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...
People always say this. First, they say the forums are a "hostile environment" for "anyone" posting criticism. This is self-evidently false. *Most* of the posts on the forums are criticism of some kind or another. What matters is the tone of the poster, the arguments they pose, the evidence they present, and most importantly how that poster treats the feedback that they themselves get. If you are unwilling to learn, think everything you say is supposed to be self-evident to everyone else, have a persecution complex that causes you to rail against anyone who disagrees with you in any way, or think you're on the "good" side and everyone else is on the "bad" side, then yes, the forums are going to react to you with some amount of hostility. Predictably so.
There are, and have always been unhappy "customers" of the game. That doesn't mean they are right, and that doesn't mean they all should be catered to. Some players we bluntly don't want and don't need. The *real* sources of hostility and toxicity, for example. The ones that are just angry period, and want to spread that anger everywhere. The ones consumed with conspiracy theories and crank observations. Most importantly, the ones that can't handle the simple fact that the game is not made for just one person, and the players of the game don't all want the same thing. Different parts of the game are intended to appeal to players with different desires. The arena is intended to appeal to grinders. AQ is intended to appeal to players that want to do content in conjunction with other players. End game content is intended to challenge players who actually want to tackle very difficult content. And Battlegrounds is intended to provide competitive 1v1 PvP.
There comes a point where you make the decision that some of your playerbase has a sense of humor, and some don't, and some of those that don't will find fault with, and become angry with anything. And then you have to decide if you are going to cater to them, tip toe around their sensibilities, or you're going to address the majority of everyone else. MCOC's playerbase, like all games as a service, is not a static group of people. Players join and players leave. Every thing MCOC does gains it players and costs it players. And by extension every thing it does chooses who are going to be out players in the future. Do we want players who are going to get angry over things like the Battleground news post, or do we want players who will see the humor in it and deal. There are a lot of both kinds of people out there, and what the game does determines which ones come and which ones go.
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...
he wrote a message saying that we're scrubs and it's perfectly okay that we are! it doesn't get more supportive than that.
anyone actually offended by it A. proves his post correct (they they're in one of the stages of grief) and B. that they're unreasonable with no sense of humor.
you're fine just as the way you are, don't compare yourself to others, and there's many areas of that you can still enjoy. it doesn't get more "inclusive" than this, yet the type of people who always seem to demand inclusion and acceptance are bothered by it.
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...
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 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 wasn't implying that you were triggered by it. I literally made a blanket statement that anybody it did trigger probably does suck at BG's, which is my opinion. Like I said, "if the shoe fits".
It's that, or they're oversensitive, and they suck at BG's as well.
I'm not great at BG's, but I'm also not over sensitive, so I sure didn't take offense to it.
I realized it for what it was, satire, eith the truth thrown in there in a fun way.
Fact us, half the players on these forums are probably better than I am at this game. The other half aren't.
I know I'm not the best player out there, nor could I ever dream of being as good as guys like Andrew, Finny, Lags, Trappy, etc..
They're just better, and that's that. I play by my means, strive to get better each day, rank champs to make my own BG deck better and push myself to be better and learn how champs work, what their good and bad matchups are and do Mt best not to screw the pooch when I'm in a match.
Some people just wanna punch things and not put in the work to truly get better at the game and come crying about how matchmaking isn't fair or come complaining about the scoring system, or why act such and such isn't easier or why carinas challenges are so hard or why is SOS and WOW so difficult.
That's what sets people apart. Whiners, and people who strive to get better so that difficult thing's become easier.
I couldn't always cut a straight line with a circular saw, but after enough practice I could. I didn't whine to my boss how hard it was, I practiced my craft until I was good enough to do so. Finishing concrete, same deal. Framing a house, same deal. Siding, same deal.
I am where I am because I strive to be better, not because I whine about everything being too hard, and crying about a post that like I said in the first place, "the ones triggered by it are likely the ones that do actually suck at BG's".
That's why they're triggered, because the shoe fits.
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 wasn't implying that you were triggered by it. I literally made a blanket statement that anybody it did trigger probably does suck at BG's, which is my opinion. Like I said, "if the shoe fits".
It's that, or they're oversensitive, and they suck at BG's as well.
I'm not great at BG's, but I'm also not over sensitive, so I sure didn't take offense to it.
I realized it for what it was, satire, eith the truth thrown in there in a fun way.
Fact us, half the players on these forums are probably better than I am at this game. The other half aren't.
I know I'm not the best player out there, nor could I ever dream of being as good as guys like Andrew, Finny, Lags, Trappy, etc..
They're just better, and that's that. I play by my means, strive to get better each day, rank champs to make my own BG deck better and push myself to be better and learn how champs work, what their good and bad matchups are and do Mt best not to screw the pooch when I'm in a match.
