How You Can Decrease Prestige

HalpyHalpy Member Posts: 146 ★
in General Discussion
Does anyone know if there is a way to decrease one account's prestige? It is of no use to me and I would like to lower mine so that I can have more fun playing battlegrounds.
Thx.
«1

Comments

  • Total_Domin01Total_Domin01 Member Posts: 1,015 ★★★★
    There is no way to lower your actual prestige, by not playing (or not ranking up/adding sigs) it will become lower than people who are at the top. The only problem with this logic is by then people who are currently at a lower progression than you will be moved up to about where you are, thus making this plan somewhat pointless.
  • ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Member Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    You can't decrease it but what I started doing about a month ago is use sig only on lower prestige champs, won't max rank any top prestige champs, won't do anything at all with relics (nothing more than what I had done before BG matchmaking change).
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,575 ★★★★★
    This Account was made a week ago. Feels like the same people making the same points. Perhaps I'm wrong. Who knows?
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Member Posts: 8,672 ★★★★★
    Sahil_R_Rana said:

    Remove your masteries points

    Masteries affect PI but not prestige. Your prestige is the average PI of your top 5 champs without masteries.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • CoppinCoppin Member Posts: 2,601 ★★★★★
    ItsDamien said:

    Coppin said:

    People complained about sandbaggers... And now we got ppl trying to lower prestiege....🤦

    It kind of makes sense though. People wanting to lower their prestige is a different beast to sandbagging. Sandbagging was done in a manipulative way to get easier fights in BGs under the old matchmaking system. With this new hybrid system which seems to take prestige into account in some way, those who have fewer champs or prioritised ranking up high prestige champs for the purposes of better AQ placements for the alliances are now locked into a place which can be difficult for them to enjoy battlegrounds.

    Not saying I’m in favour or against it, just that using prestige as a matchmaking metric has been proven to be… a problem in the past.
    I'm not disagreeing...
    I just find it hilarious they put the excuse of "to make it more fun"... Instead of saying "I'm tired of being beat up by people with similar roster or prestiege"....
  • SpadeHunterSpadeHunter Member Posts: 23 ★
    Coppin said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Coppin said:

    People complained about sandbaggers... And now we got ppl trying to lower prestiege....🤦

    It kind of makes sense though. People wanting to lower their prestige is a different beast to sandbagging. Sandbagging was done in a manipulative way to get easier fights in BGs under the old matchmaking system. With this new hybrid system which seems to take prestige into account in some way, those who have fewer champs or prioritised ranking up high prestige champs for the purposes of better AQ placements for the alliances are now locked into a place which can be difficult for them to enjoy battlegrounds.

    Not saying I’m in favour or against it, just that using prestige as a matchmaking metric has been proven to be… a problem in the past.
    I'm not disagreeing...
    I just find it hilarious they put the excuse of "to make it more fun"... Instead of saying "I'm tired of being beat up by people with similar roster or prestiege"....
    Three accounts
    Account A: 2M BH rating, is in a chill AQ alliance and has a prestige of 11.5k
    Account B: 2.2M BH rating, in a higher AQ alliance, and has a prestige of 15.5k
    Account C: 4.5M BH rating, also higher AQ alliance, prestige of 15.5k

    Which of AvB, AvC, BvC is most "fair" (on a comparative scale) and which is most likely (based on inferences made of the current matching system)?

    I imagine there's a chunk of people in Bs situation, facing a lot of C's. I do empathize with them
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • SummonerNRSummonerNR Member, Guardian Posts: 12,821 Guardian
    Halpy said:

    SpadeHunter said:

    Coppin said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Coppin said:

    People complained about sandbaggers... And now we got ppl trying to lower prestiege....🤦

    It kind of makes sense though. People wanting to lower their prestige is a different beast to sandbagging. Sandbagging was done in a manipulative way to get easier fights in BGs under the old matchmaking system. With this new hybrid system which seems to take prestige into account in some way, those who have fewer champs or prioritised ranking up high prestige champs for the purposes of better AQ placements for the alliances are now locked into a place which can be difficult for them to enjoy battlegrounds.

