I just don't play BG's... and, honestly, the article just reinforced that decision (and maybe made me decide to spend less time and money on this game in general)
There's a certain flavor of disdain for the playerbase that I can't help but notice coloring everything.
People see what they want to see. Always have. They see greed, they see crystal conspiracies, they see ignoring feedback, they see elitist difficulty, and there’s always going to be people who see hostility everywhere. BG is a competitive mode, and while it isn’t perfect, we will just never make happy the players who have expectations that directly contradict the spirit of competition - and whether they say they do or not is irrelevant. And we are never going to make happy the players who see things that aren’t there, because Kabam can’t remove what isn’t there to make them happy.
The post that some people seem to be taking offense at is the kind of thing I’ve seen from every game operator that even *tried* to engage with its player community. Not all game operators even bother. And if you can’t see the humor in it, and the message wrapped within that humor, that’s a you thing. One of the first things I learned about writing, speech, and presentation delivery is all communication requires a meet in the middle between both parties. The speaker must make an attempt to reach the listeners where they live. And the listeners must attempt to interpret the speaker in the most useful light to communication, to give the benefit of the doubt that all communication is imperfect and some reasonable effort must be made to try to understand the perspective of the speaker.
And I learned if the listener is not going to do that, or actively work against that, you shouldn’t try to connect with that person. You should instead spend your effort connecting to those that want to work towards that connection instead.
I'm not gonna read all that, but I'm happy for you... or sorry that happened.
Don't like a jokish text from Kabam, proceed to be disrespectful... Yeah I'm so sure Kabam will miss yout bucks, I bet they are in the think tank right now trying to find a way to make YOU particularly reconsider your stand on spending on the game. God forbid they got to shut down their espresso machine.
Don't like a jokish text from Kabam, proceed to be disrespectful... Yeah I'm so sure Kabam will miss yout bucks, I bet they are in the think tank right now trying to find a way to make YOU particularly reconsider your stand on spending on the game. God forbid they got to shut down their espresso machine.
Don't like a jokish text from Kabam, proceed to be disrespectful... Yeah I'm so sure Kabam will miss yout bucks, I bet they are in the think tank right now trying to find a way to make YOU particularly reconsider your stand on spending on the game. God forbid they got to shut down their espresso machine.
I just don't play BG's... and, honestly, the article just reinforced that decision (and maybe made me decide to spend less time and money on this game in general)
There's a certain flavor of disdain for the playerbase that I can't help but notice coloring everything.
People see what they want to see. Always have. They see greed, they see crystal conspiracies, they see ignoring feedback, they see elitist difficulty, and there’s always going to be people who see hostility everywhere. BG is a competitive mode, and while it isn’t perfect, we will just never make happy the players who have expectations that directly contradict the spirit of competition - and whether they say they do or not is irrelevant. And we are never going to make happy the players who see things that aren’t there, because Kabam can’t remove what isn’t there to make them happy.
The post that some people seem to be taking offense at is the kind of thing I’ve seen from every game operator that even *tried* to engage with its player community. Not all game operators even bother. And if you can’t see the humor in it, and the message wrapped within that humor, that’s a you thing. One of the first things I learned about writing, speech, and presentation delivery is all communication requires a meet in the middle between both parties. The speaker must make an attempt to reach the listeners where they live. And the listeners must attempt to interpret the speaker in the most useful light to communication, to give the benefit of the doubt that all communication is imperfect and some reasonable effort must be made to try to understand the perspective of the speaker.
And I learned if the listener is not going to do that, or actively work against that, you shouldn’t try to connect with that person. You should instead spend your effort connecting to those that want to work towards that connection instead.
I'm not gonna read all that, but I'm happy for you... or sorry that happened.
I would bet real money all three statements are false.
GW, I appreciate your passion around this topic. But I think we've done this dance enough times and you've been a part of those conversations enough that you might need to consider changing your perspective on this one. I understand you want something one particular way, but you've been told numerous times why that cannot be.
I'd also appreciate you not putting words in our mouths. We never said anyone was whining. You are being heard. This isn't a matter of "listening to all voices" because I've displayed that the ones asking for BGs to be easier are the vocal minority. You are also being told that what you want conflicts with the nature of the game design and therefore doesn't take precedent. We are listening, but when we have to make decisions between appeasing the vocal minority and preserving the integrity of the game mode while considering the design intent... we choose the latter.
Additionally, The game mode doesn't exist in its current state because we're listening to the people at the top, it is the way it is because we have established a game design philosophy, stated it publicly and dedicated ourselves to maintaining the competitive integrity of the mode.
I can't keep going in circles on this. We as a community have had these conversations for over a year now. When matchmaking and the "fairness" of BGs is called into question the only thing we will have to say (because it's all that really matters) is: This is a competitive game mode where you need to beat others to progress. We understand that you might want it to be easier for you to progress, but when it's a choice between appeasing a vocal minority and staying true to the intention behind the game design... we believe our game team is making the right choice in preserving the competitive nature of the mode.
so Jax why don’t make BG matching base on at least Title to have more fair match. For example, Paragon match with Paragon, just like Boxing base on weight level to have a more competitive matchup
Because this would be unfair in a different and more important way.
If you only matched against players of the same progression title, that would mean you could get all the way to GC facing only players of the same title. That would mean Valiants would have to beat nothing but other Valiants, while Uncollected players could reach GC without ever having to face anything except for other Uncollected players. The matches would be more even, but the competition as a whole would be completely unfair, because some players would have a much easier road through VT than others.
Some people think that's not true, that everyone would have the same difficulty, because everyone's matches would be "even." But that's looking at each match relative to the strength of the player. But that's not how competition works. We don't say that a weaker competitor who beats a lot of other weaker players is just as good as a strong player beating a lot of other strong players.
People keep bringing up things like competitive divisions, or weight classes, or other ways in which competitions separate competitors. But those divisions *separate* the competitors completely. Lightweight boxers do not beat other lightweight boxers and become the heavy weight champion. They are essentially competing in a completely different sport, a sport with different rules, different qualifications, different competitors, and different prizes. There's no overlap between them. But all BG competitors ultimately compete for the same Gladiator Circuit placement and prizes. The Gladiator Circuit has only one prerequisite: completing the Victory Track. We can't have one set of players facing weaker competition to enter the GC while other players face much stronger competition to achieve the same thing.
Most of the people who think equal matching is more fair will never be convinced it is. So let's set fairness aside. Equal matching penalizes roster growth. This is unambiguous and objective. Anyone who has run alts through VT knows this, and anyone who was competing when equal roster matching was global knows this. A player that plays a lower roster strength alt inevitably has an easier time promoting while equal roster matching is in force. Same player, same skills, same knowledge, same tactical and strategic experience, just a *weaker* roster. And it is easier. Why? Because all other things being equal, your competition gets weaker relative to you. Uncollected players are, in general, statistically weaker than Cavalier players, who are statistically weaker than Paragon players. This is not universally true: many UCs are stronger than many Paragons. But its sufficiently true to offer a large advantage to players who play low alts.
This is tantamount to saying that when a player *grows* their roster and promotes to higher progress tiers, their competition gets stronger relative to them. Equal roster matching creates a roster growth penalty.
Penalizing players for ranking up their roster is not something the game wants to do, period. This was explicitly stated as one of the reasons equal roster matching was changed to be limited to only the bottom half of VT. No amount of complaining about this being "unfair" is ever likely to change this, because penalizing players for growing roster is so awful of a thing to do in a game that is built upon and supports itself through the monetization of roster growth that it is more likely the devs would completely eliminate the game mode than they would penalize players for growing their roster while competing in it. It is more likely Kabam would move their headquarters to Pluto.
It is more fair to require players to face the competition that is there than sheltering them from it, and most players seem to understand this. For the players that refuse to do so, doing it their way would penalize players for growing roster, and *that* is never going to happen so their notion of what's fair is dead in the water, period.