Some people just wanna punch things and not put in the work to truly get better at the game and come crying about how matchmaking isn't fair or come complaining about the scoring system, or why act such and such isn't easier or why carinas challenges are so hard or why is SOS and WOW so difficult.
That's what sets people apart. Whiners, and people who strive to get better so that difficult thing's become easier.
I couldn't always cut a straight line with a circular saw, but after enough practice I could. I didn't whine to my boss how hard it was, I practiced my craft until I was good enough to do so. Finishing concrete, same deal. Framing a house, same deal. Siding, same deal.
I am where I am because I strive to be better, not because I whine about everything being too hard, and crying about a post that like I said in the first place, "the ones triggered by it are likely the ones that do actually suck at BG's".
That's why they're triggered, because the shoe fits.
Since you want to persist with this, I'll make it more clear. It's not your responsibility to tell people to toughen up and deal with it because the world is a harsh place. That might be the way you view the world, and I can understand the logic in that, but that's not what people play a game for. It's a mobile game. Not building a house, or learning to drywall, or lay concrete, or any number of real life events that come up. People are playing a video game with imaginary heroes, in pretend fights to knock the opponent out, then they heal when you leave. Everyone has their own issues when they come here. If we start editing what's whining and what isn't, I hate to break it to you bud, but we're all whiners when we have a problem. The bottom line is that mentality is not constructive. It's not a productive conversation to call people whiners and sum up every complaint as someone not willing to put the work in to learn. More than that, it's not the type of environment that people WANT to ask questions and learn because when they discuss it, the end result is belittling. I'm no stranger to a tongue-in-cheek joke, but putting others down, or in their "shoe fits" place does nothing to help them, and only creates a toxic environment at the expense of their issues, just to serve someone else's ego. You want to help (by you I mean anyone)? Offer suggestions. Relate to them. Share some experience. If you're tired of seeing those Posts, keep scrolling. If you just want to tell them they suck and they're whining about it, all that's doing is encouraging a dog pile and a reactive response from them.
My only gripe with BGs atm is that the store is outdated for everyone bar Valiant. Yeah sure, the solo rewards change is nice but ultimately the store is what engages most of us and atm, for me and a lot of pals I play with, the store is putting us off pushing the mode much. Needs updating badly in my eyes
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.
I just want your solution how to solve my case? Even Beroman or any top tier BG can’t promote from Pla2 with a 1m7 account! So do I just need to wait until the end of season to PLAY BG? I understand that there is no absolutely fair match, but at least reasonable for VC. I got so many match with over 5m Valiant account mean while I’m new paragon! Wtf is that!!!
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.
I just want your solution how to solve my case? Even Beroman or any top tier BG can’t promote from Pla2 with a 1m7 account! So do I just need to wait until the end of season to PLAY BG? I understand that there is no absolutely fair match, but at least reasonable for VC. I got so many match with over 5m Valiant account mean while I’m new paragon! Wtf is that!!!
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.
I just want your solution how to solve my case? Even Beroman or any top tier BG can’t promote from Pla2 with a 1m7 account! So do I just need to wait until the end of season to PLAY BG? I understand that there is no absolutely fair match, but at least reasonable for VC. I got so many match with over 5m Valiant account mean while I’m new paragon! Wtf is that!!!
Rating is irrelevant
Not relevant if you run suicide mastery and in a small range for example 3m-4mil because at that point of rating the roster is already decent. But for around 1m5 acc usually just have 3-4 6r4 and some 7r1 in roster. How the hell to fight with Valiant with full roster of 7r3, 7r2 and 6r5!!!!
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.
I just want your solution how to solve my case? Even Beroman or any top tier BG can’t promote from Pla2 with a 1m7 account! So do I just need to wait until the end of season to PLAY BG? I understand that there is no absolutely fair match, but at least reasonable for VC. I got so many match with over 5m Valiant account mean while I’m new paragon! Wtf is that!!!
Rating is irrelevant
Not relevant if you run suicide mastery and in a small range for example 3m-4mil because at that point of rating the roster is already decent. But for around 1m5 acc usually just have 3-4 6r4 and some 7r1 in roster. How the hell to fight with Valiant with full roster of 7r3, 7r2 and 6r5!!!!
Rating is IRRELEVANT because its the sumnod all champs from 1* to 7*. The competition should not be based on your roster, you don't like fighting Valiants, then get to Valiant. When you get there you will understand how they are able to rank more champs. The short and simple answer is that they get a lot more materials to do so.
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.
I just want your solution how to solve my case? Even Beroman or any top tier BG can’t promote from Pla2 with a 1m7 account! So do I just need to wait until the end of season to PLAY BG? I understand that there is no absolutely fair match, but at least reasonable for VC. I got so many match with over 5m Valiant account mean while I’m new paragon! Wtf is that!!!
This is gonna be blunt, be the honest solution is to grow your roster.
