Battlegrounds Suggestion for Account Size

Your roster is 2 mil already, that should be enough to compete with the big guys. I would say just try sharpening your skills and being more advanced at the game, whether it just be for through more playing or playing harder content. I was 2.1 mil base hero rating when I first hit valiant and my first ever GC placement was around 1.8 mil base hero rating. so I feel people like you would still feel like the game is unfair due to slower progression through content, etc.

Nanosama

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…

Technically, they have that in the Store.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…

I mean, we kind of already have that with the higher-level items behind progression walls, which I'm fine with. I guess I wouldn't really care if they had slightly lower award amounts too?

Your roster is 2 mil already, that should be enough to compete with the big guys. I would say just try sharpening your skills and being more advanced at the game, whether it just be for through more playing or playing harder content. I was 2.1 mil base hero rating when I first hit valiant and my first ever GC placement was around 1.8 mil base hero rating. so I feel people like you would still feel like the game is unfair due to slower progression through content, etc.

I don't think the game is unfair exactly, and like I said, I'm happy to play either way. At some point, though, skill doesn't matter in BGs if you're in Diamond 1 or 2 with only two R4 6*s...

Your roster is 2 mil already, that should be enough to compete with the big guys. I would say just try sharpening your skills and being more advanced at the game, whether it just be for through more playing or playing harder content. I was 2.1 mil base hero rating when I first hit valiant and my first ever GC placement was around 1.8 mil base hero rating. so I feel people like you would still feel like the game is unfair due to slower progression through content, etc.
I don't think the game is unfair exactly, and like I said, I'm happy to play either way. At some point, though, skill doesn't matter in BGs if you're in Diamond 1 or 2 with only two R4 6*s...

Do you play story? I would focus up on that first if u have 2 mil base hero rating with only 2 r4s because it seems like 1, you haven't progressed far enough in the game to have access to ascensions etc. or 2. Your not very wise with ur rankups. If you post ur roster we can help U choose the right champs to make content easier and faster

Your roster is 2 mil already, that should be enough to compete with the big guys. I would say just try sharpening your skills and being more advanced at the game, whether it just be for through more playing or playing harder content. I was 2.1 mil base hero rating when I first hit valiant and my first ever GC placement was around 1.8 mil base hero rating. so I feel people like you would still feel like the game is unfair due to slower progression through content, etc.
I don't think the game is unfair exactly, and like I said, I'm happy to play either way. At some point, though, skill doesn't matter in BGs if you're in Diamond 1 or 2 with only two R4 6*s...
Do you play story? I would focus up on that first if u have 2 mil base hero rating with only 2 r4s because it seems like 1, you haven't progressed far enough in the game to have access to ascensions etc. or 2. Your not very wise with ur rankups. If you post ur roster we can help U choose the right champs to make content easier and faster

I will admit, I was not wise with ranking when I started. I took about a two year break from the game, came back around Thanksgiving 2023. A lot has changed! Like I said, I just hit Thronebreaker over last weekend, 100% explored Shooting Stars right after that, and am almost done with 7.1.1. I work at a school, so I don't have much time to play except on weekends, so that is my biggest obstacle.

Nanosama

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.

The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?

Hitting Valiant with a 2M Rating is not your average Player. That's someone with experience running an Alt. Those cases need to be discounted from the argument altogether because they don't represent natural progression. That's someone with previous knowledge doing a speed run.
Story Mode and X amount of Y Champs at Z Ranks is literally a measurement of where your Account *should* be.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?

well its even less fair cuz OP is only TB and wants the tiering system to be catered toward base hero rating. He says he's TB with 2 r4s but with 2 mil hero rating, and rn I have 2 r3s, 3 r2s, and 10 ascended r5s/r4s with a 2.6 base hero rating, meaning that I could be going against UC-TBs that progress very slow for some reason but have a very high base hero rating such as OP.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?
Hitting Valiant with a 2M Rating is not your average Player. That's someone with experience running an Alt. Those cases need to be discounted from the argument altogether because they don't represent natural progression. That's someone with previous knowledge doing a speed run.
Story Mode and X amount of Y Champs at Z Ranks is literally a measurement of where your Account *should* be.

