Battlegrounds is like playing a drag racing game where you have to race a sports car with a tractor

NW2NW2 Member Posts: 15
Match making is ridiculous and there has to be another way. I get it my account is smaller than other players and I don’t deserve to get the same rewards they get so rather than pairing me up with accounts that I have no chance of beating and get absolutely 0 fun out of even playing the match, pair me up with a fair match and give me less rewards, otherwise there is just no point in playing this game mode anymore.
In well over 50% of my matchups I have 0 chance of winning and even if I win 75% of the fair matchups, advancing is a miracle.
I am 6 wins in the last 25 matches and if I’d played perfectly at best I could have won two more so that’s a 33% win ratio best case scenario.
Anytime I level up it’s out of pure luck combined with sheer determination to not give up and 0% enjoyment. But like a bad gambler I keep trying, hoping for that lucky winning streak.
«13

Comments

  • MarvelNoobMarvelNoob Member Posts: 1,190 ★★★★
    As much as this topic irks me, I love the simile so take my LOL!
  • smdam38smdam38 Member Posts: 1,596 ★★★
    Having a game mode that only caters to the top 1% of your players in the game seems a bit rash.

    All the “get good” and “it’s competitive” replies are hilarious to me.

    “Well by gosh, I just beat this fella with 3 6* r4 champions with my 9 7* r3s and I feel like a king.”

    With so many 7* that were pushed way too fast. Have rarity battlegrounds.
    Like for like fights.
  • NW2NW2 Member Posts: 15
    Respectfully, there was more time crafting that response then reading and understanding what I was saying. It’s insulting to have my words twisted into saying that I’m asking for the very thing I’m saying I want to see changed.

    I’m not asking for special treatment just fair treatment.

    I don’t agree with the concept that I should have to stop playing until the stronger accounts move on. How would I even know it’s safe to come out without trying a couple matches…

    The gap in account strength expands faster than I can grow my account.

    If all players who hit this wall stop playing then the large accounts will have to earn their wins and won’t move on as quickly.

    As I type this my boy is quitting a match because it was unfair and sadly he doesn’t even get milestone points unless he wastes the next 10 minutes of his life taking a beating.
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,942 ★★★★★
    MCoC players were definetly not ready for the reality of a PvP mode...
  • NW2NW2 Member Posts: 15
    This isn’t a PvP, it’s a slaughter house when you lose 30 matches in a row and only had a legit chance to win 1 or 2 of the matches.

    It’s quite a carrot to dangle when 3 BG wins gets you the daily super event milestones but you can’t actually win 3 times…

    People get upset if you lose on purpose to stay in the lower brackets but they don’t get upset when the game makes you lose on purpose so they can feed the big fish.

    Upgrade your tractor is a real Marie Antoinette thing to say when upgrade resources are so hard to get.

    All I want is for Kabam to consider an alternative option to make the game mode fair and fun.
  • xLunatiXxxLunatiXx Member Posts: 1,443 ★★★★★
    It's fair and fun to me. So nothing to change I guess.
    And don't come at me with you're a whale and whatnot. I'm FTP. Yes I'm more than decent at the game. But with effort in game and skill everyone is doable and can be enjoyed.
    If you're lacking in one of the above, time for self reflection
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,856 Guardian
    smdam38 said:

    Having a game mode that only caters to the top 1% of your players in the game seems a bit rash.

    Well good thing for us Battlegrounds doesn't do that.
  • Ayden_noah1Ayden_noah1 Member Posts: 1,944 ★★★★
    Dam @DNA3000 is not holding back. In Kabam's perspective, they want players to rank up their champs and progress in the game. They would love everyone to be Valiant since that means everyone is doing the story content and upgrading their rosters to meet the requirements. If there was no incentive to rank up more than 10 - 15 champs, this game will stop being fun for a lot of players. In this case all you would need is 3 for AW, 3 for war and 5 for monthly event and side quest. Which means once you got you set of champs you have no desire to spend more resources to upgrade anyone else. With WOW, SOS, Raids, Alliance war showcase and especially BG, players are now more eager to rank up more than the 10-15 champs to compete. This is why it wouldn't be worthwile for Kabam to match only same like rosters in BG, they want players to progress and rank up as many champs as possible. They want the new champs to be desire not only by the handful of players. These game cost money to develop and maintain. The game economy requires players to acquire new champs and rank up as much champs as possible to make money.
  • smdam38smdam38 Member Posts: 1,596 ★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    smdam38 said:

    Having a game mode that only caters to the top 1% of your players in the game seems a bit rash.

    Well good thing for us Battlegrounds doesn't do that.
    Who are the top ten in BGs? Mostly whoever can afford the best roster.

