Star locks for battlegrounds in lower ranks

manishmt326

This whole post is based in the premise that BGs should be skill focussed.

I am returning to the game after 1.5 years
Before I left I essentially had every champ I could have wanted - from tier lists at that time, I had every champ in the top tiers at a 6 star level and even the new good 7 stars like hulk and Titania
Even slightly newer champs and trophy champs like photon, vox, werewolf, weapon X and Jessica jones I got during the banquet event.
I liked battlegrounds a lot and ranked up many so main point of all this so far is that my account is fairly stacked - compared to a lot of newer account.
I am now in bronze for not playing for so long and my first opponents roster was low compared to mine that I felt bad enough to forfeit.
I’ve decided to climb with lower star characters for a bit which made me think that locking ranks to certain stars would actually be a really good addition to battlegrounds.
For a PvP mode that appears to be based on skill, it just makes sense.
Victory track has got like 15 tiers across the ranks.
Start at only 4* -> 5 x 5* allowed -> 10 x 5* allowed -> 15 x 5* allowed until 30 x 5* and then same pattern for 6 and 7 stars.
Gladiator circuit yeah go nuts.
You can pretty much whale through all content which will make your roster extreme and give an unfair advantage in battlegrounds - which should be based on skill, not how much money or time one has spent on the game. With these changes, there would be far less unfair matchups and I think people
would actually get better at the game as well.
Of course this might indirectly lead to less doubloons for the Kabamination so RNG for this is as bad as seatin vs magik boss rolling 37.5% chance of limbo 12 times in a row - but I mean, that happened lol

Obviously I don’t know if this suggestion has been made before, I feel like it would have.
Are there any glaring flaws here?

ahmynuts

The entire concept is a flaw

Badah

New accounts don’t have enough 4* stars ranked to form a BG deck…

manishmt326

BG unlocked after uncollected isn’t it?
4* locked meaning 4* and lower and then adding 5 more higher star spots each tier

DNA3000

manishmt326 said:

This whole post is based in the premise that BGs should be skill focussed.

I am returning to the game after 1.5 years
Before I left I essentially had every champ I could have wanted - from tier lists at that time, I had every champ in the top tiers at a 6 star level and even the new good 7 stars like hulk and Titania
Even slightly newer champs and trophy champs like photon, vox, werewolf, weapon X and Jessica jones I got during the banquet event.
I liked battlegrounds a lot and ranked up many so main point of all this so far is that my account is fairly stacked - compared to a lot of newer account.
I am now in bronze for not playing for so long and my first opponents roster was low compared to mine that I felt bad enough to forfeit.
I’ve decided to climb with lower star characters for a bit which made me think that locking ranks to certain stars would actually be a really good addition to battlegrounds.
For a PvP mode that appears to be based on skill, it just makes sense.
Victory track has got like 15 tiers across the ranks.
Start at only 4* -> 5 x 5* allowed -> 10 x 5* allowed -> 15 x 5* allowed until 30 x 5* and then same pattern for 6 and 7 stars.
Gladiator circuit yeah go nuts.
You can pretty much whale through all content which will make your roster extreme and give an unfair advantage in battlegrounds - which should be based on skill, not how much money or time one has spent on the game. With these changes, there would be far less unfair matchups and I think people
would actually get better at the game as well.
Of course this might indirectly lead to less doubloons for the Kabamination so RNG for this is as bad as seatin vs magik boss rolling 37.5% chance of limbo 12 times in a row - but I mean, that happened lol

Obviously I don’t know if this suggestion has been made before, I feel like it would have.
Are there any glaring flaws here?

The premise.

Kabam has stated that roster growth is an intended component of BG. In fact, the explicitly stated reason why they got rid of deck matching was that it created the perception that ranking champs was not only worthless in BG, it was actually counterproductive because using lower rarity champs forced the game to find lower rarity deck-wielding opponents which had a higher chance of being newer players, while ranking up your deck caused you to match against stronger players. There was even a rumor that ranking up champs that were not even in your deck would cause you to get matched against stronger opponents.

So no, BG is not intended to be a purely skill-focused game mode. It is a game mode where skill has a major impact on your performance, but roster does as well, and this is intentional. The strength of a player in BG is intended to measure everything: the combat skill of the player, the knowledge of the player, the tactical experience of the player in the mode, the roster strength of the player, the deck construction skill of the player, and the drafting ability of the player. It all counts, it is all supposed to count.