I'm fairly certain that if your total PI is 1.7mil, there's probably a fair amount of content you could explore. Use the rewards from that content to rank up and expand your roster.
But more to the point, overall PI doesn't matter. I'm fairly certain my 6*R5 ascended Doom is still one of my top 5 champs, and while he's in my deck, I don't think I've used him once.
BGs is about having a very diverse roster to deal with whatever the season's meta is, and having unique counters to the worst defenders.
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't play BGs, but you also shouldn't expect to make it to GC.
Do what you can, accept that you're going to hit a wall at some point, then continue working on other content to grow.
This is gonna be blunt, be the honest solution is to grow your roster.
I'm fairly certain that if your total PI is 1.7mil, there's probably a fair amount of content you could explore. Use the rewards from that content to rank up and expand your roster.
But more to the point, overall PI doesn't matter. I'm fairly certain my 6*R5 ascended Doom is still one of my top 5 champs, and while he's in my deck, I don't think I've used him once.
BGs is about having a very diverse roster to deal with whatever the season's meta is, and having unique counters to the worst defenders.
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't play BGs, but you also shouldn't expect to make it to GC.
Do what you can, accept that you're going to hit a wall at some point, then continue working on other content to grow.
Best of luck to you!
This is the most productive post that I've read in this entire thread.
There is too much RNG involved in drafting phase for it to be considered a purely win based mode. I never struggle to make GC usually do it with well over a 75% win rate but once I make GC I rarely ever bother to climb past gamma.
I took a brief look at that news, never finished reading it. There is always room for improvement, you can use that article as motivation, but I wouldn't feel targeted by it, again, there is only so much you can do when drafting decides to one sidedly favor one person.
Battlegrounds is the only draft style format I've played that has you choose bans, and then further limit your drafting options by randomising your draft pool to 5 selective picks. Takes away any skill/knowledge aspect when you think " oh I can use this person in my deck to counter that one he just picked" "oh, they haven't shown up the entire drafting phase, cool"
Simply because there are more than one option for any champ you'll face. You are not stuck. It forces you to use unusual champs for specific matchups but that's where true skill shows up. Calling draft RNG for a lack of progress in GC is just untrue.
RNG does not make for a competitive or skillbased mode. Which is why any draft league or draft format does not have your characters randomly batched out to you. It's just a way for the game to be quirky. "Forcing you to use unusual champs" again isn't competitive or skill based. I also never once said the RNG is a reason for people not progressing, just that it is a reason it will never be considered a purely skill based mode.
I've had 0 issue climbing to GC and again, usually do it with a pretty high win %. But that doesn't take away from the fact random drafting is anti-competitive. One player is handed an advantage on a game by game basis by selectively having champions essentially removed from play, on top of the 3 bans, bans are actually a competitive way to limit your roster, RNG is not.
Also to counter your point, there are nodes and metas that already restrict your roster, that's literally how competitive modes work,each season has a new meta, with certain characters shining and some taking a backseat. As for your photon mantis point, that's exactly why it's not competitive, I lock in photon or bullseye, then the game decides to hand you 0 counters for either, yet my RNG picks dunk on your team you lose unless you're facing a thrower or literal potato.
Without random drafts, drafts would become predictable, eliminating the opportunity to demonstrate strategic drafting skill.
You also can't have strategic drafts when the game is picking and choosing who to give you. No amount of game knowledge can prevent the RNG of a horrid round of drafting. How do you strategically draft against the opponent getting direct counters to your team every one of the 4 draft rounds and you get offered more champs that are just fodder to their current picks. I've had some games where in have one favourable round out of the entire drafting phase. Then I've had days where I just steam roll opponent's and I don't even feel the enjoyment of fun in it because the opponent never stood a chance. They just got handed the bottom of the barrel of their deck and never got a counter to a bullseye, a photon, a bishop, heck, even a duped antman.
There is too much RNG involved in drafting phase for it to be considered a purely win based mode. I never struggle to make GC usually do it with well over a 75% win rate but once I make GC I rarely ever bother to climb past gamma.
I took a brief look at that news, never finished reading it. There is always room for improvement, you can use that article as motivation, but I wouldn't feel targeted by it, again, there is only so much you can do when drafting decides to one sidedly favor one person.
Battlegrounds is the only draft style format I've played that has you choose bans, and then further limit your drafting options by randomising your draft pool to 5 selective picks. Takes away any skill/knowledge aspect when you think " oh I can use this person in my deck to counter that one he just picked" "oh, they haven't shown up the entire drafting phase, cool"
Simply because there are more than one option for any champ you'll face. You are not stuck. It forces you to use unusual champs for specific matchups but that's where true skill shows up. Calling draft RNG for a lack of progress in GC is just untrue.
