I would love to see this, even if just for one month. A level playing field is the only way to see if the "best" BG players are really the best or if they just buy the champs and rank up materials they need to stay on top.
Prediction of what would happen if this ever happened: 1- Smaller accounts get excited 2- Bigger accounts participate with their huge 4* rosters available, ranked and sigged. 3- Smallers account complain, even take screenshots of big profiles and ask "WHY IS THIS ACCOUNT PLAYING THIS BG!!" People really underestimate the things some free end gamers and some spenders do while grinding... And its usually people who don't grind that make that mistake.
4* only BG? Maybe for 1 week special themed event.
4* everytime? Ain't no way, if you can't compete with 7r3 then I'd advise you to do Necro act-8 100% so you get your r3 asap.
There's no way that you decide to skip Necro and also get to complain about bigger decks.
I didn't decide to "skip Necro", I don't have access to it at all. Do you think that should mean a player like myself should not be able to play battlegrounds at all once I'm past Gold III? Players get burned out of story/Everest content and they want to try other game modes without getting steamrolled. Since you're a high level player I doubt you can relate to someone who is thronebreaker/cavalier and wants to play battlegrounds with this matchmaking.
Prediction of what would happen if this ever happened: 1- Smaller accounts get excited 2- Bigger accounts participate with their huge 4* rosters available, ranked and sigged. 3- Smallers account complain, even take screenshots of big profiles and ask "WHY IS THIS ACCOUNT PLAYING THIS BG!!" People really underestimate the things some free end gamers and some spenders do while grinding... And its usually people who don't grind that make that mistake.
I don't think it needs to be this way because Kabam can make it easier to rank up 4 star champions by providing gems. I don't see why Kabam would have a problem giving cavalier/thronebreaker players more sigs/gems to rank up 4 stars since they are unusable in every other game mode like story, necropolis, AQ, AW, etc. Like I said before, if there is an issue with gold and ISO for leveling them up then the same issue would apply to someone who wants to rank/level in their 6 or 7 star champions too. I think the systemic problem with access to gold and ISO exists because Kabam mainly listens to big accounts who don't have this problem, and so the issue persists for lower level players.
It's easier than ever to get 4 star champs since it only costs 6k incursions artifacts, and I'm sure if 4 star shards were in the battlegrounds store they would be really cheap (they would probably cost 100 per crystal since 1k 5* shards only costs 110) so just playing battlegrounds would give players access to more 4 stars. If MCOC ever needed another retention mechanic this would be it, as new players would see rapid progressions and this is a similar progression method to the one Call of Duty uses for new players as well.
Prediction of what would happen if this ever happened: 1- Smaller accounts get excited 2- Bigger accounts participate with their huge 4* rosters available, ranked and sigged. 3- Smallers account complain, even take screenshots of big profiles and ask "WHY IS THIS ACCOUNT PLAYING THIS BG!!" People really underestimate the things some free end gamers and some spenders do while grinding... And its usually people who don't grind that make that mistake.
I don't think it needs to be this way because Kabam can make it easier to rank up 4 star champions by providing gems. I don't see why Kabam would have a problem giving cavalier/thronebreaker players more sigs/gems to rank up 4 stars since they are unusable in every other game mode like story, necropolis, AQ, AW, etc. Like I said before, if there is an issue with gold and ISO for leveling them up then the same issue would apply to someone who wants to rank/level in their 6 or 7 star champions too. I think the systemic problem with access to gold and ISO exists because Kabam mainly listens to big accounts who don't have this problem, and so the issue persists for lower level players.
It's easier than ever to get 4 star champs since it only costs 6k incursions artifacts, and I'm sure if 4 star shards were in the battlegrounds store they would be really cheap (they would probably cost 100 per crystal since 1k 5* shards only costs 110) so just playing battlegrounds would give players access to more 4 stars. If MCOC ever needed another retention mechanic this would be it, as new players would see rapid progressions and this is a similar progression method to the one Call of Duty uses for new players as well.
Kabam shouldn't give anyone anything. You get your deck of 4 stars and you take your lumps or you don't play. I do like the idea of an occasional limited pool version of BGs. Whether that's limited rarity or by tags, the rewards should not match up to the full version, but they also shouldn't be those trash event shards.
I can see the argument for limiting the deck as a great equalizer and making it a contest of skill, but the whales would revolt if they couldn't stunt on the humanoids with their ranked-up op acquisitions wherever possible. So it couldn't be the default.
TL;DR battlegrounds is one of the most fun and innovative game modes which unfortunately is frustrating for 80% of players because there is no way around matchups with vastly more powerful players due to the matchmaking method. As a result, critical thinking and strategy are irrelevant to most players since there is no way around losing to stronger players. Introducing a tournament mode with only 4 star champions (just like in the Summoner Showdown event) will allow lower level players, like uncollected, cavalier, and throne breaker to enjoy the game mode, and progress their account more easily as battlegrounds has very valuable rewards. The top level rewards should still be reserved for the strongest accounts, however. Please let me know what you think!
I've been playing this game on and off for over 9 years and perhaps the biggest pain point I've experienced is having the skill to beat a certain piece of content, but not having the right champions, or being under leveled. I don't think I'm the only person who feels frustrated when I know I would've won the match if my opponent's champions weren't substantially more powerful than mine. I many other completive games such as Clash Royale there are modes the level of all players and characters are the same so the only real factor is player skill, and I think this would also drive more engagement to a mode like battlegrounds where strategy and planning becomes meaningless when an opponent's champs are simply more powerful.
Part of this is proposal is because many mid-level players like myself feel like most of the game is simply inaccessible to anyone who isn't an endgame player. I don't think the top level of rewards should be given to players who use the 4 star mode, as I recognize that there is a level of enjoyment and strategy in deciding who to rank for battlegrounds or getting a 6/7 star strong attacker or defender to add to your deck, which is why I think the tournament mode should be separate. This is wouldn't be the first time MCOC did something like this either, where for the Summoner's Showdown event they restricted champions to 4 stars only so the tournament would be on a even playing field. This would also spice up strategy since it only costs 6k incursions artifact for a 4 star basic meaning it would be very easy for any player past act 5/6 to get a mostly max rank/sig 4 star deck.
