Suggestion to make battleground match-up better

Demonzfyre

ThePotatoJohn said:

I'm in Plat 1, and have 2 R3 6*s with about 15 R5 5*s as my strongest champs. I consecutively faced 3 Legend accounts with a huge roster or R5 6*s and R2 7*s. Like, how is this supposed to be fair? It's like asking a random person on the street to face up against Mike Tyson.

Split the rewards, make leagues or brackets (based on progression, or prestige, or account rating, whatever) and set rewards accordingly, but don't just open the gates for any and all accounts to face other players. Implement proper skill-based matchmaking with an ELO system.

Or remove deck restrictions from players rosters to ALL CHAMPS IN THE GAME. That way you'll get an actual fun game-mode, instead of this chore.

Where does it say competitions are fair?

BringPopcorn

The_Gruffalo said:

Battlegrounds is the worst format going and a potential deal breaker and that comes from a 9yr veteran. Matches are too long, matchups are ridiculously inaccurate in challenge/equality… how do I lose 50 in a row and still face team’s vastly superior??? The format will require about 25hrs of play time to reach rewards - stupid!

You are a 9 year game veteran and your roster is not at par to compete? 🤔

Theruneking

Hemendra_ said:

Battleground is really annoying especially after Diamond 1, So kabam can fix this problem of match up by integrating Alliance rating or alliance war league (eg. Gold, platinum) in their battleground match up system.
If we use alliance rating as base to decide match up that will improve the match ups, Atleast if we can use this system in victory track that will be better.

Bg is not a team effort, it's 1 vs 1.

And using alliance rating will be worse, those who don't do aw aq only bg stays in low rated alliance, I have seen 30 40 million alliances with 19k prestige players in it, and 100 million alliances with hardworking 1 million rated player in there too. How do you justify your matchmaking cases in these scenarios?

DNA3000

Demonzfyre said:

ThePotatoJohn said:

I'm in Plat 1, and have 2 R3 6*s with about 15 R5 5*s as my strongest champs. I consecutively faced 3 Legend accounts with a huge roster or R5 6*s and R2 7*s. Like, how is this supposed to be fair? It's like asking a random person on the street to face up against Mike Tyson.

Split the rewards, make leagues or brackets (based on progression, or prestige, or account rating, whatever) and set rewards accordingly, but don't just open the gates for any and all accounts to face other players. Implement proper skill-based matchmaking with an ELO system.

Or remove deck restrictions from players rosters to ALL CHAMPS IN THE GAME. That way you'll get an actual fun game-mode, instead of this chore.

Where does it say competitions are fair?

Competitions should be fair, but the definition for fairness in a competition is different than the definition of fairness for an individual match. An individual match is fair if both competitors are of roughly equal strength. That means roughly equal roster, roughly equal knowledge, roughly equal skill. It is no more unfair if one side as a stronger roster than if one side has more knowledge or higher twitch skills. Fair is equal across the board.

But competitions are intended to find and reward the strongest competitor. A fair competition is one in which all other factors except the ones directly related to judging the strongest competitor are minimized, so the competitors who do the most to perform the best under competition conditions are rewarded. That is the definition of a fair competition.

Or to put it in more colloquial terms, a fair competition is one in which the competitors who do the best on the field according to the rules of the competition find themselves with the best opportunity to reach the top of the competition.

In a friendly game of golf, there's such a thing as a handicap. The idea of the handicap is to roughly neutralize the advantage of stronger players playing weaker players. But in competitive golf, there's no such thing as handicap, because the goal is to find the person who plays golf the best. It doesn't matter if they happen to have the best shoes, or the best clubs, or has rich sponsors that allow them to practice golf all day all night while their competition needs to continue working day jobs. You put the ball in the hole while hitting it the fewest number of times, and you win. The fact that you are using ten thousand dollar clubs does not put an asterisk next to your name, and you don't get put into the expensive club bracket. You don't only compete against the players with the same drive distance you have, or the same number of years of experience.

To be the best you have to beat the best, because that's what's fair in a legitimate competition.

Demonzfyre

DNA3000 said:

Demonzfyre said:

ThePotatoJohn said:

I'm in Plat 1, and have 2 R3 6*s with about 15 R5 5*s as my strongest champs. I consecutively faced 3 Legend accounts with a huge roster or R5 6*s and R2 7*s. Like, how is this supposed to be fair? It's like asking a random person on the street to face up against Mike Tyson.

Split the rewards, make leagues or brackets (based on progression, or prestige, or account rating, whatever) and set rewards accordingly, but don't just open the gates for any and all accounts to face other players. Implement proper skill-based matchmaking with an ELO system.

Or remove deck restrictions from players rosters to ALL CHAMPS IN THE GAME. That way you'll get an actual fun game-mode, instead of this chore.

Where does it say competitions are fair?

