This doesn't resolve all those BG complaints of I lost 100 matches in a row or I am matched against whale accounts so it's not fair. I think this is great idea for me personally since I win about 50% of the time. This will help me climb faster since losing won't be as rough during my climb to VT. Now for those farming in lower levels, this is going to suck for them.

The more people who progress through vt faster will mean less of them in the lower tiers of vt where those complaints happen. This wont fix it completely, but should at least easy the burden

According to Kabam Crashed, this isn't for those that can reach the VT easily, it's only for those that are having a hard time. So those that reach VT will be in the same boat but those that were having a hard time climbing will get to Platinum faster and therefore facing against the big accounts sooner. Is that a good thing for those smaller accounts to hit a plateau sooner? Now we will see how many more posts of I climb to Platinum in no time but now I facing against these big accounts sooner. You know it's going to happen.

Kabam Crashed said: Hey all. We will be sharing more details before the next BG season starts, but the goal of this change was to make the climb more plausible for those struggling to make progress but not necessarily make it faster for those who were already climbing with ease. We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

That is true but you also gotta keep in mind that if all those accounts get there faster, then the bigger accounts will also climb up faster due to wins giving two medals now. No matter how you look at it the change is beneficial, climbing up will be easier, not faster but easier.

This doesn't resolve all those BG complaints of I lost 100 matches in a row or I am matched against whale accounts so it's not fair. I think this is great idea for me personally since I win about 50% of the time. This will help me climb faster since losing won't be as rough during my climb to VT. Now for those farming in lower levels, this is going to suck for them.

The more people who progress through vt faster will mean less of them in the lower tiers of vt where those complaints happen. This wont fix it completely, but should at least easy the burden

According to Kabam Crashed, this isn't for those that can reach the VT easily, it's only for those that are having a hard time. So those that reach VT will be in the same boat but those that were having a hard time climbing will get to Platinum faster and therefore facing against the big accounts sooner. Is that a good thing for those smaller accounts to hit a plateau sooner? Now we will see how many more posts of I climb to Platinum in no time but now I facing against these big accounts sooner. You know it's going to happen.

Kabam Crashed said: Hey all. We will be sharing more details before the next BG season starts, but the goal of this change was to make the climb more plausible for those struggling to make progress but not necessarily make it faster for those who were already climbing with ease. We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

That is true but you also gotta keep in mind that if all those accounts get there faster, then the bigger accounts will also climb up faster due to wins giving two medals now. No matter how you look at it the change is beneficial, climbing up will be easier, not faster but easier.

Bigger accounts will farm more, get some extra points by "throwing" matches with energy because climbing back is easier.

This doesn't resolve all those BG complaints of I lost 100 matches in a row or I am matched against whale accounts so it's not fair. I think this is great idea for me personally since I win about 50% of the time. This will help me climb faster since losing won't be as rough during my climb to VT. Now for those farming in lower levels, this is going to suck for them.

The more people who progress through vt faster will mean less of them in the lower tiers of vt where those complaints happen. This wont fix it completely, but should at least easy the burden

According to Kabam Crashed, this isn't for those that can reach the VT easily, it's only for those that are having a hard time. So those that reach VT will be in the same boat but those that were having a hard time climbing will get to Platinum faster and therefore facing against the big accounts sooner. Is that a good thing for those smaller accounts to hit a plateau sooner? Now we will see how many more posts of I climb to Platinum in no time but now I facing against these big accounts sooner. You know it's going to happen.

Kabam Crashed said: Hey all. We will be sharing more details before the next BG season starts, but the goal of this change was to make the climb more plausible for those struggling to make progress but not necessarily make it faster for those who were already climbing with ease. We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

That is true but you also gotta keep in mind that if all those accounts get there faster, then the bigger accounts will also climb up faster due to wins giving two medals now. No matter how you look at it the change is beneficial, climbing up will be easier, not faster but easier.

Bigger accounts will farm more, get some extra points by "throwing" matches with energy because climbing back is easier.

Farming has always been an issue regardless, there's no way to stop that without actually handing out bans for doing it. However losing to one of those farmers now won't be as punishing as it was before.

Not saying it's a bad change but I'm worried about milestones, players like me who usually reach GC on week three are now probably going to be on GC on week one and therefore have to grind harder.

That's the part I fear, I'm already struggling with the points this season....220k in vib2...đ„” It will be even tougher if we move up faster.

I entered GC this season at 195k points, despite using EM for all matches

I also mostly use EM, I only use energy if there is tough terrain around me and I have to play more than 3 fights to get rid of all 48 hour solo objects.

19-6 last 25 thoâŠso almost 80% wins...reasonably happy atm.

My 6R5A Onslaugt and R3 Bullseye gets banned all the time, so my 6R5 Sinister has become my mvp defenderâŠnobody has killed him yet, and he gets a lot of kills himselfâŠlove his buff đ

I just watched Richtheman Video about Updates for next month. There is new improvement for BG VT, for the entire VT we will get 2 medals per win and lose one per defeat. There will be additional ranks with additional rewards to ease these changes. What are your opinions? đ

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

That's way too much to add at the top end...wayyy too much if you add 2 Vib tracks at what? 7?

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

That's way too much to add at the top end...wayyy too much if you add 2 Vib tracks at what? 7?

Based on my calculations, which admittedly I just worked out this morning, making all the changes I specified above would make players that average a 75% win rate break even on number of matches to promote to GC, and most players below 75% take fewer matches to promote. Those numbers look big, but that's probably because people are *vastly* underestimating the impact of +2/-1. For any player above 40% win rate, +2/-1 is rocket fuel.

This isn't the only way to satisfy all of Crashed's conditions, but it is a reasonable one. There's no way to do all of what Crashed is saying without adding more medals and more tiers in substantial numbers.

Let's compare Vibranium today vs Vibranium at seven medals but with +2/-1 scoring for players significantly below the 75% win rate. Let's look at 50%, and 40%.

At 50% win rate, it takes on average about 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. At 40% it takes about 74. Remember that at these win rates your net medals per match is actually zero or lower. You're promoting by getting lucky streaks of wins.

If we go to seven medals and +2/-1 scoring, the 50% win rate player now takes 12 matches, and the 40% player now takes 19. These are gargantuan improvements. In large part, that's because both players now have a net positive medal earning rate. At 50/50 with +2/-1 scoring, you're now earning 0.5 medals per match on average (two per win, one per loss, so on average you'll win two and lose one every two matches, so that's one medal net every two matches, or half a medal per match). Even the 40% player is now in the black, earning 0.1 medals per match on average. It isn't much, but any positive number is the difference between promoting eventually, and promoting only by getting lucky. That's the reason for the dramatic shift in number of matches required.

Those numbers look big, and the actual changes might be different from what I'm guessing, but they are very likely to be similar in magnitude, and the reason why they look big is because +2/-1 scoring is itself an enormous improvement for all players above 33% win rate.

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

That's way too much to add at the top end...wayyy too much if you add 2 Vib tracks at what? 7?

Based on my calculations, which admittedly I just worked out this morning, making all the changes I specified above would make players that average a 75% win rate break even on number of matches to promote to GC, and most players below 75% take fewer matches to promote. Those numbers look big, but that's probably because people are *vastly* underestimating the impact of +2/-1. For any player above 40% win rate, +2/-1 is rocket fuel.

This isn't the only way to satisfy all of Crashed's conditions, but it is a reasonable one. There's no way to do all of what Crashed is saying without adding more medals and more tiers in substantial numbers.

Let's compare Vibranium today vs Vibranium at seven medals but with +2/-1 scoring for players significantly below the 75% win rate. Let's look at 50%, and 40%.

At 50% win rate, it takes on average about 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. At 40% it takes about 74. Remember that at these win rates your net medals per match is actually zero or lower. You're promoting by getting lucky streaks of wins.

If we go to seven medals and +2/-1 scoring, the 50% win rate player now takes 12 matches, and the 40% player now takes 19. These are gargantuan improvements. In large part, that's because both players now have a net positive medal earning rate. At 50/50 with +2/-1 scoring, you're now earning 0.5 medals per match on average (two per win, one per loss, so on average you'll win two and lose one every two matches, so that's one medal net every two matches, or half a medal per match). Even the 40% player is now in the black, earning 0.1 medals per match on average. It isn't much, but any positive number is the difference between promoting eventually, and promoting only by getting lucky. That's the reason for the dramatic shift in number of matches required.

