**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Battleground Matchmaking : Cry Babies
VinodCherry
Posts: 60 ★
Dear all,
I see a lot of accounts crying about the matchmaking based on roster/deck and wanted it similar to AW.
In AW, the match making happens on rating and to some extent prestige, but they don’t happen based on SKILL level.
A cavalier/uncollected who has got the skill can beat a TB defenders ?
If the argument goes about match making vs progression levels, then does the cavaliers and uncollected don’t deserve a place in Gold 1/2/3 alliances and deserve only Bronze rewards ?
I see the argument and asking is totally baseless!!
Cheers
Vino
I see a lot of accounts crying about the matchmaking based on roster/deck and wanted it similar to AW.
In AW, the match making happens on rating and to some extent prestige, but they don’t happen based on SKILL level.
A cavalier/uncollected who has got the skill can beat a TB defenders ?
If the argument goes about match making vs progression levels, then does the cavaliers and uncollected don’t deserve a place in Gold 1/2/3 alliances and deserve only Bronze rewards ?
I see the argument and asking is totally baseless!!
Cheers
Vino
7
Comments
You think it's fair for me to go up against TB players with rank 3 6* champs because half their deck is 2*?
As uncollected I can't buy 6* shards from the store, only 5*.
I'm getting my 6* shards from the solo event milestones.
This is taking ages because of sandbaggers.
If you want tiered match-ups you should get tiered rewards.
Staggering starting tier on the VT would be fine and help with a lot of early mismatches but matching in itself should never have anything to do with anything other than your current bracket/ranking. Anyone else similarly ranked should be fair game.
Why should I only get matched up with players who have a dozen r4 6*s (and in many cases.whale accounts with all the newest champs which I don't have) as early as in bronze? I literally have to face accounts stacked with top r4 6* defenders in bronze and silver trying to claw way out of it.
Those with 5*s as top champs meanwhile getting easy path facing weak accounts and getting clean easy path to platinum or higher. How in the world is this seen fair where weaker players are being rewarded for not progressing well?
I really believe separate leagues are needed at this point so lower players can get matched against lower player, but with lower rewards. I understand lower players not wanting to get matched with TB and Paragon, but in currently system we are all competing for exact same rewards.
In the same way, if someone wants to field a weaker roster to match a lower opponent it's not great for competition but it's a risk to them as it could also backfire. You can only beat what is in front of you.
I believe as there are no tiers to the rewards, everyone should be able to match anyone from their current tier. E.g. gold 2 match up with gold 2 with no filtering, only random matches.
If rewards are different for paragon, TB, cav etc. Then there should be different leagues like in boxing where featherweights face other featherweights. If a featherweight and heavyweight wanted to match in a friendly it's ok but not official competition.
Just my opinion.
We are not competing for the same rewards.
6* shards are locked for me in the store.
I can only get 5* because I'm uncollected.
The second thing that Kabam are currently struggling to do is to balance the competitive side of bg with making it a game mode that the average player can enjoy.
I don’t think that anyone should get a free ride based on their roster/deck, as it does defeat the purpose of the game mode. I’d say that 75%+ of the decks that I’m playing against are better than mine, at least in terms of quantity of R4s and higher sig R3s, so I take it as a compliment that I’m able to compete with these larger accounts and in many cases win.
I think that a reasonable compromise between keeping the mode appealing for the try-hards like me, and the casuals is to implement some form of seeding based on previous seasons, and to an extent in game progression:
S2 finish in the GC, irrelevant of title: Plat 3
Paragon not in S2 GC: Gold 3
TB not in S2 GC: Silver 3
Everyone else: Bronze 3
Don’t change matchmaking algorithms to take roster into account, but this would give newer players the ability to play a little before they reach their natural ceiling which would be the TBs/Cavs who aren’t actually very good, or are playing casually. Likewise the TBs who are keen on progressing are going to get a day or so of easier matchups before they immediately hit the bigger accounts.
The serious players from the GC will save a boat load of energy/Elders marks and be able to devote more effort and energy to playing in the GC than they would normally be able to - I pretty much ran out of Elders Marks by the time I hit the circuit this season and that was with a consistent win rate over 50%.
Ultimately I’m not sure if there’s a ‘correct’ option, it’s still a new game mode with growing pains right now, but as this mode offers MCoC’s Segway into competitive e-gaming, it’s in their best interest to keep it appealing to the casuals, newly ambitious and the already-sweaty players alike.
But you miss one important point. The real big teams (Liverpool, Man Utd etc…) do not join until round 3… there has already been 2 main rounds and 7/8ish pre qualifier rounds.
This is what is missing from BGs currently.
If go down a route of a tier/division system with everyone competing for same rewards people shouldn't expect to avoid fighting bigger accounts at all. While the sandbagging approach is dodgy it's a symptom of the terrible approach to the victory track. Removing sandbagging and keeping everything else as is in terms of structure and rewards doesn't make things fair. If everyone is going to be forced from the same starting position, for the same rewards then everyone should have equal chance to fight each other regardless of deck or progression. This approach could improve over time if they removed the everyone starting from bronze. Smaller accounts shouldn't just be able to fight to top of victory track without fighting bigger accounts. At some point there needs to be a point where everyone can fight everyone.
If do want more accessible battles for everyone based on account strength, then everyone needs to be segregated from the get go based on account and be fighting for different caliber of rewards. In this case matchmaking could be based off of the top 7 champs In deck since that's the minimum people need to select.
Wanting more accessible battles for everyone is a good thing and will help enjoyment for all, but it's not a simple case of stopping sandbagging, there would need to be an accompanying change in structure to rewards and the tier system.
I have a strong roster but I'm not a whale and I don't do competitive aw (so haven't done defensive rankups much) and don't have the new champs plus it's crazy hard winning that many in a row against rosters like that.
I 100% admit I'm among those who adjusted roster to avoid fighting a roster full of top r4 6* defenders in bronze and silver leagues while weaker rosters are going against 4* Groot's as defenders. However, the only thing I think that is sillier than those complaining about those who do this is that we have to do it to begin with just to get out of bronze and silver. If we are competing for same prizes, there is absolutely no reason for more progressing players to be forever into harder matchups.