This comment is in large part due to the matchmaking change implemented in season 19. Previously those of similar account levels would be matched together, which Kabam stated is a "punishment for those with large rosters" since smaller accounts could climb the ladder with less difficulty. However, I would argue that while this change improves the experience for top level players, it drives away most mid to low level players who are casual spenders and free-to-play players that aren't very dedicated to the game, and overall reduces player retention. Other than that, it would also give far more value to 4 star champions, who for many players are just a source of ISO and 5 star shards.
Since I'm sure there is a vast range of players from big spenders to newer accounts on this subreddit I would be quite interested to see what you guys think of a change like this and whether you believe it would be an improvement.
This is pandering and wrong. Would completely devalue the game. Decent effort though. Lots of thought. Just a complete miss
Prediction of what would happen if this ever happened: 1- Smaller accounts get excited 2- Bigger accounts participate with their huge 4* rosters available, ranked and sigged. 3- Smallers account complain, even take screenshots of big profiles and ask "WHY IS THIS ACCOUNT PLAYING THIS BG!!" People really underestimate the things some free end gamers and some spenders do while grinding... And its usually people who don't grind that make that mistake.
I don't think it needs to be this way because Kabam can make it easier to rank up 4 star champions by providing gems. I don't see why Kabam would have a problem giving cavalier/thronebreaker players more sigs/gems to rank up 4 stars since they are unusable in every other game mode like story, necropolis, AQ, AW, etc. Like I said before, if there is an issue with gold and ISO for leveling them up then the same issue would apply to someone who wants to rank/level in their 6 or 7 star champions too. I think the systemic problem with access to gold and ISO exists because Kabam mainly listens to big accounts who don't have this problem, and so the issue persists for lower level players.
It's easier than ever to get 4 star champs since it only costs 6k incursions artifacts, and I'm sure if 4 star shards were in the battlegrounds store they would be really cheap (they would probably cost 100 per crystal since 1k 5* shards only costs 110) so just playing battlegrounds would give players access to more 4 stars. If MCOC ever needed another retention mechanic this would be it, as new players would see rapid progressions and this is a similar progression method to the one Call of Duty uses for new players as well.
Kabam shouldn't give anyone anything. You get your deck of 4 stars and you take your lumps or you don't play. I do like the idea of an occasional limited pool version of BGs. Whether that's limited rarity or by tags, the rewards should not match up to the full version, but they also shouldn't be those trash event shards.
I can see the argument for limiting the deck as a great equalizer and making it a contest of skill, but the whales would revolt if they couldn't stunt on the humanoids with their ranked-up op acquisitions wherever possible. So it couldn't be the default.
Yes Kabam doesn't NEED to do anything but I see it as a win-win situation if they're able to retain a greater number of new players and engage current players since it would ultimately mean more spending. I mentioned in my original post that the current version of battlegrounds should remain in the game, so the absolute top players compete with their champions, and that the tournament version of battlegrounds would be for lower level players and give rewards based on their progression level. The best rewards would still be in the normal battlegrounds which the top players will get. I don't think the whales are playing battlegrounds because they care about dunking on low level players since they're all just trying to reach the top of the leaderboard for the best rewards.
TL;DR battlegrounds is one of the most fun and innovative game modes which unfortunately is frustrating for 80% of players because there is no way around matchups with vastly more powerful players due to the matchmaking method. As a result, critical thinking and strategy are irrelevant to most players since there is no way around losing to stronger players. Introducing a tournament mode with only 4 star champions (just like in the Summoner Showdown event) will allow lower level players, like uncollected, cavalier, and throne breaker to enjoy the game mode, and progress their account more easily as battlegrounds has very valuable rewards. The top level rewards should still be reserved for the strongest accounts, however. Please let me know what you think!
I've been playing this game on and off for over 9 years and perhaps the biggest pain point I've experienced is having the skill to beat a certain piece of content, but not having the right champions, or being under leveled. I don't think I'm the only person who feels frustrated when I know I would've won the match if my opponent's champions weren't substantially more powerful than mine. I many other completive games such as Clash Royale there are modes the level of all players and characters are the same so the only real factor is player skill, and I think this would also drive more engagement to a mode like battlegrounds where strategy and planning becomes meaningless when an opponent's champs are simply more powerful.
Part of this is proposal is because many mid-level players like myself feel like most of the game is simply inaccessible to anyone who isn't an endgame player. I don't think the top level of rewards should be given to players who use the 4 star mode, as I recognize that there is a level of enjoyment and strategy in deciding who to rank for battlegrounds or getting a 6/7 star strong attacker or defender to add to your deck, which is why I think the tournament mode should be separate. This is wouldn't be the first time MCOC did something like this either, where for the Summoner's Showdown event they restricted champions to 4 stars only so the tournament would be on a even playing field. This would also spice up strategy since it only costs 6k incursions artifact for a 4 star basic meaning it would be very easy for any player past act 5/6 to get a mostly max rank/sig 4 star deck.
This comment is in large part due to the matchmaking change implemented in season 19. Previously those of similar account levels would be matched together, which Kabam stated is a "punishment for those with large rosters" since smaller accounts could climb the ladder with less difficulty. However, I would argue that while this change improves the experience for top level players, it drives away most mid to low level players who are casual spenders and free-to-play players that aren't very dedicated to the game, and overall reduces player retention. Other than that, it would also give far more value to 4 star champions, who for many players are just a source of ISO and 5 star shards.
Since I'm sure there is a vast range of players from big spenders to newer accounts on this subreddit I would be quite interested to see what you guys think of a change like this and whether you believe it would be an improvement.
This is pandering and wrong. Would completely devalue the game. Decent effort though. Lots of thought. Just a complete miss
I appreciate a different perspective but commenting "just a complete miss" doesn't really add value to either side of the conversation. Could you please explain why you think my idea would devalue the game?
What’s the incentive to build a better roster? Why do people keep suggesting stuff like this
So you can use your lower rarity champs. When was the last time you used a 4* ? I like the idea and have done some friendly matches with lower * rarities.
I have suggested a tier based system for awhile now. If Kabam wants a more fair playing levelthan they should have a tier system (rewards based on tier system) for every progression level plus an open tier for anyone that wants to play but it would have the best rewards. We have different difficulties and rewards for ever quests, monthly events, special quests, incursions, AW, AQ in the game. Wouldn't it makes sense to have the same tier system for BG. Having only 4 stars doesn't help Kabam's bottome line. It doesn't benefit them if the vast majority of players concentrate on ranking up 4 stars. Those resources are easy to get. This is a lose lose propositon for Kabam. A tier system would make more sense since it would encourage summoners to rank up their top champs.
