Would the game be better without 7*s?

I know I'm supposed to care about 7 stars, and maybe I just have endgame fatigue, but I'm happy with my 6*s.

In BGs, I'm always facing off against people with 45,000 level champs and my highest is at 30k, a number of people I get placed against, their lowest champ is 30k...I want a fair fight!

I still remember my first 6* years ago.

Comments

JESUSCHRIST

This game wouldn't exist today without 7* to sell to players

Kabam must always have something for players to chase so they can sell something to players

Furrymoosen

The content of your post has nothing to do with the title.

Play the game at your own pace. If you don't care about 7* champs, then don't. But that doesn't mean facing people that do care is unfair. Fair matchmaking is going up against anyone else participating in the same competition.

Soon enough will have the opportunity to trade rewards for "fair" matchmaking that is roster based.

ahmynuts

When i enter the saying absolutely nothing competition and my opponent is this guy

Anotherconcernplayer

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/407131/would-the-game-be-better-without-7-s

I'm not aure if the game is better without 7*, not even sure if it would of survived without 7*.

However regarding BG, I do think you would be better with 7*s.

The good news is, the next season, you will have the chance to match against similar account size to your, but it will not count towards VT & GC.

So it will be up to you which how you want to proceed.

Slig

Roggam

thought maybe this thread was a necro from 2 years ago

DNA3000

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/407131/would-the-game-be-better-without-7-s

You probably don't actually want a fair fight.

First of all, we know what happens when we largely neutralize the roster advantage. You might think this puts the newer players into better parity with the veterans, but that's not what happens. What happens is the veterans with the gigantic rosters build decks with the same champs available to you, but they do so with a lot more knowledge and skill. They draft with more experience. They don't just play better in average, they have far more knowledge about all the little interactions with the game. When BGs were using deck matching way back, I constructed a 4* deck and proceeded to have my best win rates ever. I was winning at better than 75% rate, which was better than my win rate for both the seasons immediately preceding and immediately following that system.

Second, there is no way Kabam is going to give Uncollected players who just beat up each other the same rewards as Valiants competing against each other. Not going to happen, period. With Battlegrounds a complete free for all, the rewards are the same because everyone has to compete against everyone else. In a system with "fair fights" where lower progression players never have to face anyone stronger, the rewards would almost certainly be progression or prestige locked, much like adapative EQ is now.

Now imagine what happens to a large chunk of the players at a certain prestige or progression. The game is going to limit who they face, and limit the rewards they get for facing them. But in any group of players, half will be below average and half will be above average. There are a lot of Cavalier players that are good enough to beat Thronebreaker and Paragon players with significantly better rosters. They currently progress far higher than the average Cav now. But in a system where everything is "fair" that Cav will be sentenced to beat up lesser Cavs and get Cav-tier rewards. Some people say this makes BG more "skill focused" but it is actually penalizing the players with the highest skill. The highest skilled Thronebreakers get trapped in the same reward bracket as the worst ones. They might get better rewards than the worst Thronebreaker, but they will almost certainly get worse rewards than the mid Paragons, because they are getting mid Paragon-tier rewards. Look at the mid tier Paragon adaptive rewards and compare to the highest possible Thronebreaker adaptive rewards.

Even if you personally benefit from this system, half the players with the same roster strength as you won't. Eventually they will figure this out. By then it will be too late to change it back.

We'll see all of this in action when Kabam releases their "casual mode" BG, which will almost certainly employ some form of prestige matching to keep the individual fights closer in strength. It is highly unlikely to have a significant amount of competitive rewards, because the competition will be in effect highly watered down. It will probably be progression tuned, because prestige matching automatically segregates players, and that tends to trigger progression tuned rewards. Now, players who just want to play BG and don't care about rewards a lot will probably like this mode better. But my suspicion is most of the players complaining about "fair" matches do so because they think they deserve more rewards from the mode than what they are getting. Those people are probably not going to get what they want from the new variant BG. They will get what they are asking for instead.