    Again, I’m fine with that. If they’re putting in that effort and money, that helps everyone.

    I’d just like to see a like for like competitive mode and see how different the top ten are.

    I would obviously be down here at the bottom of the barrel looking up. But would definitely watch.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,856 Guardian
    NW2 said:

    This isn’t a PvP, it’s a slaughter house when you lose 30 matches in a row and only had a legit chance to win 1 or 2 of the matches.

    It’s quite a carrot to dangle when 3 BG wins gets you the daily super event milestones but you can’t actually win 3 times…

    People get upset if you lose on purpose to stay in the lower brackets but they don’t get upset when the game makes you lose on purpose so they can feed the big fish.

    Upgrade your tractor is a real Marie Antoinette thing to say when upgrade resources are so hard to get.

    All I want is for Kabam to consider an alternative option to make the game mode fair and fun.



    This is the lowest alt I'm currently playing through BG this season. It is a low Cav (the other account is now a mid Thronebreaker) with a deck I haven't changed since last season, because honestly I don't have anything else leveled up anyway. In fact that MODOK is there basically because I had no other alternatives leveled. It is not a horrible deck, but no one would accuse it of being a pay to win roster or anything. In fact, I have never spent in this account, and never really grinded at all either. It just sits in my alliance humming along doing map 3 while I play it occasionally outside of BG, where I use it to test out the low tiers of VT.

    This account is currently in P5 and has about 200k solo points, having started in Bronze 5 at the beginning of the season. I have never missed getting the milestone crystals in this account. It is only this high because I didn't want to waste the compensation package. In fact, I still haven't claimed the compensation package yet because that would overflow my marks: I haven't played enough to exhaust them enough yet. To me, this is an excellent result for such an account with lots of time left in the season, especially when I'm not trying super hard (yet - I really want to burn down those marks, but might as well wait to the end of the season to do that).

    Now, if this account was in D5 or V5, instead of P5, that would be stupid. There are Valiant players still struggling to get through Diamond. If this account had an easy path to get past them without ever having to face them, that's simply not fair. What you're asking for is to be shielded from those players, because that's what you think is fair. But that's literally the definition of unfair: to be given special protections from them so they have to fight each other to promote upward, but you don't. You just have to fight the players with the same roster as you, because you think that's fair.

    What you are confused about is the difference between a fair fight and a fair competition. A fair fight is where both sides have an equal chance of winning. A fair competition is one where the stronger competitors beat the weaker ones. Because the purpose of a competition is not to provide a safe space for competitors to practice in. The purpose of a competition is to find and reward the strongest competitors. Fair competitions by definition create unfair match ups, because the whole point is to figure out who's the strongest competitors, by seeing who they can beat and who they can't beat.

    I know I'm better than the players I beat, because I beat them. I know the players better than me are better because they beat me. A competition settles this question in the competition. It doesn't guess I'm better because I have the stronger roster, it doesn't guess I'm worse because I have the weaker roster. It makes the players play the game.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,856 Guardian
    smdam38 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    smdam38 said:

    Having a game mode that only caters to the top 1% of your players in the game seems a bit rash.

    Well good thing for us Battlegrounds doesn't do that.
    Who are the top ten in BGs? Mostly whoever can afford the best roster.
    Actually, I've been told the top players in BG are not all whales.

    But more to the point, if BG only caters to the 1% because there are prizes for the top 1%, then AQ also caters to the 1%, as does AW, as does the arena. How many players do you think are Valiant at this point? It is unlikely to be a lot more than 10%, so the whole game caters to the top 10%.

    That's what all games do. The better rewards are at the top. But to say that BG caters to the top 1% implies that the entire game mode is built almost exclusively for them. However, over 200k players play BG, that's a large chunk of the entire player population. And there are lots of things that do not benefit stronger progressions as much or more than lower ones. The solo milestones for example are not progression locked. So when a Valiant player gets a bunch of 7* shards that is an okay reward, but when a Cavalier player gets them that's a huge reward. And higher players have no particular advantage in earning solo milestones.

    In fact, the entire Victory Track itself benefits lower players more than higher ones. If BG really wanted to "cater to the top 1%" it wouldn't have a Victory Track, it would just have a Gladiator Circuit, and everyone would win or lose on rating, and no matter how high you climbed you could always lose your way back to the bottom.
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,942 ★★★★★
    NW2 said:

    This isn’t a PvP, it’s a slaughter house when you lose 30 matches in a row and only had a legit chance to win 1 or 2 of the matches.