I totally disagree with this. So, if you think it’s still unfair because Uncollected also can complete the Victory track to go GC as well, let’s make different reward progression on Victory track base on the Title as well, so that will motivate people to grow their roster to achieve higher Title along with higher reward on the Victory track.
Again, battleground is PvP mode, so it should be like Boxing base on at least some equal criterial to have more competitive match, here is Title. This is where people show their skills and knowledge, not just roster when some dumb matching like a Paragon match with Valiant in Victory track. Many players play BG not just for reward but mostly to enjoy a fair match actually.
It is a PvP mode to determine the best. No equal criteria, just like participating in the olympics (except the gendered separation), you compete as is with everyone else. People will have better trainers, better training equipment, better facilities, better training schedules but all that doesnt matter when you enter that track/field.
Do you understand what kind of sports are you talking about in Olympics? Most of sports compete base on the strength of white muscle and PvP mode like Boxing, Karate, Lifting… all base on weight class to make sure the match will be fair and the winner suppose to be the one have better SKILLS, not the one just simply have more muscle!
"Track/Field" is what I mentioned. you keep mentioning sports that have weight classes but even in those categories, the weights are not discrete like @Demonzfyre has pointed out. If someone is on the upper limit of the class faces someone on the lower limit, it is technically not fair according to you. Either way, BGs is good as is and none of the suggested changes makes it better
But it’s still way better than a paragon match with a Valiant!
GW, I appreciate your passion around this topic. But I think we've done this dance enough times and you've been a part of those conversations enough that you might need to consider changing your perspective on this one. I understand you want something one particular way, but you've been told numerous times why that cannot be.
I'd also appreciate you not putting words in our mouths. We never said anyone was whining. You are being heard. This isn't a matter of "listening to all voices" because I've displayed that the ones asking for BGs to be easier are the vocal minority. You are also being told that what you want conflicts with the nature of the game design and therefore doesn't take precedent. We are listening, but when we have to make decisions between appeasing the vocal minority and preserving the integrity of the game mode while considering the design intent... we choose the latter.
Additionally, The game mode doesn't exist in its current state because we're listening to the people at the top, it is the way it is because we have established a game design philosophy, stated it publicly and dedicated ourselves to maintaining the competitive integrity of the mode.
I can't keep going in circles on this. We as a community have had these conversations for over a year now. When matchmaking and the "fairness" of BGs is called into question the only thing we will have to say (because it's all that really matters) is: This is a competitive game mode where you need to beat others to progress. We understand that you might want it to be easier for you to progress, but when it's a choice between appeasing a vocal minority and staying true to the intention behind the game design... we believe our game team is making the right choice in preserving the competitive nature of the mode.
so Jax why don’t make BG matching base on at least Title to have more fair match. For example, Paragon match with Paragon, just like Boxing base on weight level to have a more competitive matchup
Because this would be unfair in a different and more important way.
If you only matched against players of the same progression title, that would mean you could get all the way to GC facing only players of the same title. That would mean Valiants would have to beat nothing but other Valiants, while Uncollected players could reach GC without ever having to face anything except for other Uncollected players. The matches would be more even, but the competition as a whole would be completely unfair, because some players would have a much easier road through VT than others.
Some people think that's not true, that everyone would have the same difficulty, because everyone's matches would be "even." But that's looking at each match relative to the strength of the player. But that's not how competition works. We don't say that a weaker competitor who beats a lot of other weaker players is just as good as a strong player beating a lot of other strong players.
People keep bringing up things like competitive divisions, or weight classes, or other ways in which competitions separate competitors. But those divisions *separate* the competitors completely. Lightweight boxers do not beat other lightweight boxers and become the heavy weight champion. They are essentially competing in a completely different sport, a sport with different rules, different qualifications, different competitors, and different prizes. There's no overlap between them. But all BG competitors ultimately compete for the same Gladiator Circuit placement and prizes. The Gladiator Circuit has only one prerequisite: completing the Victory Track. We can't have one set of players facing weaker competition to enter the GC while other players face much stronger competition to achieve the same thing.
Most of the people who think equal matching is more fair will never be convinced it is. So let's set fairness aside. Equal matching penalizes roster growth. This is unambiguous and objective. Anyone who has run alts through VT knows this, and anyone who was competing when equal roster matching was global knows this. A player that plays a lower roster strength alt inevitably has an easier time promoting while equal roster matching is in force. Same player, same skills, same knowledge, same tactical and strategic experience, just a *weaker* roster. And it is easier. Why? Because all other things being equal, your competition gets weaker relative to you. Uncollected players are, in general, statistically weaker than Cavalier players, who are statistically weaker than Paragon players. This is not universally true: many UCs are stronger than many Paragons. But its sufficiently true to offer a large advantage to players who play low alts.
This is tantamount to saying that when a player *grows* their roster and promotes to higher progress tiers, their competition gets stronger relative to them. Equal roster matching creates a roster growth penalty.
Penalizing players for ranking up their roster is not something the game wants to do, period. This was explicitly stated as one of the reasons equal roster matching was changed to be limited to only the bottom half of VT. No amount of complaining about this being "unfair" is ever likely to change this, because penalizing players for growing roster is so awful of a thing to do in a game that is built upon and supports itself through the monetization of roster growth that it is more likely the devs would completely eliminate the game mode than they would penalize players for growing their roster while competing in it. It is more likely Kabam would move their headquarters to Pluto.
It is more fair to require players to face the competition that is there than sheltering them from it, and most players seem to understand this. For the players that refuse to do so, doing it their way would penalize players for growing roster, and *that* is never going to happen so their notion of what's fair is dead in the water, period.
I totally disagree with this. So, if you think it’s still unfair because Uncollected also can complete the Victory track to go GC as well, let’s make different reward progression on Victory track base on the Title as well, so that will motivate people to grow their roster to achieve higher Title along with higher reward on the Victory track.
Again, battleground is PvP mode, so it should be like Boxing base on at least some equal criterial to have more competitive match, here is Title. This is where people show their skills and knowledge, not just roster when some dumb matching like a Paragon match with Valiant in Victory track. Many players play BG not just for reward but mostly to enjoy a fair match actually.
It is a PvP mode to determine the best. No equal criteria, just like participating in the olympics (except the gendered separation), you compete as is with everyone else. People will have better trainers, better training equipment, better facilities, better training schedules but all that doesnt matter when you enter that track/field.
Do you understand what kind of sports are you talking about in Olympics? Most of sports compete base on the strength of white muscle and PvP mode like Boxing, Karate, Lifting… all base on weight class to make sure the match will be fair and the winner suppose to be the one have better SKILLS, not the one just simply have more muscle!
But BGs isn't class based. BGs is a free for all. It's a latter competition where boxing is win/loss based.
I totally agree when it happens on GC cuz this is where no Title or anything be consider because we need to find the best of the best. But the VC should not be like that. This should let summoners can PLAY BG, with some considerable equal matching, not a dumb 1k3 rating matching with 5k rating make people just want to quite right in the beginning
Just an observation. Track and Field was mentioned in one of the comments. To go to nationals or the finals how many matches do you need to place in to qualify? There is a set number over an extended period of time. Once you reach that arbitrary number of wins, you qualify. You never lose a win. This is a fair system. Those with more talent and ability with have to run less matches to qualify while others will have to grind it out. But with effort they too can have a chance to make it if they put in the work.
This I feel is the main problem with Battlegrounds. VT has a moving target of wins to qualify for the big dance that is GC. You should never lose a trophy in VT. If you win a trophy just like in Track and Field it is yours to keep. If you lose you simply to not move up. So if someone wants to put in the work, they will slowly climb the ladder with effort and qualify for GC. The impossible will now be probable.