    Not saying I’m in favour or against it, just that using prestige as a matchmaking metric has been proven to be… a problem in the past.
    I'm not disagreeing...
    I just find it hilarious they put the excuse of "to make it more fun"... Instead of saying "I'm tired of being beat up by people with similar roster or prestiege"....
    Three accounts
    Account A: 2M BH rating, is in a chill AQ alliance and has a prestige of 11.5k
    Account B: 2.2M BH rating, in a higher AQ alliance, and has a prestige of 15.5k
    Account C: 4.5M BH rating, also higher AQ alliance, prestige of 15.5k

    Which of AvB, AvC, BvC is most "fair" (on a comparative scale) and which is most likely (based on inferences made of the current matching system)?

    I imagine there's a chunk of people in Bs situation, facing a lot of C's. I do empathize with them
    A vs B is as fair as it gets. Only a difference of 10 percent between the two people. Cant ask for more
    (A vs B ??) Wrong.
    B vs C is more fair.
    An equal total hero rating (player rating) in no way equates to having similar strength champs at your upper end.

    Could be that one person has 200 champs vs 700 champs, but the 200 champ person has an abundance of the very highly ranked ones. Versus the 700 champ roster is so full of very low rated 3*/4*/5* champs (but without any very highly ranked ones at all) that both players would appear to have a similar “Rating”.

    Prestige is much better to use for comparison (although, yes, for BG as opposed to Prestige for AQ, BG prestige should maybe be based on top-15 or top-20 champs instead of just top-5 like for AQ).
  • Graves_3Graves_3 Member Posts: 1,541 ★★★★★
    SummonerNR said:

    Halpy said:

    SpadeHunter said:

    Coppin said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Coppin said:

    People complained about sandbaggers... And now we got ppl trying to lower prestiege....🤦

    It kind of makes sense though. People wanting to lower their prestige is a different beast to sandbagging. Sandbagging was done in a manipulative way to get easier fights in BGs under the old matchmaking system. With this new hybrid system which seems to take prestige into account in some way, those who have fewer champs or prioritised ranking up high prestige champs for the purposes of better AQ placements for the alliances are now locked into a place which can be difficult for them to enjoy battlegrounds.

    Not saying I’m in favour or against it, just that using prestige as a matchmaking metric has been proven to be… a problem in the past.
    I'm not disagreeing...
    I just find it hilarious they put the excuse of "to make it more fun"... Instead of saying "I'm tired of being beat up by people with similar roster or prestiege"....
    Three accounts
    Account A: 2M BH rating, is in a chill AQ alliance and has a prestige of 11.5k
    Account B: 2.2M BH rating, in a higher AQ alliance, and has a prestige of 15.5k
    Account C: 4.5M BH rating, also higher AQ alliance, prestige of 15.5k

    Which of AvB, AvC, BvC is most "fair" (on a comparative scale) and which is most likely (based on inferences made of the current matching system)?

    I imagine there's a chunk of people in Bs situation, facing a lot of C's. I do empathize with them
    A vs B is as fair as it gets. Only a difference of 10 percent between the two people. Cant ask for more
    (A vs B ??) Wrong.
    B vs C is more fair.
    An equal total hero rating (player rating) in no way equates to having similar strength champs at your upper end.

    Could be that one person has 200 champs vs 700 champs, but the 200 champ person has an abundance of the very highly ranked ones. Versus the 700 champ roster is so full of very low rated 3*/4*/5* champs (but without any very highly ranked ones at all) that both players would appear to have a similar “Rating”.

