The current setup and function of battleground matchmaking and gameplay is completely idiotic !

There's absolutely no way you guys ( kabam ) could be so ignorant and foolishly unaware of how stupid and I mean pure stupid It is to play battlegrounds and be matched up All the damn time with people that are 5... 6... 7.... 8k higher rating then the opponent ! I mean it's absolutely ignorant and completely unbeatable it's stupid and annoying as hell to just continually be matched up with impossible matches where you are guaranteed to lose because of this ignorant flaw! I mean it can't be that hard to figure out a way to make a game mode enjoyable for all of the players of the game and this could simply be done by splitting the players into two different categories The higher ranked ones play the higher ranked ones and the lower ranked people play the lower ranked players. The rewards could easily be cut in half of what they currently are if that's the argument people want to complain about I don't even care if they didn't have any rewards honestly I would be more entertained and it would be so much more enjoyable to play fair rated equally matched players. To see who is actually the better player when it is a balanced matchup. I mean come on guys this is foolish ! There's no reason players that do not spend all their time or money on this game making their account 20K rating shouldn't be allowed to play all the game modes enjoyably !

Comments

Milan1405

In fairness, Kabam can't only match players with similar hero ratings/prestige. The matchmaking times would increase drastically and there would be no reason to progress your roster and face better players.

BGs could be improved by Kabam simply increasing the rewards/updating the battlegrounds store and hopefully choosing more fun, less annoying metas.

unknown

This content has been removed.

ahmynuts

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Hamhamham

In fairness, Kabam can't only match players with similar hero ratings/prestige. The matchmaking times would increase drastically and there would be no reason to progress your roster and face better players.

BGs could be improved by Kabam simply increasing the rewards/updating the battlegrounds store and hopefully choosing more fun, less annoying metas.

I don't know if you're being serious or not... More rewards it's ridiculous just so they can try to keep matches unbalanced by saying the lower people shouldn't expect to get the higher rewards when they can't compete with the higher accounts ! That's not at all what I was talking about I would rather half or even less the amount of rewards just to play more balanced matches and if that took a little bit longer to matchmake I would have zero complaint This is a trade I would be completely fine with. and as far as people would stop progressing whatever that theory was about doesn't make any sense as everybody is progressing in the game all the time every time they play the game. But it would be enjoyable to play all the game modes in the game without being such a terrible matchup that you don't even want to play that game mode

Hamhamham

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?

ReignkingTW

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?

No. Read the 1 million other posts whining about it.

Hamhamham

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?
No. Read the 1 million other posts whining about it.

Damn if there was really 1 million other post with the same issue you would think somebody over on the development side would recognize an issue... that's really sad

ahmynuts

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?

You didnt have any of that so why should i

Hamhamham

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?
You didnt have any of that so why should i

Okay you're not making sense and I am trying to have a reasonable issue brought up I even suggested a simple solution to the issue. So I'm not sure what you're doing or why you are finding it necessary to clutter up this discussion with nonsense you have no ideas, solutions, for considerations for the actual topic that was brought up ! If you're bored there's probably better ways to use up your time

ReignkingTW

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?
No. Read the 1 million other posts whining about it.
Damn if there was really 1 million other post with the same issue you would think somebody over on the development side would recognize an issue... that's really sad

Or you're wrong and working as intended...

Demonzfyre

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?
No. Read the 1 million other posts whining about it.
Damn if there was really 1 million other post with the same issue you would think somebody over on the development side would recognize an issue... that's really sad

Just because you think it's an issue doesn't mean it's a real issue. You just don't know how matchmaking works. You're literally one of hundreds who complain about being matched with someone bigger than you and you're all the same in not understanding that you're competing against all these people.

Diamond 1 is diamond 1. There isn't a diamond 1 subcategory accounts 0 to 2mil rating. It's not how it works at all.

Rap

This morning I was matched against a player who was already 2 ranks ahead of me in BGs. Can someone explain why that would be considered a fair match?
Two full ranks above me for the season, already, is a reasonable match?
Seems to me it is a symptom of a complete lack of desire, on the part of the community, to put themselves through such **** mismatches, and play BGs.