RNG does not make for a competitive or skillbased mode. Which is why any draft league or draft format does not have your characters randomly batched out to you. It's just a way for the game to be quirky. "Forcing you to use unusual champs" again isn't competitive or skill based. I also never once said the RNG is a reason for people not progressing, just that it is a reason it will never be considered a purely skill based mode.
I've had 0 issue climbing to GC and again, usually do it with a pretty high win %. But that doesn't take away from the fact random drafting is anti-competitive. One player is handed an advantage on a game by game basis by selectively having champions essentially removed from play, on top of the 3 bans, bans are actually a competitive way to limit your roster, RNG is not.
Also to counter your point, there are nodes and metas that already restrict your roster, that's literally how competitive modes work,each season has a new meta, with certain characters shining and some taking a backseat. As for your photon mantis point, that's exactly why it's not competitive, I lock in photon or bullseye, then the game decides to hand you 0 counters for either, yet my RNG picks dunk on your team you lose unless you're facing a thrower or literal potato.
Without random drafts, drafts would become predictable, eliminating the opportunity to demonstrate strategic drafting skill.
You also can't have strategic drafts when the game is picking and choosing who to give you. No amount of game knowledge can prevent the RNG of a horrid round of drafting. How do you strategically draft against the opponent getting direct counters to your team every one of the 4 draft rounds and you get offered more champs that are just fodder to their current picks. I've had some games where in have one favourable round out of the entire drafting phase. Then I've had days where I just steam roll opponent's and I don't even feel the enjoyment of fun in it because the opponent never stood a chance. They just got handed the bottom of the barrel of their deck and never got a counter to a bullseye, a photon, a bishop, heck, even a duped antman.
The problem isn’t in the draft then, it’s in the deck building and banning phase.
I know what fights I will find to be problematic and that will absolutely require a proper counter. Bullseye is a great example of such a fight. And so I absolutely load my deck with counters, ranging from ideal to passable. Right now I have I think 8-10 champions that could work for that fight. I’d need to put up a good defensive champ in order to maximize my odds of coming out on top, but I don’t just put three counters in my deck and pray I get them.
I have very few counters to Onslaught. And although I am comfortable that I could get a W with those champs, I can’t be sure I’ll get one of them when I need them, so a big Onslaught always catches a ban from me.
Stop being angry about the aspects of the fight that are out of your hands and start taking better advantage of the parts that are. That’s how you progress.
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.
I just want your solution how to solve my case? Even Beroman or any top tier BG can’t promote from Pla2 with a 1m7 account! So do I just need to wait until the end of season to PLAY BG? I understand that there is no absolutely fair match, but at least reasonable for VC. I got so many match with over 5m Valiant account mean while I’m new paragon! Wtf is that!!!
The question you're asking boils down to: how can weaker players consistently beat stronger ones. And the answer is: they can't, nor should they.
Fairness is not about giving everyone an equal chance to enter GC or an equal chance to place #1. That's called a lottery. We can just choose every BG place by random draw, and that would be completely fair, if we decide the definition of "fair" is "everyone has an equal chance to succeed."
But in a competition, that is not the definition of fair. The definition of fair is everyone has an equal and unbiased opportunity to advance to the degree their competitive strength will allow.
Besides, these days a one million account means you started yesterday. I don't expect any such player to get to GC. I don't expect them to be able to find the front door to their house to leave in the morning. But I described how I was able to get a very mid Cav account into GC that had, at the time, less than two million rating. It isn't easy, but if I can do it, I'm pretty sure the players with far more skill than I have can do it also. It isn't impossible, and it doesn't require superhuman skill, time, or spending.
There is too much RNG involved in drafting phase for it to be considered a purely win based mode. I never struggle to make GC usually do it with well over a 75% win rate but once I make GC I rarely ever bother to climb past gamma.
I took a brief look at that news, never finished reading it. There is always room for improvement, you can use that article as motivation, but I wouldn't feel targeted by it, again, there is only so much you can do when drafting decides to one sidedly favor one person.
Battlegrounds is the only draft style format I've played that has you choose bans, and then further limit your drafting options by randomising your draft pool to 5 selective picks. Takes away any skill/knowledge aspect when you think " oh I can use this person in my deck to counter that one he just picked" "oh, they haven't shown up the entire drafting phase, cool"
Simply because there are more than one option for any champ you'll face. You are not stuck. It forces you to use unusual champs for specific matchups but that's where true skill shows up. Calling draft RNG for a lack of progress in GC is just untrue.
RNG does not make for a competitive or skillbased mode. Which is why any draft league or draft format does not have your characters randomly batched out to you. It's just a way for the game to be quirky. "Forcing you to use unusual champs" again isn't competitive or skill based. I also never once said the RNG is a reason for people not progressing, just that it is a reason it will never be considered a purely skill based mode.
