**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
Literally every other competitive game (including AW in MCOC) give benefits to get the best players to the top of the ladder sooner. I have no idea why they think starting everyone at 0 every season is a good idea.
And can someone please explain to me why low players have this entitlement of thinking they are supposed to have "fair" matches" against similar strength opponents when fighting for same rewards as high up players?
You’re right that progress typically slows as you get further ahead in a game, but that doesn’t really apply where people compete against each other for the same rewards.
And the only times I can think of where developers step in is when people are finding some way to mess around with the matchmaking/avoiding specific matches (sort of like how Kabam have said if you intentionally try and match with your own secondary account that is punishable).
1. Sandbagging is real and has been for a long time in numerous games. There's very little way around it when it's based on roster strength.
2. Lower level players eventually do hit a ceiling and can't progress beyond that. It's the sandbaggers that can add to their rosters and keep going , gaining advantageous easier matchups early on.
3. The solution needs to be something that doesn't put sections of players at a disadvantage and at the same time discourages sandbagging.
4. Giving a multiplier or higher points to ppl with bigger roster sounds fine but that'll again have to be a very huge change to BGs. Right now the system is built only around Wins.
5. You could argue assigning base points to rosters and ppl starting and matching up with others in the same group, but again, this does not fix sandbagging.
My suggestion would be to consider only the TOP 15 champs to determine the roster strength variable. That'll eliminate the lopsided rosters.
We only need 7 champs to fight each round, so 50% of the roster strength (15/30) is good enough for that determination.
That'll also ensure that ppl with 10- 15 r4 champs and other r2/1 champs don't get matches with players who only have 3 or 4 r4 champs.
To deal with players who are using only 3* or 2* champs, they should implement something like in incursions, gate the rewards based on progression level and roster strength.
A 3* roster shouldn't be able to claim paragon rewards in the store.
However, when you're talking about progress, it gets harder to progress for people the more they advance. Not easier.
Please, name all the competitive pvp games that starts everyone at 0 each season w/o any multipliers or advantages to get the best players to the top as quickly as possible.
Here are 6 football games that were played on Thanksgiving last week.
Weequahic 68, Shabazz 8
Dumont 17, Tenafly 0
Haddonfield 45, Haddon Heights 18
Minnasota 33, New England 26
Dallas 28, New York 20
Buffalo 28, Detroit 25
Assuming all teams were in the same league, like Kabam has done with BGs, your "logic" would mean that Weequahic, Dumont and Haddonfield are all better and should progress further than New England, New York and Detroit. Does that make any sense to you?
If you’re in gold 2 for example, you fight vs anyone else in gold 2. No factoring in roster, prestige, anything. Just the fact that both players are fighting to reach gold 1.
And frankly I agree with that.
And not only that, but with the loss of tokens, it means BG progression can feel like a battle too far. You can't grind, level, rank up or anything else, through the back to back win set up needed here. Not even shields can help you do it.
So it's shiny and new now, but how many people are going to be playing it in a season or two with this matchmaking and this punishing ladder system. I'm guessing not many.
What bothers me is the sense of entitlement with the idea that because people are in the same pool, stronger Accounts have the right to lower their Matchmaking results just for Wins. That's not any more fair than a Reward structure that is imbalanced.
Also, you're supposed to have harder Matches when you're more advanced in the game, not easier ones. It's also easy to judge another based on what would be easy for you, but you can't use your own perspective to judge what's easy for others.
People are meant to meet challenges that are appropriate for them.
All this talk about lower Champs being easier Matches for other people is irreverent to the fact that they're playing based on their own skill set, against Champs that are challenging enough for where they're at. People have been making Alts for so long with added experience that they actually think it's that easy for people earlier on. Not so.
But you’ll still get people whining it’s unfair as “paragon/Thronebreaker get all this for x wins but I only get these lesser rewards, how unfair!”
Sure it'll be easy for a Paragon but for someone at that level it's really not easy unless your opponent became UC with the help of Unitman which not everyone does.
The people who have played and/or spent the most should 100% have a huge head start over the newer players who haven't spent as much time and/or money on the game.
The real "source of the entitlement" is the low players who think they deserve the be on the same level as the top players.
On one side, you have Players playing the best they can with the Matches the system gives them. They're frustrated that the system is giving them Matches they can't compete with.
On the other side, you have people offended that lower Players are in the same pool, and they're going out of their way to take advantage of them by manipulating the mechanics.
There's only one entitled side I see.