Demonzfyre

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?
You didnt have any of that so why should i
Okay you're not making sense and I am trying to have a reasonable issue brought up I even suggested a simple solution to the issue. So I'm not sure what you're doing or why you are finding it necessary to clutter up this discussion with nonsense you have no ideas, solutions, for considerations for the actual topic that was brought up ! If you're bored there's probably better ways to use up your time

You're not bringing up anything reasonable.

Demonzfyre

This morning I was matched against a player who was already 2 ranks ahead of me in BGs. Can someone explain why that would be considered a fair match?
Two full ranks above me for the season, already, is a reasonable match?
Seems to me it is a symptom of a complete lack of desire, on the part of the community, to put themselves through such **** mismatches, and play BGs.

Can you show the matchup?

Crcrcrc

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?
No. Read the 1 million other posts whining about it.
Damn if there was really 1 million other post with the same issue you would think somebody over on the development side would recognize an issue... that's really sad

yeah there is definitely an issue that has been recognized

a skill issue.

Ironman3000

Platinum 1

BringPopcorn

I love when they change "Fun" for "Rewards" and think no one will notice...

DNA3000

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?
You didnt have any of that so why should i
Okay you're not making sense and I am trying to have a reasonable issue brought up I even suggested a simple solution to the issue.

The problem with your "simple solution" which was "splitting the players into two different categories The higher ranked ones play the higher ranked ones and the lower ranked people play the lower ranked players" is that it is completely awful. First of all, this was actually originally done to a degree: players were matched against other players of comparable roster strength in the VT. This created a situation where Paragon players had to match against other Paragon players of high strength, while Uncollected players only had to match against players of vastly lower strength. Some players thought this was great, because all the matches were "fair." But other players thought this was completely unfair because it meant low strength players could shoot right past high strength players without ever having to face anyone of any real strength. It even created the absurd situation where veteran players could get into GC far easier with weak alts than with their main accounts. In a competitive mode where the presumption was that the strongest players would ultimately advance, this was untenable.

They later changed it to the system we have now, which is a compromise between allowing newer players *some* ability to compete against comparable players in the early stages of VT, while eventually forcing them to face the actual competition that exists at higher tiers. I actually outlined this problem (among several) when I created a roadmap for addressing many of the post-launch Battlegrounds issues most players were complaining about here. I will note that originally, Kabam agreed with all of my issues as listed, and simply stated they had other ideas on how to fix them. Eventually, however, they implemented almost exactly what I proscribed (with some simplifications).

Moreover, Kabam should not have even tried this in the first place, because they did it once before and was eventually forced to change it. At one time, they experimented with """"fair"""" (I cannot put enough quotes around that word in this context) match ups in alliance war. Alliance war match ups are dictated by war rating, which is based on wins and losses *only*. The Gladiator Circuit in Battlegrounds works on similar mechanics. However, to make alliance match ups more fair, they decided to start matching by alliance "strength" which was judged in different ways, mostly by measuring roster strength. This ended up creating literally horrible circumstances where extremely low strength alliances would be getting to the top of the alliance war leaderboards by simply avoiding having to ever match against stronger alliances. Just like you're saying now, if they actually had to match against the monster alliances out there, they would have no hope of winning, so in the opinion of some this was more "fair."

However, in practice this makes a mockery of what a competition is, which is to find the strongest competitors. It is not to stage the most "fair" matches. You get ahead of other players if you can beat them, and for no other reason. If you can't beat them, you can't pass them. That's a competition. Anything else is a curated exhibition.

Kabam tried to tweak alliance strength matching for over a year before finally giving up and admitting defeat, removing those match mechanics from alliance war, in my opinion because they were ultimately compelled to do so because it was otherwise embarrassing to see what was happening on the leaderboards. In the same way, and at least in a much quicker fashion, Kabam very quickly realized that no amount of fiddling would save strength matching (at least if carried throughout VT), because it created two impossible to resolve problems. One: it lets weaker players overtake stronger players without having to face them. Two: it actually penalizes roster growth. In a game whose foundation is collecting and ranking champions, it penalizes players who collect and rank up champions. This was acknowledged by Kabam as an important problem with both strength matching and deck matching.