2 Mil is very average, some YouTubers have hit valiant with less than a mil. This is my 1 and only account. Its not an abnormality and is very natural.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?
well its even less fair cuz OP is only TB and wants the tiering system to be catered toward base hero rating. He says he's TB with 2 r4s but with 2 mil hero rating, and rn I have 2 r3s, 3 r2s, and 10 ascended r5s/r4s with a 2.6 base hero rating, meaning that I could be going against UC-TBs that progress very slow for some reason but have a very high base hero rating such as OP.

I have a legitimate question: you sound like you are saying that last sentence as a negative. Can you explain your perspective for that? If you're talking about my account, for example, that scenario doesn't give me an advantage, and if all things are kept the same as I suggested, you'll likely still beat me and have access to the higher-tier rewards in the store as a Paragon or Valiant or whatever. What is the downside for you?

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?
Hitting Valiant with a 2M Rating is not your average Player. That's someone with experience running an Alt. Those cases need to be discounted from the argument altogether because they don't represent natural progression. That's someone with previous knowledge doing a speed run.
Story Mode and X amount of Y Champs at Z Ranks is literally a measurement of where your Account *should* be.
2 Mil is very average, some YouTubers have hit valiant with less than a mil. This is my 1 and only account. Its not an abnormality and is very natural.

Again, it's not at all natural. That's a speed run. No Player starting out the game and progressing at a normal pace is hitting Valiant with 1M.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?
well its even less fair cuz OP is only TB and wants the tiering system to be catered toward base hero rating. He says he's TB with 2 r4s but with 2 mil hero rating, and rn I have 2 r3s, 3 r2s, and 10 ascended r5s/r4s with a 2.6 base hero rating, meaning that I could be going against UC-TBs that progress very slow for some reason but have a very high base hero rating such as OP.
I have a legitimate question: you sound like you are saying that last sentence as a negative. Can you explain your perspective for that? If you're talking about my account, for example, that scenario doesn't give me an advantage, and if all things are kept the same as I suggested, you'll likely still beat me and have access to the higher-tier rewards in the store as a Paragon or Valiant or whatever. What is the downside for you?

There is not downside I would not complain but it wouldn't be fair to people like you. Then people will come to the forums (not saying u will) and complain like crazy. Also my last sentence wasn't meant to sound negative as I understand people play the game differently, it is just an observation that baffles me at times.

Ironman3000

If you can' compete, just do alllllll the other things left for you in the game.

BringPopcorn

Account rating is irrelevant

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?
Hitting Valiant with a 2M Rating is not your average Player. That's someone with experience running an Alt. Those cases need to be discounted from the argument altogether because they don't represent natural progression. That's someone with previous knowledge doing a speed run.
Story Mode and X amount of Y Champs at Z Ranks is literally a measurement of where your Account *should* be.
2 Mil is very average, some YouTubers have hit valiant with less than a mil. This is my 1 and only account. Its not an abnormality and is very natural.
Again, it's not at all natural. That's a speed run. No Player starting out the game and progressing at a normal pace is hitting Valiant with 1M.

yes, I understand. The reason why I brought up 1 mil is because you said 2 mil is abnormal and I was showing u what people who are actually speedrunning can do in comparison. Lower than 1 mil is crazy.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?
well its even less fair cuz OP is only TB and wants the tiering system to be catered toward base hero rating. He says he's TB with 2 r4s but with 2 mil hero rating, and rn I have 2 r3s, 3 r2s, and 10 ascended r5s/r4s with a 2.6 base hero rating, meaning that I could be going against UC-TBs that progress very slow for some reason but have a very high base hero rating such as OP.
I have a legitimate question: you sound like you are saying that last sentence as a negative. Can you explain your perspective for that? If you're talking about my account, for example, that scenario doesn't give me an advantage, and if all things are kept the same as I suggested, you'll likely still beat me and have access to the higher-tier rewards in the store as a Paragon or Valiant or whatever. What is the downside for you?
There is not downside I would not complain but it wouldn't be fair to people like you. Then people will come to the forums (not saying u will) and complain like crazy. Also my last sentence wasn't meant to sound negative as I understand people play the game differently, it is just an observation that baffles me at times.