Certainly an interesting topic to discuss! Is this something you're envisioning as a permanent addition Hassan, or just want it to at least be an option occasionally?
A nice idea to basically allow matches based on SKILL, and not on ROSTER (who has pulled more and better 7* than other people have, etc).
Only issue will then be older players vs newer players. Lot of long-time players have plenty of 4* champs Max Ranked (because they were the ONLY top champs at the time). Compared to newer players who typically leave almost every single 4* totally unranked at r1/1 (except for some Level-Up Event extra points). I can hear the complaints.. “why would I want to waste Rankup stuff on champs I’m never gonna use anywhere else in the game”.
I would sort of like an idea where the underlying ROSTER IS THE SAME POOL (all champs in the game, ALL at the same Rank for everybody, say 4* 5/50).
Only difference would be how your MASTERIES get applied to them.
So, even people who don’t have many good 4* at high rank to use wouldn’t matter, you're using a COMMON POOL to build your deck from.
I think the *one* thing we can all agree on though is that the Battlegrounds rewards, both for advancing tiers, and for overall rewards when the season ends, are grossly under tuned. Especially when you factor in the grind/effort/time that the game mode takes up.
Add to the fact that the BGs store is still highly outdated for all tier levels besides Valiant, and we have a mode that doesn't really yield the types of rewards you'd think this game mode would incentivize.
Certainly an interesting topic to discuss! Is this something you're envisioning as a permanent addition Hassan, or just want it to at least be an option occasionally?
A nice idea to basically allow matches based on SKILL, and not on ROSTER (who has pulled more and better 7* than other people have, etc).
Only issue will then be older players vs newer players. Lot of long-time players have plenty of 4* champs Max Ranked (because they were the ONLY top champs at the time). Compared to newer players who typically leave almost every single 4* totally unranked at r1/1 (except for some Level-Up Event extra points). I can hear the complaints.. “why would I want to waste Rankup stuff on champs I’m never gonna use anywhere else in the game”.
I would sort of like an idea where the underlying ROSTER IS THE SAME POOL (all champs in the game, ALL at the same Rank for everybody, say 4* 5/50).
Only difference would be how your MASTERIES get applied to them.
So, even people who don’t have many good 4* at high rank to use wouldn’t matter, you're using a COMMON POOL to build your deck from.
If it's actually based on skill, than the matches would have to be the same attackers and defenders. If it's RNG drafting as it is now. Drafting is more important than skill. If you don't have a counter, the odds of winning becomes harder. So if you really want to be truly based on skill, both players need to be fighting the same defender with the same sigs and same materies. This won't happen since not everyone can rank up and sig up all the champs to make it work. It would also be boring after awhile since it's going to be the same fight most of the time.
I have suggested a tier based system for awhile now. If Kabam wants a more fair playing levelthan they should have a tier system (rewards based on tier system) for every progression level plus an open tier for anyone that wants to play but it would have the best rewards. We have different difficulties and rewards for ever quests, monthly events, special quests, incursions, AW, AQ in the game. Wouldn't it makes sense to have the same tier system for BG. Having only 4 stars doesn't help Kabam's bottome line. It doesn't benefit them if the vast majority of players concentrate on ranking up 4 stars. Those resources are easy to get. This is a lose lose propositon for Kabam. A tier system would make more sense since it would encourage summoners to rank up their top champs.
I don't think that implementing this would be detrimental to Kabam's profits because I would envision that a tournament mode would be an equalizer for uncollected, cavalier, and thronebreaker players who aren't able to compete at the top level of battlegrounds, but there would still be a normal version of battlegrounds where the highest level players would use their top champions for the best rewards. I imagine that this way MCOC would have more player retention at the lower levels, but they would not miss out on big spenders who want to invest in 7 star champions. I also don't think it would be a problem if Kabam gave resources like rank up gems that would help players rank their 4 stars more quickly because 4 star champions aren't useful in other parts of the game. In terms of the issue with the gold and iso cost to level them up, I think this is a systematic issue with all parts of the game, and it needs to be solved whether or not this tournament mode ever comes to fruition.
If it's actually based on skill, than the matches would have to be the same attackers and defenders. If it's RNG drafting as it is now. Drafting is more important than skill. If you don't have a counter, the odds of winning becomes harder. So if you really want to be truly based on skill, both players need to be fighting the same defender with the same sigs and same materies. This won't happen since not everyone can rank up and sig up all the champs to make it work. It would also be boring after awhile since it's going to be the same fight most of the time.
Not the point. Not to get rid of RNG. How are you gonna get rid of in-fight RNG as to whether a champ gets one of their random Buffs/Debuffs or not
It is NOT to have same fight against same fight every single time.
But I consider skill to also be in knowing what Masteries best suit you, and the champs you want to use. Knowledge who you want to pick for your Deck. Knowledge during Team Select of who is better for YOU to use, as well as knowledge to choose champs best for you to counter already picked champs on other team. Etc, etc.
But that you have the whole of “Collector's Pool”, plus your own masteries, to choose your DECK from among anyone. RNG will still come into play during DRAFTING/SELECT (just like it is during fights themselves).
And if you want Variety, maybe that “Collector's Pool” could maybe be just a subset of all champs in game, and each season could change that Base Pool around. Then each season your Deck would look different, as you would have to re-build your Deck from among just each season's new Base Pool. (But the Base Pool would be the same for everyone within each season)
If it's actually based on skill, than the matches would have to be the same attackers and defenders. If it's RNG drafting as it is now. Drafting is more important than skill. If you don't have a counter, the odds of winning becomes harder. So if you really want to be truly based on skill, both players need to be fighting the same defender with the same sigs and same materies. This won't happen since not everyone can rank up and sig up all the champs to make it work. It would also be boring after awhile since it's going to be the same fight most of the time.
Not the point. Not to get rid of RNG. How are you gonna get rid of in-fight RNG as to whether a champ gets one of their random Buffs/Debuffs or not
It is NOT to have same fight against same fight every single time.
But I consider skill to also be in knowing what Masteries best suit you, and the champs you want to use. Knowledge who you want to pick for your Deck. Knowledge during Team Select of who is better for YOU to use, as well as knowledge to choose champs best for you to counter already picked champs on other team. Etc, etc.
