devs don't want it.
It's not a valid suggestion unless you can add to it a method to keep some people in Plat and Diamond.
My understanding would be that the 2-1 coin system didn't work because too many people advanced beyond what Kabam wanted and that's why the reverted it back. Wouldn't seeding speed up the process of overcrowding GC?
If the people who got to GC start at Plat1 wouldn't more people get to Plat1 faster and actually make camping worse?
It goes in circles cause you have not presented a single fact and proposed ideas that would make things worse. You want to stop camping and your solution is to add more camping victims at a faster rate, trying to kill hungry wolves with over eating I guess.
Good luck with your proposals based on unfounded opinions, and feelings of frustration.
You don't wanna continue it with me that's ok. Stature asked for the same, facts, and you avoided his request as well.
Now you are suggesting we go back to 2:1, on a hunch that player progress will plateau at some indeterminate level despite it being mathematically impossible (at least highly improbable). It's an idea that has been tried and discarded.
If the results of this season reflect that too few people got into GC, they might extend 2:1 through platinum (unlikely). Almost certainly, it will never be extend all the way to Vibranium. Neither decision will be due to your championing it, because you don't present any rationale for taking any step.
Once again, not a hill worth dying on. Only thing that is being impacted through this discussion is your credibility. At this point your insistence is probably hurting the ones you are claiming to defend, because no one really understands your position enough to take your side. I understand the 2:1 scoring bit, but that's dead on arrival.
Yeay competition!
Of course then you would probably need 500 points to get out of URU, but thats fine cause large roster players are the problem.
I stopped using Paragon because some Paragons are not as good as they think.
As for your opinion on my suggestion well, that's like...your opinion, man.
I'm not going to stop presenting my thoughts because you don't approve.
-I won't discuss my opinions
-I don't need your approval to have an opinion
-I will refute your opinion without facts
-Its my opinion.
And then someone wonders why we run in circles.
Look, I'm not arguing ad nauseum. I've made the suggestion. You can agree or disagree all you like. It's a suggestion. Not a democracy.
Yet here we are with the same people who have no issues at all with the VT, trying to dictate the experience others should have. If you don't agree, that's fine. Say that and move on. There are people who do agree, and they're free to discuss their ideas.
2-1 medal system should go up till Diamond1, so people that have a lower win ratio, can claim some rewards throughout the month to keep playing.
Three Vibranium tiers of 5 wins with the 1-1 medal system are more than enough to filter out the best players and ensure that only strong players will enter GC.
Whatever what we say, Kabam will realize that through their data next months and react to it.
It’s a matter of time to happen, like the previous BGs changes happened as expected.
Previous experience says that Kabam reacts to actual problems after couple of months, that seems probably to be the time needed to gather and evaluate enough data.
That really slows down GC people who are seeded at Plat1 making Diamond a worse fish in a barrel situation 🤣
Imagine the forums if its implemented.
"i started at Gold, and now I am stuck at silver!! Wth Kabam!" Rofl
VT is a conveyer belt of players. Strong players keep winning and keep moving upward. Until everyone maxes out and reaches their theoretical equilibrium point, by definition most tiers will either contain players stronger than that tier represents (who are still moving up) or temporarily contain weaker competition than the tier ordinarily represents because the stronger players haven't reached it yet. For pretty much all of the length of the season, it is stronger players in the higher tiers moving upward. They aren't stuck there, they are just visiting. Which means they are winning at a higher than 50% rate. If a lower progress player runs into one of those guys, they have a less than 50% chance of winning. But if they run into a tanking player, they have essentially a 50% chance of winning. Either the tanking player will choose to win, or they will choose to deliberately lose (a tanker can "choose" to win and still lose, but that just means they won't deliberately lose until they catch up, making the effective win rate about 50% either way).
It is simply mathematically impossible for tanking players to be a net negative to lower progress players. They give out more wins than those players would otherwise get (because obviously, the tanker is deliberately losing some of the time) and because they give out more wins they also cause lower progress players to spend less resources to advance. It is a win all around for them.
You might be thinking that since the scoring is +1/-1 that is worthless because every win counters every loss, but that would only be true if a player matched against the tanker over and over again. Then neither player would advance. But in practice that is not what happens. Every player has an equal chance of matching against that player, and is unlikely to match against them continuously. So some players will get one more win, and other players will get one more loss, and those groups will be equal in size. If that tanker was not there, the odds are all those players would match against a much more competitive player, and fewer players would get wins and more players would get losses. The overall effect is for more players to progress past the tanker than would otherwise be true.
At least, this is true until the tiers stabilize. If the tiers were to stabilize, such that the competition within them were all of roughly equal strength and no one was promoting up into it or out of it (mostly), then it is possible for a tanker to remain in a tier where he or she was dramatically stronger than *everyone else* in that tier, and that would be a different situation. However, in my experience no Battlegrounds season has ever reached this equilibrium state. In every season, right up to the finish players are still promoting, which means every tier has stronger players and weaker players, and some players are still winning at a greater than 50% rate. A tanker in that tier would still be giving out more wins than the stronger players in that tier.
The dynamic nature of battlegrounds seasons means in practice, moment by moment states of tiers can temporarily create unusual states. Sometimes it looks like this and sometimes it looks like that. But in the grand scheme of things a player handing out wins and losses in roughly equal proportion is helping and hurting players basically randomly. And for lower progress players, 50% is better odds than they tend to get, which means the more random things are, the better for them.
The problem with tanking is not that it hurts lower progress players. The problem with tanking is it skews the progress ladder. There's a greater chance that low progress players get lucky and promote past the tanker, because the tanker isn't trying to beat them. Which means more lower progress players at higher tiers, which means a higher chance that they match against each other, which means a greater chance that they can promote even further, because they are not running into the level of competition that they would otherwise have to face. This also throws off seeding, because seeding causes future seasons to inherit some of the competitive skews that tankers introduce in prior seasons.
In fact, that's the whole point. Some Players can play hundreds of Matches and not get anywhere because the system is tit-for-tat.