Options
Battleground match-making
Halley
Member Posts: 694 ★★★
Hi all,
I think BG should be adjusted to be more friendly and suitable for every body's progression, somehow like titles (Valiant/Paragon etc.)
Especially in VT, they should let everyone be able to reach as high as possible with their progression. And maybe in GC, it can be harder, but for lower rank, like Uru, Gamma for example, they should let equally/comparable accounts to compete with each others.
It would be more fun and less complaints though 🤷
I think BG should be adjusted to be more friendly and suitable for every body's progression, somehow like titles (Valiant/Paragon etc.)
Especially in VT, they should let everyone be able to reach as high as possible with their progression. And maybe in GC, it can be harder, but for lower rank, like Uru, Gamma for example, they should let equally/comparable accounts to compete with each others.
It would be more fun and less complaints though 🤷
4
Comments
There are more and more Whales with 10+ r4 7*, and annoying defenders (Dark Phoenix, Serphent, D.Thanos, Nick, Enchantress, etc.) and Whales have better attackers (Torch, FAM etc.) So they should compete with each others in Celes or something, not disturb lower accounts to get points in VT, Uru, Gamma...
Do you think those progression level accounts deserve, should earn, the same rewards as the higher tiers?
If you want to do better in bgs, then do the content and and progress your account, come back every season and and watch how you improve with every new rank up to your deck.
It's not a participation event. It's a competition.
I mean, to adjust to let more players to be able to join BG and get some stuffs, not exclusive for whales only, maybe only VT, Uru, Gamma
That's one of the reasons why loyal players are quitting more and more these days, they're not P2W but the game does
BGs is the most competitive mode in the game for solo players. Part of that is investing in and managing your roster. Those that don’t whale out shouldn’t expect to keep up with whales.
The problem is, you can't justify anything other than what we have with a rational argument. The argument stops and starts at "small accounts are having a hard time". The game mode already functions with the "as high as possible" access to rewards across the board. Every single account is able to go as high up the rewards as they possibly can. But the argument for easier access for low level rewards is using the wrong language. What you're asking for is not as high as possible, but as high as available. In reality, all players can reach what is as high as achievable for them. Every player can already go as high as they are able; that doesn't mean that they should be able to go as high as they want to get. If you can't get past diamond 3, then that's as high as possible for you to go and you've gotten all the rewards that you are able to achieve with your account and skill.
Once upon a time, matchmaking was exactly what lower level accounts propose on here every day. It was based primarily on overall account strength and deck strength as well. We had a season where UC accounts made it to the GC at will and Paragon accounts were left out or barely made it in. In a competitive game mode, is it fair that accounts were left out that could've beaten many of the accounts that got in? Is it fair that accounts with more time, effort (and yes, money) had to struggle while accounts barely progressed made it in with ease?
The argument is constantly for Kabam to give low level accounts whatever they want disguised as an argument to make the game more enjoyable or fun for them. At the end of the day, it's just entitlement and entitlement doesn't apply to a competitive game mode where everyone is in one pool going for the same prizes.
Offer a sound argument for why lower level accounts having an easy go is fair for all players and I will join the cause.
Unless you are matched against me LOL
Yes it will be brutal next season when we all start at the same tier with celestial players
First, I will say that you have a valid point in noting the 30 champ deck limit. This is a mechanism that increases parity at higher levels of competition, because if a big account has more than 30 viable champs for a season, some of them sit on the bench. Presumably, the larger accounts have a better selection and more top ranked champs than the growing accounts, but there is a limit in terms of deck composition.
Where the competitiveness in matchmaking gets strained by account rating is, obviously, on the higher end of champion rankings. Yes, some part of a 7 mil account is composed of maxed 2*-5*, just as some part of a 4 mil account will be, very likely in similar proportions. But clearly a lot of what constitutes an account's rating are the champs on the higher end, both in terms of variety and rank. Notice how players currently talk about how many R4 7* champs they have or face. That's the part of the large account that makes the rating a metric for parity in matchmaking. Anyone who would genuinely argue that the principal difference between a 7 mil account and a 4 mil account is the maxed 2-5* champs is either very mistaken or not serious.
I don't want to be misconstrued here. We're not rats, and I'm not advocating in letting growing accounts simply win. I also don't think that rewards should be the same at lower levels of competition as at the highest levels.
What I am saying is that while the players who are making the point that weaker accounts should not be rewarded similar to stronger accounts are indeed correct, they want to have their cake and eat it too if they insist that the stronger accounts should attain high value rewards by punching down. Rewards should be in line with the level of challenge required. If you're beating elite players or even just whales, by all means, you should be getting great rewards. Kudos to you! If, on the other hand, you're just stomping on accounts half your size and collecting radiance and trophy tokens, that is contributing to an imbalance that is going to affect all areas of the game (e.g. The ever-present complaints of "These rewards suck!") and I don't really see how that is good for anyone who enjoys the game in the long run.
By the way, I think Kabam is doing a great job with their just-announced "little leagues" for Battlegrounds. I think it's very important for newer and intermediate players to have access to a PVP mode where they can face their peers for level-appropriate rewards. I am also hopeful that, in looking at the recent radiance data and seeing how it affected the game overall, that adjustments will be made that lead to enjoyable, high-level competition for more players with appropriate reward distribution at each level of play.
Lastly, I'm happy that you seem to recognize that if I actually could enter the little leagues and face lower-rated accounts, I should not receive high level rewards. I encourage you to expand that thinking to the imbalanced match-ups that occur within higher levels.