GW, I appreciate your passion around this topic. But I think we've done this dance enough times and you've been a part of those conversations enough that you might need to consider changing your perspective on this one. I understand you want something one particular way, but you've been told numerous times why that cannot be.
I'd also appreciate you not putting words in our mouths. We never said anyone was whining. You are being heard. This isn't a matter of "listening to all voices" because I've displayed that the ones asking for BGs to be easier are the vocal minority. You are also being told that what you want conflicts with the nature of the game design and therefore doesn't take precedent. We are listening, but when we have to make decisions between appeasing the vocal minority and preserving the integrity of the game mode while considering the design intent... we choose the latter.
Additionally, The game mode doesn't exist in its current state because we're listening to the people at the top, it is the way it is because we have established a game design philosophy, stated it publicly and dedicated ourselves to maintaining the competitive integrity of the mode.
I can't keep going in circles on this. We as a community have had these conversations for over a year now. When matchmaking and the "fairness" of BGs is called into question the only thing we will have to say (because it's all that really matters) is: This is a competitive game mode where you need to beat others to progress. We understand that you might want it to be easier for you to progress, but when it's a choice between appeasing a vocal minority and staying true to the intention behind the game design... we believe our game team is making the right choice in preserving the competitive nature of the mode.
so Jax why don’t make BG matching base on at least Title to have more fair match. For example, Paragon match with Paragon, just like Boxing base on weight level to have a more competitive matchup
Because this would be unfair in a different and more important way.
If you only matched against players of the same progression title, that would mean you could get all the way to GC facing only players of the same title. That would mean Valiants would have to beat nothing but other Valiants, while Uncollected players could reach GC without ever having to face anything except for other Uncollected players. The matches would be more even, but the competition as a whole would be completely unfair, because some players would have a much easier road through VT than others.
Some people think that's not true, that everyone would have the same difficulty, because everyone's matches would be "even." But that's looking at each match relative to the strength of the player. But that's not how competition works. We don't say that a weaker competitor who beats a lot of other weaker players is just as good as a strong player beating a lot of other strong players.
People keep bringing up things like competitive divisions, or weight classes, or other ways in which competitions separate competitors. But those divisions *separate* the competitors completely. Lightweight boxers do not beat other lightweight boxers and become the heavy weight champion. They are essentially competing in a completely different sport, a sport with different rules, different qualifications, different competitors, and different prizes. There's no overlap between them. But all BG competitors ultimately compete for the same Gladiator Circuit placement and prizes. The Gladiator Circuit has only one prerequisite: completing the Victory Track. We can't have one set of players facing weaker competition to enter the GC while other players face much stronger competition to achieve the same thing.
Most of the people who think equal matching is more fair will never be convinced it is. So let's set fairness aside. Equal matching penalizes roster growth. This is unambiguous and objective. Anyone who has run alts through VT knows this, and anyone who was competing when equal roster matching was global knows this. A player that plays a lower roster strength alt inevitably has an easier time promoting while equal roster matching is in force. Same player, same skills, same knowledge, same tactical and strategic experience, just a *weaker* roster. And it is easier. Why? Because all other things being equal, your competition gets weaker relative to you. Uncollected players are, in general, statistically weaker than Cavalier players, who are statistically weaker than Paragon players. This is not universally true: many UCs are stronger than many Paragons. But its sufficiently true to offer a large advantage to players who play low alts.
This is tantamount to saying that when a player *grows* their roster and promotes to higher progress tiers, their competition gets stronger relative to them. Equal roster matching creates a roster growth penalty.
Penalizing players for ranking up their roster is not something the game wants to do, period. This was explicitly stated as one of the reasons equal roster matching was changed to be limited to only the bottom half of VT. No amount of complaining about this being "unfair" is ever likely to change this, because penalizing players for growing roster is so awful of a thing to do in a game that is built upon and supports itself through the monetization of roster growth that it is more likely the devs would completely eliminate the game mode than they would penalize players for growing their roster while competing in it. It is more likely Kabam would move their headquarters to Pluto.
It is more fair to require players to face the competition that is there than sheltering them from it, and most players seem to understand this. For the players that refuse to do so, doing it their way would penalize players for growing roster, and *that* is never going to happen so their notion of what's fair is dead in the water, period.
I totally disagree with this. So, if you think it’s still unfair because Uncollected also can complete the Victory track to go GC as well, let’s make different reward progression on Victory track base on the Title as well, so that will motivate people to grow their roster to achieve higher Title along with higher reward on the Victory track.
Again, battleground is PvP mode, so it should be like Boxing base on at least some equal criterial to have more competitive match, here is Title. This is where people show their skills and knowledge, not just roster when some dumb matching like a Paragon match with Valiant in Victory track. Many players play BG not just for reward but mostly to enjoy a fair match actually.
It is a PvP mode to determine the best. No equal criteria, just like participating in the olympics (except the gendered separation), you compete as is with everyone else. People will have better trainers, better training equipment, better facilities, better training schedules but all that doesnt matter when you enter that track/field.
Do you understand what kind of sports are you talking about in Olympics? Most of sports compete base on the strength of white muscle and PvP mode like Boxing, Karate, Lifting… all base on weight class to make sure the match will be fair and the winner suppose to be the one have better SKILLS, not the one just simply have more muscle!
But BGs isn't class based. BGs is a free for all. It's a latter competition where boxing is win/loss based.
I totally agree when it happens on GC cuz this is where no Title or anything be consider because we need to find the best of the best. But the VC should not be like that. This should let summoners can PLAY BG, with some considerable equal matching, not a dumb 1k3 rating matching with 5k rating make people just want to quite right in the beginning
You put way too much emphasis on a progression title, specially after the recent changes on how to acquire them. It wouldn't work.
GW, I appreciate your passion around this topic. But I think we've done this dance enough times and you've been a part of those conversations enough that you might need to consider changing your perspective on this one. I understand you want something one particular way, but you've been told numerous times why that cannot be.
I'd also appreciate you not putting words in our mouths. We never said anyone was whining. You are being heard. This isn't a matter of "listening to all voices" because I've displayed that the ones asking for BGs to be easier are the vocal minority. You are also being told that what you want conflicts with the nature of the game design and therefore doesn't take precedent. We are listening, but when we have to make decisions between appeasing the vocal minority and preserving the integrity of the game mode while considering the design intent... we choose the latter.
Additionally, The game mode doesn't exist in its current state because we're listening to the people at the top, it is the way it is because we have established a game design philosophy, stated it publicly and dedicated ourselves to maintaining the competitive integrity of the mode.
I can't keep going in circles on this. We as a community have had these conversations for over a year now. When matchmaking and the "fairness" of BGs is called into question the only thing we will have to say (because it's all that really matters) is: This is a competitive game mode where you need to beat others to progress. We understand that you might want it to be easier for you to progress, but when it's a choice between appeasing a vocal minority and staying true to the intention behind the game design... we believe our game team is making the right choice in preserving the competitive nature of the mode.
so Jax why don’t make BG matching base on at least Title to have more fair match. For example, Paragon match with Paragon, just like Boxing base on weight level to have a more competitive matchup
Because this would be unfair in a different and more important way.
If you only matched against players of the same progression title, that would mean you could get all the way to GC facing only players of the same title. That would mean Valiants would have to beat nothing but other Valiants, while Uncollected players could reach GC without ever having to face anything except for other Uncollected players. The matches would be more even, but the competition as a whole would be completely unfair, because some players would have a much easier road through VT than others.
Some people think that's not true, that everyone would have the same difficulty, because everyone's matches would be "even." But that's looking at each match relative to the strength of the player. But that's not how competition works. We don't say that a weaker competitor who beats a lot of other weaker players is just as good as a strong player beating a lot of other strong players.