Those numbers look big, and the actual changes might be different from what I'm guessing, but they are very likely to be similar in magnitude, and the reason why they look big is because +2/-1 scoring is itself an enormous improvement for all players above 33% win rate.

Well see, this is why I don't like this system. The 75% win rate is based on RNG, Draft and all those things that can happen. Now to accomodate people struggling the point system is changed, along with that of course the track changes, the track gets longer ... So to accomodate people struggling the people who were doing fine (regardless of a 75% success rate) they will have to play more. Its not like your excess win coin gets pushed to the next tier either... For example win 3 in a row on a tier that requires 5 coins, you don't get 1 coin on the next tier. With all this tiers added I really wanna know what will happen with the seeding system. I don't think its fair to make EVERYBODY, have to play more matches to accommodate people who struggled.

Are we talking like a 75% win rate is normal? Because once I hit Vibranium that is not it lol

It isn't normal. It is way above normal. Average win rates are 50%, because of course they have to be.

But if you're thinking that because 75% is abnormal the devs picked the wrong number to balance around, you should consider that everyone below that number does better.

If you want to pick a number such that everyone below the number does better under the new system, wouldn't you want to pick a high number to balance around?

I missed the bit about extra Ranks and Medals. I suppose that's a reasonable trade-off. It's quite discouraging at 1:1, given the seeding system. I will have to see more, but I'm still quite content with the preliminary concept.

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

That's way too much to add at the top end...wayyy too much if you add 2 Vib tracks at what? 7?

Based on my calculations, which admittedly I just worked out this morning, making all the changes I specified above would make players that average a 75% win rate break even on number of matches to promote to GC, and most players below 75% take fewer matches to promote. Those numbers look big, but that's probably because people are *vastly* underestimating the impact of +2/-1. For any player above 40% win rate, +2/-1 is rocket fuel.

This isn't the only way to satisfy all of Crashed's conditions, but it is a reasonable one. There's no way to do all of what Crashed is saying without adding more medals and more tiers in substantial numbers.

Let's compare Vibranium today vs Vibranium at seven medals but with +2/-1 scoring for players significantly below the 75% win rate. Let's look at 50%, and 40%.

At 50% win rate, it takes on average about 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. At 40% it takes about 74. Remember that at these win rates your net medals per match is actually zero or lower. You're promoting by getting lucky streaks of wins.

If we go to seven medals and +2/-1 scoring, the 50% win rate player now takes 12 matches, and the 40% player now takes 19. These are gargantuan improvements. In large part, that's because both players now have a net positive medal earning rate. At 50/50 with +2/-1 scoring, you're now earning 0.5 medals per match on average (two per win, one per loss, so on average you'll win two and lose one every two matches, so that's one medal net every two matches, or half a medal per match). Even the 40% player is now in the black, earning 0.1 medals per match on average. It isn't much, but any positive number is the difference between promoting eventually, and promoting only by getting lucky. That's the reason for the dramatic shift in number of matches required.

Those numbers look big, and the actual changes might be different from what I'm guessing, but they are very likely to be similar in magnitude, and the reason why they look big is because +2/-1 scoring is itself an enormous improvement for all players above 33% win rate.

Well see, this is why I don't like this system. The 75% win rate is based on RNG, Draft and all those things that can happen. Now to accomodate people struggling the point system is changed, along with that of course the track changes, the track gets longer ... So to accomodate people struggling the people who were doing fine (regardless of a 75% success rate) they will have to play more. Its not like your excess win coin gets pushed to the next tier either... For example win 3 in a row on a tier that requires 5 coins, you don't get 1 coin on the next tier. With all this tiers added I really wanna know what will happen with the seeding system. I don't think its fair to make EVERYBODY, have to play more matches to accommodate people who struggled.

Everybody won't be. Most players will play fewer matches to progress. A few will play more. Is that fair? There's two ways to look at it. The first is that such compromises are already built into the system, most players just don't see them. But the number of matches players are already doing to promote is somewhat arbitrarily set by the Victory track design, and those numbers could have just as easily been higher or lower. There were people doing better before they did the last set of changes as well. The idea that this particular change is unfair on the principle that you can't make things harder for some just to make them easier for others is belied by the fact that such decisions have already happened, and will continue to happen in the future.

The other way to look at it is that if the game mode isn't managed in a way that the long term health of the mode isn't catered to, then eventually none of us will have the mode to play. I'm not saying these changes were necessary, but you can't fault the developers for using their own judgment on protecting the game mode for everyone, even if it means deciding the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Also, these things you're talking about like overkill medals sounds like you're saying my calculations don't factor those things in, and that would change how the mode would "actually work." That's not the case. My calculations for how many matches it would take to promote factor all such effects in and directly measure the actual number of whole number matches it would take to promote, by using a statistical calculator and averaging the results of a million runs. It literally looks at every possible way to win and lose a sequence of battleground matches until promotion happens.

There are enough players doing enough matches that the odds of measurably more players doing more matches to promote than the statistical calculations would imply is lower than the odds of an asteroid colliding with the Earth and destroying it before the next Battleground season starts.

This doesn't resolve all those BG complaints of I lost 100 matches in a row or I am matched against whale accounts so it's not fair. I think this is great idea for me personally since I win about 50% of the time. This will help me climb faster since losing won't be as rough during my climb to VT. Now for those farming in lower levels, this is going to suck for them.

The more people who progress through vt faster will mean less of them in the lower tiers of vt where those complaints happen. This wont fix it completely, but should at least easy the burden

According to Kabam Crashed, this isn't for those that can reach the VT easily, it's only for those that are having a hard time. So those that reach VT will be in the same boat but those that were having a hard time climbing will get to Platinum faster and therefore facing against the big accounts sooner. Is that a good thing for those smaller accounts to hit a plateau sooner? Now we will see how many more posts of I climb to Platinum in no time but now I facing against these big accounts sooner. You know it's going to happen.

I think this is only true in part. The accounts that already make it to gc regularly will still get medals faster than they wouldâve before, which means theyâre going to move up through the vt sooner. The only big accounts that will still be still be in the lower tiers will be the ones who play infrequently or not at all, which will be the ones the lower tier players will run into. However, this was already the case before, and itâs more so a participation issue than a structuring one.

Also keep in mind that the current system already awards 2 medals per win up until gold, so part of the process to reach platinum is unchanged. Most of the change will be in the diamond - vibranium levels.

I actually don't like it. It'll be harder to get my BG milestones.

However, I haven't watched his stream yet so maybe he addresses this.

Haven't checked other comments to see if it was addressed yet, but it'll actually be easier to get all the milestones because VT is getting longer

Solo milestones are based on matches played (and won). By definition, it is impossible to simultaneously make it easier to promote (take fewer matches) and not reduce the solo points earned (before reaching GC).

Whether it is actually harder to reach the solo milestones depends on how much you decide to play while in GC, if you are one of those players that gets there in fewer matches.

Although one of the effects that will help some but not all players is the fact that because promotion will now be easier, fewer players will get stuck before Vibranium. That means more players will promote through Diamond, which means more players will earn the maximum amount of marks. There are no marks in Vibranium, but anyone who didn't reach Vibranium didn't get all of the marks available. Those players will now be able to use more marks and earn a bit more points as a result, all other things being equal.

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

That's way too much to add at the top end...wayyy too much if you add 2 Vib tracks at what? 7?

Based on my calculations, which admittedly I just worked out this morning, making all the changes I specified above would make players that average a 75% win rate break even on number of matches to promote to GC, and most players below 75% take fewer matches to promote. Those numbers look big, but that's probably because people are *vastly* underestimating the impact of +2/-1. For any player above 40% win rate, +2/-1 is rocket fuel.

This isn't the only way to satisfy all of Crashed's conditions, but it is a reasonable one. There's no way to do all of what Crashed is saying without adding more medals and more tiers in substantial numbers.

Let's compare Vibranium today vs Vibranium at seven medals but with +2/-1 scoring for players significantly below the 75% win rate. Let's look at 50%, and 40%.

At 50% win rate, it takes on average about 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. At 40% it takes about 74. Remember that at these win rates your net medals per match is actually zero or lower. You're promoting by getting lucky streaks of wins.

