**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
Comments
You’d need to give them more rewards via another Avenue, but then the ones below us would double dip. It’s a lot to do and kabam will break the game as usual by this method.
You arent competing against uc and cav for rewards you are still competing against paragons for rewards because theres no way a uc or cav would place anywhere near you assuming you are putting in the work uc and cav would simpily get less rewards than you would
Yes the "little guy" Can win if the big guy dosent put in any effort but i think its safe to say most people in bg's are trying to win their matches and it would be impossible for a smaller account to rank up if they're constantly matching bigger accounts and the only way to rank is to win 3-5 matches in a row
I think a Better system would be certain point thresholds is a new rank so between 300 points would get you gold 3 and once you get to like 400 you would rank to gold 2 and you have the chance to gain point even if you lost when you enter a match you start with negative points and if you win 1 round maybe you get enough points so that you are now at 0 and if you win the next match you's get like 40 points or something if you win 1 lose 2 then you'd end at like 15-20 points depending on how well you did and if you lose 2 then your either still in the negatives or a very low positive points.
But, either way, no one can read my posts, so I don't know why I even bother writting my opinion here. @Kabam Jax
I'm not getting easier matches though. I became uncollected two weeks ago (that's like the fifth time I've mentioned this to you) so I don't really get any skill or roster advantages by using only my 4*
The reason why probably the vast majority of people find 6/2 deck stacking to be unfair is not because it is unfair to use 6s and 2s. The reason it is considered unfair is because such a player has no intention of using the 2s. If they actually had to consistently use them, I think people wouldn't find the practice to be as unfair as most do. The 2s are there to manipulate the match system into seeing the deck as weaker, while they actually only use the stronger champs. Statistically speaking, if they do it right they can make the odds of actually pulling and using those champs acceptably low (you only need four out of seven champs to be top champs to have a huge advantage, because if you win the first two fights you don't need to use the rest).
Using a deck of all 4s is debatable. I used two decks in season two: a full strength deck and an all 5/50 deck. In my opinion, an all 5/50 deck is a fair deck, because all of those champs are intended to be used. The deck isn't presenting an artificial strength. It matches against other decks of equal or higher strength.
The idea that the deck is fair but the *player* behind it is unfair, because I have more experience and skill than most players using such decks, seems nonsensical to me. Of course there are many players I would have a lot more skill and experience than. But there are a lot of players that have far more skill than me. Is it unfair when I match against them? To me, this is all or nothing. If I have an unfair advantage when I match against a player of lesser skill, I have an unfair disadvantage when I match against a player of superior skill.
In any case, this is also a completely moot complaint. In season two if you used a 4* 5/50 deck, the probability of running into an inexperienced player with a weak roster of 4* champs was practically zero. In all the matches I ran with the 5/50 deck, I ran into maybe two of those in Bronze 3. Outside of B3, I ran into no such player. Some of the players were 2* decks. Some of the players were likely weaker players, but they were not using decks of 4* champs. Because of how rosters get built, they were using decks with a mix of 4* and 5* champs, and the 5/50 deck was always at a disadvantage. I do not recall ever running into another deck of all 5/50s or weaker.
Essentially, no one actually has a roster full of 5/50s and zero 5* r3s and r4s. That just never happens in reality. Anyone with a lot of 5/50s also has at least a few 5* r3 or higher. And those higher champs tend, on average, to offer a slight to significant material advantage. In fact, my Cavalier alt that is *forced* to use a deck with a mix of 6* and 5* and 4* champs (because that's what it actually has as its strongest possible deck configuration) actually had a much easier time winning in season two. I had a 70% win percentage with that account, because that account *did* often match against weaker decks. That sort of "organic" mix of champions was far stronger than an artificially constructed deck of 4* only champs by a significant margin.
From what I've seen on it when tested, it's use at lower ranks of the ladder causes the most level disparity and it evens out at higher ranks for pool strength. As you pointed out, higher up its common for thronebreakers with like 0-1 r4 6s to match with paragons with 5 or 6 of them. Add to the fact that nearly everyone who can play the mode is inundated with the same champs that a ban has to be used on, and the mode diversity and strategy suffers. The accuracy of champ power entering the match ends up being even.
In most deck building card games, being able to increase your draw power is king. So if I match up against someone with 2s in their deck and we both end up with champs at the 11-12 k mark thruout at the end of it, the match still feels even - as long as it's someone who can pinch their upper pool with in bans. That person is taking the risk of hurting their draw power and allowing more counter options; they have to add quite a few for the impact to be meaningful on matchmaking. The matchmaking is still randomized vs true manipulation, like the big dawgs trying to match against specific players by queuing up at the same time.
The solutions addressed above would curb the issue by making much riskier to try to do. Players would have proved they have the skill to belong in their rank before it's use and it increases the risk of trying to use it with a wider ban pool. Heck, while at it, put a cap on the number of reshuffles a person gets and make it so you can only earn more by completing certain objectives or something. Or reduce the number of selection choices a player gets per round. It's supposed to be a strategic tool but if a person can buy and use every match that seems much less fair imo.
Kabam stated they implemented fixes to their matchmaking to make it more balanced. I bet with a smaller pool of users due to a rank cap, they could add deck criteria to match players based on number of stars under certain rank as a condition and match similar decks together more frequently, but alas cannot say for certain without knowing the criteria that goes into it currently.
2. Of course I was losing with my top deck (and by top deck I mean throwing in my six rank 4 5* I have which isn't even that much of a difference), I kept getting matched with people like you who actually sandbag, a word you clearly don't know the meaning of.
I’ve matched larger, similar and weaker rosters last season, without ever sandbagging. Won my fair share, even against stronger accounts by drafting better or playing better. Actually made it to Glad circuit. And am far from a whale. I can’t be the only one