People keep bringing up things like competitive divisions, or weight classes, or other ways in which competitions separate competitors. But those divisions *separate* the competitors completely. Lightweight boxers do not beat other lightweight boxers and become the heavy weight champion. They are essentially competing in a completely different sport, a sport with different rules, different qualifications, different competitors, and different prizes. There's no overlap between them. But all BG competitors ultimately compete for the same Gladiator Circuit placement and prizes. The Gladiator Circuit has only one prerequisite: completing the Victory Track. We can't have one set of players facing weaker competition to enter the GC while other players face much stronger competition to achieve the same thing.
Most of the people who think equal matching is more fair will never be convinced it is. So let's set fairness aside. Equal matching penalizes roster growth. This is unambiguous and objective. Anyone who has run alts through VT knows this, and anyone who was competing when equal roster matching was global knows this. A player that plays a lower roster strength alt inevitably has an easier time promoting while equal roster matching is in force. Same player, same skills, same knowledge, same tactical and strategic experience, just a *weaker* roster. And it is easier. Why? Because all other things being equal, your competition gets weaker relative to you. Uncollected players are, in general, statistically weaker than Cavalier players, who are statistically weaker than Paragon players. This is not universally true: many UCs are stronger than many Paragons. But its sufficiently true to offer a large advantage to players who play low alts.
This is tantamount to saying that when a player *grows* their roster and promotes to higher progress tiers, their competition gets stronger relative to them. Equal roster matching creates a roster growth penalty.
Penalizing players for ranking up their roster is not something the game wants to do, period. This was explicitly stated as one of the reasons equal roster matching was changed to be limited to only the bottom half of VT. No amount of complaining about this being "unfair" is ever likely to change this, because penalizing players for growing roster is so awful of a thing to do in a game that is built upon and supports itself through the monetization of roster growth that it is more likely the devs would completely eliminate the game mode than they would penalize players for growing their roster while competing in it. It is more likely Kabam would move their headquarters to Pluto.
It is more fair to require players to face the competition that is there than sheltering them from it, and most players seem to understand this. For the players that refuse to do so, doing it their way would penalize players for growing roster, and *that* is never going to happen so their notion of what's fair is dead in the water, period.
I totally disagree with this. So, if you think it’s still unfair because Uncollected also can complete the Victory track to go GC as well, let’s make different reward progression on Victory track base on the Title as well, so that will motivate people to grow their roster to achieve higher Title along with higher reward on the Victory track.
Again, battleground is PvP mode, so it should be like Boxing base on at least some equal criterial to have more competitive match, here is Title. This is where people show their skills and knowledge, not just roster when some dumb matching like a Paragon match with Valiant in Victory track. Many players play BG not just for reward but mostly to enjoy a fair match actually.
It is a PvP mode to determine the best. No equal criteria, just like participating in the olympics (except the gendered separation), you compete as is with everyone else. People will have better trainers, better training equipment, better facilities, better training schedules but all that doesnt matter when you enter that track/field.
Do you understand what kind of sports are you talking about in Olympics? Most of sports compete base on the strength of white muscle and PvP mode like Boxing, Karate, Lifting… all base on weight class to make sure the match will be fair and the winner suppose to be the one have better SKILLS, not the one just simply have more muscle!
But BGs isn't class based. BGs is a free for all. It's a latter competition where boxing is win/loss based.
I totally agree when it happens on GC cuz this is where no Title or anything be consider because we need to find the best of the best. But the VC should not be like that. This should let summoners can PLAY BG, with some considerable equal matching, not a dumb 1k3 rating matching with 5k rating make people just want to quite right in the beginning
If *all* of VT is the same as Bronze, then that's tantamount to letting people qualify for GC without having to face real competition. VT must transition from easy mode matching in the beginning, to legitimate face-anyone competition before reaching GC. The way this is done in VT is that matching transitions slowly from easy mode to anything goes from Bronze 3 all the way up to P1, where it becomes essentially a free for all. That's the bottom half of VT having easy mode training wheels, and the upper half of VT having enough competitive tiers to present a proper competitive calibrated challenge to the players attempting to reach GC.
My thoughts on this is anybody it triggered is probably bad at BG's. Pretty simple.
This is why I took issue with it. There was a point to Jax's message, and it wasn't to encourage people to criticize others.
"If the shoe fits"... There's always people getting offended and triggered. Usually people aren't when the shoe doesn't fit.
There's hypersensitivity, and then there's inappropriate behavior. We may live in a society that's gone too far in terms of being sensitive to words and feelings, but that's also the byproduct of an awakening in a sense. Society has spent so long on one side of the pendulum that it's swayed to the other side. Sometimes people get offended for no reason, and other times people get offended because people are being offensive.
GW, I appreciate your passion around this topic. But I think we've done this dance enough times and you've been a part of those conversations enough that you might need to consider changing your perspective on this one. I understand you want something one particular way, but you've been told numerous times why that cannot be.
I'd also appreciate you not putting words in our mouths. We never said anyone was whining. You are being heard. This isn't a matter of "listening to all voices" because I've displayed that the ones asking for BGs to be easier are the vocal minority. You are also being told that what you want conflicts with the nature of the game design and therefore doesn't take precedent. We are listening, but when we have to make decisions between appeasing the vocal minority and preserving the integrity of the game mode while considering the design intent... we choose the latter.
Additionally, The game mode doesn't exist in its current state because we're listening to the people at the top, it is the way it is because we have established a game design philosophy, stated it publicly and dedicated ourselves to maintaining the competitive integrity of the mode.
I can't keep going in circles on this. We as a community have had these conversations for over a year now. When matchmaking and the "fairness" of BGs is called into question the only thing we will have to say (because it's all that really matters) is: This is a competitive game mode where you need to beat others to progress. We understand that you might want it to be easier for you to progress, but when it's a choice between appeasing a vocal minority and staying true to the intention behind the game design... we believe our game team is making the right choice in preserving the competitive nature of the mode.
so Jax why don’t make BG matching base on at least Title to have more fair match. For example, Paragon match with Paragon, just like Boxing base on weight level to have a more competitive matchup
Because this would be unfair in a different and more important way.
If you only matched against players of the same progression title, that would mean you could get all the way to GC facing only players of the same title. That would mean Valiants would have to beat nothing but other Valiants, while Uncollected players could reach GC without ever having to face anything except for other Uncollected players. The matches would be more even, but the competition as a whole would be completely unfair, because some players would have a much easier road through VT than others.
Some people think that's not true, that everyone would have the same difficulty, because everyone's matches would be "even." But that's looking at each match relative to the strength of the player. But that's not how competition works. We don't say that a weaker competitor who beats a lot of other weaker players is just as good as a strong player beating a lot of other strong players.
People keep bringing up things like competitive divisions, or weight classes, or other ways in which competitions separate competitors. But those divisions *separate* the competitors completely. Lightweight boxers do not beat other lightweight boxers and become the heavy weight champion. They are essentially competing in a completely different sport, a sport with different rules, different qualifications, different competitors, and different prizes. There's no overlap between them. But all BG competitors ultimately compete for the same Gladiator Circuit placement and prizes. The Gladiator Circuit has only one prerequisite: completing the Victory Track. We can't have one set of players facing weaker competition to enter the GC while other players face much stronger competition to achieve the same thing.
Most of the people who think equal matching is more fair will never be convinced it is. So let's set fairness aside. Equal matching penalizes roster growth. This is unambiguous and objective. Anyone who has run alts through VT knows this, and anyone who was competing when equal roster matching was global knows this. A player that plays a lower roster strength alt inevitably has an easier time promoting while equal roster matching is in force. Same player, same skills, same knowledge, same tactical and strategic experience, just a *weaker* roster. And it is easier. Why? Because all other things being equal, your competition gets weaker relative to you. Uncollected players are, in general, statistically weaker than Cavalier players, who are statistically weaker than Paragon players. This is not universally true: many UCs are stronger than many Paragons. But its sufficiently true to offer a large advantage to players who play low alts.