Thanks; that's why I asked, I wasn't understanding 🙂

I wouldn't mind that at all; if I run into someone who has had the patience and thoughtfulness, from the beginning, to only invest in the top-tier champs and are around my account rating, I welcome that. It's the 5-6 million accounts that are still sitting in Diamond for some reason that bug me a little.

If we meet in BGs, I relish the challenge and may surprise you 😉

As for the speed of advancing, I play AW and AQ much more than anything else (besides maybe BGs), and I enjoy the social aspect of the game more than anything. Story mode often gets neglected because I personally don't enjoy it as much, but am realizing that I need to get it out of the way so it isn't preventing me from obtaining better rewards.

DiscoNnectKing

I have a little over 2m rating. This doesn't matter at all. I've beaten plenty of 3-7m roster guys. I even hit gladiator circuit this month

If you can' compete, just do alllllll the other things left for you in the game.

That argument doesn't hold out. The same content was available to everyone, and they're still included in BGs. It's not a requirement for them to play BGs. That's literally the same as saying there's no problem with the way things are and if you don't like it, don't play it. The latter is logical. The former is not true. There are major gaps in the system. Those gaps aren't the same as, let's say the Arena, where a Player can improve on their Roster and keep doing better over time. The gaps in BGs are increasing at a rate that's not possible for Players to work towards, which I've been warning about for months.
I don't have a solve-all solution at this point, but I will humbly disagree that things are as they should be.

Demonzfyre

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
I mean, we kind of already have that with the higher-level items behind progression walls, which I'm fine with. I guess I wouldn't really care if they had slightly lower award amounts too?

You get the same rewards from going from tier to tier. While you have TB store costs, the tier movement is the same. The ranking rewards are the same.

If you're wanting system that matches you purely based on your account size, they'll have to make a mode for each similar to how we have Threat Levels in SQs. The tier and season rewards would need to be adjusted down for each of those tiers as well. But, account size shouldn't be what matters. Account size takes into account of ALL of your champs and not just your deck. I have a base hero rating of 5 mil. I'm a Paragon who will be valiant once 8.4 drops. The only champs I rank are 6 and 7*'s. I don't invest gold or ISO into anything below a 6*. If I were to rank my 1-5*'s to max, my account size would be way different.

It's not a true measurement of who you're facing. But if you only wanted to be matched with accounts no bigger than 2mil. You shouldn't get the same season and tier rewards I get if I am being matched with accounts of 5 mil.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
I mean, we kind of already have that with the higher-level items behind progression walls, which I'm fine with. I guess I wouldn't really care if they had slightly lower award amounts too?
You get the same rewards from going from tier to tier. While you have TB store costs, the tier movement is the same. The ranking rewards are the same.

If you're wanting system that matches you purely based on your account size, they'll have to make a mode for each similar to how we have Threat Levels in SQs. The tier and season rewards would need to be adjusted down for each of those tiers as well. But, account size shouldn't be what matters. Account size takes into account of ALL of your champs and not just your deck. I have a base hero rating of 5 mil. I'm a Paragon who will be valiant once 8.4 drops. The only champs I rank are 6 and 7*'s. I don't invest gold or ISO into anything below a 6*. If I were to rank my 1-5*'s to max, my account size would be way different.

It's not a true measurement of who you're facing. But if you only wanted to be matched with accounts no bigger than 2mil. You shouldn't get the same season and tier rewards I get if I am being matched with accounts of 5 mil.

You bring up a good point; maybe tiers based on the deck you can field? I think that sounds even better. You might have people sandbagging themselves and using a lower deck, but I don't know how often that would happen. Maybe that's naive of me, but I would welcome that.

DiscoNnectKing

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
Technically, they have that in the Store.
The store has items locked depending on where you stand in the game regarding story mode and specific conditions (x number of y* champions at z ranks). Nothing to do with account size.

The guy answering before me said he hit Valiant with a 2M account rating.
What OP is suggesting would mean Valiant with 3M rating or less would get the same rewards as other valiants with higher ratings without facing the same difficulty.

How is that fair?
Hitting Valiant with a 2M Rating is not your average Player. That's someone with experience running an Alt. Those cases need to be discounted from the argument altogether because they don't represent natural progression. That's someone with previous knowledge doing a speed run.
Story Mode and X amount of Y Champs at Z Ranks is literally a measurement of where your Account *should* be.

