Allow sandbagging?
Badabibidon
Member Posts: 91 ★
My situation is rare, but not unique. I have well over 100 6* champions, but only a few top shelf, and even fewer useful awakened champs. So by doing what a player "should" do, and keeping every champion I get, my base hero rating is almost 2 million. But my very top champions hardly look like throne breaker champions and I am CONSTANTLY "like, every single match"; getting matches that dwarf my best deck due to this. When sandbagging was allowed I actually had a chance at fairness, and by all means I do not consider the method "cheating" because it's not.
Should there be an allowance for some measure of sandbagging?
Should there be an allowance for some measure of sandbagging?
Allow sandbagging? 145 votes
0
Comments
Anyway, I suspect Kabam will find more ways to punish this “strategy”, so I guess take advantage of the system while you can.
100 6* champs is enough to complete in Bags, maybe focus on what you have and work around the champs.
Matchmaking should take the deck roster into account. But exclude the champs that are significantly lower than the top champs in the deck.
Matchmaking should place everyone versus everyone regardless of deck strength. Or equal deck strength ignoring outlier champs on the low side. Currently, matchmaking is doing neither of these.
I also think they should go back to BG rating as in Beta. Start at 1500 points, +15 for a win/ -15 for a loss. This will also mean that those who lose a lot will have more even match ups, and prob a better BG experience.
Since we are all competing for same rewards and competing for rank rewards, I strongly believe that either there should be separate "leagues" with different rewards OR if left how it is then matchmaking should be ANYONE in a specific tier (such as gold 1) should be able to be matched up with anyone in that same tier (such as gold 1) and prestige and pi should have ZERO role in the matchmaking process.
Either of the above would get rid of sandbagging as it would be pointless and zero benefit.
So in short; no sandbagging more mercs 🤷🏼♂️
Funny thing is when I screen record it never happens.
I've fought nothing but paragons with over 13.5k prestige and most with 15k+ prestige and many, many more r4s, as far back as my history goes, which is silver 1 (currently plat 3 and very unlikely to reach even diamond, let alone GC).
So I'm ambivalent and frankly leaning towards the position where, if someone like me, who *has* invested heavily in their roster is massively disadvantaged by matchmaking, why shouldn't everyone be?
So I vote yes, just to see it all burn....
I play every day and pay to support the game, albeit not much on the pay side; 4.99 a month unit thingy is well worth it. It's ridiculous that paragons are being heavily penalized for roster development, regardless of how they tweak matchmaking.
It's also borderline bonkers that the long term players and often largest payers are being proactively disadvantaged by kabam in this game mode.
The only rationale I can think of, is the relic shards and related prestige race, is a monetization focus on the uber whales at the top that will pay anything to get them.
@Kabam Jax - the team have been remarkably silent on this issue. Why are paragons only being matched against each other in bronze? Or even in the victory track at all?
I'd love to match some of the TBs, Cavs and uncollected people moaning about getting stuck in diamond or getting stomped in the GC, when it's a struggle to get out of gold in the VC if you have high prestige, but not much depth. I'm still running a load of 5/65s in my decks, whereas everyone I match against has only meta r3s or r4s.
At the start of the season when there's 1,000 Paragons, 10,000 Thronebreakers, 50,000 Cavaliers and the untold masses of casual Uncollected and lower players all starting out in the same position matchmaking without taking deck, progression title or prestige into account would result in those Paragons having a fairly easy ride up to Silver/Gold or so. They've beaten all of the smaller accounts and are ahead of the pack, and are finding their matches harder as they start to fight their peers for progress. These Paragons leaping ahead of everyone else would allow the Thronebreakers and Cavaliers easier progression up to a point, until the Paragons start to flag and the advancing Thronebreakers meet up with them and they fight and again the pack spreads, most likely with the Paragons out in front again.
This natural concertina of progression would be fine, the majority of the paragons and serious Thronebreakers would reach the circuit ahead of everyone else and then the pack would follow. I think that this is the design philosophy that Kabam had in mind when designing the Victory Track. There's no real benefit to going early, but players want to flex that they're ahead and it naturally drives competition to advance. This season with constant adjustments to the matchmaking has resulted in small accounts being well in advance of their natural position, with large accounts stuck and now everyone is meeting in the middle in a big melee that isn't benefiting anyone.
It should also be noted that access to the Gladiator circuit shouldn't be guaranteed, it is something that's earned and rightly so. I discuss this, and my proposed changes here, if anyone's interested in my proposed division system:
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/320961/proposed-change-to-bg#latest
@Kabam Miike @“Kabam Jax”
If that would get fixed, people wouldn't feel the need to Sandbag in the first place.
Rough idea leave the circuit alone, leave the solo event and allaince event alone as that gives the big dogs something to strive for but change the track. Do something like whatever the wins needed to get on circuit (I didn't count so don't know what that is) multiple that by 2 or 3 wins to get on circuit but loses don't take you down would make it more acceptable.
I would much prefer something like that then people targeting matches against uc accounts.