Battleground matchups

Amit99Amit99 Member Posts: 27 ★
in General Discussion
In battleground relatively small roster should get the chance to select defender second

Comments

  • Amit99Amit99 Member Posts: 27 ★
    I am in top 2000 and mostly matched against paragons on top of that I had to choose the defender first
    I am still not paragon yet and if there is even a chance of winning bigger roster should get tha chance of selecting defender first
  • ValrozValroz Member Posts: 218 ★★★
    The AI managing the matchups for Battleground should prioritize getting the matchup rosters as close to each participants' power index as possible. If matched against a stronger opponent then the weaker opponent should be allowed to choose all the top champs in his roster to have any chance at winning at all.

    If the main basis for the matchup priority is the current status of the summoner (uncollected, cavalier, TB, Paragon) then it will be a pointles match for around 90% of the matches because one summoner Cavalier (who had just become Cavalier) will not have the roster depth of a summoner who has been Cavalier for a year or longer. It would make more sense for a new Cavalier to be matched against Uncollected near becoming Cavalier.

    I've noticed in my 50+ matchups thus far, the fights are either too easy or impossible, and almost never at-par with my opponent. So of the 50+ matches I've had, less than 4 was against an opponent that was very close to the depth of my roster and vice-versa.
  • KanoooKanooo Member Posts: 123 ★
    Agree there should be some balance.

    Many times I’ve been unable to select my favorite defenders (without getting banned and not even on selectable screen) and yet the opponent can choose all of them and whacked me with them too.
  • ValrozValroz Member Posts: 218 ★★★
    So to those that disagreed (6 of you at the moment) - so you're fine with the matches being either too difficult or too easy?
  • Vergeman78Vergeman78 Member Posts: 133 ★★
    Matchups should be ranked based, regardless of account size. With the introduction of ranked rewards, it is just logical people with bigger, stronger rosters have an edge.

    It is a contest after all, you see any sports league giving an advantage to the weakest player/team to even out the odds?
  • SirGamesBondSirGamesBond Member Posts: 5,139 ★★★★★
    Everyone is competing for same rewards.
    Rules must remain same for everyone.
  • GrayShadow85GrayShadow85 Member Posts: 2
    So you guys want more benefits despite having bigger roster 😂😂
  • MackeyMackey Member Posts: 1,597 ★★★★★


    I'd love to know how I lost this match up 🤔 @Kabam Miike
  • MackeyMackey Member Posts: 1,597 ★★★★★
    Vergeman78 said:

    Matchups should be ranked based, regardless of account size. With the introduction of ranked rewards, it is just logical people with bigger, stronger rosters have an edge.

    It is a contest after all, you see any sports league giving an advantage to the weakest player/team to even out the odds?

    No but in football for example .... a league 1 team can't simply win 10 matches and face off against a Premier league team can they? There does need to be some sort of leagues in this mode too at present a cavalier player could be really lucky and get 10 matches where they face against a player who is tanking therefore getting 10 consecutive wins and being able to face off against a top 3000 player. Hardly logical is it?. There needs to be tiers to this mode like AW has. Also agree that the matchmaking should be geared around your rating and not progression.. or if anything, have all TB in one bracket and then match them according to their ratings
  • ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Member Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    If everyone is competing for exact same rank rewards, why in world would one player get advantage over another?!

    That's like saying alliance with lowest rating in AW shouldn't have any of their attackers banned or some silly advantage like that.
  • GrassKnucklesGrassKnuckles Member Posts: 1,941 ★★★★★
    Valroz said:

    So to those that disagreed (6 of you at the moment) - so you're fine with the matches being either too difficult or too easy?

    The only people who disagree are paragons cause they like moping the floor until they get to their own level
  • ccrider474ccrider474 Member Posts: 665 ★★★
    GrassKnuckles said:

    Valroz said:

    So to those that disagreed (6 of you at the moment) - so you're fine with the matches being either too difficult or too easy?

    The only people who disagree are paragons cause they like moping the floor until they get to their own level
    I am not paragon and dislike this idea. Scaled advantage would have too mean Scaled rewards to be truly fair.

    I'm teetering just out of top 1000 as I can play alright. If I lose to them on top so be it I'll get them next time but I have a fair shake as is.

    Fingers crossed couple more wins and they get rid of all these hacker accounts from the leaderboard I'll slip into top 1000. If not so be it but I had a chance just happens I got overpowered at the end.
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,330 ★★★★★
    GrayShadow85 said:

    So you guys want more benefits despite having bigger roster 😂😂

    Actually, yes. But the converse is true as well, isn’t it? You have a smaller roster, but want the big boy rewards?
  • Saru2244Saru2244 Member Posts: 183 ★
    xNig said:

    GrayShadow85 said:

    So you guys want more benefits despite having bigger roster 😂😂

    Actually, yes. But the converse is true as well, isn’t it? You have a smaller roster, but want the big boy rewards?
    Both are correct, but both are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Of course, everyone wants to be as good as they can be and, as a result, get the best possible rewards. As long as there is fair matchmaking where everyone can compete with opponents on an equal footing, that's ok too. From my experience, this matchmaking has gotten better, but there is still room for improvement and unfair matches then lead to these distribution discussions.

Sign In or Register to comment.