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

1. No.

2. We can’t pair you with *only* people you can beat, because that would be unfair. It would mean the game was giving you special treatment and allowing you to win more matches than much stronger players would.

3. The Victory track is a ladder. The stronger players win and climb higher, leaving the weaker ones behind. If you are only matching against much stronger players, that means you’ve promoted up to a tier where there are mostly strong players. You can try to beat them, or you can wait for them to promote and leave weaker ones behind. There are still almost two weeks left in the BG season. Difficulty keeps changing, because players are still promoting. If everyone like you can’t win in the tier you’re in, that means everyone stronger than you is winning and promoting higher. There isn’t an infinite supply of them.

4. You say even if you win “75%’ of your matches advancing is hard. if you’re winning 75% of them, they aren’t fair. You must have some kind of edge on that competition, and you’ve decided having that edge is fair. But you’re not allowed to decide which advantages are fair and which are unfair. If you think having a larger roster is unfair, you have to also believe whatever is causing you to win against those opponents 75% of the time is also unfair. Otherwise, you’re just arbitrarily deciding what you’re good at is fair, and what everyone else is good at is unfair.

MCOC is a progressional game, built upon a foundation of growing roster. It goes against the entire purpose of the game to penalize players for growing their roster. So having a larger roster is a fair advantage in MCOC, just like knowing more about the game is a fair advantage. I’ve been playing the game for over eight years. I’ve been studying the game for almost as long. I have a massive advantage over players who just joined, even if they have a roster as strong as mine. They can’t just buy a time machine and reproduce my experience overnight. But that’s just too bad for them. Meanwhile I’m a 55 year old myopic with fat fingers and slow reflexes. There are people a third my age with twice my speed that I will never be able to match. That’s too bad for me. It’s all fair.

6. If you only enjoy competition when you’re winning, competition is not for you. Only 50% of players win any particular match. Only 10% manage to reach the top 10%. Only one guy gets to be #1. Most players do not win most of the time. The average player wins half the time, and tons of players win less than that. If everyone under 50% quit, there would be no competitions after a while.

Last season I got stuck in V3 for over 30 matches before finally promoting. I stuck it out, and eventually promoted. That’s what competition is about. Fighting until you win, and accepting when you lose. No one is happy to lose. I’m not happy to lose. But someone has to lose, and if I have to lose thirty times before I eventually win, then that’s what’s going to happen. Because those thirty other competitors deserved to win.

Upgrade your tractor then...

WayWorn2525

That’s what competition is about. Fighting until you win, and accepting when you lose. No one is happy to lose. I’m not happy to lose. But someone has to lose, and if I have to lose thirty times before I eventually win, then that’s what’s going to happen. Because those thirty other competitors deserved to win.

I hate to admit, but what @DNA3000 is right, you can't win every fight. As long as the opponent wasn't cheating, accept the lost, and move on. As you progress on with getting a bigger and expanded roster, there'll be future players complaining about matching you. As valiant, I've lost to a LOTS of players that were paragon with larger roster and you can't be mad.
Take your lumps and progress forward.

MarvelNoob

As much as this topic irks me, I love the simile so take my LOL!

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.

NW2

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.

MCoC players were definetly not ready for the reality of a PvP mode...

NW2

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.

xLunatiXx

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

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.

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt you actually wanted an explanation. The same explanation the developers would give you, and the same rationale that the designers of the game mode have.

So let me be brief and direct. It isn’t me that doesn’t understand, it is you. What you are asking for has been done before and generates horrible results. It punishes players for improving their roster, and in many cases by a lot. This is unacceptable in a competitive game mode in a a game about developing roster. Until you can either come up with a suggestion that doesn’t do this horrible thing, or explain why we should all accept this horrible thing, what you’re asking for is simply unacceptable. To many of the players, and to the developers especially.

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_noah1

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DarkNightRise

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.

NW2

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?

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_rogers

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.

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:

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.

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.

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....

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.

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?

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.