This is tantamount to saying that when a player *grows* their roster and promotes to higher progress tiers, their competition gets stronger relative to them. Equal roster matching creates a roster growth penalty.
Penalizing players for ranking up their roster is not something the game wants to do, period. This was explicitly stated as one of the reasons equal roster matching was changed to be limited to only the bottom half of VT. No amount of complaining about this being "unfair" is ever likely to change this, because penalizing players for growing roster is so awful of a thing to do in a game that is built upon and supports itself through the monetization of roster growth that it is more likely the devs would completely eliminate the game mode than they would penalize players for growing their roster while competing in it. It is more likely Kabam would move their headquarters to Pluto.
It is more fair to require players to face the competition that is there than sheltering them from it, and most players seem to understand this. For the players that refuse to do so, doing it their way would penalize players for growing roster, and *that* is never going to happen so their notion of what's fair is dead in the water, period.
I totally disagree with this. So, if you think it’s still unfair because Uncollected also can complete the Victory track to go GC as well, let’s make different reward progression on Victory track base on the Title as well, so that will motivate people to grow their roster to achieve higher Title along with higher reward on the Victory track.
Again, battleground is PvP mode, so it should be like Boxing base on at least some equal criterial to have more competitive match, here is Title. This is where people show their skills and knowledge, not just roster when some dumb matching like a Paragon match with Valiant in Victory track. Many players play BG not just for reward but mostly to enjoy a fair match actually.
It is a PvP mode to determine the best. No equal criteria, just like participating in the olympics (except the gendered separation), you compete as is with everyone else. People will have better trainers, better training equipment, better facilities, better training schedules but all that doesnt matter when you enter that track/field.
Do you understand what kind of sports are you talking about in Olympics? Most of sports compete base on the strength of white muscle and PvP mode like Boxing, Karate, Lifting… all base on weight class to make sure the match will be fair and the winner suppose to be the one have better SKILLS, not the one just simply have more muscle!
But BGs isn't class based. BGs is a free for all. It's a latter competition where boxing is win/loss based.
I totally agree when it happens on GC cuz this is where no Title or anything be consider because we need to find the best of the best. But the VC should not be like that. This should let summoners can PLAY BG, with some considerable equal matching, not a dumb 1k3 rating matching with 5k rating make people just want to quite right in the beginning
If *all* of VT is the same as Bronze, then that's tantamount to letting people qualify for GC without having to face real competition. VT must transition from easy mode matching in the beginning, to legitimate face-anyone competition before reaching GC. The way this is done in VT is that matching transitions slowly from easy mode to anything goes from Bronze 3 all the way up to P1, where it becomes essentially a free for all. That's the bottom half of VT having easy mode training wheels, and the upper half of VT having enough competitive tiers to present a proper competitive calibrated challenge to the players attempting to reach GC.
So if a players start BG from Pla2 with small account, how could they PLAY BG?
GW, I appreciate your passion around this topic. But I think we've done this dance enough times and you've been a part of those conversations enough that you might need to consider changing your perspective on this one. I understand you want something one particular way, but you've been told numerous times why that cannot be.
I'd also appreciate you not putting words in our mouths. We never said anyone was whining. You are being heard. This isn't a matter of "listening to all voices" because I've displayed that the ones asking for BGs to be easier are the vocal minority. You are also being told that what you want conflicts with the nature of the game design and therefore doesn't take precedent. We are listening, but when we have to make decisions between appeasing the vocal minority and preserving the integrity of the game mode while considering the design intent... we choose the latter.
Additionally, The game mode doesn't exist in its current state because we're listening to the people at the top, it is the way it is because we have established a game design philosophy, stated it publicly and dedicated ourselves to maintaining the competitive integrity of the mode.
I can't keep going in circles on this. We as a community have had these conversations for over a year now. When matchmaking and the "fairness" of BGs is called into question the only thing we will have to say (because it's all that really matters) is: This is a competitive game mode where you need to beat others to progress. We understand that you might want it to be easier for you to progress, but when it's a choice between appeasing a vocal minority and staying true to the intention behind the game design... we believe our game team is making the right choice in preserving the competitive nature of the mode.
so Jax why don’t make BG matching base on at least Title to have more fair match. For example, Paragon match with Paragon, just like Boxing base on weight level to have a more competitive matchup
Because this would be unfair in a different and more important way.
If you only matched against players of the same progression title, that would mean you could get all the way to GC facing only players of the same title. That would mean Valiants would have to beat nothing but other Valiants, while Uncollected players could reach GC without ever having to face anything except for other Uncollected players. The matches would be more even, but the competition as a whole would be completely unfair, because some players would have a much easier road through VT than others.
Some people think that's not true, that everyone would have the same difficulty, because everyone's matches would be "even." But that's looking at each match relative to the strength of the player. But that's not how competition works. We don't say that a weaker competitor who beats a lot of other weaker players is just as good as a strong player beating a lot of other strong players.
People keep bringing up things like competitive divisions, or weight classes, or other ways in which competitions separate competitors. But those divisions *separate* the competitors completely. Lightweight boxers do not beat other lightweight boxers and become the heavy weight champion. They are essentially competing in a completely different sport, a sport with different rules, different qualifications, different competitors, and different prizes. There's no overlap between them. But all BG competitors ultimately compete for the same Gladiator Circuit placement and prizes. The Gladiator Circuit has only one prerequisite: completing the Victory Track. We can't have one set of players facing weaker competition to enter the GC while other players face much stronger competition to achieve the same thing.
Most of the people who think equal matching is more fair will never be convinced it is. So let's set fairness aside. Equal matching penalizes roster growth. This is unambiguous and objective. Anyone who has run alts through VT knows this, and anyone who was competing when equal roster matching was global knows this. A player that plays a lower roster strength alt inevitably has an easier time promoting while equal roster matching is in force. Same player, same skills, same knowledge, same tactical and strategic experience, just a *weaker* roster. And it is easier. Why? Because all other things being equal, your competition gets weaker relative to you. Uncollected players are, in general, statistically weaker than Cavalier players, who are statistically weaker than Paragon players. This is not universally true: many UCs are stronger than many Paragons. But its sufficiently true to offer a large advantage to players who play low alts.
This is tantamount to saying that when a player *grows* their roster and promotes to higher progress tiers, their competition gets stronger relative to them. Equal roster matching creates a roster growth penalty.
Penalizing players for ranking up their roster is not something the game wants to do, period. This was explicitly stated as one of the reasons equal roster matching was changed to be limited to only the bottom half of VT. No amount of complaining about this being "unfair" is ever likely to change this, because penalizing players for growing roster is so awful of a thing to do in a game that is built upon and supports itself through the monetization of roster growth that it is more likely the devs would completely eliminate the game mode than they would penalize players for growing their roster while competing in it. It is more likely Kabam would move their headquarters to Pluto.
It is more fair to require players to face the competition that is there than sheltering them from it, and most players seem to understand this. For the players that refuse to do so, doing it their way would penalize players for growing roster, and *that* is never going to happen so their notion of what's fair is dead in the water, period.
I totally disagree with this. So, if you think it’s still unfair because Uncollected also can complete the Victory track to go GC as well, let’s make different reward progression on Victory track base on the Title as well, so that will motivate people to grow their roster to achieve higher Title along with higher reward on the Victory track.
Again, battleground is PvP mode, so it should be like Boxing base on at least some equal criterial to have more competitive match, here is Title. This is where people show their skills and knowledge, not just roster when some dumb matching like a Paragon match with Valiant in Victory track. Many players play BG not just for reward but mostly to enjoy a fair match actually.