But that you have the whole of “Collector's Pool”, plus your own masteries, to choose your DECK from among anyone. RNG will still come into play during DRAFTING/SELECT (just like it is during fights themselves).
And if you want Variety, maybe that “Collector's Pool” could maybe be just a subset of all champs in game, and each season could change that Base Pool around. Then each season your Deck would look different, as you would have to re-build your Deck from among just each season's new Base Pool. (But the Base Pool would be the same for everyone within each season)
So it RNG and drafting becomes more important than skill. We all know that having a proper counter takes less skill to win. If someone is unskilled, they will lose 90% of the time. If players are of similar skill, drafting becomes more important. So if you want BG to be based on skill, get rid of the variables like RNG. Same champs against same defender. This is the true test of skill like you wanted.
Something definitely to do during the offseason, sure, but not regular season. I wouldn't hate that in the off-season, when I'm just toying with champs who might be good in the upcoming meta, as I have the majority of all champs in my 3 to 4 star rosters. I get BG is a slog if you don't have 7 stars ranked up, but some of the fun is discovering "oh, hey, this champ they didn't block really excels against the champ they threw up for defense!" Like me discovering last night in this meta CGR gets wrecked by CMM. CMM actually regenerates as part of her kit when she's in binary mode, and if he gets a shock on you, it ramps her into binary mode quickly. Can't remember who they had as their matchup, but it being my second win guaranteed I advanced a rank and found my way back into diamond with three weeks to go.
I think what you mentioned is a prime reason that battlegrounds should be accessible to lower level players. Since you reached diamond I'm going to assume you're a high level player, which allowed you to experiment in battlegrounds. For someone who is cavalier or thronebreaker, there is virtually no way they could have a similar experience since they are matching with more powerful players. The way you are experiencing battlegrounds would be the same way a new player would be able to experience it if they had a tournament mode with an even playing field. It seems to me that most of the people who are disagreeing with this idea think that it wouldn't work because people should focus on developing their 6 and 7 star roster instead of focusing on the essence of the battlegrounds experience which is experimentation, planning and strategy. Of course the regular battlegrounds would be available for players who want to use their 6 and 7 star champions, but the tournament would at least be an option for those who don't have high level accounts.
I'm Thronebreaker with a decent 6 star roster, punching my way through BGs. Just because someone has access to any mode in this game does not mean they are going to excel. I'm fine with experimenting with something this inconsequential in the offseason because it won't matter. But during a competitive season no way. I'm outclassed by rosters twice my size and take the fights I think I can win to grind for more 7 star shards and grow my roster, as well as my sig stones.
Certainly an interesting topic to discuss! Is this something you're envisioning as a permanent addition Hassan, or just want it to at least be an option occasionally?
I would imagine this could be a regular addition to the game unless the matchmaking method changed. Since season 19 the matchmaking stopped considering account strength as a factor since it was mentioned that those with larger rosters were taking longer to reach platinum, however, this comes at the cost of battlegrounds becoming virtually inaccessible to players who aren't at least valiant with high level champions.
A mid strength Thronebreaker deck managed to get to Diamond 3, and that's without really pushing that hard. The much lower strength Cav deck got to Diamond 4. To me, that's entirely reasonable finishing positions for accounts with those decks and with only moderate time invested (most of my time was spent on my main). To me, that's very accessible.
People keep saying that tier based matching makes Battlegrounds "unplayable" or "inaccessible" but those words seem to belie the details. Based on both my own experience and actually digging deeper into the reports from other players, when they've provided the information, It isn't that BG is inaccessible, it is that some players have expectations wildly disconnected from their roster strength and skill level.
Something definitely to do during the offseason, sure, but not regular season. I wouldn't hate that in the off-season, when I'm just toying with champs who might be good in the upcoming meta, as I have the majority of all champs in my 3 to 4 star rosters. I get BG is a slog if you don't have 7 stars ranked up, but some of the fun is discovering "oh, hey, this champ they didn't block really excels against the champ they threw up for defense!" Like me discovering last night in this meta CGR gets wrecked by CMM. CMM actually regenerates as part of her kit when she's in binary mode, and if he gets a shock on you, it ramps her into binary mode quickly. Can't remember who they had as their matchup, but it being my second win guaranteed I advanced a rank and found my way back into diamond with three weeks to go.
I think what you mentioned is a prime reason that battlegrounds should be accessible to lower level players. Since you reached diamond I'm going to assume you're a high level player, which allowed you to experiment in battlegrounds. For someone who is cavalier or thronebreaker, there is virtually no way they could have a similar experience since they are matching with more powerful players. The way you are experiencing battlegrounds would be the same way a new player would be able to experience it if they had a tournament mode with an even playing field. It seems to me that most of the people who are disagreeing with this idea think that it wouldn't work because people should focus on developing their 6 and 7 star roster instead of focusing on the essence of the battlegrounds experience which is experimentation, planning and strategy. Of course the regular battlegrounds would be available for players who want to use their 6 and 7 star champions, but the tournament would at least be an option for those who don't have high level accounts.
Actually, I know exactly what would happen in such a mode, because I don't even have to guess. We actually already ran this experiment. Before roster matching and seeding, Kabam experimented with deck matching. Instead of matching players by their roster strength, they matched based on players deck strength. Problems emerged. Most importantly it was exploitable. That's where all the 2* champs in people's decks came from. If you construct a deck with very strong and very weak champs, your average deck strength would be somewhere in the middle, but you wouldn't actually have to use those weaker champs most of the time, so your actual drafting strength could be several times higher than your apparent deck strength. That's one of the two reasons why they got rid of it.
But something else happened. Some players - and I was one of them - simply constructed perfectly fair decks of all 4* champs. No manipulation shenanigans with weak champs. Just all 4* champs. So we were only matching against other players of similar deck strength, either all 4s or some mix of 5s and 4s that averaged out to a max 4* deck.
My win percentage was about 75-80%, all the way up to GC. In fact, my win percentage has never been as high ever again. Why? Because there are only two kinds of people that make a 4* deck. Those who want to, and those who have to. Those who have to are mostly newer players. And when a newer player faces a veteran like me, they have almost no hope of winning. They can't get a roster advantage against me. They can't draft as well as me. They don't know the champs as well as me, or understand the meta as well as me. Battlegrounds is about skill, knowledge, strategy, and roster strength. Eliminate roster strength, and I will have a basically insurmountable advantage over all newer players in two out of the three of the rest, and probably a significant advantage in skill over most newer players as well.