If we go to seven medals and +2/-1 scoring, the 50% win rate player now takes 12 matches, and the 40% player now takes 19. These are gargantuan improvements. In large part, that's because both players now have a net positive medal earning rate. At 50/50 with +2/-1 scoring, you're now earning 0.5 medals per match on average (two per win, one per loss, so on average you'll win two and lose one every two matches, so that's one medal net every two matches, or half a medal per match). Even the 40% player is now in the black, earning 0.1 medals per match on average. It isn't much, but any positive number is the difference between promoting eventually, and promoting only by getting lucky. That's the reason for the dramatic shift in number of matches required.

Those numbers look big, and the actual changes might be different from what I'm guessing, but they are very likely to be similar in magnitude, and the reason why they look big is because +2/-1 scoring is itself an enormous improvement for all players above 33% win rate.

Well see, this is why I don't like this system. The 75% win rate is based on RNG, Draft and all those things that can happen. Now to accomodate people struggling the point system is changed, along with that of course the track changes, the track gets longer ... So to accomodate people struggling the people who were doing fine (regardless of a 75% success rate) they will have to play more. Its not like your excess win coin gets pushed to the next tier either... For example win 3 in a row on a tier that requires 5 coins, you don't get 1 coin on the next tier. With all this tiers added I really wanna know what will happen with the seeding system. I don't think its fair to make EVERYBODY, have to play more matches to accommodate people who struggled.

Everybody won't be. Most players will play fewer matches to progress. A few will play more. Is that fair? There's two ways to look at it. The first is that such compromises are already built into the system, most players just don't see them. But the number of matches players are already doing to promote is somewhat arbitrarily set by the Victory track design, and those numbers could have just as easily been higher or lower. There were people doing better before they did the last set of changes as well. The idea that this particular change is unfair on the principle that you can't make things harder for some just to make them easier for others is belied by the fact that such decisions have already happened, and will continue to happen in the future.

The other way to look at it is that if the game mode isn't managed in a way that the long term health of the mode isn't catered to, then eventually none of us will have the mode to play. I'm not saying these changes were necessary, but you can't fault the developers for using their own judgment on protecting the game mode for everyone, even if it means deciding the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Also, these things you're talking about like overkill medals sounds like you're saying my calculations don't factor those things in, and that would change how the mode would "actually work." That's not the case. My calculations for how many matches it would take to promote factor all such effects in and directly measure the actual number of whole number matches it would take to promote, by using a statistical calculator and averaging the results of a million runs. It literally looks at every possible way to win and lose a sequence of battleground matches until promotion happens.

There are enough players doing enough matches that the odds of measurably more players doing more matches to promote than the statistical calculations would imply is lower than the odds of an asteroid colliding with the Earth and destroying it before the next Battleground season starts.

I am not doubting your calculations or you; but there is a pretty big flaw on this change compared to the previous time it was implemented. Previously there was a cut off for the 2/1 W/L point system Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches. If you told me the cut off of the 2:1 ratio was right at the seeding it would be understandable. From your math adding 2 more tiers at vibranium based on a 75% success rate is actually putting more work on people that managed to get into GC all this time P1-P3 9 points doubled to 18 D4-D2 9 points doubled to 18 D1 - V1 10 points changed to 14 + 14 of your predicted 2 tiers added total of 28 points That is way too much.

This doesn't resolve all those BG complaints of I lost 100 matches in a row or I am matched against whale accounts so it's not fair. I think this is great idea for me personally since I win about 50% of the time. This will help me climb faster since losing won't be as rough during my climb to VT. Now for those farming in lower levels, this is going to suck for them.

The more people who progress through vt faster will mean less of them in the lower tiers of vt where those complaints happen. This wont fix it completely, but should at least easy the burden

According to Kabam Crashed, this isn't for those that can reach the VT easily, it's only for those that are having a hard time. So those that reach VT will be in the same boat but those that were having a hard time climbing will get to Platinum faster and therefore facing against the big accounts sooner. Is that a good thing for those smaller accounts to hit a plateau sooner? Now we will see how many more posts of I climb to Platinum in no time but now I facing against these big accounts sooner. You know it's going to happen.

I think this is only true in part. The accounts that already make it to gc regularly will still get medals faster than they wouldâve before, which means theyâre going to move up through the vt sooner. The only big accounts that will still be still be in the lower tiers will be the ones who play infrequently or not at all, which will be the ones the lower tier players will run into. However, this was already the case before, and itâs more so a participation issue than a structuring one.

Also keep in mind that the current system already awards 2 medals per win up until gold, so part of the process to reach platinum is unchanged. Most of the change will be in the diamond - vibranium levels.

The presumption is that players who have a high win rate and would least benefit from the change are also unlikely to be starting below P1, as that's the starting line for anyone who reaches GC. Most of the players who h

This doesn't resolve all those BG complaints of I lost 100 matches in a row or I am matched against whale accounts so it's not fair. I think this is great idea for me personally since I win about 50% of the time. This will help me climb faster since losing won't be as rough during my climb to VT. Now for those farming in lower levels, this is going to suck for them.

The more people who progress through vt faster will mean less of them in the lower tiers of vt where those complaints happen. This wont fix it completely, but should at least easy the burden

According to Kabam Crashed, this isn't for those that can reach the VT easily, it's only for those that are having a hard time. So those that reach VT will be in the same boat but those that were having a hard time climbing will get to Platinum faster and therefore facing against the big accounts sooner. Is that a good thing for those smaller accounts to hit a plateau sooner? Now we will see how many more posts of I climb to Platinum in no time but now I facing against these big accounts sooner. You know it's going to happen.

That seems unlikely because the players working their way up from Bronze to Platinum already have +2/-1 scoring. They are not going to get any faster after the update. However, the players starting from Platinum will get faster, because they will now change from +1/-1 scoring. Assuming they play, they will promote out of the lower tiers of Platinum faster than they were before. This can only act to deplete Platinum of moderately strong players faster than is happening now (the very strong players were mostly leaving already), before the players in the lower tiers run into them.

The net effect is going to depend less on how the scoring changes, and more on whether players play more earlier in the season due to the changes, so it is difficult to predict if players will see a noticeable change. But the one thing the changes cannot do is accelerate lower progress players into the field of higher strength players in the Platinum and higher tiers, because those players are not getting any faster in those tiers in the first place.

(The only way for them to get faster is to earn more medals, which seems unlikely. They could get slower, if the devs add more medals or tiers to lower VT, but to me that also seems unlikely.)

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

That's way too much to add at the top end...wayyy too much if you add 2 Vib tracks at what? 7?

Based on my calculations, which admittedly I just worked out this morning, making all the changes I specified above would make players that average a 75% win rate break even on number of matches to promote to GC, and most players below 75% take fewer matches to promote. Those numbers look big, but that's probably because people are *vastly* underestimating the impact of +2/-1. For any player above 40% win rate, +2/-1 is rocket fuel.

This isn't the only way to satisfy all of Crashed's conditions, but it is a reasonable one. There's no way to do all of what Crashed is saying without adding more medals and more tiers in substantial numbers.

Let's compare Vibranium today vs Vibranium at seven medals but with +2/-1 scoring for players significantly below the 75% win rate. Let's look at 50%, and 40%.

At 50% win rate, it takes on average about 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. At 40% it takes about 74. Remember that at these win rates your net medals per match is actually zero or lower. You're promoting by getting lucky streaks of wins.

If we go to seven medals and +2/-1 scoring, the 50% win rate player now takes 12 matches, and the 40% player now takes 19. These are gargantuan improvements. In large part, that's because both players now have a net positive medal earning rate. At 50/50 with +2/-1 scoring, you're now earning 0.5 medals per match on average (two per win, one per loss, so on average you'll win two and lose one every two matches, so that's one medal net every two matches, or half a medal per match). Even the 40% player is now in the black, earning 0.1 medals per match on average. It isn't much, but any positive number is the difference between promoting eventually, and promoting only by getting lucky. That's the reason for the dramatic shift in number of matches required.

Those numbers look big, and the actual changes might be different from what I'm guessing, but they are very likely to be similar in magnitude, and the reason why they look big is because +2/-1 scoring is itself an enormous improvement for all players above 33% win rate.