Battlegrounds mechanics have been discussed ever since BG launched. In fact, they were debated long before BG launched during limited betas which I was a part of. There are no simple solutions to the issues many players have with the mode. Some of them only have complex solutions, and some have no solution. The "problem" of weaker players being frustrated by having to face stronger ones is not a problem with a solution, because to be candid we don't want them to avoid facing stronger players eventually. That's not a problem, that's working as intended. In a competitive environment, someone has to lose, and most people don't like to lose. But that doesn't make unhappiness with losing a problem to be solved.

This is actually just one example of a general complaint that comes up a lot, where players believe *everything* in the game is supposed to be for *them* and *right now*. They have no sense of aspiration, they have no patience for anything. Apparently there should be a version of the Abyss that Uncollected players can do, just make it easier and cut the rewards down. There should be a version of the Necropolis that Cavalier players can do, just make it easier and give them rank up materials to become Thronebreakers. Everything is supposed to be for everyone, and no one should have to work towards unlocking anything. Progressional games generally don't work like that. We don't need two, or three, or six different versions of Battlegrounds all tuned to different strength players. There's one mode, and everyone competes in it, and everyone ends up where they belong along the scale. Not only is this fair to high strength players, it is also fair to low strength players. If the game decides to look at every player and place them into one of several different Battleground divisions, there's no chance in the world it will do so perfectly. It will sentence some players who could be competitive in higher tiers into lower tiers with lower rewards, and it will place some players who do not wish to or simply cannot compete at higher tiers into those tiers. With everyone in one single game mode, everyone rises or falls to the level of their ability. That is what is "fair."

Thedarkhalf2001

I tend to agree here. It’s pretty clear the matchmaking issues are now at the other end of the spectrum, opposite what they were when BG first started.

Edit* to add to this, I only play BG now and it’s the most burnt out I’ve ever felt. Haven’t taken a break since I started the game in 2017 and I feel like the end is neigh for me if something doesn’t change with matchmaking soon.

Hamhamham

Me opening up a forum post getting hit with a giant wall of white text:

Cool story bro ! ... did you have anything important or relatable to comment on or were you just trying to be a funny guy?
You didnt have any of that so why should i
Okay you're not making sense and I am trying to have a reasonable issue brought up I even suggested a simple solution to the issue.
The problem with your "simple solution" which was "splitting the players into two different categories The higher ranked ones play the higher ranked ones and the lower ranked people play the lower ranked players" is that it is completely awful. First of all, this was actually originally done to a degree: players were matched against other players of comparable roster strength in the VT. This created a situation where Paragon players had to match against other Paragon players of high strength, while Uncollected players only had to match against players of vastly lower strength. Some players thought this was great, because all the matches were "fair." But other players thought this was completely unfair because it meant low strength players could shoot right past high strength players without ever having to face anyone of any real strength. It even created the absurd situation where veteran players could get into GC far easier with weak alts than with their main accounts. In a competitive mode where the presumption was that the strongest players would ultimately advance, this was untenable.

They later changed it to the system we have now, which is a compromise between allowing newer players *some* ability to compete against comparable players in the early stages of VT, while eventually forcing them to face the actual competition that exists at higher tiers. I actually outlined this problem (among several) when I created a roadmap for addressing many of the post-launch Battlegrounds issues most players were complaining about here. I will note that originally, Kabam agreed with all of my issues as listed, and simply stated they had other ideas on how to fix them. Eventually, however, they implemented almost exactly what I proscribed (with some simplifications).