If the game forced everyone to use 4* champs, we'd just be back to deck matching. And we already know what happens to newer players in that environment, where they have to beat players who understand how all 300 champs work and how all the mechanics of the nodes work.
A 4* tournament is not an "even playing field." There's no such thing. It simply takes one of the four ways to gain an advantage away, leaving the rest behind. The closest thing we have to an "even" playing field is the GC itself, which matches players by rating. Winners face winners, and losers face losers, using a rating system. That is the fairest match system possible. No one gets to have *any* large advantage over their competition for long, because the game eventually forces them to face increasingly stronger players until they meet their match. The *problem* with rating matching is it *only* works if players can move UP and DOWN. In GC, you move up when you win, you move down when you lose. But in VT, players ratchet upwards. Once a player promotes, they cannot go back down.
The VT was created to help newer and weaker and less competitive players. They don't have to worry about a string of losses causing them to literally fall all the way back down to zero. They can work towards promotion, and when they earn a promotion it cannot be lost. But if fairness is something you claim to desire, then you should advocate for eliminating the VT altogether, along with its rewards. Let everyone slug it out in an environment where no one has any advantages. Everyone matches against players of equal strength, and everyone rises or falls to the level of their performance.
That's what's fair. But somehow, I think most players don't want real fairness. They want easy rewards. They don't want to play a mode where every match is even, and if they don't win they drop in rating and lose rewards. I don't think they want a mode where all their effort could amount to nothing, because the mode doesn't reward effort, it only rewards performance. And it has no safety net, because safety nets are unfair, because they allow players who keep losing to keep their rank.
Certainly an interesting topic to discuss! Is this something you're envisioning as a permanent addition Hassan, or just want it to at least be an option occasionally?
I would imagine this could be a regular addition to the game unless the matchmaking method changed. Since season 19 the matchmaking stopped considering account strength as a factor since it was mentioned that those with larger rosters were taking longer to reach platinum, however, this comes at the cost of battlegrounds becoming virtually inaccessible to players who aren't at least valiant with high level champions.
A mid strength Thronebreaker deck managed to get to Diamond 3, and that's without really pushing that hard. The much lower strength Cav deck got to Diamond 4. To me, that's entirely reasonable finishing positions for accounts with those decks and with only moderate time invested (most of my time was spent on my main). To me, that's very accessible.
People keep saying that tier based matching makes Battlegrounds "unplayable" or "inaccessible" but those words seem to belie the details. Based on both my own experience and actually digging deeper into the reports from other players, when they've provided the information, It isn't that BG is inaccessible, it is that some players have expectations wildly disconnected from their roster strength and skill level.
Something definitely to do during the offseason, sure, but not regular season. I wouldn't hate that in the off-season, when I'm just toying with champs who might be good in the upcoming meta, as I have the majority of all champs in my 3 to 4 star rosters. I get BG is a slog if you don't have 7 stars ranked up, but some of the fun is discovering "oh, hey, this champ they didn't block really excels against the champ they threw up for defense!" Like me discovering last night in this meta CGR gets wrecked by CMM. CMM actually regenerates as part of her kit when she's in binary mode, and if he gets a shock on you, it ramps her into binary mode quickly. Can't remember who they had as their matchup, but it being my second win guaranteed I advanced a rank and found my way back into diamond with three weeks to go.
I think what you mentioned is a prime reason that battlegrounds should be accessible to lower level players. Since you reached diamond I'm going to assume you're a high level player, which allowed you to experiment in battlegrounds. For someone who is cavalier or thronebreaker, there is virtually no way they could have a similar experience since they are matching with more powerful players. The way you are experiencing battlegrounds would be the same way a new player would be able to experience it if they had a tournament mode with an even playing field. It seems to me that most of the people who are disagreeing with this idea think that it wouldn't work because people should focus on developing their 6 and 7 star roster instead of focusing on the essence of the battlegrounds experience which is experimentation, planning and strategy. Of course the regular battlegrounds would be available for players who want to use their 6 and 7 star champions, but the tournament would at least be an option for those who don't have high level accounts.
Actually, I know exactly what would happen in such a mode, because I don't even have to guess. We actually already ran this experiment. Before roster matching and seeding, Kabam experimented with deck matching. Instead of matching players by their roster strength, they matched based on players deck strength. Problems emerged. Most importantly it was exploitable. That's where all the 2* champs in people's decks came from. If you construct a deck with very strong and very weak champs, your average deck strength would be somewhere in the middle, but you wouldn't actually have to use those weaker champs most of the time, so your actual drafting strength could be several times higher than your apparent deck strength. That's one of the two reasons why they got rid of it.
But something else happened. Some players - and I was one of them - simply constructed perfectly fair decks of all 4* champs. No manipulation shenanigans with weak champs. Just all 4* champs. So we were only matching against other players of similar deck strength, either all 4s or some mix of 5s and 4s that averaged out to a max 4* deck.
My win percentage was about 75-80%, all the way up to GC. In fact, my win percentage has never been as high ever again. Why? Because there are only two kinds of people that make a 4* deck. Those who want to, and those who have to. Those who have to are mostly newer players. And when a newer player faces a veteran like me, they have almost no hope of winning. They can't get a roster advantage against me. They can't draft as well as me. They don't know the champs as well as me, or understand the meta as well as me. Battlegrounds is about skill, knowledge, strategy, and roster strength. Eliminate roster strength, and I will have a basically insurmountable advantage over all newer players in two out of the three of the rest, and probably a significant advantage in skill over most newer players as well.
If the game forced everyone to use 4* champs, we'd just be back to deck matching. And we already know what happens to newer players in that environment, where they have to beat players who understand how all 300 champs work and how all the mechanics of the nodes work.
A 4* tournament is not an "even playing field." There's no such thing. It simply takes one of the four ways to gain an advantage away, leaving the rest behind. The closest thing we have to an "even" playing field is the GC itself, which matches players by rating. Winners face winners, and losers face losers, using a rating system. That is the fairest match system possible. No one gets to have *any* large advantage over their competition for long, because the game eventually forces them to face increasingly stronger players until they meet their match. The *problem* with rating matching is it *only* works if players can move UP and DOWN. In GC, you move up when you win, you move down when you lose. But in VT, players ratchet upwards. Once a player promotes, they cannot go back down.