Well see, this is why I don't like this system. The 75% win rate is based on RNG, Draft and all those things that can happen. Now to accomodate people struggling the point system is changed, along with that of course the track changes, the track gets longer ... So to accomodate people struggling the people who were doing fine (regardless of a 75% success rate) they will have to play more. Its not like your excess win coin gets pushed to the next tier either... For example win 3 in a row on a tier that requires 5 coins, you don't get 1 coin on the next tier. With all this tiers added I really wanna know what will happen with the seeding system. I don't think its fair to make EVERYBODY, have to play more matches to accommodate people who struggled.

Everybody won't be. Most players will play fewer matches to progress. A few will play more. Is that fair? There's two ways to look at it. The first is that such compromises are already built into the system, most players just don't see them. But the number of matches players are already doing to promote is somewhat arbitrarily set by the Victory track design, and those numbers could have just as easily been higher or lower. There were people doing better before they did the last set of changes as well. The idea that this particular change is unfair on the principle that you can't make things harder for some just to make them easier for others is belied by the fact that such decisions have already happened, and will continue to happen in the future.

The other way to look at it is that if the game mode isn't managed in a way that the long term health of the mode isn't catered to, then eventually none of us will have the mode to play. I'm not saying these changes were necessary, but you can't fault the developers for using their own judgment on protecting the game mode for everyone, even if it means deciding the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Also, these things you're talking about like overkill medals sounds like you're saying my calculations don't factor those things in, and that would change how the mode would "actually work." That's not the case. My calculations for how many matches it would take to promote factor all such effects in and directly measure the actual number of whole number matches it would take to promote, by using a statistical calculator and averaging the results of a million runs. It literally looks at every possible way to win and lose a sequence of battleground matches until promotion happens.

There are enough players doing enough matches that the odds of measurably more players doing more matches to promote than the statistical calculations would imply is lower than the odds of an asteroid colliding with the Earth and destroying it before the next Battleground season starts.

I am not doubting your calculations or you; but there is a pretty big flaw on this change compared to the previous time it was implemented. Previously there was a cut off for the 2/1 W/L point system Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches. If you told me the cut off of the 2:1 ratio was right at the seeding it would be understandable. From your math adding 2 more tiers at vibranium based on a 75% success rate is actually putting more work on people that managed to get into GC all this time P1-P3 9 points doubled to 18 D4-D2 9 points doubled to 18 D1 - V1 10 points changed to 14 + 14 of your predicted 2 tiers added total of 28 points That is way too much.

I'm actually assuming GC players get seeded at P1 even though more tiers are added. Under that scenario, the total number of matches required to promote to GC will drop for any player below 75% win rate, remain about the same for anyone at 75%, and be a bit higher for players significantly above 75% win rate.

If seeding actually seeds higher than that and sticks to the "drop six" rule we have now without accounting for more tiers, then once again Crashed's statement that 75% win rate players will see the same number of matches required would become false, and such players would actually see a significant reduction.

I'm not sure why you believe my calculations are correct but players would somehow need to do more matches, but if my calculations are correct then they are accurately determining the number of matches required. If you want to check my work:

Here you go. Although this code was vetted the last time major BG changes were made and its calculations validated back then.

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

That's way too much to add at the top end...wayyy too much if you add 2 Vib tracks at what? 7?

Based on my calculations, which admittedly I just worked out this morning, making all the changes I specified above would make players that average a 75% win rate break even on number of matches to promote to GC, and most players below 75% take fewer matches to promote. Those numbers look big, but that's probably because people are *vastly* underestimating the impact of +2/-1. For any player above 40% win rate, +2/-1 is rocket fuel.

This isn't the only way to satisfy all of Crashed's conditions, but it is a reasonable one. There's no way to do all of what Crashed is saying without adding more medals and more tiers in substantial numbers.

Let's compare Vibranium today vs Vibranium at seven medals but with +2/-1 scoring for players significantly below the 75% win rate. Let's look at 50%, and 40%.

At 50% win rate, it takes on average about 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. At 40% it takes about 74. Remember that at these win rates your net medals per match is actually zero or lower. You're promoting by getting lucky streaks of wins.

If we go to seven medals and +2/-1 scoring, the 50% win rate player now takes 12 matches, and the 40% player now takes 19. These are gargantuan improvements. In large part, that's because both players now have a net positive medal earning rate. At 50/50 with +2/-1 scoring, you're now earning 0.5 medals per match on average (two per win, one per loss, so on average you'll win two and lose one every two matches, so that's one medal net every two matches, or half a medal per match). Even the 40% player is now in the black, earning 0.1 medals per match on average. It isn't much, but any positive number is the difference between promoting eventually, and promoting only by getting lucky. That's the reason for the dramatic shift in number of matches required.

Those numbers look big, and the actual changes might be different from what I'm guessing, but they are very likely to be similar in magnitude, and the reason why they look big is because +2/-1 scoring is itself an enormous improvement for all players above 33% win rate.

Well see, this is why I don't like this system. The 75% win rate is based on RNG, Draft and all those things that can happen. Now to accomodate people struggling the point system is changed, along with that of course the track changes, the track gets longer ... So to accomodate people struggling the people who were doing fine (regardless of a 75% success rate) they will have to play more. Its not like your excess win coin gets pushed to the next tier either... For example win 3 in a row on a tier that requires 5 coins, you don't get 1 coin on the next tier. With all this tiers added I really wanna know what will happen with the seeding system. I don't think its fair to make EVERYBODY, have to play more matches to accommodate people who struggled.

Everybody won't be. Most players will play fewer matches to progress. A few will play more. Is that fair? There's two ways to look at it. The first is that such compromises are already built into the system, most players just don't see them. But the number of matches players are already doing to promote is somewhat arbitrarily set by the Victory track design, and those numbers could have just as easily been higher or lower. There were people doing better before they did the last set of changes as well. The idea that this particular change is unfair on the principle that you can't make things harder for some just to make them easier for others is belied by the fact that such decisions have already happened, and will continue to happen in the future.

The other way to look at it is that if the game mode isn't managed in a way that the long term health of the mode isn't catered to, then eventually none of us will have the mode to play. I'm not saying these changes were necessary, but you can't fault the developers for using their own judgment on protecting the game mode for everyone, even if it means deciding the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Also, these things you're talking about like overkill medals sounds like you're saying my calculations don't factor those things in, and that would change how the mode would "actually work." That's not the case. My calculations for how many matches it would take to promote factor all such effects in and directly measure the actual number of whole number matches it would take to promote, by using a statistical calculator and averaging the results of a million runs. It literally looks at every possible way to win and lose a sequence of battleground matches until promotion happens.

There are enough players doing enough matches that the odds of measurably more players doing more matches to promote than the statistical calculations would imply is lower than the odds of an asteroid colliding with the Earth and destroying it before the next Battleground season starts.

I am not doubting your calculations or you; but there is a pretty big flaw on this change compared to the previous time it was implemented. Previously there was a cut off for the 2/1 W/L point system Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches. If you told me the cut off of the 2:1 ratio was right at the seeding it would be understandable. From your math adding 2 more tiers at vibranium based on a 75% success rate is actually putting more work on people that managed to get into GC all this time P1-P3 9 points doubled to 18 D4-D2 9 points doubled to 18 D1 - V1 10 points changed to 14 + 14 of your predicted 2 tiers added total of 28 points That is way too much.

I'm actually assuming GC players get seeded at P1 even though more tiers are added. Under that scenario, the total number of matches required to promote to GC will drop for any player below 75% win rate, remain about the same for anyone at 75%, and be a bit higher for players significantly above 75% win rate.

If seeding actually seeds higher than that and sticks to the "drop six" rule we have now without accounting for more tiers, then once again Crashed's statement that 75% win rate players will see the same number of matches required would become false, and such players would actually see a significant reduction.

I'm not sure why you believe my calculations are correct but players would somehow need to do more matches, but if my calculations are correct then they are accurately determining the number of matches required. If you want to check my work:

Here you go. Although this code was vetted the last time major BG changes were made and its calculations validated back then.

So in order to accomodate people struggling, the people who didn't struggle have to work more, yeah I don't like it.

Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches.