It is a PvP mode to determine the best. No equal criteria, just like participating in the olympics (except the gendered separation), you compete as is with everyone else. People will have better trainers, better training equipment, better facilities, better training schedules but all that doesnt matter when you enter that track/field.
Do you understand what kind of sports are you talking about in Olympics? Most of sports compete base on the strength of white muscle and PvP mode like Boxing, Karate, Lifting… all base on weight class to make sure the match will be fair and the winner suppose to be the one have better SKILLS, not the one just simply have more muscle!
But BGs isn't class based. BGs is a free for all. It's a latter competition where boxing is win/loss based.
I totally agree when it happens on GC cuz this is where no Title or anything be consider because we need to find the best of the best. But the VC should not be like that. This should let summoners can PLAY BG, with some considerable equal matching, not a dumb 1k3 rating matching with 5k rating make people just want to quite right in the beginning
If *all* of VT is the same as Bronze, then that's tantamount to letting people qualify for GC without having to face real competition. VT must transition from easy mode matching in the beginning, to legitimate face-anyone competition before reaching GC. The way this is done in VT is that matching transitions slowly from easy mode to anything goes from Bronze 3 all the way up to P1, where it becomes essentially a free for all. That's the bottom half of VT having easy mode training wheels, and the upper half of VT having enough competitive tiers to present a proper competitive calibrated challenge to the players attempting to reach GC.
So if a players start BG from Pla2 with small account, how could they PLAY BG?
If they are starting in P2 that means they ended the previous season in Vibranium. How did they get there in the first place?
GW, I appreciate your passion around this topic. But I think we've done this dance enough times and you've been a part of those conversations enough that you might need to consider changing your perspective on this one. I understand you want something one particular way, but you've been told numerous times why that cannot be.
I'd also appreciate you not putting words in our mouths. We never said anyone was whining. You are being heard. This isn't a matter of "listening to all voices" because I've displayed that the ones asking for BGs to be easier are the vocal minority. You are also being told that what you want conflicts with the nature of the game design and therefore doesn't take precedent. We are listening, but when we have to make decisions between appeasing the vocal minority and preserving the integrity of the game mode while considering the design intent... we choose the latter.
Additionally, The game mode doesn't exist in its current state because we're listening to the people at the top, it is the way it is because we have established a game design philosophy, stated it publicly and dedicated ourselves to maintaining the competitive integrity of the mode.
I can't keep going in circles on this. We as a community have had these conversations for over a year now. When matchmaking and the "fairness" of BGs is called into question the only thing we will have to say (because it's all that really matters) is: This is a competitive game mode where you need to beat others to progress. We understand that you might want it to be easier for you to progress, but when it's a choice between appeasing a vocal minority and staying true to the intention behind the game design... we believe our game team is making the right choice in preserving the competitive nature of the mode.
so Jax why don’t make BG matching base on at least Title to have more fair match. For example, Paragon match with Paragon, just like Boxing base on weight level to have a more competitive matchup
Because this would be unfair in a different and more important way.
If you only matched against players of the same progression title, that would mean you could get all the way to GC facing only players of the same title. That would mean Valiants would have to beat nothing but other Valiants, while Uncollected players could reach GC without ever having to face anything except for other Uncollected players. The matches would be more even, but the competition as a whole would be completely unfair, because some players would have a much easier road through VT than others.
Some people think that's not true, that everyone would have the same difficulty, because everyone's matches would be "even." But that's looking at each match relative to the strength of the player. But that's not how competition works. We don't say that a weaker competitor who beats a lot of other weaker players is just as good as a strong player beating a lot of other strong players.
People keep bringing up things like competitive divisions, or weight classes, or other ways in which competitions separate competitors. But those divisions *separate* the competitors completely. Lightweight boxers do not beat other lightweight boxers and become the heavy weight champion. They are essentially competing in a completely different sport, a sport with different rules, different qualifications, different competitors, and different prizes. There's no overlap between them. But all BG competitors ultimately compete for the same Gladiator Circuit placement and prizes. The Gladiator Circuit has only one prerequisite: completing the Victory Track. We can't have one set of players facing weaker competition to enter the GC while other players face much stronger competition to achieve the same thing.
Most of the people who think equal matching is more fair will never be convinced it is. So let's set fairness aside. Equal matching penalizes roster growth. This is unambiguous and objective. Anyone who has run alts through VT knows this, and anyone who was competing when equal roster matching was global knows this. A player that plays a lower roster strength alt inevitably has an easier time promoting while equal roster matching is in force. Same player, same skills, same knowledge, same tactical and strategic experience, just a *weaker* roster. And it is easier. Why? Because all other things being equal, your competition gets weaker relative to you. Uncollected players are, in general, statistically weaker than Cavalier players, who are statistically weaker than Paragon players. This is not universally true: many UCs are stronger than many Paragons. But its sufficiently true to offer a large advantage to players who play low alts.
This is tantamount to saying that when a player *grows* their roster and promotes to higher progress tiers, their competition gets stronger relative to them. Equal roster matching creates a roster growth penalty.
Penalizing players for ranking up their roster is not something the game wants to do, period. This was explicitly stated as one of the reasons equal roster matching was changed to be limited to only the bottom half of VT. No amount of complaining about this being "unfair" is ever likely to change this, because penalizing players for growing roster is so awful of a thing to do in a game that is built upon and supports itself through the monetization of roster growth that it is more likely the devs would completely eliminate the game mode than they would penalize players for growing their roster while competing in it. It is more likely Kabam would move their headquarters to Pluto.
It is more fair to require players to face the competition that is there than sheltering them from it, and most players seem to understand this. For the players that refuse to do so, doing it their way would penalize players for growing roster, and *that* is never going to happen so their notion of what's fair is dead in the water, period.
I totally disagree with this. So, if you think it’s still unfair because Uncollected also can complete the Victory track to go GC as well, let’s make different reward progression on Victory track base on the Title as well, so that will motivate people to grow their roster to achieve higher Title along with higher reward on the Victory track.
Again, battleground is PvP mode, so it should be like Boxing base on at least some equal criterial to have more competitive match, here is Title. This is where people show their skills and knowledge, not just roster when some dumb matching like a Paragon match with Valiant in Victory track. Many players play BG not just for reward but mostly to enjoy a fair match actually.
It is a PvP mode to determine the best. No equal criteria, just like participating in the olympics (except the gendered separation), you compete as is with everyone else. People will have better trainers, better training equipment, better facilities, better training schedules but all that doesnt matter when you enter that track/field.
Do you understand what kind of sports are you talking about in Olympics? Most of sports compete base on the strength of white muscle and PvP mode like Boxing, Karate, Lifting… all base on weight class to make sure the match will be fair and the winner suppose to be the one have better SKILLS, not the one just simply have more muscle!
But BGs isn't class based. BGs is a free for all. It's a latter competition where boxing is win/loss based.
I totally agree when it happens on GC cuz this is where no Title or anything be consider because we need to find the best of the best. But the VC should not be like that. This should let summoners can PLAY BG, with some considerable equal matching, not a dumb 1k3 rating matching with 5k rating make people just want to quite right in the beginning
But that will just make the reward much more of an issue. There're most definitely people out there that have an above average paragon roster that decide to do a Necro completion, and now they're the worst valiant roster-wise. They'll get stuck in Valiant's Gold while if they decide to stay in Paragon's, they could've cleared VT. So unless the reward for Valiant's bronze-Gold is much better than Paragon's whole VT reward, you're punishing those player for pushing to Valiant
I firmly believe that much of the frustration of some players would have disappeared if one removed the loss of VT medallions upon defeat.
1. You don't get stuck in a perpetual Dormammu loop because you meet significantly stronger accounts that not only prevent you from promotion, but also take away what little you may have managed to build up with a weaker deck.