The VT was created to help newer and weaker and less competitive players. They don't have to worry about a string of losses causing them to literally fall all the way back down to zero. They can work towards promotion, and when they earn a promotion it cannot be lost. But if fairness is something you claim to desire, then you should advocate for eliminating the VT altogether, along with its rewards. Let everyone slug it out in an environment where no one has any advantages. Everyone matches against players of equal strength, and everyone rises or falls to the level of their performance.
That's what's fair. But somehow, I think most players don't want real fairness. They want easy rewards. They don't want to play a mode where every match is even, and if they don't win they drop in rating and lose rewards. I don't think they want a mode where all their effort could amount to nothing, because the mode doesn't reward effort, it only rewards performance. And it has no safety net, because safety nets are unfair, because they allow players who keep losing to keep their rank.
Thank you for your comment, it's quite insightful as to how different level players experience battlegrounds. I'll try to respond to each point you made.
I absolutely understand your point about player experience impacting the likelihood of their success, and of course there are players like you who are substantially more capable with whatever they are given due to skill and knowledge. However, I would assume that the number of players like yourself are a small minority even among your peers in the valiant progression level. Because of this if a cavalier or thronebreaker player were to match against paragon or valiant it wouldn't be an instant roadblock for them because of roster size. If matchmaking were regulated like the GC with no safety nets I imagine the experience would still be better for lower level players, since it is far easier to accept that they lost due to poor planning and execution on their part. If I match against a high ELO player in chess.com and I lose (as I have done before) I wouldn't feel robbed as I do in battlegrounds because I understand that my opponent just planned and executed better than I did.
I can only speak for myself, but if there were a mode that gave everyone the same resources and allowed them to compete this way - even without rewards - I would still play it more than any other game mode, for the same reason someone would play chess, because the game is a reward in and of itself. It's hard to think I'm the only person who feels this way because of the popularity of similar games like risk, settlers of catan, and even clash royale before they introduced safety nets in ladder. I don't think victory track needs to go away if this mode was added to the game, and I don't see why top players would be losing anything if this was added.
In terms of desiring fairness, I don't think the game needs a victory track to reward players for playing the game, even if there isn't a tournament mode, rewards during the season could be earned by winning matches (just like the battlegrounds objectives give trophy tokens right now), and the biggest rewards would be given at the end of the season based on their final placement, the same way alliance war works. I think the current victory track is a greater reflection of rewarding performance over effort because of the way higher level players are rewarded for having powerful champions over playing well. There are many skill based challenges in the game already like the Carina's where you can earn a 6 star crystal for completing realm of legends with a 6 star aegon or guillotine 2099, and I would see a tournament mode as being in line with those in terms of being a skill based challenge.
Please let me know what you think, I really appreciate your comment.
Honestly you are really underestimating the skill and experience difference between valiant players and thronebreakers or even paragon players. A valiant player who did necropolis will never lose to a thronebreaker player, they just know the champions and the nodes better, can draft better and play better. Usually progressions in this game are related to the skill of the players, there are so many people in this game who have been stuck as thronebreaker or paragon for years because they lack the skill or experience to get to the next title.
I have suggested a tier based system for awhile now. If Kabam wants a more fair playing levelthan they should have a tier system (rewards based on tier system) for every progression level plus an open tier for anyone that wants to play but it would have the best rewards. We have different difficulties and rewards for ever quests, monthly events, special quests, incursions, AW, AQ in the game. Wouldn't it makes sense to have the same tier system for BG. Having only 4 stars doesn't help Kabam's bottome line. It doesn't benefit them if the vast majority of players concentrate on ranking up 4 stars. Those resources are easy to get. This is a lose lose propositon for Kabam. A tier system would make more sense since it would encourage summoners to rank up their top champs.
I don't think that implementing this would be detrimental to Kabam's profits because I would envision that a tournament mode would be an equalizer for uncollected, cavalier, and thronebreaker players who aren't able to compete at the top level of battlegrounds, but there would still be a normal version of battlegrounds where the highest level players would use their top champions for the best rewards. I imagine that this way MCOC would have more player retention at the lower levels, but they would not miss out on big spenders who want to invest in 7 star champions. I also don't think it would be a problem if Kabam gave resources like rank up gems that would help players rank their 4 stars more quickly because 4 star champions aren't useful in other parts of the game. In terms of the issue with the gold and iso cost to level them up, I think this is a systematic issue with all parts of the game, and it needs to be solved whether or not this tournament mode ever comes to fruition.
First, you keep quoting "gold and iso cost" as a major thing that this would solve. I don't have any "gold and iso" issues myself, and I know a lot of players don't care about gold nor iso either. It might be a problem for you, and it does seem to be an issue for high level players who are constantly leveling and ranking champions, but it is not a problem for everybody. So no, it is not a systematic issue; it is an issue for certain groups of players.
Second, why would Kabam give rank up gems to participate in a random game mode? They don't give out anything to help with Incursion, with AQ, or AW, or story content. It's fine to argue for a 4* BG tournament, it is a drastic overreach to demand a 4* tournament plus rewards to help out your 4* roster. They do give out free champions as part of a themed objective, but then lock the rank up part of it to something like Sagas. If the rewards for a 4* BG tournament is to obtain 4* rank up rewards, you can bet that nobody wants that as a reward.
And finally, yes, this would be detrimental to Kabam's profits. How does Kabam make "money" from BGs? 1. Sell offers to entice players to improve their 6*/7* roster so they can better compete. Who typically buys those offers? High level players, who would have no need/desire to spend money on improving their 4* roster (since it doesn't help them out anywhere else, and because they likely can easily rank up and obtain 4*'s without spending any money). 2. Have players spend units on Elder Marks and Victory Shields. Who typically buys Victory Shields? Low level players who don't enter each match thinking they can win >50% of their matches. If everyone has a 4* roster, they would likely be less inclined to buy Victory shields since there is less fear of losing > 50% of their matches.
I don’t think the fairness you looking to achieve is achievable. You are asking bigger accounts to tone down their roster for low - mid players. What’s it in for them? People spent a lot of time and effort or money to have their roster and battleground is a place where they can showcase them. As for low-mid players, it would be a waste of resources to invest in 4*s which won’t help them to progress. You are looking at a deck of 30 and not a handful. Imagine how long it will take for players to max rank and max sig them.