    It’s quite a carrot to dangle when 3 BG wins gets you the daily super event milestones but you can’t actually win 3 times…

    People get upset if you lose on purpose to stay in the lower brackets but they don’t get upset when the game makes you lose on purpose so they can feed the big fish.

    Upgrade your tractor is a real Marie Antoinette thing to say when upgrade resources are so hard to get.

    All I want is for Kabam to consider an alternative option to make the game mode fair and fun.

    Why do people think they are being fed to the big fish. I have alliance mates who have bigger accounts than mine and they are in lower tiers just because they want to do the minimum. They are not being given easy wins either or their experience would be 100% wins.
    MCoC was not ready for a PvP mode.
  • smdam38smdam38 Member Posts: 1,596 ★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    smdam38 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    smdam38 said:

    Having a game mode that only caters to the top 1% of your players in the game seems a bit rash.

    Well good thing for us Battlegrounds doesn't do that.
    Who are the top ten in BGs? Mostly whoever can afford the best roster.
    Actually, I've been told the top players in BG are not all whales.

    But more to the point, if BG only caters to the 1% because there are prizes for the top 1%, then AQ also caters to the 1%, as does AW, as does the arena. How many players do you think are Valiant at this point? It is unlikely to be a lot more than 10%, so the whole game caters to the top 10%.

    That's what all games do. The better rewards are at the top. But to say that BG caters to the top 1% implies that the entire game mode is built almost exclusively for them. However, over 200k players play BG, that's a large chunk of the entire player population. And there are lots of things that do not benefit stronger progressions as much or more than lower ones. The solo milestones for example are not progression locked. So when a Valiant player gets a bunch of 7* shards that is an okay reward, but when a Cavalier player gets them that's a huge reward. And higher players have no particular advantage in earning solo milestones.

    In fact, the entire Victory Track itself benefits lower players more than higher ones. If BG really wanted to "cater to the top 1%" it wouldn't have a Victory Track, it would just have a Gladiator Circuit, and everyone would win or lose on rating, and no matter how high you climbed you could always lose your way back to the bottom.
    You partial quoted me, again. It wasn’t one of your novels, so quote the whole post.
  • DarkNightRiseDarkNightRise Member Posts: 446 ★★★
    Ok OP. I’m the one made many threads and comments about this BG matching system. There are many ways to make this game mode more fun and “fair”, which is fair for all players, which is creating BG system base on Title, with higher reward corresponding to higher Title, which will make sure more “fair” matchmaking, and “fair” reward for higher account roster, but it’s not gonna work and I give up because the main reason as DNA mentioned: It will make many many players stop evolve their roster, because you still can enjoy the game mode even with the whole 4 star deck!

    It is clear that many players, including me either come or come back to this game because of BG, not those boring AQ or stressful AW. So, if players don’t want to evolve their roster, it will hurt Kabam’s pocket seriously. We have to understand that they waste resources to running this game and they need to make BENEFIT, not for charity. Therefore, psychologically matching you with whale of course will create frustration and push you to spend more to grow your roster. Beside, they need to satisfy their loyal customers, which is those whale here, by giving them more easy matches to promote. This is the reason why since the next season, they will remove any criteria for matchmaking even below Pla2 as before! So, take it easy, touching more grass is better than spending too much time on the screen.
  • NW2NW2 Member Posts: 15
    It seems the only thing we can agree on is the game mode is either horrible for you or horrible for me. It’s just you don’t value my opinion of it being horrible for me.

    If you haven’t lost every match in your 25 game recent history multiple times then you just can’t understand what a horrible experience that is. If you have and you are okay with that then we simply don’t have the same opinion of what makes the game fun.

    I’m not asking for it to go back to the way it was when it was horrible for you. I’m not asking for easy wins or the same rewards as larger accounts. I’m asking for an alternative so I can play BGs against other players in a way that is fun.

    I can only play four matches on energy and there is a near 100% chance that if I try it right now I’ll have no chance of winning any of them and the fights are likely going to be miserable. Is it awful that I want a mechanism so that when I hit find match I can have at least a hope of enjoying the experience?
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,942 ★★★★★
    NW2 said:

    It seems the only thing we can agree on is the game mode is either horrible for you or horrible for me. It’s just you don’t value my opinion of it being horrible for me.

    If you haven’t lost every match in your 25 game recent history multiple times then you just can’t understand what a horrible experience that is. If you have and you are okay with that then we simply don’t have the same opinion of what makes the game fun.

    I’m not asking for it to go back to the way it was when it was horrible for you. I’m not asking for easy wins or the same rewards as larger accounts. I’m asking for an alternative so I can play BGs against other players in a way that is fun.