Perhaps I should just focus on this one statement. Why do you think this is automatically the case? Adding more tiers on top of adding more medals does not automatically mean more matches. It could be more matches, it could be less matches, it could be the same number of matches. Doesn't that depend on how many more medals you earn?

I wonder if what's concerning you is the idea that the number of medals required could double while the number of medals won can't be doubling unless win rate is 100%. Which is true, but probably not in the way you think. Let's look at the average number of medals a 75% win rate player earns. On average they are going to win three out of four and lose one out of four. Which means on average they will win three medals and lose one every four matches. That is a net two medals out of every four matches, which means on average they are winning 0.5 medals per match.

Now let's look at the same player under the new scoring. They will still win three out of four and lose one out of four. That means they earn six points and lose one out of every four matches, which means a net of five points out of four matches, which means on average they will now be winning 5/4 = 1.25 trophies per match.

Notice: their average medal earning rate went up from 0.5 to 1.25. That's more than double.

There are other factors going on, like edge effects (which you mention) but this is the big one. 2/-1 is not twice the medals as 1/-1. For 75% players it is actually 150% more medals per match.

We have added additional ranks as well as additional medals to every rank. Wait to see the details but if you are one of those players breezing to the GC with a ~75% win rate, it's going to take about the same number of matches to get there.

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.

That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six. D4-D2 increase from three medals to six D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

That's way too much to add at the top end...wayyy too much if you add 2 Vib tracks at what? 7?

Based on my calculations, which admittedly I just worked out this morning, making all the changes I specified above would make players that average a 75% win rate break even on number of matches to promote to GC, and most players below 75% take fewer matches to promote. Those numbers look big, but that's probably because people are *vastly* underestimating the impact of +2/-1. For any player above 40% win rate, +2/-1 is rocket fuel.

This isn't the only way to satisfy all of Crashed's conditions, but it is a reasonable one. There's no way to do all of what Crashed is saying without adding more medals and more tiers in substantial numbers.

Let's compare Vibranium today vs Vibranium at seven medals but with +2/-1 scoring for players significantly below the 75% win rate. Let's look at 50%, and 40%.

At 50% win rate, it takes on average about 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. At 40% it takes about 74. Remember that at these win rates your net medals per match is actually zero or lower. You're promoting by getting lucky streaks of wins.

If we go to seven medals and +2/-1 scoring, the 50% win rate player now takes 12 matches, and the 40% player now takes 19. These are gargantuan improvements. In large part, that's because both players now have a net positive medal earning rate. At 50/50 with +2/-1 scoring, you're now earning 0.5 medals per match on average (two per win, one per loss, so on average you'll win two and lose one every two matches, so that's one medal net every two matches, or half a medal per match). Even the 40% player is now in the black, earning 0.1 medals per match on average. It isn't much, but any positive number is the difference between promoting eventually, and promoting only by getting lucky. That's the reason for the dramatic shift in number of matches required.

Those numbers look big, and the actual changes might be different from what I'm guessing, but they are very likely to be similar in magnitude, and the reason why they look big is because +2/-1 scoring is itself an enormous improvement for all players above 33% win rate.

Well see, this is why I don't like this system. The 75% win rate is based on RNG, Draft and all those things that can happen. Now to accomodate people struggling the point system is changed, along with that of course the track changes, the track gets longer ... So to accomodate people struggling the people who were doing fine (regardless of a 75% success rate) they will have to play more. Its not like your excess win coin gets pushed to the next tier either... For example win 3 in a row on a tier that requires 5 coins, you don't get 1 coin on the next tier. With all this tiers added I really wanna know what will happen with the seeding system. I don't think its fair to make EVERYBODY, have to play more matches to accommodate people who struggled.

Everybody won't be. Most players will play fewer matches to progress. A few will play more. Is that fair? There's two ways to look at it. The first is that such compromises are already built into the system, most players just don't see them. But the number of matches players are already doing to promote is somewhat arbitrarily set by the Victory track design, and those numbers could have just as easily been higher or lower. There were people doing better before they did the last set of changes as well. The idea that this particular change is unfair on the principle that you can't make things harder for some just to make them easier for others is belied by the fact that such decisions have already happened, and will continue to happen in the future.

The other way to look at it is that if the game mode isn't managed in a way that the long term health of the mode isn't catered to, then eventually none of us will have the mode to play. I'm not saying these changes were necessary, but you can't fault the developers for using their own judgment on protecting the game mode for everyone, even if it means deciding the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Also, these things you're talking about like overkill medals sounds like you're saying my calculations don't factor those things in, and that would change how the mode would "actually work." That's not the case. My calculations for how many matches it would take to promote factor all such effects in and directly measure the actual number of whole number matches it would take to promote, by using a statistical calculator and averaging the results of a million runs. It literally looks at every possible way to win and lose a sequence of battleground matches until promotion happens.

There are enough players doing enough matches that the odds of measurably more players doing more matches to promote than the statistical calculations would imply is lower than the odds of an asteroid colliding with the Earth and destroying it before the next Battleground season starts.

I am not doubting your calculations or you; but there is a pretty big flaw on this change compared to the previous time it was implemented. Previously there was a cut off for the 2/1 W/L point system Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches. If you told me the cut off of the 2:1 ratio was right at the seeding it would be understandable. From your math adding 2 more tiers at vibranium based on a 75% success rate is actually putting more work on people that managed to get into GC all this time P1-P3 9 points doubled to 18 D4-D2 9 points doubled to 18 D1 - V1 10 points changed to 14 + 14 of your predicted 2 tiers added total of 28 points That is way too much.

I'm actually assuming GC players get seeded at P1 even though more tiers are added. Under that scenario, the total number of matches required to promote to GC will drop for any player below 75% win rate, remain about the same for anyone at 75%, and be a bit higher for players significantly above 75% win rate.

If seeding actually seeds higher than that and sticks to the "drop six" rule we have now without accounting for more tiers, then once again Crashed's statement that 75% win rate players will see the same number of matches required would become false, and such players would actually see a significant reduction.

I'm not sure why you believe my calculations are correct but players would somehow need to do more matches, but if my calculations are correct then they are accurately determining the number of matches required. If you want to check my work:

Here you go. Although this code was vetted the last time major BG changes were made and its calculations validated back then.

So in order to accomodate people struggling, the people who didn't struggle have to work more, yeah I don't like it.

If you're going to argue that the players who were winning at a higher than 75% win rate should not be required to do a single match more than what they are doing now as a matter of principle, that's your prerogative. That's a separate matter from what I'm talking about at the moment, and without proper context (like the precise changes and how that will affect high win percentage players) I don't have much to say about that, as I have a less absolute opinion on that one.

Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches.

Perhaps I should just focus on this one statement. Why do you think this is automatically the case? Adding more tiers on top of adding more medals does not automatically mean more matches. It could be more matches, it could be less matches, it could be the same number of matches. Doesn't that depend on how many more medals you earn?

I wonder if what's concerning you is the idea that the number of medals required could double while the number of medals won can't be doubling unless win rate is 100%. Which is true, but probably not in the way you think. Let's look at the average number of medals a 75% win rate player earns. On average they are going to win three out of four and lose one out of four. Which means on average they will win three medals and lose one every four matches. That is a net two medals out of every four matches, which means on average they are winning 0.5 medals per match.

Now let's look at the same player under the new scoring. They will still win three out of four and lose one out of four. That means they earn six points and lose one out of every four matches, which means a net of five points out of four matches, which means on average they will now be winning 5/4 = 1.25 trophies per match.

Notice: their average medal earning rate went up from 0.5 to 1.25. That's more than double.

There are other factors going on, like edge effects (which you mention) but this is the big one. 2/-1 is not twice the medals as 1/-1. For 75% players it is actually 150% more medals per match.

I get that, but that is based on a constant 75% success rate... I have days where I win 3 in a row, get my objectives done and go on. There are other days that I lose 6 in a row and want to smash my phone against the wall .. more tiers means more matches for the reason I already explained.. winning 3 in a row in a 5 point tier won't give me 1 point on the next. More matches more pressure to keep that 75%... Its a lot easier to win 7 matches out of 10 than 14 out of 20 because of the RNG factors.

Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches.

Perhaps I should just focus on this one statement. Why do you think this is automatically the case? Adding more tiers on top of adding more medals does not automatically mean more matches. It could be more matches, it could be less matches, it could be the same number of matches. Doesn't that depend on how many more medals you earn?