    Prestige is much better to use for comparison (although, yes, for BG as opposed to Prestige for AQ, BG prestige should maybe be based on top-15 or top-20 champs instead of just top-5 like for AQ).
    None of them are fair if matchmaking takes either account strength or prestige into consideration to match them. At the same time all of them are fair if the matches are completely random.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,575 ★★★★★
    Putting an Account that's Uncollected up against a Paragon at the beginning of the Season and calling it fair because it's random is not fair at all. I have no idea what reasoning people are using with that, but it wasn't true with War and it isn't true now. If people fight their way up and come against someone bigger and stronger, that's fair. They've progressed to that point and have hit a wall. If the system is throwing them into a pell mell off the hop, the only ones getting out of Bronze are the largest Accounts waiting to start. Garbage.
  • L1zardW1zardL1zardW1zard Member Posts: 144 ★★★
    If I, an Uncollected player with 8k prestige made it to Vibranium after facing Cavs with decks full of maxed out 5* and even Thonebreakers with r3 6* when I barely have 7 maxed out 5*, I'm sure you can too... If you didn't spend the last few seasons relying on sandbagging 100% that is.
  • Masaraksh1Masaraksh1 Member Posts: 62 ★
    I have account A: 15.500 prestige and many different characters pumped. And account B: 15.000 prestige, but only prestige characters were upgraded due to playing in the tasks of the union. Launched a BG fight on two accounts, found each other. But the fight wasn't fair at all. Prestige should not be an indicator of the selection of the enemy!
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • ChatterofforumsChatterofforums Member Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    Pikok said:

    Dont use 4->5 gem for you 6 stars!!! First time I play a game which punish you for progression

    This is the only reason I'm not pushing the v3 Carina challenges
  • GreekhitGreekhit Member Posts: 2,820 ★★★★★
    SummonerNR said:

    Halpy said:

    SpadeHunter said:

    Coppin said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Coppin said:

    People complained about sandbaggers... And now we got ppl trying to lower prestiege....🤦

    It kind of makes sense though. People wanting to lower their prestige is a different beast to sandbagging. Sandbagging was done in a manipulative way to get easier fights in BGs under the old matchmaking system. With this new hybrid system which seems to take prestige into account in some way, those who have fewer champs or prioritised ranking up high prestige champs for the purposes of better AQ placements for the alliances are now locked into a place which can be difficult for them to enjoy battlegrounds.

    Not saying I’m in favour or against it, just that using prestige as a matchmaking metric has been proven to be… a problem in the past.
    I'm not disagreeing...
    I just find it hilarious they put the excuse of "to make it more fun"... Instead of saying "I'm tired of being beat up by people with similar roster or prestiege"....
    Three accounts
    Account A: 2M BH rating, is in a chill AQ alliance and has a prestige of 11.5k
    Account B: 2.2M BH rating, in a higher AQ alliance, and has a prestige of 15.5k
    Account C: 4.5M BH rating, also higher AQ alliance, prestige of 15.5k

    Which of AvB, AvC, BvC is most "fair" (on a comparative scale) and which is most likely (based on inferences made of the current matching system)?

    I imagine there's a chunk of people in Bs situation, facing a lot of C's. I do empathize with them
    A vs B is as fair as it gets. Only a difference of 10 percent between the two people. Cant ask for more
    (A vs B ??) Wrong.
    B vs C is more fair.
    An equal total hero rating (player rating) in no way equates to having similar strength champs at your upper end.

    Could be that one person has 200 champs vs 700 champs, but the 200 champ person has an abundance of the very highly ranked ones. Versus the 700 champ roster is so full of very low rated 3*/4*/5* champs (but without any very highly ranked ones at all) that both players would appear to have a similar “Rating”.

    Prestige is much better to use for comparison (although, yes, for BG as opposed to Prestige for AQ, BG prestige should maybe be based on top-15 or top-20 champs instead of just top-5 like for AQ).
    Wrong.
    Neither prestige nor rating, should be the metrics of any matchmaking system, when there is a shared pool of rewards.
    Tier or bracket or mode rating (like AW and GC) should be the only metrics a matchmaking should have to keep fairness.
    Should we extend Prestige matchmaking to GC or AW, to have “fair” matches?
    Should the players who have 6* r5s stop using them at AW, if the opponent don’t have, because it will be unfair to have stronger champs?
    Do anyone realises how twisted, this perception of fairness is, when the SAME rewards are on stakes, for all?
    How is it fair, a ~10k Prestige 600k account receiving 3x BG trophies, way more 5* relic shards and elder marks, from a 15,5k Prestige 3.7mil account, at a single season?
    Both accounts played by the same person. Main and alt.
    Prestige matchmaking is manipulating results.
    It does it, the same way it did back then at AW.
    People who deny that, are either benefiting from this situation, or find fun, trolling others who suffer from these situation, which is despicable for me 🤮