Nah not true. I'm about to hit valiant on my 2m rating MAIN account. Thronebreaker on my 400k alt acc

Demonzfyre

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
I mean, we kind of already have that with the higher-level items behind progression walls, which I'm fine with. I guess I wouldn't really care if they had slightly lower award amounts too?
You get the same rewards from going from tier to tier. While you have TB store costs, the tier movement is the same. The ranking rewards are the same.

If you're wanting system that matches you purely based on your account size, they'll have to make a mode for each similar to how we have Threat Levels in SQs. The tier and season rewards would need to be adjusted down for each of those tiers as well. But, account size shouldn't be what matters. Account size takes into account of ALL of your champs and not just your deck. I have a base hero rating of 5 mil. I'm a Paragon who will be valiant once 8.4 drops. The only champs I rank are 6 and 7*'s. I don't invest gold or ISO into anything below a 6*. If I were to rank my 1-5*'s to max, my account size would be way different.

It's not a true measurement of who you're facing. But if you only wanted to be matched with accounts no bigger than 2mil. You shouldn't get the same season and tier rewards I get if I am being matched with accounts of 5 mil.
You bring up a good point; maybe tiers based on the deck you can field? I think that sounds even better. You might have people sandbagging themselves and using a lower deck, but I don't know how often that would happen. Maybe that's naive of me, but I would welcome that.

There is no "might", you will have people sandbagging. It's why it's against the rules currently. The only way it would work is that Threat Level 5 is for title holders of Paragon and Valiant. and Threat Level 4 is Thronebreaker. So anyone who is Paragon is locked to Threat Level 5 and season rewards are based on tier for that Threat Level like in AW.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
I mean, we kind of already have that with the higher-level items behind progression walls, which I'm fine with. I guess I wouldn't really care if they had slightly lower award amounts too?
You get the same rewards from going from tier to tier. While you have TB store costs, the tier movement is the same. The ranking rewards are the same.

If you're wanting system that matches you purely based on your account size, they'll have to make a mode for each similar to how we have Threat Levels in SQs. The tier and season rewards would need to be adjusted down for each of those tiers as well. But, account size shouldn't be what matters. Account size takes into account of ALL of your champs and not just your deck. I have a base hero rating of 5 mil. I'm a Paragon who will be valiant once 8.4 drops. The only champs I rank are 6 and 7*'s. I don't invest gold or ISO into anything below a 6*. If I were to rank my 1-5*'s to max, my account size would be way different.

It's not a true measurement of who you're facing. But if you only wanted to be matched with accounts no bigger than 2mil. You shouldn't get the same season and tier rewards I get if I am being matched with accounts of 5 mil.
You bring up a good point; maybe tiers based on the deck you can field? I think that sounds even better. You might have people sandbagging themselves and using a lower deck, but I don't know how often that would happen. Maybe that's naive of me, but I would welcome that.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
I mean, we kind of already have that with the higher-level items behind progression walls, which I'm fine with. I guess I wouldn't really care if they had slightly lower award amounts too?
You get the same rewards from going from tier to tier. While you have TB store costs, the tier movement is the same. The ranking rewards are the same.

If you're wanting system that matches you purely based on your account size, they'll have to make a mode for each similar to how we have Threat Levels in SQs. The tier and season rewards would need to be adjusted down for each of those tiers as well. But, account size shouldn't be what matters. Account size takes into account of ALL of your champs and not just your deck. I have a base hero rating of 5 mil. I'm a Paragon who will be valiant once 8.4 drops. The only champs I rank are 6 and 7*'s. I don't invest gold or ISO into anything below a 6*. If I were to rank my 1-5*'s to max, my account size would be way different.

It's not a true measurement of who you're facing. But if you only wanted to be matched with accounts no bigger than 2mil. You shouldn't get the same season and tier rewards I get if I am being matched with accounts of 5 mil.
You bring up a good point; maybe tiers based on the deck you can field? I think that sounds even better. You might have people sandbagging themselves and using a lower deck, but I don't know how often that would happen. Maybe that's naive of me, but I would welcome that.
There is no "might", you will have people sandbagging. It's why it's against the rules currently. The only way it would work is that Threat Level 5 is for title holders of Paragon and Valiant. and Threat Level 4 is Thronebreaker. So anyone who is Paragon is locked to Threat Level 5 and season rewards are based on tier for that Threat Level like in AW.