I've had 0 issue climbing to GC and again, usually do it with a pretty high win %. But that doesn't take away from the fact random drafting is anti-competitive. One player is handed an advantage on a game by game basis by selectively having champions essentially removed from play, on top of the 3 bans, bans are actually a competitive way to limit your roster, RNG is not.
Also to counter your point, there are nodes and metas that already restrict your roster, that's literally how competitive modes work,each season has a new meta, with certain characters shining and some taking a backseat. As for your photon mantis point, that's exactly why it's not competitive, I lock in photon or bullseye, then the game decides to hand you 0 counters for either, yet my RNG picks dunk on your team you lose unless you're facing a thrower or literal potato.
Without random drafts, drafts would become predictable, eliminating the opportunity to demonstrate strategic drafting skill.
You also can't have strategic drafts when the game is picking and choosing who to give you. No amount of game knowledge can prevent the RNG of a horrid round of drafting. How do you strategically draft against the opponent getting direct counters to your team every one of the 4 draft rounds and you get offered more champs that are just fodder to their current picks. I've had some games where in have one favourable round out of the entire drafting phase. Then I've had days where I just steam roll opponent's and I don't even feel the enjoyment of fun in it because the opponent never stood a chance. They just got handed the bottom of the barrel of their deck and never got a counter to a bullseye, a photon, a bishop, heck, even a duped antman.
That's funny, because I think I'm using strategy. It is a very entertaining illusion.
In fact, I would say that I win more matches in the draft than I do in the fight itself. I am, at best, a B+ fighter. But I am an A drafter. Sure, random is random, but random averages out. My opponents get bad draft RNG just as often as I do. Who deals with it best tends to win.
And I would imagine most above average skill players would agree with me. Because if drafting was in fact purely random and mostly or completely eliminated skill, that would act to make matches themselves more random. No matter how skilled you are, if there is a random number generator constantly tipping the scales randomly, your match performance will be pushed towards 50/50. And the more skilled you are, the higher the penalty would be.
Everyone gets bad luck. Everyone loses matches due to luck. But that means by definition others are winning them due to luck. That averages out in the end, and it is not a very strong effect either way. If it was a strong effect, it would be statistically impossible to have strong players with consistently high win rates. And the leaderboards, where most of the competitors have at least nominally similar playing skill, would be a lot more random.
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.
I just want your solution how to solve my case? Even Beroman or any top tier BG can’t promote from Pla2 with a 1m7 account! So do I just need to wait until the end of season to PLAY BG? I understand that there is no absolutely fair match, but at least reasonable for VC. I got so many match with over 5m Valiant account mean while I’m new paragon! Wtf is that!!!
Rating is irrelevant
Not relevant if you run suicide mastery and in a small range for example 3m-4mil because at that point of rating the roster is already decent. But for around 1m5 acc usually just have 3-4 6r4 and some 7r1 in roster. How the hell to fight with Valiant with full roster of 7r3, 7r2 and 6r5!!!!
Rating is IRRELEVANT because its the sumnod all champs from 1* to 7*. The competition should not be based on your roster, you don't like fighting Valiants, then get to Valiant. When you get there you will understand how they are able to rank more champs. The short and simple answer is that they get a lot more materials to do so.
The total rating of my deck at the moment is 640,562. Every other champ in my roster is, for the purposes of Battlegrounds, irrelevant.
In fact, the total rating for just my 4* champs is about 1.7 million. That's about 25% of my total account rating. My 5s probably total about 3 million rating. Over two thirds of my account rating are champions with 5* rating or lower. What's left is probably just a bit more than two million rating.
It is entirely possible to have a roster stronger than mine (which is significantly above average), a deck stronger than mine, and have an account rating half of mine.
Looking back at my recent losses this season, the lowest rating player I lost to had about 2.9 million rating in Diamond 3. Their non-relic prestige was 18170 (mine is 19692), so this was not some weak account that got super lucky. They drafted well, they played well, I made a mistake or two, and they beat me fair and square.
Rating means nothing. Prestige means some, but it is not a strong predictor of deck strength.
There is too much RNG involved in drafting phase for it to be considered a purely win based mode. I never struggle to make GC usually do it with well over a 75% win rate but once I make GC I rarely ever bother to climb past gamma.
I took a brief look at that news, never finished reading it. There is always room for improvement, you can use that article as motivation, but I wouldn't feel targeted by it, again, there is only so much you can do when drafting decides to one sidedly favor one person.
Battlegrounds is the only draft style format I've played that has you choose bans, and then further limit your drafting options by randomising your draft pool to 5 selective picks. Takes away any skill/knowledge aspect when you think " oh I can use this person in my deck to counter that one he just picked" "oh, they haven't shown up the entire drafting phase, cool"
Simply because there are more than one option for any champ you'll face. You are not stuck. It forces you to use unusual champs for specific matchups but that's where true skill shows up. Calling draft RNG for a lack of progress in GC is just untrue.