I wonder if what's concerning you is the idea that the number of medals required could double while the number of medals won can't be doubling unless win rate is 100%. Which is true, but probably not in the way you think. Let's look at the average number of medals a 75% win rate player earns. On average they are going to win three out of four and lose one out of four. Which means on average they will win three medals and lose one every four matches. That is a net two medals out of every four matches, which means on average they are winning 0.5 medals per match.

Now let's look at the same player under the new scoring. They will still win three out of four and lose one out of four. That means they earn six points and lose one out of every four matches, which means a net of five points out of four matches, which means on average they will now be winning 5/4 = 1.25 trophies per match.

Notice: their average medal earning rate went up from 0.5 to 1.25. That's more than double.

There are other factors going on, like edge effects (which you mention) but this is the big one. 2/-1 is not twice the medals as 1/-1. For 75% players it is actually 150% more medals per match.

I get that, but that is based on a constant 75% success rate... I have days where I win 3 in a row, get my objectives done and go on. There are other days that I lose 6 in a row and want to smash my phone against the wall .. more tiers means more matches for the reason I already explained.. winning 3 in a row in a 5 point tier won't give me 1 point on the next. More matches more pressure to keep that 75%... Its a lot easier to win 7 matches out of 10 than 14 out of 20 because of the RNG factors.

At this point I'm really confused. First, because I don't know what you're trying to say when you say "constant success rate." That's just not how statistics works. If a player has a 75% win rate they will, on average, win about 7 out of 10 matches and 15 out of 20. That's what 75% win rate means.

But maybe what you're saying is that you think there are players who have an "intrinsic" win rate much lower, say 40%, and for those players it is much harder to achieve a *temporary* 75% win rate. Like, even a 40% win rate player can by random chance occasionally win seven out of ten matches.

But if that's what you're concerned about, such players will only reach such win rates rarely. Most of the time, they will win far less often. And those players will benefit even more from the new system.

When Crashed says players who win at a 75% win rate will break even, that doesn't mean that you have to achieve that win rate to break even. That means players who happen to win at that rate will break even and all players lower than that will need fewer matches to promote.

A player with 50% win rate today would need, on average, 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. Some would take fewer, some would take more, but that's the average. The same player with the same win rate playing under +2/-1 scoring and with seven medals required to promote would take about 12. Again, some would take more and some would take less, but the averages goes down substantially. Some of those players will get lucky and for brief streaks they will win more than 50% of their matches, while others will win fewer, but all of that is accounted for in the calculations.

I think at this point if you still don't understand what these calculations actually say, we need to either part ways or you need to sign up for my advanced class in statistical analysis.

If you are not winning in platinum then giving u 2 or 3 medals for a win wonât do you much. It will only push you up the ladder faster. I think it would probably help everyone more to not place key champion pieces etc behind the GC wall. Maybe in add it to the final solo milestones. At least then itâs grind-able.

Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches.

Perhaps I should just focus on this one statement. Why do you think this is automatically the case? Adding more tiers on top of adding more medals does not automatically mean more matches. It could be more matches, it could be less matches, it could be the same number of matches. Doesn't that depend on how many more medals you earn?

I wonder if what's concerning you is the idea that the number of medals required could double while the number of medals won can't be doubling unless win rate is 100%. Which is true, but probably not in the way you think. Let's look at the average number of medals a 75% win rate player earns. On average they are going to win three out of four and lose one out of four. Which means on average they will win three medals and lose one every four matches. That is a net two medals out of every four matches, which means on average they are winning 0.5 medals per match.

Now let's look at the same player under the new scoring. They will still win three out of four and lose one out of four. That means they earn six points and lose one out of every four matches, which means a net of five points out of four matches, which means on average they will now be winning 5/4 = 1.25 trophies per match.

Notice: their average medal earning rate went up from 0.5 to 1.25. That's more than double.

There are other factors going on, like edge effects (which you mention) but this is the big one. 2/-1 is not twice the medals as 1/-1. For 75% players it is actually 150% more medals per match.

I get that, but that is based on a constant 75% success rate... I have days where I win 3 in a row, get my objectives done and go on. There are other days that I lose 6 in a row and want to smash my phone against the wall .. more tiers means more matches for the reason I already explained.. winning 3 in a row in a 5 point tier won't give me 1 point on the next. More matches more pressure to keep that 75%... Its a lot easier to win 7 matches out of 10 than 14 out of 20 because of the RNG factors.

At this point I'm really confused. First, because I don't know what you're trying to say when you say "constant success rate." That's just not how statistics works. If a player has a 75% win rate they will, on average, win about 7 out of 10 matches and 15 out of 20. That's what 75% win rate means.

But maybe what you're saying is that you think there are players who have an "intrinsic" win rate much lower, say 40%, and for those players it is much harder to achieve a *temporary* 75% win rate. Like, even a 40% win rate player can by random chance occasionally win seven out of ten matches.

But if that's what you're concerned about, such players will only reach such win rates rarely. Most of the time, they will win far less often. And those players will benefit even more from the new system.

When Crashed says players who win at a 75% win rate will break even, that doesn't mean that you have to achieve that win rate to break even. That means players who happen to win at that rate will break even and all players lower than that will need fewer matches to promote.

A player with 50% win rate today would need, on average, 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. Some would take fewer, some would take more, but that's the average. The same player with the same win rate playing under +2/-1 scoring and with seven medals required to promote would take about 12. Again, some would take more and some would take less, but the averages goes down substantially. Some of those players will get lucky and for brief streaks they will win more than 50% of their matches, while others will win fewer, but all of that is accounted for in the calculations.

I think at this point if you still don't understand what these calculations actually say, we need to either part ways or you need to sign up for my advanced class in statistical analysis.

Yeah maybe I am not expressing it in a clear way. Look obviously if you get to GC you have a win rate higher than 50%. What I am trying to say is adding new tiers makes maintaining the success rate harder. Its easier to win 3 out of 4 than winning 7 out of 10. Its not a repetitive game where you have to do the same task every round. Its like playing paper rock scissors, I tell you best out of 3.. you lose and then say best out 5... And your chances to succeed increase while mine go down. If you tell me they don't add tiers its fine I guess, VT gets nerfed, but why do players who had no problems with the previous system have to go thru more tiers with more coins? Just because you win 2 and lose 1? This accomodates people that can't get out of Silver or Gold a lot more than people that have to sweat at the top of VT to get into GC. I guess it all depends on where the safe heaven for smaller accounts ends and where seeding starts matters too. I guess I will wait until the stream for the full info.

Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches.

Perhaps I should just focus on this one statement. Why do you think this is automatically the case? Adding more tiers on top of adding more medals does not automatically mean more matches. It could be more matches, it could be less matches, it could be the same number of matches. Doesn't that depend on how many more medals you earn?

I wonder if what's concerning you is the idea that the number of medals required could double while the number of medals won can't be doubling unless win rate is 100%. Which is true, but probably not in the way you think. Let's look at the average number of medals a 75% win rate player earns. On average they are going to win three out of four and lose one out of four. Which means on average they will win three medals and lose one every four matches. That is a net two medals out of every four matches, which means on average they are winning 0.5 medals per match.

Now let's look at the same player under the new scoring. They will still win three out of four and lose one out of four. That means they earn six points and lose one out of every four matches, which means a net of five points out of four matches, which means on average they will now be winning 5/4 = 1.25 trophies per match.

Notice: their average medal earning rate went up from 0.5 to 1.25. That's more than double.

There are other factors going on, like edge effects (which you mention) but this is the big one. 2/-1 is not twice the medals as 1/-1. For 75% players it is actually 150% more medals per match.

I get that, but that is based on a constant 75% success rate... I have days where I win 3 in a row, get my objectives done and go on. There are other days that I lose 6 in a row and want to smash my phone against the wall .. more tiers means more matches for the reason I already explained.. winning 3 in a row in a 5 point tier won't give me 1 point on the next. More matches more pressure to keep that 75%... Its a lot easier to win 7 matches out of 10 than 14 out of 20 because of the RNG factors.

At this point I'm really confused. First, because I don't know what you're trying to say when you say "constant success rate." That's just not how statistics works. If a player has a 75% win rate they will, on average, win about 7 out of 10 matches and 15 out of 20. That's what 75% win rate means.