I could get behind that.

BringPopcorn

You can't make a suggestion when you don't understand the parameters of the suggestion you are making.
"my account is 2 million rating fighting 5 mill"
I have a 5.2M rating.. 3 mill are from champs 1-5* maxed over the years..and will never be in my deck
The only true advantage I have in the game is in events like women of power. Where I already had my 2* and 4* ranked and ready to complete objectives.

Demonzfyre

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
I mean, we kind of already have that with the higher-level items behind progression walls, which I'm fine with. I guess I wouldn't really care if they had slightly lower award amounts too?
You get the same rewards from going from tier to tier. While you have TB store costs, the tier movement is the same. The ranking rewards are the same.

If you're wanting system that matches you purely based on your account size, they'll have to make a mode for each similar to how we have Threat Levels in SQs. The tier and season rewards would need to be adjusted down for each of those tiers as well. But, account size shouldn't be what matters. Account size takes into account of ALL of your champs and not just your deck. I have a base hero rating of 5 mil. I'm a Paragon who will be valiant once 8.4 drops. The only champs I rank are 6 and 7*'s. I don't invest gold or ISO into anything below a 6*. If I were to rank my 1-5*'s to max, my account size would be way different.

It's not a true measurement of who you're facing. But if you only wanted to be matched with accounts no bigger than 2mil. You shouldn't get the same season and tier rewards I get if I am being matched with accounts of 5 mil.
You bring up a good point; maybe tiers based on the deck you can field? I think that sounds even better. You might have people sandbagging themselves and using a lower deck, but I don't know how often that would happen. Maybe that's naive of me, but I would welcome that.

If you want tiers relative to the account’s size, then it’s only fair to have tiers for the rewards too, with lower tiers having lower rewards…
I mean, we kind of already have that with the higher-level items behind progression walls, which I'm fine with. I guess I wouldn't really care if they had slightly lower award amounts too?
You get the same rewards from going from tier to tier. While you have TB store costs, the tier movement is the same. The ranking rewards are the same.

If you're wanting system that matches you purely based on your account size, they'll have to make a mode for each similar to how we have Threat Levels in SQs. The tier and season rewards would need to be adjusted down for each of those tiers as well. But, account size shouldn't be what matters. Account size takes into account of ALL of your champs and not just your deck. I have a base hero rating of 5 mil. I'm a Paragon who will be valiant once 8.4 drops. The only champs I rank are 6 and 7*'s. I don't invest gold or ISO into anything below a 6*. If I were to rank my 1-5*'s to max, my account size would be way different.

It's not a true measurement of who you're facing. But if you only wanted to be matched with accounts no bigger than 2mil. You shouldn't get the same season and tier rewards I get if I am being matched with accounts of 5 mil.
You bring up a good point; maybe tiers based on the deck you can field? I think that sounds even better. You might have people sandbagging themselves and using a lower deck, but I don't know how often that would happen. Maybe that's naive of me, but I would welcome that.
There is no "might", you will have people sandbagging. It's why it's against the rules currently. The only way it would work is that Threat Level 5 is for title holders of Paragon and Valiant. and Threat Level 4 is Thronebreaker. So anyone who is Paragon is locked to Threat Level 5 and season rewards are based on tier for that Threat Level like in AW.
I could get behind that.

I am sure you could until you see how much they reduce season and tier advancement rewards.

You can't make a suggestion when you don't understand the parameters of the suggestion you are making.
"my account is 2 million rating fighting 5 mill"
I have a 5.2M rating.. 3 mill are from champs 1-5* maxed over the years..and will never be in my deck
The only true advantage I have in the game is in events like women of power. Where I already had my 2* and 4* ranked and ready to complete objectives.

I mean, I can make a suggestion whenever I want...

Based on your comment, my 2 million account has 1.2 million rating of champs that I stupidly ranked in 2018-2020 before I took a break from playing, and they will never be in my deck...so...?

I just wanted to spark some conversation, which I did, and as I said, I'll play anyway because it's still fun.