You mentioned that, frustration comes when people think they are better skilled then their opponent, but only to lose to roster, then may I ask why not use that skill to progress and develop a better roster? Once you progress you will find that rewards are better, stores are cheaper, and easier access to attaining champs and rank ups.
You are simply just asking kabam to make it easier.
If you don’t care about rewards and want to have a fair fight, and in times a laugh. I suggest the “friendly mode”. Easy and stress free.
It wasn't a great idea there, and it's not a great idea here. lol
I like the thought of changing things up in BGs and like someone mentioned maybe for a one-off event. But not something in addition to or replacing the current BGs.
You aren't really elaborating, you're just saying it's a bad idea. A lot of people disagree without explaining on reddit which is why I moved this discussion over to the forums. I'm not sure many of the people who are responding are playing battlegrounds at the thronebreaker or cavalier level since nobody seems to understand how unbalanced matchmaking is. I would be fine if it was thronebreakers against other thronebreakers or cavalier against cavalier if you don't think a tournament mode would be a good idea, although many people who responded also seemed to think that if you aren't a top tier player battlegrounds isn't for you, and unfortunately whoever made the matchmaking seems to agree.
Cons- 1. Only people who've spent a ton of time in the game from the beginning have ranked up 4*'s. New players barely spend the resources needed on them as they get to 5*'s at a much, much faster rate now. 2. When Kabam came out with the Back Issues version that required 1-6*'s for completion, many, many, many people complained about having to use resources to rank up champs they'll never need or use. You'll be asking everyone who would play this to invest a ton of resources into the mode. 3. You'll still come across people with "stronger" decks because they have all the 4*''s where the people who blaze through content aren't opening as many lower star rarity crystals.
Pros- 1. The idea is a fine idea for a special event. We already have arenas that are dedicated to 1 and 2* champs but a continuous 4* BG mode would be too much.
My idea is that the rewards for the tornument mode would be based on your progression level. For example a thronebreaker player might get tier 6 basic and tier 5 CC that would help them take 6 stars to rank 4 so they could achieve paragon.
But you're wanting everyone to use 4*'s but saying if a TB can beat a Valiant in this mode because everyone is equal deck wise, they still get lower rewards. How does that motivate anyone below Valiant to participate?
Comments
1- Smaller accounts get excited
2- Bigger accounts participate with their huge 4* rosters available, ranked and sigged.
3- Smallers account complain, even take screenshots of big profiles and ask "WHY IS THIS ACCOUNT PLAYING THIS BG!!"
People really underestimate the things some free end gamers and some spenders do while grinding... And its usually people who don't grind that make that mistake.
It's easier than ever to get 4 star champs since it only costs 6k incursions artifacts, and I'm sure if 4 star shards were in the battlegrounds store they would be really cheap (they would probably cost 100 per crystal since 1k 5* shards only costs 110) so just playing battlegrounds would give players access to more 4 stars. If MCOC ever needed another retention mechanic this would be it, as new players would see rapid progressions and this is a similar progression method to the one Call of Duty uses for new players as well.
I can see the argument for limiting the deck as a great equalizer and making it a contest of skill, but the whales would revolt if they couldn't stunt on the humanoids with their ranked-up op acquisitions wherever possible. So it couldn't be the default.
I like the idea and have done some friendly matches with lower * rarities.
Only issue will then be older players vs newer players.
Lot of long-time players have plenty of 4* champs Max Ranked (because they were the ONLY top champs at the time).
Compared to newer players who typically leave almost every single 4* totally unranked at r1/1 (except for some Level-Up Event extra points).
I can hear the complaints.. “why would I want to waste Rankup stuff on champs I’m never gonna use anywhere else in the game”.
I would sort of like an idea where the underlying ROSTER IS THE SAME POOL (all champs in the game, ALL at the same Rank for everybody, say 4* 5/50).
Only difference would be how your MASTERIES get applied to them.
So, even people who don’t have many good 4* at high rank to use wouldn’t matter, you're using a COMMON POOL to build your deck from.
Add to the fact that the BGs store is still highly outdated for all tier levels besides Valiant, and we have a mode that doesn't really yield the types of rewards you'd think this game mode would incentivize.
A 4* battleground with 4* rank up materials provided by Kabam? ...
LOL
It is NOT to have same fight against same fight every single time.
But I consider skill to also be in knowing what Masteries best suit you, and the champs you want to use.
Knowledge who you want to pick for your Deck. Knowledge during Team Select of who is better for YOU to use, as well as knowledge to choose champs best for you to counter already picked champs on other team.
Etc, etc.
But that you have the whole of “Collector's Pool”, plus your own masteries, to choose your DECK from among anyone.
RNG will still come into play during DRAFTING/SELECT (just like it is during fights themselves).
And if you want Variety, maybe that “Collector's Pool” could maybe be just a subset of all champs in game, and each season could change that Base Pool around. Then each season your Deck would look different, as you would have to re-build your Deck from among just each season's new Base Pool. (But the Base Pool would be the same for everyone within each season)
A mid strength Thronebreaker deck managed to get to Diamond 3, and that's without really pushing that hard. The much lower strength Cav deck got to Diamond 4. To me, that's entirely reasonable finishing positions for accounts with those decks and with only moderate time invested (most of my time was spent on my main). To me, that's very accessible.
People keep saying that tier based matching makes Battlegrounds "unplayable" or "inaccessible" but those words seem to belie the details. Based on both my own experience and actually digging deeper into the reports from other players, when they've provided the information, It isn't that BG is inaccessible, it is that some players have expectations wildly disconnected from their roster strength and skill level.
But something else happened. Some players - and I was one of them - simply constructed perfectly fair decks of all 4* champs. No manipulation shenanigans with weak champs. Just all 4* champs. So we were only matching against other players of similar deck strength, either all 4s or some mix of 5s and 4s that averaged out to a max 4* deck.
My win percentage was about 75-80%, all the way up to GC. In fact, my win percentage has never been as high ever again. Why? Because there are only two kinds of people that make a 4* deck. Those who want to, and those who have to. Those who have to are mostly newer players. And when a newer player faces a veteran like me, they have almost no hope of winning. They can't get a roster advantage against me. They can't draft as well as me. They don't know the champs as well as me, or understand the meta as well as me. Battlegrounds is about skill, knowledge, strategy, and roster strength. Eliminate roster strength, and I will have a basically insurmountable advantage over all newer players in two out of the three of the rest, and probably a significant advantage in skill over most newer players as well.