RNG does not make for a competitive or skillbased mode. Which is why any draft league or draft format does not have your characters randomly batched out to you. It's just a way for the game to be quirky. "Forcing you to use unusual champs" again isn't competitive or skill based. I also never once said the RNG is a reason for people not progressing, just that it is a reason it will never be considered a purely skill based mode.
I've had 0 issue climbing to GC and again, usually do it with a pretty high win %. But that doesn't take away from the fact random drafting is anti-competitive. One player is handed an advantage on a game by game basis by selectively having champions essentially removed from play, on top of the 3 bans, bans are actually a competitive way to limit your roster, RNG is not.
Also to counter your point, there are nodes and metas that already restrict your roster, that's literally how competitive modes work,each season has a new meta, with certain characters shining and some taking a backseat. As for your photon mantis point, that's exactly why it's not competitive, I lock in photon or bullseye, then the game decides to hand you 0 counters for either, yet my RNG picks dunk on your team you lose unless you're facing a thrower or literal potato.
Without random drafts, drafts would become predictable, eliminating the opportunity to demonstrate strategic drafting skill.
You also can't have strategic drafts when the game is picking and choosing who to give you. No amount of game knowledge can prevent the RNG of a horrid round of drafting. How do you strategically draft against the opponent getting direct counters to your team every one of the 4 draft rounds and you get offered more champs that are just fodder to their current picks. I've had some games where in have one favourable round out of the entire drafting phase. Then I've had days where I just steam roll opponent's and I don't even feel the enjoyment of fun in it because the opponent never stood a chance. They just got handed the bottom of the barrel of their deck and never got a counter to a bullseye, a photon, a bishop, heck, even a duped antman.
Everyone gets bad luck.
Losing via bad Luck consistently is notconoetitive. You can account for bad luck a game or two in a blue moon. It when "bad luck" can influence well over half of the games it's no longer bad luck, and just bad design. I'm not going to bother replying to the thread anymore because it's never going to change, and I'm never going to see it as a competitive game mode, because I guess it wanted to be quirky and not like other draft leagues and modes.
Letting players to draft from their entire deck makes the game too predictable. It just like 10 champs back to back.
For instance, your opponent drafts onslaught and photon, in next round you draft Kingpin and Havok, then opponent drafts Nimrod and Bishop, then you'll draft hulkling and Infamous Ironman, Now opponent will draft cgr and Abs man, now you will draft Torch and Doom, Now opponent will draft his Torch and you finally draft a defender who the opponent cannot counter like, Bullseye for instance.
This is how every match will look if you don't have random matchmaking. RNG sucks, but picking from the entire deck of 30 even sucks more and usually benefits Whales the most.
There is too much RNG involved in drafting phase for it to be considered a purely win based mode. I never struggle to make GC usually do it with well over a 75% win rate but once I make GC I rarely ever bother to climb past gamma.
I took a brief look at that news, never finished reading it. There is always room for improvement, you can use that article as motivation, but I wouldn't feel targeted by it, again, there is only so much you can do when drafting decides to one sidedly favor one person.
Battlegrounds is the only draft style format I've played that has you choose bans, and then further limit your drafting options by randomising your draft pool to 5 selective picks. Takes away any skill/knowledge aspect when you think " oh I can use this person in my deck to counter that one he just picked" "oh, they haven't shown up the entire drafting phase, cool"
Simply because there are more than one option for any champ you'll face. You are not stuck. It forces you to use unusual champs for specific matchups but that's where true skill shows up. Calling draft RNG for a lack of progress in GC is just untrue.
RNG does not make for a competitive or skillbased mode. Which is why any draft league or draft format does not have your characters randomly batched out to you. It's just a way for the game to be quirky. "Forcing you to use unusual champs" again isn't competitive or skill based. I also never once said the RNG is a reason for people not progressing, just that it is a reason it will never be considered a purely skill based mode.
I've had 0 issue climbing to GC and again, usually do it with a pretty high win %. But that doesn't take away from the fact random drafting is anti-competitive. One player is handed an advantage on a game by game basis by selectively having champions essentially removed from play, on top of the 3 bans, bans are actually a competitive way to limit your roster, RNG is not.
Also to counter your point, there are nodes and metas that already restrict your roster, that's literally how competitive modes work,each season has a new meta, with certain characters shining and some taking a backseat. As for your photon mantis point, that's exactly why it's not competitive, I lock in photon or bullseye, then the game decides to hand you 0 counters for either, yet my RNG picks dunk on your team you lose unless you're facing a thrower or literal potato.
Without random drafts, drafts would become predictable, eliminating the opportunity to demonstrate strategic drafting skill.
