Here are my reasons why i feel battlegrounds is getting fewer and fewer takers:
Why do people feel so comfortable saying this, when it is relatively easy to prove that it is false?
Your datasets consist of anecdotal evidence from 2 accounts and assumptions made from seasonal score rankings. They do not include total player engagement hours, player churn, or other metrics used to measure success internally. People who stop engagement can feel free to say they stopped engagement.
Battlegrounds doesn't feel like a competitive/ranked pvp mode. It plays and feels like arena too much. The rewards doesn't reflect the time in the mode. It doesn't feel good when you win and it doesn't hurt when you lose. You need units to get elder marks.
The rewards are alot better than they used to be a half a 7* and 2500 titan shards are not horrible
I love Battlegrounds, it's sort of like chess. I love the planning, quick thinking in high pressure situations and the skill you need to develop to beat good opponents. More often than not I win most of my matches and I love beating my opponents but I also appreciate getting a thrashing, sometimes going on a losing streak. Facing stronger opponents gets me excited, facing small decks not so much.
Well, I can only speak for myself but the total time consumption for a few rounds (from banning champs to the final victory or loss screen) seems to take longer than most of not all the other content. I swear that I can get through my entire 40ish champ 7* roster in arenas or 4 or 5 rooms in solo incursions in the time it takes to do one or two rounds of BGs (depending on how slow the opponent is). I tend to do the individual 48 hour events to get the 1 or 1.2 K rewards and then move onto other content.
Don't really enjoy that I have to Rank more defenders now. Although I like to rank some unusual champs the reason i don't like it this way it's the fact that they're all the same champs always, a bunch of Korgs, Onslaughts, Bullseyes and Sasquatches. I wanna rank champs that are fun to play, but in BG it's just a game of counters, not a lot of fun matches. And let's not forget that moment when you get into the void of losing like 10 times in a row and makes you feel like trash
Here are my reasons why i feel battlegrounds is getting fewer and fewer takers:
Why do people feel so comfortable saying this, when it is relatively easy to prove that it is false?
Your datasets consist of anecdotal evidence from 2 accounts and assumptions made from seasonal score rankings. They do not include total player engagement hours, player churn, or other metrics used to measure success internally.
I don’t think you know what most of those words mean. Points and placement are not “anecdotes” and while my observations do not in fact include things like “total player engagement hours, player churn, or other metrics” none of those things have anything to do with whether consistently fewer players are participating in the game mode.
What I do know is if there are X players on the leaderboards, then there have to be more than that many players participating. There can’t be fewer. And while it is possible that a player might play in one season and then not return, if you observe BG over many seasons you can easily conclude that there aren’t enough MCOC players to have a revolving door of more than 200 thousand players playing once and then quitting.
It is easy to throw around words like datasets, anecdotes, and churn and attempt to discredit an analysis, but if you actually had the goods to do so, you’d have done it directly. And to the extent that my observations could be significantly divergent from what Kabam measures itself internally, well, the logical thing to do would be to actually discuss it with them to make sure my own analysis wasn’t somehow wildly misrepresentative.
It is a lot easier speaking with confidence when you actually know you’re on the right track. How people do it when they cannot possibly have any idea and when there exists significant evidence they aren’t is the basis of the question i asked. It wasn’t rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious.
I personally really like the idea of a one-off 5* or 6* BG season. It would shake things up a bit and possibly get more people interested in just 'giving it a go'. We'd also be able to see how the likes of Quake and Magic would do where they are of an equivalent level to all of their peers.
One of my favourite Variants is the Back Issue #4. I really like it because it is a test of roster width across different rarities, and something I wish we'd seen more of. Yes, I know we get special arenas every now but that's not the same thing.
Comments
Anyways,
DIE ZOMBIE THREAD
What I do know is if there are X players on the leaderboards, then there have to be more than that many players participating. There can’t be fewer. And while it is possible that a player might play in one season and then not return, if you observe BG over many seasons you can easily conclude that there aren’t enough MCOC players to have a revolving door of more than 200 thousand players playing once and then quitting.
It is easy to throw around words like datasets, anecdotes, and churn and attempt to discredit an analysis, but if you actually had the goods to do so, you’d have done it directly. And to the extent that my observations could be significantly divergent from what Kabam measures itself internally, well, the logical thing to do would be to actually discuss it with them to make sure my own analysis wasn’t somehow wildly misrepresentative.
It is a lot easier speaking with confidence when you actually know you’re on the right track. How people do it when they cannot possibly have any idea and when there exists significant evidence they aren’t is the basis of the question i asked. It wasn’t rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious.
One of my favourite Variants is the Back Issue #4. I really like it because it is a test of roster width across different rarities, and something I wish we'd seen more of. Yes, I know we get special arenas every now but that's not the same thing.