    I can only play four matches on energy and there is a near 100% chance that if I try it right now I’ll have no chance of winning any of them and the fights are likely going to be miserable. Is it awful that I want a mechanism so that when I hit find match I can have at least a hope of enjoying the experience?

    BGs has been around for almost 2 years, and the only changes made so far have been about matchmaking to cater for lower progression people. Is it too much for the game to ask for you to progress and improve your roster to participate?
  • captain_rogerscaptain_rogers Member Posts: 10,369 ★★★★★
    Actually one thing everyone needs to get is, BGs aren't fun for anyone below paragon.
    TB/cavs play few matches and they start to face valiant accounts.

    and the alternate solution, bg matches based on progression tier, is as worse as the current system, if not more.

    Now don't tell me "git gud" cuz it takes months for a casual cavailer player to reach valiant tier.

    Kabam have to do something about this. Some workaround so low tier players can also have fun with bgs.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,856 Guardian
    smdam38 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    smdam38 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    smdam38 said:

    Having a game mode that only caters to the top 1% of your players in the game seems a bit rash.

    Well good thing for us Battlegrounds doesn't do that.
    Who are the top ten in BGs? Mostly whoever can afford the best roster.
    Actually, I've been told the top players in BG are not all whales.

    But more to the point, if BG only caters to the 1% because there are prizes for the top 1%, then AQ also caters to the 1%, as does AW, as does the arena. How many players do you think are Valiant at this point? It is unlikely to be a lot more than 10%, so the whole game caters to the top 10%.

    That's what all games do. The better rewards are at the top. But to say that BG caters to the top 1% implies that the entire game mode is built almost exclusively for them. However, over 200k players play BG, that's a large chunk of the entire player population. And there are lots of things that do not benefit stronger progressions as much or more than lower ones. The solo milestones for example are not progression locked. So when a Valiant player gets a bunch of 7* shards that is an okay reward, but when a Cavalier player gets them that's a huge reward. And higher players have no particular advantage in earning solo milestones.

    In fact, the entire Victory Track itself benefits lower players more than higher ones. If BG really wanted to "cater to the top 1%" it wouldn't have a Victory Track, it would just have a Gladiator Circuit, and everyone would win or lose on rating, and no matter how high you climbed you could always lose your way back to the bottom.
    You partial quoted me, again. It wasn’t one of your novels, so quote the whole post.
    I quoted the part I was responding to. Here's the entire post:
    smdam38 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    smdam38 said:

    Having a game mode that only caters to the top 1% of your players in the game seems a bit rash.

    Well good thing for us Battlegrounds doesn't do that.
    Who are the top ten in BGs? Mostly whoever can afford the best roster.

    Again, I’m fine with that. If they’re putting in that effort and money, that helps everyone.

    I’d just like to see a like for like competitive mode and see how different the top ten are.

    I would obviously be down here at the bottom of the barrel looking up. But would definitely watch.
    And now, having quoted all of it, my response is still exactly the same, only now I have to specify: when you say "Who are the top ten in BGs? Mostly whoever can afford the best roster" I believe that to be false, or at least not completely true. And then assuming you were being responsive to my post in the first place, where I say "Well good thing for us BNattlegrounds doesn't do that" referring to your post saying that Battlegrounds caters to the top 1%, you know what, you can just read the rest a second time.
  • smdam38smdam38 Member Posts: 1,596 ★★★
    Incursions has tiers, if you can’t compete/finish one you go down one.

    BGs needs a similar system. Hero rating or champ rarity limits.
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,942 ★★★★★
    smdam38 said:

    Incursions has tiers, if you can’t compete/finish one you go down one.

    BGs needs a similar system. Hero rating or champ rarity limits.

    Yeah sure lets make a lower version of Necropolis to cater for lower progression players too.. lets make 2 or 3 versions or absolutely everything....
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,856 Guardian
    NW2 said:

    It seems the only thing we can agree on is the game mode is either horrible for you or horrible for me. It’s just you don’t value my opinion of it being horrible for me.

    You say that like this is a completely arbitrary decision. It isn't.

    People have complained before about the game being too difficult. When a player says the game is too difficult and not enjoyable for them, we can either make the entire game easier just for them, or we can keep the game at the same difficulty for everyone else. But that's not an arbitrary decision. We aren't just saying oh well, either we make those people happy or these other people happy. This is a progressional game. Progressional games have difficulty ladders. That's intrinsic within the foundation of what they are. Without escalating difficulty, you cannot make a reasonable progressional game based on combat.