2. It will effectively stop points farming, which is also the main reason for weaker accounts' frustration in VT. If you only have R3/4s and 5/65s in your deck, then you have a snowball's chance in hell against valiant decks with only R5s and 7R2+.
...but Kabam will probably lose some units use on VT shields, and maybe won't top 5-10% players like that they have to perform more or fight against tougher opposition to get their points...
…that's probably where the problem really lies, the fear of annoying the revenue generating player base.
(Valiant, who spends a $5 here and there, and once in a while sacrifices 50 goats if the offer is irresistibly good).
My thoughts on this is anybody it triggered is probably bad at BG's. Pretty simple.
This is why I took issue with it. There was a point to Jax's message, and it wasn't to encourage people to criticize others.
"If the shoe fits"... There's always people getting offended and triggered. Usually people aren't when the shoe doesn't fit.
There's hypersensitivity, and then there's inappropriate behavior. We may live in a society that's gone too far in terms of being sensitive to words and feelings, but that's also the byproduct of an awakening in a sense. Society has spent so long on one side of the pendulum that it's swayed to the other side. Sometimes people get offended for no reason, and other times people get offended because people are being offensive.
GW, I appreciate your passion around this topic. But I think we've done this dance enough times and you've been a part of those conversations enough that you might need to consider changing your perspective on this one. I understand you want something one particular way, but you've been told numerous times why that cannot be.
I'd also appreciate you not putting words in our mouths. We never said anyone was whining. You are being heard. This isn't a matter of "listening to all voices" because I've displayed that the ones asking for BGs to be easier are the vocal minority. You are also being told that what you want conflicts with the nature of the game design and therefore doesn't take precedent. We are listening, but when we have to make decisions between appeasing the vocal minority and preserving the integrity of the game mode while considering the design intent... we choose the latter.
Additionally, The game mode doesn't exist in its current state because we're listening to the people at the top, it is the way it is because we have established a game design philosophy, stated it publicly and dedicated ourselves to maintaining the competitive integrity of the mode.
I can't keep going in circles on this. We as a community have had these conversations for over a year now. When matchmaking and the "fairness" of BGs is called into question the only thing we will have to say (because it's all that really matters) is: This is a competitive game mode where you need to beat others to progress. We understand that you might want it to be easier for you to progress, but when it's a choice between appeasing a vocal minority and staying true to the intention behind the game design... we believe our game team is making the right choice in preserving the competitive nature of the mode.
so Jax why don’t make BG matching base on at least Title to have more fair match. For example, Paragon match with Paragon, just like Boxing base on weight level to have a more competitive matchup
Because this would be unfair in a different and more important way.
If you only matched against players of the same progression title, that would mean you could get all the way to GC facing only players of the same title. That would mean Valiants would have to beat nothing but other Valiants, while Uncollected players could reach GC without ever having to face anything except for other Uncollected players. The matches would be more even, but the competition as a whole would be completely unfair, because some players would have a much easier road through VT than others.
Some people think that's not true, that everyone would have the same difficulty, because everyone's matches would be "even." But that's looking at each match relative to the strength of the player. But that's not how competition works. We don't say that a weaker competitor who beats a lot of other weaker players is just as good as a strong player beating a lot of other strong players.
People keep bringing up things like competitive divisions, or weight classes, or other ways in which competitions separate competitors. But those divisions *separate* the competitors completely. Lightweight boxers do not beat other lightweight boxers and become the heavy weight champion. They are essentially competing in a completely different sport, a sport with different rules, different qualifications, different competitors, and different prizes. There's no overlap between them. But all BG competitors ultimately compete for the same Gladiator Circuit placement and prizes. The Gladiator Circuit has only one prerequisite: completing the Victory Track. We can't have one set of players facing weaker competition to enter the GC while other players face much stronger competition to achieve the same thing.
Most of the people who think equal matching is more fair will never be convinced it is. So let's set fairness aside. Equal matching penalizes roster growth. This is unambiguous and objective. Anyone who has run alts through VT knows this, and anyone who was competing when equal roster matching was global knows this. A player that plays a lower roster strength alt inevitably has an easier time promoting while equal roster matching is in force. Same player, same skills, same knowledge, same tactical and strategic experience, just a *weaker* roster. And it is easier. Why? Because all other things being equal, your competition gets weaker relative to you. Uncollected players are, in general, statistically weaker than Cavalier players, who are statistically weaker than Paragon players. This is not universally true: many UCs are stronger than many Paragons. But its sufficiently true to offer a large advantage to players who play low alts.
This is tantamount to saying that when a player *grows* their roster and promotes to higher progress tiers, their competition gets stronger relative to them. Equal roster matching creates a roster growth penalty.
Penalizing players for ranking up their roster is not something the game wants to do, period. This was explicitly stated as one of the reasons equal roster matching was changed to be limited to only the bottom half of VT. No amount of complaining about this being "unfair" is ever likely to change this, because penalizing players for growing roster is so awful of a thing to do in a game that is built upon and supports itself through the monetization of roster growth that it is more likely the devs would completely eliminate the game mode than they would penalize players for growing their roster while competing in it. It is more likely Kabam would move their headquarters to Pluto.
It is more fair to require players to face the competition that is there than sheltering them from it, and most players seem to understand this. For the players that refuse to do so, doing it their way would penalize players for growing roster, and *that* is never going to happen so their notion of what's fair is dead in the water, period.
I totally disagree with this. So, if you think it’s still unfair because Uncollected also can complete the Victory track to go GC as well, let’s make different reward progression on Victory track base on the Title as well, so that will motivate people to grow their roster to achieve higher Title along with higher reward on the Victory track.
Again, battleground is PvP mode, so it should be like Boxing base on at least some equal criterial to have more competitive match, here is Title. This is where people show their skills and knowledge, not just roster when some dumb matching like a Paragon match with Valiant in Victory track. Many players play BG not just for reward but mostly to enjoy a fair match actually.
It is a PvP mode to determine the best. No equal criteria, just like participating in the olympics (except the gendered separation), you compete as is with everyone else. People will have better trainers, better training equipment, better facilities, better training schedules but all that doesnt matter when you enter that track/field.
Do you understand what kind of sports are you talking about in Olympics? Most of sports compete base on the strength of white muscle and PvP mode like Boxing, Karate, Lifting… all base on weight class to make sure the match will be fair and the winner suppose to be the one have better SKILLS, not the one just simply have more muscle!
But BGs isn't class based. BGs is a free for all. It's a latter competition where boxing is win/loss based.
I totally agree when it happens on GC cuz this is where no Title or anything be consider because we need to find the best of the best. But the VC should not be like that. This should let summoners can PLAY BG, with some considerable equal matching, not a dumb 1k3 rating matching with 5k rating make people just want to quite right in the beginning
If *all* of VT is the same as Bronze, then that's tantamount to letting people qualify for GC without having to face real competition. VT must transition from easy mode matching in the beginning, to legitimate face-anyone competition before reaching GC. The way this is done in VT is that matching transitions slowly from easy mode to anything goes from Bronze 3 all the way up to P1, where it becomes essentially a free for all. That's the bottom half of VT having easy mode training wheels, and the upper half of VT having enough competitive tiers to present a proper competitive calibrated challenge to the players attempting to reach GC.
So if a players start BG from Pla2 with small account, how could they PLAY BG?
If they are starting in P2 that means they ended the previous season in Vibranium. How did they get there in the first place?
My alt account is 1m7 rating but I consider myself decent skills so I still usually end up Vibranium. The annoying thing is I can beat those over 3m account but stand no chance when facing those Valiant 5m account and this matchup is already happen from Pla2.
My thoughts on this is anybody it triggered is probably bad at BG's. Pretty simple.
This is why I took issue with it. There was a point to Jax's message, and it wasn't to encourage people to criticize others.
"If the shoe fits"... There's always people getting offended and triggered. Usually people aren't when the shoe doesn't fit.