Moreover, Kabam should not have even tried this in the first place, because they did it once before and was eventually forced to change it. At one time, they experimented with """"fair"""" (I cannot put enough quotes around that word in this context) match ups in alliance war. Alliance war match ups are dictated by war rating, which is based on wins and losses *only*. The Gladiator Circuit in Battlegrounds works on similar mechanics. However, to make alliance match ups more fair, they decided to start matching by alliance "strength" which was judged in different ways, mostly by measuring roster strength. This ended up creating literally horrible circumstances where extremely low strength alliances would be getting to the top of the alliance war leaderboards by simply avoiding having to ever match against stronger alliances. Just like you're saying now, if they actually had to match against the monster alliances out there, they would have no hope of winning, so in the opinion of some this was more "fair."

However, in practice this makes a mockery of what a competition is, which is to find the strongest competitors. It is not to stage the most "fair" matches. You get ahead of other players if you can beat them, and for no other reason. If you can't beat them, you can't pass them. That's a competition. Anything else is a curated exhibition.

Kabam tried to tweak alliance strength matching for over a year before finally giving up and admitting defeat, removing those match mechanics from alliance war, in my opinion because they were ultimately compelled to do so because it was otherwise embarrassing to see what was happening on the leaderboards. In the same way, and at least in a much quicker fashion, Kabam very quickly realized that no amount of fiddling would save strength matching (at least if carried throughout VT), because it created two impossible to resolve problems. One: it lets weaker players overtake stronger players without having to face them. Two: it actually penalizes roster growth. In a game whose foundation is collecting and ranking champions, it penalizes players who collect and rank up champions. This was acknowledged by Kabam as an important problem with both strength matching and deck matching.

Battlegrounds mechanics have been discussed ever since BG launched. In fact, they were debated long before BG launched during limited betas which I was a part of. There are no simple solutions to the issues many players have with the mode. Some of them only have complex solutions, and some have no solution. The "problem" of weaker players being frustrated by having to face stronger ones is not a problem with a solution, because to be candid we don't want them to avoid facing stronger players eventually. That's not a problem, that's working as intended. In a competitive environment, someone has to lose, and most people don't like to lose. But that doesn't make unhappiness with losing a problem to be solved.

This is actually just one example of a general complaint that comes up a lot, where players believe *everything* in the game is supposed to be for *them* and *right now*. They have no sense of aspiration, they have no patience for anything. Apparently there should be a version of the Abyss that Uncollected players can do, just make it easier and cut the rewards down. There should be a version of the Necropolis that Cavalier players can do, just make it easier and give them rank up materials to become Thronebreakers. Everything is supposed to be for everyone, and no one should have to work towards unlocking anything. Progressional games generally don't work like that. We don't need two, or three, or six different versions of Battlegrounds all tuned to different strength players. There's one mode, and everyone competes in it, and everyone ends up where they belong along the scale. Not only is this fair to high strength players, it is also fair to low strength players. If the game decides to look at every player and place them into one of several different Battleground divisions, there's no chance in the world it will do so perfectly. It will sentence some players who could be competitive in higher tiers into lower tiers with lower rewards, and it will place some players who do not wish to or simply cannot compete at higher tiers into those tiers. With everyone in one single game mode, everyone rises or falls to the level of their ability. That is what is "fair."

Have you never heard of divisions it's an actual thing in competition and there can be champions from each division but the top of the top where the pros are are the ones making all the money and the very bottom of the division they're lucky if they can have per diem and a hotel room paid for. That's the difference

Maat1985

Have you never heard of divisions it's an actual thing in competition and there can be champions from each division but the top of the top where the pros are are the ones making all the money and the very bottom of the division they're lucky if they can have per diem and a hotel room paid for. That's the difference

yeah but then that would require 2 or more different pools and 2 or more different sets of rewards.
where by the top of a low division would be capped at getting rewards equal to that of the lowest in the pool above.

you could play it so say for example.
acct size >2million can not fall lower than silver
acct size >3million can not fall lower than gold
or something along those lines.
so seeding as it is now but at the start of a season you drop down based on your finishing position but to a lowest level based on account strength.
that could be the only potential option i could see.