    Battlegrounds is not some random addition to the game like changing the background colors of the main screen. Battlegrounds exists for a specific reason: to add a very specific competitive game mode for the benefit of players who want that type of content. It is not arbitrary to say well, we can make it align with competitive gaming practices, or we can water them down to make the players who don't want those features more happy. The mode is a competitive game mode. That's the only reason it exists.

    The same thing is true for people who complain the arena is too grindy. The mode is there to create that avenue for players who want to grind for resources, instead of say, buying them or tackling the most difficult content to reach them or join the top alliances to win them in alliance content. Those things are there for the people who want those things. Alliance war is for people who want to do alliance war-like content. Alliance quest is for people who want that sort of content in MCOC. Raids are for players who want more of an MMO raid-like experience, to the best of the game's ability to replicate it.

    Battlegrounds is intended to be a competitive game mode where players can take their rosters and throw them up against everyone else, to see who is the strongest competitor. The devs did not flip a coin and say heads we make it competitive, tails we make it less competitive. In BG, the competitive aspects of the game mode have the highest priority.

    If it is horrible for you, and the *reason* why it is horrible for you is because you can't accept that there are players with stronger rosters and if you want to progress higher to have to beat them, then Battlegrounds is not for you.

    If you don't want to grind, don't do arena. If you do not want to play on the same map as your alliance mates, or don't even want to be in an alliance, then don't do AQ. If you don't want to fight every strong defender in the game constantly, don't do Alliance War. If you don't like facing random nodes, don't do Incursions. And if you don't like competition, as this game defines competition (along with most of the rest of the world), then don't do Battlegrounds.

    Hundreds of thousands of other players do just fine. Most of them lose at lot, but they still play.
    NW2 said:


    I can only play four matches on energy and there is a near 100% chance that if I try it right now I’ll have no chance of winning any of them and the fights are likely going to be miserable. Is it awful that I want a mechanism so that when I hit find match I can have at least a hope of enjoying the experience?

    Yes. Yes it is awful. You're asking for wins. You can couch it in whatever terms you want, but the bottom line is to are losing a lot, and you want to lose less. You say you just want hope, but you can't have hope if you keep losing. You're only going to have that hope if you win, at least occasionally. And to give you that win, we have to find another *player* and make them lose. That's the only way for you to win. Someone else must lose.

    Pick one, and ask them if they wouldn't mind losing their next match to make you happier.

    When we discuss content difficulty, we're talking about pixels. We can debate whether content should be more or les difficult, and while that's not an arbitrary decision like I state above, at the end of the day the content is there to serve us, the players. The content has no rights. The content has no feelings. If we nerf the content, it does not care. But when you ask for more wins, you are asking for other players to have more losses. Every single win you ask for comes at the expense of another player. Not content: other players.

    So who should lose more than they are now, so you can win more than you do now?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,856 Guardian


    No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,942 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:



    No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.

    Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
  • Little_Crocodili29Little_Crocodili29 Member Posts: 332 ★★★
    I'm the farthest thing from a kabam white knight - quite the contrary, I often only write here when I have feedback (which I'm sure they consider more like criticism).

    But I'm very happy with the changes. Yes it's more matches, and it's win some lose some. But it's fine. I don't feel unfairly stuck anymore like before.
  • jdschwjdschw Member Posts: 476 ★★★
    Folks are being hard on the OP. @NW2 i think the bottom line here is that you don't like this mode. I get it. Competition is stressful.

    You don't need to play this mode. It's not mandatory. If there are other modes that you enjoy playing, play those. If you don't enjoy any of the modes, then maybe consider a new hobby. They'd no shame in it.

    If you hate this mode but you want the rewards anyway, then i can't help there. I would love a nobel prize, but i haven't done the work required to earn one. So i don't get one.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Member Posts: 22,380 ★★★★★
    NW2 said:

    Respectfully, there was more time crafting that response then reading and understanding what I was saying. It’s insulting to have my words twisted into saying that I’m asking for the very thing I’m saying I want to see changed.

    I’m not asking for special treatment just fair treatment.

    I don’t agree with the concept that I should have to stop playing until the stronger accounts move on. How would I even know it’s safe to come out without trying a couple matches…

    The gap in account strength expands faster than I can grow my account.

    If all players who hit this wall stop playing then the large accounts will have to earn their wins and won’t move on as quickly.

    As I type this my boy is quitting a match because it was unfair and sadly he doesn’t even get milestone points unless he wastes the next 10 minutes of his life taking a beating.

    You are being treated fairly. You don't understand competitions.

    But seriously, these threads need their own forums where you can have an echo chamber and the rest of us can pay attention to normal threads. You're like the 100th person to complain about "unfair matchmaking" this season when there isn't anything wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.