  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,575 ★★★★★
    Greekhit said:

    SummonerNR said:

    Halpy said:

    SpadeHunter said:

    Coppin said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Coppin said:

    People complained about sandbaggers... And now we got ppl trying to lower prestiege....🤦

    It kind of makes sense though. People wanting to lower their prestige is a different beast to sandbagging. Sandbagging was done in a manipulative way to get easier fights in BGs under the old matchmaking system. With this new hybrid system which seems to take prestige into account in some way, those who have fewer champs or prioritised ranking up high prestige champs for the purposes of better AQ placements for the alliances are now locked into a place which can be difficult for them to enjoy battlegrounds.

    Not saying I’m in favour or against it, just that using prestige as a matchmaking metric has been proven to be… a problem in the past.
    I'm not disagreeing...
    I just find it hilarious they put the excuse of "to make it more fun"... Instead of saying "I'm tired of being beat up by people with similar roster or prestiege"....
    Three accounts
    Account A: 2M BH rating, is in a chill AQ alliance and has a prestige of 11.5k
    Account B: 2.2M BH rating, in a higher AQ alliance, and has a prestige of 15.5k
    Account C: 4.5M BH rating, also higher AQ alliance, prestige of 15.5k

    Which of AvB, AvC, BvC is most "fair" (on a comparative scale) and which is most likely (based on inferences made of the current matching system)?

    I imagine there's a chunk of people in Bs situation, facing a lot of C's. I do empathize with them
    A vs B is as fair as it gets. Only a difference of 10 percent between the two people. Cant ask for more
    (A vs B ??) Wrong.
    B vs C is more fair.
    An equal total hero rating (player rating) in no way equates to having similar strength champs at your upper end.

    Could be that one person has 200 champs vs 700 champs, but the 200 champ person has an abundance of the very highly ranked ones. Versus the 700 champ roster is so full of very low rated 3*/4*/5* champs (but without any very highly ranked ones at all) that both players would appear to have a similar “Rating”.

    Prestige is much better to use for comparison (although, yes, for BG as opposed to Prestige for AQ, BG prestige should maybe be based on top-15 or top-20 champs instead of just top-5 like for AQ).
    Wrong.
    Neither prestige nor rating, should be the metrics of any matchmaking system, when there is a shared pool of rewards.
    Tier or bracket or mode rating (like AW and GC) should be the only metrics a matchmaking should have to keep fairness.
    Should we extend Prestige matchmaking to GC or AW, to have “fair” matches?
    Should the players who have 6* r5s stop using them at AW, if the opponent don’t have, because it will be unfair to have stronger champs?
    Do anyone realises how twisted, this perception of fairness is, when the SAME rewards are on stakes, for all?
    How is it fair, a ~10k Prestige 600k account receiving 3x BG trophies, way more 5* relic shards and elder marks, from a 15,5k Prestige 3.7mil account, at a single season?
    Both accounts played by the same person. Main and alt.
    Prestige matchmaking is manipulating results.
    It does it, the same way it did back then at AW.
    People who deny that, are either benefiting from this situation, or find fun, trolling others who suffer from these situation, which is despicable for me 🤮



    Disagree. Put everyone from top to bottom in Bronze 3? No. That's not a reasonable start for anyone but the top.
  • GreekhitGreekhit Member Posts: 2,820 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Greekhit said:

    SummonerNR said:

    Halpy said:

    SpadeHunter said:

    Coppin said:

    ItsDamien said:

    Coppin said:

    People complained about sandbaggers... And now we got ppl trying to lower prestiege....🤦

    It kind of makes sense though. People wanting to lower their prestige is a different beast to sandbagging. Sandbagging was done in a manipulative way to get easier fights in BGs under the old matchmaking system. With this new hybrid system which seems to take prestige into account in some way, those who have fewer champs or prioritised ranking up high prestige champs for the purposes of better AQ placements for the alliances are now locked into a place which can be difficult for them to enjoy battlegrounds.