But maybe what you're saying is that you think there are players who have an "intrinsic" win rate much lower, say 40%, and for those players it is much harder to achieve a *temporary* 75% win rate. Like, even a 40% win rate player can by random chance occasionally win seven out of ten matches.

But if that's what you're concerned about, such players will only reach such win rates rarely. Most of the time, they will win far less often. And those players will benefit even more from the new system.

When Crashed says players who win at a 75% win rate will break even, that doesn't mean that you have to achieve that win rate to break even. That means players who happen to win at that rate will break even and all players lower than that will need fewer matches to promote.

A player with 50% win rate today would need, on average, 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. Some would take fewer, some would take more, but that's the average. The same player with the same win rate playing under +2/-1 scoring and with seven medals required to promote would take about 12. Again, some would take more and some would take less, but the averages goes down substantially. Some of those players will get lucky and for brief streaks they will win more than 50% of their matches, while others will win fewer, but all of that is accounted for in the calculations.

I think at this point if you still don't understand what these calculations actually say, we need to either part ways or you need to sign up for my advanced class in statistical analysis.

Yeah maybe I am not expressing it in a clear way. Look obviously if you get to GC you have a win rate higher than 50%.

Thatâs actually not true. For example, I showed calculations for how long it takes for a 40% win rate player to promote on average. Consider a player that loses 20 matches in a row then wins five in a row. That player promotes with a 20% win rate. Now, thatâs very unlikely to happen, but it is not impossible. There is also the possibility that they lose 20 in a row then in four in a row, lose one, then win two more. Thatâs statistically more likely, but still rare. But when you add up all the possible but unlikely ways to do it, you can calculate an average number of matches to promote that all involve unlikely scenarios, but there enough of them to make the ludicrously unlikely just somewhat unlikely.

To put it another way, no matter how unlikely something is, it eventually becomes inevitable if you try long enough.

If you have a win rate above 50% and you play a reasonable number of matches you will get into GC. But GC also contains players with much lower win rates that were just willing to grind out ten times more matches. If you only consider average calculations, it is impossible to promote at 33% win rate. But if you account for the fact that random is random, and you look at all possible ways to arrive at a 33% win rate, there are lucky ways to promote. It takes hundreds of matches on average, but it is possible.

So there are players with (for example) 40% win rates that were/are struggling a lot to get to GC, that will benefit a lot by the change. The number of medals they need will go up, but their ability to progress will go from âonly when luckyâ to âinevitable.â

What I am trying to say is adding new tiers makes maintaining the success rate harder.

Suppose I were to flip a reasonably fair coin, and it came up heads about 500 times out of 1000. Would you say that it was harder to maintain that 50% ratio if I flipped 10,000 times, or a million times? Of course not. The coin has an intrinsic 50% head/tails odds, and those odds donât change if I flip more times.

All BG players have an intrinsic strength. That strength determines, in a complex way, how often they win. If one of the top tier players played me, theyâd probably win nine times out of ten, maybe more. But however often they won, they would probably have the same chance of winning after ten matches, a hundred matches, a thousand matches. Their win percentage would not drift towards 50% just because they played more matches and itâs âharderâ to maintain that win rate, because that win rate is predominantly determined by skill. To the extent that random chance factors in, it factors in within every match. It doesnât âbuild upâ over time.

If we play enough matches, then by random chance I might suddenly win ten in a row. But that doesnât mean my winning percentage would increase in the long run, because there would also be plenty of times I would lose a hundred in a row. These random fluctuations will always average out. If they didnât, they wouldn't be random.

If you find it harder to maintain your winning rate as you play more and more matches, that means your initial win percentage was not your true win rate to begin with, that was just luck, and more matches is pushing towards your true strength and winning rate.

The idea that everyone has an instrinsic competitive strength (that may change over time), and everyoneâs win/loss ratios in some ways âmeasureâ that intrinsic strength, and random factors eventually average out over time, forms the mathematical basis for things like ELO and other competitive ratings systems. It is basically how the gladiator circuit works, and while we donât use ratings matches in VT, the same principles allow us to calculate player progression through VT.

## Comments

5,322â â â â âNo matter how you look at it the change is beneficial, climbing up will be easier, not faster but easier.

4,192â â â â â5,322â â â â â688â â â19-6 last 25 thoâŠso almost 80% wins...reasonably happy atm.

My 6R5A Onslaugt and R3 Bullseye gets banned all the time, so my 6R5 Sinister has become my mvp defenderâŠnobody has killed him yet, and he gets a lot of kills himselfâŠlove his buff đ

5,786â â â â â307â â â36,473â â â â â19,242Guardian

For reference, it takes on average about nine matches for a player with a 75% win rate to promote in any of the high tiers that require five medals. With 2/-1 scoring, that number drops to about 4.25, more than twice as fast. To return to an average of 9 matches would require the medals required to increase from five to eleven.That's so high that I doubt they would increase the medals required by that much. Consistent with Crashed's statement, I believe the most likely changes will involve increasing the medal count required for VT tiers from Platinum to Diamond from three to six, and increasing Vibranium from five to seven.

Increasing Platinum from three to six while increasing medals per win from one to two would change the average number of matches required to promote from five to about 4.7 (for a player with a 75% win rate), which is more or less the same. Increasing Vibranium from five to seven actually reduces the number of matches required from 9 to 5.8, which means to keep the approximate matches required the same the number of tracks would have to increase by two.

So, this is my guestimate using very rough numbers:

P1-3 increase from three medals to six.

D4-D2 increase from three medals to six

D1-V1 increase from five medals to seven

Add two tracks in Vibranium

I haven't really triple checked those numbers, but I think I'm somewhere in the general ballpark.

4,192â â â â â4,800â â â â â19,242GuardianThis isn't the only way to satisfy all of Crashed's conditions, but it is a reasonable one. There's no way to do all of what Crashed is saying without adding more medals and more tiers in substantial numbers.

Let's compare Vibranium today vs Vibranium at seven medals but with +2/-1 scoring for players significantly below the 75% win rate. Let's look at 50%, and 40%.

At 50% win rate, it takes on average about 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. At 40% it takes about 74. Remember that at these win rates your net medals per match is actually zero or lower. You're promoting by getting lucky streaks of wins.

If we go to seven medals and +2/-1 scoring, the 50% win rate player now takes 12 matches, and the 40% player now takes 19. These are gargantuan improvements. In large part, that's because both players now have a net positive medal earning rate. At 50/50 with +2/-1 scoring, you're now earning 0.5 medals per match on average (two per win, one per loss, so on average you'll win two and lose one every two matches, so that's one medal net every two matches, or half a medal per match). Even the 40% player is now in the black, earning 0.1 medals per match on average. It isn't much, but any positive number is the difference between promoting eventually, and promoting only by getting lucky. That's the reason for the dramatic shift in number of matches required.

Those numbers look big, and the actual changes might be different from what I'm guessing, but they are very likely to be similar in magnitude, and the reason why they look big is because +2/-1 scoring is itself an enormous improvement for all players above 33% win rate.

4,192â â â â âThe 75% win rate is based on RNG, Draft and all those things that can happen.

Now to accomodate people struggling the point system is changed, along with that of course the track changes, the track gets longer ... So to accomodate people struggling the people who were doing fine (regardless of a 75% success rate) they will have to play more.

Its not like your excess win coin gets pushed to the next tier either... For example win 3 in a row on a tier that requires 5 coins, you don't get 1 coin on the next tier.

With all this tiers added I really wanna know what will happen with the seeding system. I don't think its fair to make EVERYBODY, have to play more matches to accommodate people who struggled.

19,242GuardianBut if you're thinking that because 75% is abnormal the devs picked the wrong number to balance around, you should consider that

everyone below that number does better.If you want to pick a number such that everyone

belowthe number does better under the new system, wouldn't you want to pick ahighnumber to balance around?36,473â â â â â7,313Guardian19,242GuardianThe other way to look at it is that if the game mode isn't managed in a way that the long term health of the mode isn't catered to, then eventually none of us will have the mode to play. I'm not saying these changes were necessary, but you can't fault the developers for using their own judgment on protecting the game mode for everyone, even if it means deciding the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Also, these things you're talking about like overkill medals sounds like you're saying my calculations don't factor those things in, and that would change how the mode would "actually work." That's not the case. My calculations for how many matches it would take to promote factor all such effects in and directly measure the actual number of whole number matches it would take to promote, by using a statistical calculator and averaging the results of a million runs. It literally looks at every possible way to win and lose a sequence of battleground matches until promotion happens.