Competitions should be fair, but the definition for fairness in a competition is different than the definition of fairness for an individual match. An individual match is fair if both competitors are of roughly equal strength. That means roughly equal roster, roughly equal knowledge, roughly equal skill. It is no more unfair if one side as a stronger roster than if one side has more knowledge or higher twitch skills. Fair is equal across the board.

But competitions are intended to find and reward the strongest competitor. A fair competition is one in which all other factors except the ones directly related to judging the strongest competitor are minimized, so the competitors who do the most to perform the best under competition conditions are rewarded. That is the definition of a fair competition.

Or to put it in more colloquial terms, a fair competition is one in which the competitors who do the best on the field according to the rules of the competition find themselves with the best opportunity to reach the top of the competition.

In a friendly game of golf, there's such a thing as a handicap. The idea of the handicap is to roughly neutralize the advantage of stronger players playing weaker players. But in competitive golf, there's no such thing as handicap, because the goal is to find the person who plays golf the best. It doesn't matter if they happen to have the best shoes, or the best clubs, or has rich sponsors that allow them to practice golf all day all night while their competition needs to continue working day jobs. You put the ball in the hole while hitting it the fewest number of times, and you win. The fact that you are using ten thousand dollar clubs does not put an asterisk next to your name, and you don't get put into the expensive club bracket. You don't only compete against the players with the same drive distance you have, or the same number of years of experience.

To be the best you have to beat the best, because that's what's fair in a legitimate competition.

Yes, exactly. Fair in terms of how the competition is setup.

My comparison is how the NCAA basketball tournament is set up. 16 seeds are set to play 1 seeds in the tournament. Generally, 1 seeds win but occasionally 16 seeds win too.

Those aren't "fair" matchups when removing everything else about the tournament. Generally, those types of games are played early on in the season when smaller schools pay larger schools to play them.

But in the NCAA tournament, all those teams are fair game. Technically, any of them can win until they lose, but being the 16 seeds hasn't prevented them from beating a 1 seed.

The 16 seeds also don't go complaining to tournament directors saying they need easier matches either.

Stature

DNA3000 said:

Demonzfyre said:

ThePotatoJohn said:

I'm in Plat 1, and have 2 R3 6*s with about 15 R5 5*s as my strongest champs. I consecutively faced 3 Legend accounts with a huge roster or R5 6*s and R2 7*s. Like, how is this supposed to be fair? It's like asking a random person on the street to face up against Mike Tyson.

Split the rewards, make leagues or brackets (based on progression, or prestige, or account rating, whatever) and set rewards accordingly, but don't just open the gates for any and all accounts to face other players. Implement proper skill-based matchmaking with an ELO system.

Or remove deck restrictions from players rosters to ALL CHAMPS IN THE GAME. That way you'll get an actual fun game-mode, instead of this chore.

Where does it say competitions are fair?

Competitions should be fair, but the definition for fairness in a competition is different than the definition of fairness for an individual match. An individual match is fair if both competitors are of roughly equal strength. That means roughly equal roster, roughly equal knowledge, roughly equal skill. It is no more unfair if one side as a stronger roster than if one side has more knowledge or higher twitch skills. Fair is equal across the board.

But competitions are intended to find and reward the strongest competitor. A fair competition is one in which all other factors except the ones directly related to judging the strongest competitor are minimized, so the competitors who do the most to perform the best under competition conditions are rewarded. That is the definition of a fair competition.

Or to put it in more colloquial terms, a fair competition is one in which the competitors who do the best on the field according to the rules of the competition find themselves with the best opportunity to reach the top of the competition.

In a friendly game of golf, there's such a thing as a handicap. The idea of the handicap is to roughly neutralize the advantage of stronger players playing weaker players. But in competitive golf, there's no such thing as handicap, because the goal is to find the person who plays golf the best. It doesn't matter if they happen to have the best shoes, or the best clubs, or has rich sponsors that allow them to practice golf all day all night while their competition needs to continue working day jobs. You put the ball in the hole while hitting it the fewest number of times, and you win. The fact that you are using ten thousand dollar clubs does not put an asterisk next to your name, and you don't get put into the expensive club bracket. You don't only compete against the players with the same drive distance you have, or the same number of years of experience.

To be the best you have to beat the best, because that's what's fair in a legitimate competition.

You must have a view on the how rules of the competition do not appear to be same for everyone, at least when it comes to the order in which champions and defenders are chosen. Several players appear to be locked in to picking first majority of the time, for stretches which are extremely improbable if everyone is playing under the same rules.

willrun4adonut

The_Gruffalo said:

Battlegrounds is the worst format going and a potential deal breaker and that comes from a 9yr veteran. Matches are too long, matchups are ridiculously inaccurate in challenge/equality… how do I lose 50 in a row and still face team’s vastly superior??? The format will require about 25hrs of play time to reach rewards - stupid!

I'm impressed. 9 year veteran and 50 losses on a row? I'm not even close to 9 years on the game, am not that great, and I have never even gotten 50 losses in a row (or even close).