You also can't have strategic drafts when the game is picking and choosing who to give you. No amount of game knowledge can prevent the RNG of a horrid round of drafting. How do you strategically draft against the opponent getting direct counters to your team every one of the 4 draft rounds and you get offered more champs that are just fodder to their current picks. I've had some games where in have one favourable round out of the entire drafting phase. Then I've had days where I just steam roll opponent's and I don't even feel the enjoyment of fun in it because the opponent never stood a chance. They just got handed the bottom of the barrel of their deck and never got a counter to a bullseye, a photon, a bishop, heck, even a duped antman.
Everyone gets bad luck.
Losing via bad Luck consistently is notconoetitive. You can account for bad luck a game or two in a blue moon. It when "bad luck" can influence well over half of the games it's no longer bad luck, and just bad design. I'm not going to bother replying to the thread anymore because it's never going to change, and I'm never going to see it as a competitive game mode, because I guess it wanted to be quirky and not like other draft leagues and modes.
It's not "bad luck" if you're consistently losing. It's bad drafting, and a sub par bg deck.
Comments
There are, and have always been unhappy "customers" of the game. That doesn't mean they are right, and that doesn't mean they all should be catered to. Some players we bluntly don't want and don't need. The *real* sources of hostility and toxicity, for example. The ones that are just angry period, and want to spread that anger everywhere. The ones consumed with conspiracy theories and crank observations. Most importantly, the ones that can't handle the simple fact that the game is not made for just one person, and the players of the game don't all want the same thing. Different parts of the game are intended to appeal to players with different desires. The arena is intended to appeal to grinders. AQ is intended to appeal to players that want to do content in conjunction with other players. End game content is intended to challenge players who actually want to tackle very difficult content. And Battlegrounds is intended to provide competitive 1v1 PvP.
There comes a point where you make the decision that some of your playerbase has a sense of humor, and some don't, and some of those that don't will find fault with, and become angry with anything. And then you have to decide if you are going to cater to them, tip toe around their sensibilities, or you're going to address the majority of everyone else. MCOC's playerbase, like all games as a service, is not a static group of people. Players join and players leave. Every thing MCOC does gains it players and costs it players. And by extension every thing it does chooses who are going to be out players in the future. Do we want players who are going to get angry over things like the Battleground news post, or do we want players who will see the humor in it and deal. There are a lot of both kinds of people out there, and what the game does determines which ones come and which ones go.
anyone actually offended by it A. proves his post correct (they they're in one of the stages of grief) and B. that they're unreasonable with no sense of humor.
you're fine just as the way you are, don't compare yourself to others, and there's many areas of that you can still enjoy. it doesn't get more "inclusive" than this, yet the type of people who always seem to demand inclusion and acceptance are bothered by it.
it's a bit ironic..
It's that, or they're oversensitive, and they suck at BG's as well.
I'm not great at BG's, but I'm also not over sensitive, so I sure didn't take offense to it.
I realized it for what it was, satire, eith the truth thrown in there in a fun way.
Fact us, half the players on these forums are probably better than I am at this game.
The other half aren't.
I know I'm not the best player out there, nor could I ever dream of being as good as guys like Andrew, Finny, Lags, Trappy, etc..
They're just better, and that's that.
I play by my means, strive to get better each day, rank champs to make my own BG deck better and push myself to be better and learn how champs work, what their good and bad matchups are and do Mt best not to screw the pooch when I'm in a match.
Some people just wanna punch things and not put in the work to truly get better at the game and come crying about how matchmaking isn't fair or come complaining about the scoring system, or why act such and such isn't easier or why carinas challenges are so hard or why is SOS and WOW so difficult.
That's what sets people apart. Whiners, and people who strive to get better so that difficult thing's become easier.
I couldn't always cut a straight line with a circular saw, but after enough practice I could. I didn't whine to my boss how hard it was, I practiced my craft until I was good enough to do so.
Finishing concrete, same deal.
Framing a house, same deal.
Siding, same deal.
I am where I am because I strive to be better, not because I whine about everything being too hard, and crying about a post that like I said in the first place, "the ones triggered by it are likely the ones that do actually suck at BG's".
That's why they're triggered, because the shoe fits.
It's not your responsibility to tell people to toughen up and deal with it because the world is a harsh place.
That might be the way you view the world, and I can understand the logic in that, but that's not what people play a game for. It's a mobile game. Not building a house, or learning to drywall, or lay concrete, or any number of real life events that come up.
People are playing a video game with imaginary heroes, in pretend fights to knock the opponent out, then they heal when you leave.
Everyone has their own issues when they come here. If we start editing what's whining and what isn't, I hate to break it to you bud, but we're all whiners when we have a problem.
The bottom line is that mentality is not constructive. It's not a productive conversation to call people whiners and sum up every complaint as someone not willing to put the work in to learn. More than that, it's not the type of environment that people WANT to ask questions and learn because when they discuss it, the end result is belittling.
I'm no stranger to a tongue-in-cheek joke, but putting others down, or in their "shoe fits" place does nothing to help them, and only creates a toxic environment at the expense of their issues, just to serve someone else's ego.