There's hypersensitivity, and then there's inappropriate behavior. We may live in a society that's gone too far in terms of being sensitive to words and feelings, but that's also the byproduct of an awakening in a sense. Society has spent so long on one side of the pendulum that it's swayed to the other side. Sometimes people get offended for no reason, and other times people get offended because people are being offensive.
My thoughts on this is anybody it triggered is probably bad at BG's. Pretty simple.
This is why I took issue with it. There was a point to Jax's message, and it wasn't to encourage people to criticize others.
"If the shoe fits"... There's always people getting offended and triggered. Usually people aren't when the shoe doesn't fit.
There's hypersensitivity, and then there's inappropriate behavior. We may live in a society that's gone too far in terms of being sensitive to words and feelings, but that's also the byproduct of an awakening in a sense. Society has spent so long on one side of the pendulum that it's swayed to the other side. Sometimes people get offended for no reason, and other times people get offended because people are being offensive.
Can you say that in English?😭
Put down people, bad ju ju.
Oh cmon, it was just a joke
That was the synopsis of what I was saying, not the response. Hahaha.
I firmly believe that much of the frustration of some players would have disappeared if one removed the loss of VT medallions upon defeat.
1. You don't get stuck in a perpetual Dormammu loop because you meet significantly stronger accounts that not only prevent you from promotion, but also take away what little you may have managed to build up with a weaker deck.
2. It will effectively stop points farming, which is also the main reason for weaker accounts' frustration in VT. If you only have R3/4s and 5/65s in your deck, then you have a snowball's chance in hell against valiant decks with only R5s and 7R2+.
...but Kabam will probably lose some units use on VT shields, and maybe won't top 5-10% players like that they have to perform more or fight against tougher opposition to get their points...
…that's probably where the problem really lies, the fear of annoying the revenue generating player base.
(Valiant, who spends a $5 here and there, and once in a while sacrifices 50 goats if the offer is irresistibly good).
My thoughts on this is anybody it triggered is probably bad at BG's. Pretty simple.
This is why I took issue with it. There was a point to Jax's message, and it wasn't to encourage people to criticize others.
"If the shoe fits"... There's always people getting offended and triggered. Usually people aren't when the shoe doesn't fit.
There's hypersensitivity, and then there's inappropriate behavior. We may live in a society that's gone too far in terms of being sensitive to words and feelings, but that's also the byproduct of an awakening in a sense. Society has spent so long on one side of the pendulum that it's swayed to the other side. Sometimes people get offended for no reason, and other times people get offended because people are being offensive.
Can you say that in English?😭
Put down people, bad ju ju.
Yet, I didn't put anybody down. I stated an opinion.
If it triggers you, you probably do suck at battlegrounds is an opinion, not putting anybody down.
My thoughts on this is anybody it triggered is probably bad at BG's. Pretty simple.
This is why I took issue with it. There was a point to Jax's message, and it wasn't to encourage people to criticize others.
"If the shoe fits"... There's always people getting offended and triggered. Usually people aren't when the shoe doesn't fit.
There's hypersensitivity, and then there's inappropriate behavior. We may live in a society that's gone too far in terms of being sensitive to words and feelings, but that's also the byproduct of an awakening in a sense. Society has spent so long on one side of the pendulum that it's swayed to the other side. Sometimes people get offended for no reason, and other times people get offended because people are being offensive.
Can you say that in English?😭
Put down people, bad ju ju.
Yet, I didn't put anybody down. I stated an opinion.
If it triggers you, you probably do suck at battlegrounds is an opinion, not putting anybody down.
It doesn't trigger me at all. I'm pointing out the difference between people being oversensitive, and others just being rude. Doubling down and being more rude just proves my point. No one is being helped or made "gud" by disrespecting them.
I firmly believe that much of the frustration of some players would have disappeared if one removed the loss of VT medallions upon defeat.
1. You don't get stuck in a perpetual Dormammu loop because you meet significantly stronger accounts that not only prevent you from promotion, but also take away what little you may have managed to build up with a weaker deck.
2. It will effectively stop points farming, which is also the main reason for weaker accounts' frustration in VT. If you only have R3/4s and 5/65s in your deck, then you have a snowball's chance in hell against valiant decks with only R5s and 7R2+.
...but Kabam will probably lose some units use on VT shields, and maybe won't top 5-10% players like that they have to perform more or fight against tougher opposition to get their points...
…that's probably where the problem really lies, the fear of annoying the revenue generating player base.
(Valiant, who spends a $5 here and there, and once in a while sacrifices 50 goats if the offer is irresistibly good).
finally read jax's article. how could anyone that's reasonable be offended by it?
I'm not offended, it just seems like ill-conceived PR to me. Most folks won't even read past the title.
I think the bigger issue is the drama created here on the forums and, by extension, the hostile environment that anyone with a criticism inevitably faces. All it seems to have accomplished is unproductive arguments here on the forums between new players and individuals who don't know what the word "triggered" means.
Maybe I'm wrong... But, in my business, one angry customer usually means there are others.
Anyway, time to stop crapping on the company dime and get back to work...
My alt account is 1m7 rating but I consider myself decent skills so I still usually end up Vibranium. The annoying thing is I can beat those over 3m account but stand no chance when facing those Valiant 5m account and this matchup is already happen from Pla2.
My point is that anyone that starts in P2 must have been able to promote from P2 in the previous season. So arguing that a player that starts in P2 has some weird disadvantage due to the way match making works that makes playing BG impossible is illogical.
Comments
Consider BG tiers as weight classes and your roster as your ability.
Just because you scale in at heavyweight doesn't mean you can win there.
Yeah I'm so sure Kabam will miss yout bucks, I bet they are in the think tank right now trying to find a way to make YOU particularly reconsider your stand on spending on the game. God forbid they got to shut down their espresso machine.
I would suggest anybody frustrated with the game do exactly that.
This I feel is the main problem with Battlegrounds. VT has a moving target of wins to qualify for the big dance that is GC. You should never lose a trophy in VT. If you win a trophy just like in Track and Field it is yours to keep. If you lose you simply to not move up. So if someone wants to put in the work, they will slowly climb the ladder with effort and qualify for GC. The impossible will now be probable.
1. You don't get stuck in a perpetual Dormammu loop because you meet significantly stronger accounts that not only prevent you from promotion, but also take away what little you may have managed to build up with a weaker deck.
2. It will effectively stop points farming, which is also the main reason for weaker accounts' frustration in VT. If you only have R3/4s and 5/65s in your deck, then you have a snowball's chance in hell against valiant decks with only R5s and 7R2+.
...but Kabam will probably lose some units use on VT shields, and maybe won't top 5-10% players like that they have to perform more or fight against tougher opposition to get their points...
…that's probably where the problem really lies, the fear of annoying the revenue generating player base.
(Valiant, who spends a $5 here and there, and once in a while sacrifices 50 goats if the offer is irresistibly good).
Progression based matching.
But then make sure every 7* deathless champ has a piece that can only be acquired by completing the Valiant VT.
And for giggles, nerf the number of trophy tokens they can acquire through VT.
Just make sure the roll back button is quickly accessible when the same people rush to the forums to say the rewards aren't worth it.
Also, have the background of the next live stream be a billboard that reads "We told you so!".
I stated an opinion.
If it triggers you, you probably do suck at battlegrounds is an opinion, not putting anybody down.
Most folks won't even read past the title.
I think the bigger issue is the drama created here on the forums and, by extension, the hostile environment that anyone with a criticism inevitably faces. All it seems to have accomplished is unproductive arguments here on the forums between new players and individuals who don't know what the word "triggered" means.
Maybe I'm wrong... But, in my business, one angry customer usually means there are others.
Anyway, time to stop crapping on the company dime and get back to work...