    Not saying I’m in favour or against it, just that using prestige as a matchmaking metric has been proven to be… a problem in the past.
    I'm not disagreeing...
    I just find it hilarious they put the excuse of "to make it more fun"... Instead of saying "I'm tired of being beat up by people with similar roster or prestiege"....
    Three accounts
    Account A: 2M BH rating, is in a chill AQ alliance and has a prestige of 11.5k
    Account B: 2.2M BH rating, in a higher AQ alliance, and has a prestige of 15.5k
    Account C: 4.5M BH rating, also higher AQ alliance, prestige of 15.5k

    Which of AvB, AvC, BvC is most "fair" (on a comparative scale) and which is most likely (based on inferences made of the current matching system)?

    I imagine there's a chunk of people in Bs situation, facing a lot of C's. I do empathize with them
    A vs B is as fair as it gets. Only a difference of 10 percent between the two people. Cant ask for more
    (A vs B ??) Wrong.
    B vs C is more fair.
    An equal total hero rating (player rating) in no way equates to having similar strength champs at your upper end.

    Could be that one person has 200 champs vs 700 champs, but the 200 champ person has an abundance of the very highly ranked ones. Versus the 700 champ roster is so full of very low rated 3*/4*/5* champs (but without any very highly ranked ones at all) that both players would appear to have a similar “Rating”.

    Prestige is much better to use for comparison (although, yes, for BG as opposed to Prestige for AQ, BG prestige should maybe be based on top-15 or top-20 champs instead of just top-5 like for AQ).
    Wrong.
    Neither prestige nor rating, should be the metrics of any matchmaking system, when there is a shared pool of rewards.
    Tier or bracket or mode rating (like AW and GC) should be the only metrics a matchmaking should have to keep fairness.
    Should we extend Prestige matchmaking to GC or AW, to have “fair” matches?
    Should the players who have 6* r5s stop using them at AW, if the opponent don’t have, because it will be unfair to have stronger champs?
    Do anyone realises how twisted, this perception of fairness is, when the SAME rewards are on stakes, for all?
    How is it fair, a ~10k Prestige 600k account receiving 3x BG trophies, way more 5* relic shards and elder marks, from a 15,5k Prestige 3.7mil account, at a single season?
    Both accounts played by the same person. Main and alt.
    Prestige matchmaking is manipulating results.
    It does it, the same way it did back then at AW.
    People who deny that, are either benefiting from this situation, or find fun, trolling others who suffer from these situation, which is despicable for me 🤮



    Disagree. Put everyone from top to bottom in Bronze 3? No. That's not a reasonable start for anyone but the top.
    That’s why any progress you made previous season, should persist on some way on next.
    No, I’m not proposing people starting from Platinum or Vibranium brackets, because they ended high at GC previous season.
    I’m proposing having 3 starting brackets:
    Example:
    Gold3 for anyone that reached at least Arcane3 and above GC previous season
    Silver3 for anyone that reached from Platinum3 VT to URU1 GC previous season
    Bronze3 for anyone that reached up to Gold1 previous season, or didn’t played, or just started.
    Auto claim, after first registration match, of all previous brackets rewards, for those who start higher.
    Kabam can examine their data and find where exactly this “kick start” could be, to avoid big miss matches.
    Unfortunately, smaller accounts should face bigger accounts at some point, and this points is criminally set at Gladiator Circuit at the moment.
    This should happen way earlier, maximum at low VT brackets.
    But totally RANDOM matchmaking within the same bracket.
    All will end up, where their Account and Skill combination brings them, not a manipulating matchmaking.
    Fair for all 🙂

  • SummonerNRSummonerNR Member, Guardian Posts: 12,821 Guardian
    Greekhit said:


    Wrong.

    Wrong wrong.

    When person laying out the A, B, and C, scenario was trying to ask which would be a better matchup based on how strong they were, which matchup would result in a match that would not be so 1-sided.

    If you want to discuss a totally different method for matching, that is a different subject, as is being laid out by others here as well, and may very well be warranted. But that's not what was being asked regarding A, B, C.

    As to the A vs B vs C, I stand by my analysis.
Sign In or Register to comment.