You want to help (by you I mean anyone)? Offer suggestions. Relate to them. Share some experience. If you're tired of seeing those Posts, keep scrolling.
If you just want to tell them they suck and they're whining about it, all that's doing is encouraging a dog pile and a reactive response from them.
The competition should not be based on your roster, you don't like fighting Valiants, then get to Valiant. When you get there you will understand how they are able to rank more champs. The short and simple answer is that they get a lot more materials to do so.
I'm fairly certain that if your total PI is 1.7mil, there's probably a fair amount of content you could explore. Use the rewards from that content to rank up and expand your roster.
But more to the point, overall PI doesn't matter. I'm fairly certain my 6*R5 ascended Doom is still one of my top 5 champs, and while he's in my deck, I don't think I've used him once.
BGs is about having a very diverse roster to deal with whatever the season's meta is, and having unique counters to the worst defenders.
I'm not suggesting you shouldn't play BGs, but you also shouldn't expect to make it to GC.
Do what you can, accept that you're going to hit a wall at some point, then continue working on other content to grow.
Best of luck to you!
I know what fights I will find to be problematic and that will absolutely require a proper counter. Bullseye is a great example of such a fight. And so I absolutely load my deck with counters, ranging from ideal to passable. Right now I have I think 8-10 champions that could work for that fight. I’d need to put up a good defensive champ in order to maximize my odds of coming out on top, but I don’t just put three counters in my deck and pray I get them.
I have very few counters to Onslaught. And although I am comfortable that I could get a W with those champs, I can’t be sure I’ll get one of them when I need them, so a big Onslaught always catches a ban from me.
Stop being angry about the aspects of the fight that are out of your hands and start taking better advantage of the parts that are. That’s how you progress.
Fairness is not about giving everyone an equal chance to enter GC or an equal chance to place #1. That's called a lottery. We can just choose every BG place by random draw, and that would be completely fair, if we decide the definition of "fair" is "everyone has an equal chance to succeed."
But in a competition, that is not the definition of fair. The definition of fair is everyone has an equal and unbiased opportunity to advance to the degree their competitive strength will allow.
Besides, these days a one million account means you started yesterday. I don't expect any such player to get to GC. I don't expect them to be able to find the front door to their house to leave in the morning. But I described how I was able to get a very mid Cav account into GC that had, at the time, less than two million rating. It isn't easy, but if I can do it, I'm pretty sure the players with far more skill than I have can do it also. It isn't impossible, and it doesn't require superhuman skill, time, or spending.
In fact, I would say that I win more matches in the draft than I do in the fight itself. I am, at best, a B+ fighter. But I am an A drafter. Sure, random is random, but random averages out. My opponents get bad draft RNG just as often as I do. Who deals with it best tends to win.
And I would imagine most above average skill players would agree with me. Because if drafting was in fact purely random and mostly or completely eliminated skill, that would act to make matches themselves more random. No matter how skilled you are, if there is a random number generator constantly tipping the scales randomly, your match performance will be pushed towards 50/50. And the more skilled you are, the higher the penalty would be.
Everyone gets bad luck. Everyone loses matches due to luck. But that means by definition others are winning them due to luck. That averages out in the end, and it is not a very strong effect either way. If it was a strong effect, it would be statistically impossible to have strong players with consistently high win rates. And the leaderboards, where most of the competitors have at least nominally similar playing skill, would be a lot more random.
In fact, the total rating for just my 4* champs is about 1.7 million. That's about 25% of my total account rating. My 5s probably total about 3 million rating. Over two thirds of my account rating are champions with 5* rating or lower. What's left is probably just a bit more than two million rating.
It is entirely possible to have a roster stronger than mine (which is significantly above average), a deck stronger than mine, and have an account rating half of mine.
Looking back at my recent losses this season, the lowest rating player I lost to had about 2.9 million rating in Diamond 3. Their non-relic prestige was 18170 (mine is 19692), so this was not some weak account that got super lucky. They drafted well, they played well, I made a mistake or two, and they beat me fair and square.
Rating means nothing. Prestige means some, but it is not a strong predictor of deck strength.
Letting players to draft from their entire deck makes the game too predictable. It just like 10 champs back to back.
For instance, your opponent drafts onslaught and photon, in next round you draft Kingpin and Havok, then opponent drafts Nimrod and Bishop, then you'll draft hulkling and Infamous Ironman, Now opponent will draft cgr and Abs man, now you will draft Torch and Doom, Now opponent will draft his Torch and you finally draft a defender who the opponent cannot counter like, Bullseye for instance.
This is how every match will look if you don't have random matchmaking. RNG sucks, but picking from the entire deck of 30 even sucks more and usually benefits Whales the most.
It's bad drafting, and a sub par bg deck.