And in a game that primarily supports itself through players chasing and ranking champions, having the showcase PvP game mode eliminate roster advantages would be borderline economic suicide.

Roster strength is an advantage. It is not an unfair advantage. It is no more of an unfair advantage than tall people have an unfair height advantage in basketball. How a player gets a strong roster is irrelevant. Whether they grind or spend or just have been around for ten years, this game does not discriminate against them. Strong rosters are strong rosters, and however you get them, you get to use them. There are no Scarlet Letters for players who spend. If there were, no one would spend on this game, and there would be no battlegrounds.

Now, as to your specific suggestion. I have a suspicion that even people who agree with your premise would think this was a horrible idea. Players would have to deliberately rank up lower rarities just to property participate in VT. That's not going to go over very well. A player deciding to participate for the first time would start low, and even if they didn't start in Bronze, they would almost certainly start at a VT tier that would limit their ability to use their full roster. That's untenable.

manishmt326

DNA3000 said:

>
The premise.

Kabam has stated that roster growth is an intended component of BG. In fact, the explicitly stated reason why they got rid of deck matching was that it created the perception that ranking champs was not only worthless in BG, it was actually counterproductive because using lower rarity champs forced the game to find lower rarity deck-wielding opponents which had a higher chance of being newer players, while ranking up your deck caused you to match against stronger players. There was even a rumor that ranking up champs that were not even in your deck would cause you to get matched against stronger opponents.

So no, BG is not intended to be a purely skill-focused game mode. It is a game mode where skill has a major impact on your performance, but roster does as well, and this is intentional. The strength of a player in BG is intended to measure everything: the combat skill of the player, the knowledge of the player, the tactical experience of the player in the mode, the roster strength of the player, the deck construction skill of the player, and the drafting ability of the player. It all counts, it is all supposed to count.

And in a game that primarily supports itself through players chasing and ranking champions, having the showcase PvP game mode eliminate roster advantages would be borderline economic suicide.

Roster strength is an advantage. It is not an unfair advantage. It is no more of an unfair advantage than tall people have an unfair height advantage in basketball. How a player gets a strong roster is irrelevant. Whether they grind or spend or just have been around for ten years, this game does not discriminate against them. Strong rosters are strong rosters, and however you get them, you get to use them. There are no Scarlet Letters for players who spend. If there were, no one would spend on this game, and there would be no battlegrounds.

Now, as to your specific suggestion. I have a suspicion that even people who agree with your premise would think this was a horrible idea. Players would have to deliberately rank up lower rarities just to property participate in VT. That's not going to go over very well. A player deciding to participate for the first time would start low, and even if they didn't start in Bronze, they would almost certainly start at a VT tier that would limit their ability to use their full roster. That's untenable.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I appreciate you took the time.

I don’t see why this would stop roster growth though.
It would incentivise ranking up lower stars, but as an advanced player, ranking up 4–5 stars doesn’t really make that much of a dent. If anything, it would encourage ranking up good characters as you get them, rather than hoarding resources and waiting for the perfect 6 or 7-star pull.

There is a difference between deck matching and rarity locking.
Deck matching was flawed because it could be manipulated and also penalised players for progressing their roster. Rarity locking would be a transparent structure — players would know exactly what kind of deck they need at each tier. It doesn’t punish roster depth; it rewards having a wide, balanced deck across rarities.

The version I suggested in my original post was just the easiest way to explain the concept — obviously the actual execution would need to be more nuanced. 6 and 7-stars are more accessible now, so including a few of them early on would make sense. Scaling up to no limits by Plat or Diamond would be totally fine. The point is, you still benefit from a strong roster — but early matchups become more about who plays better than who owns 10 R3 7-stars.

When you say BG is intended to measure everything — I agree, but all those factors (combat skill, drafting ability, tactical knowledge) are player-dependent. Roster strength is the only one that’s not. That’s the imbalance I’m trying to address. It’s not about removing roster advantage — just scaling it appropriately during the climb so newer or returning players actually get to compete, not just stomp or get stomped.

This wouldn’t stop people from spending or grinding. People will always chase top champs. This does however give more value to older investments and creates more meaningful matches early on. Full rosters still matter — they just shine more up the climb.

Do you really not think there’s a middle ground where matchups can be more balanced without affecting player spending?