There are enough players doing enough matches that the odds of measurably more players doing more matches to promote than the statistical calculations would imply is lower than the odds of an asteroid colliding with the Earth and destroying it before the next Battleground season starts.

2,097â â â â âAlso keep in mind that the current system already awards 2 medals per win up until gold, so part of the process to reach platinum is unchanged. Most of the change will be in the diamond - vibranium levels.

19,242GuardianWhether it is actually harder to reach the solo milestones depends on how much you decide to play while in GC, if you are one of those players that gets there in fewer matches.

Although one of the effects that will help some but not all players is the fact that because promotion will now be easier, fewer players will get stuck before Vibranium. That means more players will promote through Diamond, which means more players will earn the maximum amount of marks. There are no marks in Vibranium, but anyone who didn't reach Vibranium didn't get all of the marks available. Those players will now be able to use more marks and earn a bit more points as a result, all other things being equal.

4,192â â â â âPreviously there was a cut off for the 2/1 W/L point system Adding new tiers suggests that thr cut off won't exist. Which means having to play more matches. If you told me the cut off of the 2:1 ratio was right at the seeding it would be understandable. From your math adding 2 more tiers at vibranium based on a 75% success rate is actually putting more work on people that managed to get into GC all this time

P1-P3 9 points doubled to 18

D4-D2 9 points doubled to 18

D1 - V1 10 points changed to 14 + 14 of your predicted 2 tiers added total of 28 points

That is way too much.

19,242GuardianThe net effect is going to depend less on how the scoring changes, and more on whether players play more earlier in the season due to the changes, so it is difficult to predict if players will see a noticeable change. But the one thing the changes cannot do is accelerate lower progress players into the field of higher strength players in the Platinum and higher tiers, because those players are not getting any faster in those tiers in the first place.

(The only way for them to get faster is to earn more medals, which seems unlikely. They could get slower, if the devs add more medals or tiers to lower VT, but to me that also seems unlikely.)

19,242GuardianIf seeding actually seeds higher than that and sticks to the "drop six" rule we have now without accounting for more tiers, then once again Crashed's statement that 75% win rate players will see the same number of matches required would become false, and such players would actually see a significant reduction.

I'm not sure why you believe my calculations are correct but players would somehow need to do more matches, but if my calculations are correct then they are accurately determining the number of matches required. If you want to check my work:

Here you go. Although this code was vetted the last time major BG changes were made and its calculations validated back then.

4,192â â â â â19,242Guardianon top of adding more medalsdoes not automatically mean more matches. It could be more matches, it could be less matches, it could be the same number of matches. Doesn't that depend on how many more medals you earn?I wonder if what's concerning you is the idea that the number of medals required could double while the number of medals won can't be doubling unless win rate is 100%. Which is true, but probably not in the way you think. Let's look at the average number of medals a 75% win rate player earns. On average they are going to win three out of four and lose one out of four. Which means on average they will win three medals and lose one every four matches. That is a net two medals out of every four matches, which means on average they are winning 0.5 medals per match.

Now let's look at the same player under the new scoring. They will still win three out of four and lose one out of four. That means they earn six points and lose one out of every four matches, which means a net of five points out of four matches, which means on average they will now be winning 5/4 = 1.25 trophies per match.

Notice: their average medal earning rate went up from 0.5 to 1.25.

That's more than double.There are other factors going on, like edge effects (which you mention) but this is the big one. 2/-1 is not twice the medals as 1/-1. For 75% players it is actually 150% more medals per match.

19,242Guardian4,192â â â â âMore matches more pressure to keep that 75%...

Its a lot easier to win 7 matches out of 10 than 14 out of 20 because of the RNG factors.

19,242Guardianmeans.But maybe what you're saying is that you think there are players who have an "intrinsic" win rate much lower, say 40%, and for those players it is much harder to achieve a *temporary* 75% win rate. Like, even a 40% win rate player can by random chance occasionally win seven out of ten matches.

But if that's what you're concerned about, such players will only reach such win rates rarely. Most of the time, they will win far less often.

And those players will benefit even more from the new system.When Crashed says players who win at a 75% win rate will break even, that doesn't mean that you have to achieve that win rate to break even. That means players who happen to win at that rate will break even

and all players lower than that will need fewer matches to promote.A player with 50% win rate today would need, on average, 30 matches to promote in Vibranium. Some would take fewer, some would take more, but that's the average. The same player with the same win rate playing under +2/-1 scoring and with seven medals required to promote would take about 12. Again, some would take more and some would take less, but the averages goes down substantially. Some of those players will get lucky and for brief streaks they will win more than 50% of their matches, while others will win fewer, but all of that is accounted for in the calculations.

I think at this point if you still don't understand what these calculations actually say, we need to either part ways or you need to sign up for my advanced class in statistical analysis.

767â â â88âI think it would probably help everyone more to not place key champion pieces etc behind the GC wall. Maybe in add it to the final solo milestones. At least then itâs grind-able.

4,192â â â â âLook obviously if you get to GC you have a win rate higher than 50%.

What I am trying to say is adding new tiers makes maintaining the success rate harder. Its easier to win 3 out of 4 than winning 7 out of 10. Its not a repetitive game where you have to do the same task every round.

Its like playing paper rock scissors, I tell you best out of 3.. you lose and then say best out 5... And your chances to succeed increase while mine go down.

If you tell me they don't add tiers its fine I guess, VT gets nerfed, but why do players who had no problems with the previous system have to go thru more tiers with more coins? Just because you win 2 and lose 1? This accomodates people that can't get out of Silver or Gold a lot more than people that have to sweat at the top of VT to get into GC.

I guess it all depends on where the safe heaven for smaller accounts ends and where seeding starts matters too.

I guess I will wait until the stream for the full info.

19,242GuardianTo put it another way, no matter how unlikely something is, it eventually becomes inevitable if you try long enough.

If you have a win rate above 50% and you play a reasonable number of matches you will get into GC. But GC also contains players with much lower win rates that were just willing to grind out ten times more matches. If you only consider average calculations, it is impossible to promote at 33% win rate. But if you account for the fact that random is random, and you look at all possible ways to arrive at a 33% win rate, there are lucky ways to promote. It takes hundreds of matches on average, but it is possible.

So there are players with (for example) 40% win rates that were/are struggling a lot to get to GC, that will benefit a lot by the change. The number of medals they need will go up, but their ability to progress will go from âonly when luckyâ to âinevitable.â Suppose I were to flip a reasonably fair coin, and it came up heads about 500 times out of 1000. Would you say that it was harder to maintain that 50% ratio if I flipped 10,000 times, or a million times? Of course not. The coin has an intrinsic 50% head/tails odds, and those odds donât change if I flip more times.

All BG players have an intrinsic strength. That strength determines, in a complex way, how often they win. If one of the top tier players played me, theyâd probably win nine times out of ten, maybe more. But however often they won, they would probably have the same chance of winning after ten matches, a hundred matches, a thousand matches. Their win percentage would not drift towards 50% just because they played more matches and itâs âharderâ to maintain that win rate, because that win rate is predominantly determined by skill. To the extent that random chance factors in, it factors in within every match. It doesnât âbuild upâ over time.

If we play enough matches, then by random chance I might suddenly win ten in a row. But that doesnât mean my winning percentage would increase in the long run, because there would also be plenty of times I would lose a hundred in a row. These random fluctuations will always average out. If they didnât, they wouldn't be random.

If you find it harder to maintain your winning rate as you play more and more matches, that means your initial win percentage was not your true win rate to begin with, that was just luck, and more matches is pushing towards your true strength and winning rate.

The idea that everyone has an instrinsic competitive strength (that may change over time), and everyoneâs win/loss ratios in some ways âmeasureâ that intrinsic strength, and random factors eventually average out over time, forms the mathematical basis for things like ELO and other competitive ratings systems. It is basically how the gladiator circuit works, and while we donât use ratings matches in VT, the same principles allow us to calculate player progression through VT.