If the game forced everyone to use 4* champs, we'd just be back to deck matching. And we already know what happens to newer players in that environment, where they have to beat players who understand how all 300 champs work and how all the mechanics of the nodes work.
A 4* tournament is not an "even playing field." There's no such thing. It simply takes one of the four ways to gain an advantage away, leaving the rest behind. The closest thing we have to an "even" playing field is the GC itself, which matches players by rating. Winners face winners, and losers face losers, using a rating system. That is the fairest match system possible. No one gets to have *any* large advantage over their competition for long, because the game eventually forces them to face increasingly stronger players until they meet their match. The *problem* with rating matching is it *only* works if players can move UP and DOWN. In GC, you move up when you win, you move down when you lose. But in VT, players ratchet upwards. Once a player promotes, they cannot go back down.
The VT was created to help newer and weaker and less competitive players. They don't have to worry about a string of losses causing them to literally fall all the way back down to zero. They can work towards promotion, and when they earn a promotion it cannot be lost. But if fairness is something you claim to desire, then you should advocate for eliminating the VT altogether, along with its rewards. Let everyone slug it out in an environment where no one has any advantages. Everyone matches against players of equal strength, and everyone rises or falls to the level of their performance.
That's what's fair. But somehow, I think most players don't want real fairness. They want easy rewards. They don't want to play a mode where every match is even, and if they don't win they drop in rating and lose rewards. I don't think they want a mode where all their effort could amount to nothing, because the mode doesn't reward effort, it only rewards performance. And it has no safety net, because safety nets are unfair, because they allow players who keep losing to keep their rank.
I absolutely understand your point about player experience impacting the likelihood of their success, and of course there are players like you who are substantially more capable with whatever they are given due to skill and knowledge. However, I would assume that the number of players like yourself are a small minority even among your peers in the valiant progression level. Because of this if a cavalier or thronebreaker player were to match against paragon or valiant it wouldn't be an instant roadblock for them because of roster size. If matchmaking were regulated like the GC with no safety nets I imagine the experience would still be better for lower level players, since it is far easier to accept that they lost due to poor planning and execution on their part. If I match against a high ELO player in chess.com and I lose (as I have done before) I wouldn't feel robbed as I do in battlegrounds because I understand that my opponent just planned and executed better than I did.
I can only speak for myself, but if there were a mode that gave everyone the same resources and allowed them to compete this way - even without rewards - I would still play it more than any other game mode, for the same reason someone would play chess, because the game is a reward in and of itself. It's hard to think I'm the only person who feels this way because of the popularity of similar games like risk, settlers of catan, and even clash royale before they introduced safety nets in ladder. I don't think victory track needs to go away if this mode was added to the game, and I don't see why top players would be losing anything if this was added.
In terms of desiring fairness, I don't think the game needs a victory track to reward players for playing the game, even if there isn't a tournament mode, rewards during the season could be earned by winning matches (just like the battlegrounds objectives give trophy tokens right now), and the biggest rewards would be given at the end of the season based on their final placement, the same way alliance war works. I think the current victory track is a greater reflection of rewarding performance over effort because of the way higher level players are rewarded for having powerful champions over playing well. There are many skill based challenges in the game already like the Carina's where you can earn a 6 star crystal for completing realm of legends with a 6 star aegon or guillotine 2099, and I would see a tournament mode as being in line with those in terms of being a skill based challenge.
Please let me know what you think, I really appreciate your comment.
So, they will have a lot of fun against Summoners of same class.
This would be the permanent "Everest event" to their class.
I think to Paragons would be difficult and unbearable to fight against them and the Whales and Big Whales.
An easy rabbit to them...
As they think of classes below...
Second, why would Kabam give rank up gems to participate in a random game mode? They don't give out anything to help with Incursion, with AQ, or AW, or story content. It's fine to argue for a 4* BG tournament, it is a drastic overreach to demand a 4* tournament plus rewards to help out your 4* roster. They do give out free champions as part of a themed objective, but then lock the rank up part of it to something like Sagas. If the rewards for a 4* BG tournament is to obtain 4* rank up rewards, you can bet that nobody wants that as a reward.
And finally, yes, this would be detrimental to Kabam's profits. How does Kabam make "money" from BGs?
1. Sell offers to entice players to improve their 6*/7* roster so they can better compete. Who typically buys those offers? High level players, who would have no need/desire to spend money on improving their 4* roster (since it doesn't help them out anywhere else, and because they likely can easily rank up and obtain 4*'s without spending any money).
2. Have players spend units on Elder Marks and Victory Shields. Who typically buys Victory Shields? Low level players who don't enter each match thinking they can win >50% of their matches. If everyone has a 4* roster, they would likely be less inclined to buy Victory shields since there is less fear of losing > 50% of their matches.
You are asking bigger accounts to tone down their roster for low - mid players. What’s it in for them? People spent a lot of time and effort or money to have their roster and battleground is a place where they can showcase them.
As for low-mid players, it would be a waste of resources to invest in 4*s which won’t help them to progress. You are looking at a deck of 30 and not a handful. Imagine how long it will take for players to max rank and max sig them.
You mentioned that, frustration comes when people think they are better skilled then their opponent, but only to lose to roster, then may I ask why not use that skill to progress and develop a better roster?
Once you progress you will find that rewards are better, stores are cheaper, and easier access to attaining champs and rank ups.
You are simply just asking kabam to make it easier.
If you don’t care about rewards and want to have a fair fight, and in times a laugh. I suggest the “friendly mode”. Easy and stress free.
1. Only people who've spent a ton of time in the game from the beginning have ranked up 4*'s. New players barely spend the resources needed on them as they get to 5*'s at a much, much faster rate now.
2. When Kabam came out with the Back Issues version that required 1-6*'s for completion, many, many, many people complained about having to use resources to rank up champs they'll never need or use. You'll be asking everyone who would play this to invest a ton of resources into the mode.
3. You'll still come across people with "stronger" decks because they have all the 4*''s where the people who blaze through content aren't opening as many lower star rarity crystals.
Pros-
1. The idea is a fine idea for a special event. We already have arenas that are dedicated to 1 and 2* champs but a continuous 4* BG mode would be too much.