Prestige isn't being used, and DNA clarified as much. Whatever they're using is not the average of the Top 5 Champs.
Prestige is just the generic term many of us are using knowing that some type of roster strength algorithm is being used. We dont know it it's the traditional prestige, if it's a broader type of prestige of maybe top 10 to 15 or if they mixed in pi or something else along with prestige.
Basically, trying to say what I just said gets long winded, so simply referring to matchmaking as prestige based isn't technically inaccurate as we really don't know and it is most likely based on the equation somewhere.
Being specific is important, considering people are familiar with Prestige here.
Prestige isn't being used, and DNA clarified as much. Whatever they're using is not the average of the Top 5 Champs.
Prestige is just the generic term many of us are using knowing that some type of roster strength algorithm is being used. We dont know it it's the traditional prestige, if it's a broader type of prestige of maybe top 10 to 15 or if they mixed in pi or something else along with prestige.
Basically, trying to say what I just said gets long winded, so simply referring to matchmaking as prestige based isn't technically inaccurate as we really don't know and it is most likely based on the equation somewhere.
Being specific is important, considering people are familiar with Prestige here.
Well again, NO ONE knows exactly what it is, so how can we be specific. Sure DNA did a post that he doesn't think it's prestige, but does he know for 100% sure? As usual you arguing just to argue.
Hi guys, I am stuck in Bronze 1 and cannot for the life of me move furher up, I keep on loosing 2 matches and winning 2.... or win 2 loose 1, win 1 loose 2.... I am facing much stronger accounts every single match, I have 3 R4 champs and my opponents are always stacked... I had no problem previous seasons to reach GC.... but this is so frustrating and not fun... something definetly changed this season to the matchmaking.... @DNA3000 any suggestions for me please?
Unfortunately I have very little in the way of advice for this situation, because the nature of the match making system itself makes it impervious to situational changes. In other words, whatever your situation, that’s basically going to be it.
However, I can tell you a few things that might be somewhat helpful:
1. The situation should improve a bit over time, as the stronger accounts win and advance track. Those accounts should move out of bronze, and you shouldn’t have to face them in later weeks. However, there won’t be a dramatic change over time because there will still be lots of other strong accounts in bronze, they will just drop in frequency, hopefully to the point it becomes easier to string wins together.
2. If you’re the type of player with surplus units, you could consider buying victory shields. I wouldn’t spend money on them, but they are not super expensive. The key is to use them efficiently. I would wait until you have two trophies and them to try to get the third.
3. Don’t chase promotion. If you stick to trying to get the every-other-day battlegrounds objectives, those have a significant amount of rewards. Promotion has more, of course, but chasing promotion under the current system is a recipe for burn out. But taking what you can get and then stepping away will allow you to get a reasonable haul of BG rewards with far less stress. This in combination with #1 above might be the best way to survive the current iteration of the match maker until saner systems prevail.
Prestige isn't being used, and DNA clarified as much. Whatever they're using is not the average of the Top 5 Champs.
Prestige is just the generic term many of us are using knowing that some type of roster strength algorithm is being used. We dont know it it's the traditional prestige, if it's a broader type of prestige of maybe top 10 to 15 or if they mixed in pi or something else along with prestige.
Basically, trying to say what I just said gets long winded, so simply referring to matchmaking as prestige based isn't technically inaccurate as we really don't know and it is most likely based on the equation somewhere.
Being specific is important, considering people are familiar with Prestige here.
Well again, NO ONE knows exactly what it is, so how can we be specific. Sure DNA did a post that he doesn't think it's prestige, but does he know for 100% sure? As usual you arguing just to argue.
I would say I am 99% certain that BG is not matching players based on reasonably close prestige. In other words, it is not taking your prestige and looking for players within some small range of your prestige. At the moment only two possibilities would match the data I’ve collected so far:
One: prestige bands. In other words, the game separates everyone into prestige ranges and tries to match within that range. Suppose one of these ranges is 14000 to 16000 (just for purposes of discussion). A player with 14001 prestige will not match against a player with 13999 prestige even though that player is essentially an identical match, but they will match against a player with 15999 prestige because even though they are about 2000 prestige apart they are in the same band. I don’t think this is what’s happening, but it is not contradicted by the data.
Two: roster strength alternate metric. The game is computing some other number that is loosely correlated with prestige but it not actually prestige, and is matching based on that. Possibly with close match, possibly with band matching.
No other option is consistent with my observations that I can think of.
I’m 99% certain and not 100% certain because it is always possible I’ve overlooked something in this situation that would recontextualize my observations. But given the relatively straight forward (presumably) options available for a match maker, the odds of that are small.
Also, some people are using the term “prestige” to refer to roster strength in general, but I would say a not-ignorably large number are using it more literally. For example, there are people suggesting that since the match maker is (or appears to be) using prestige for matching, people should avoid prestige-significant rank ups. But if it is a broader roster strength metric that is being used, that advice would be misleading.
Prestige isn't being used, and DNA clarified as much. Whatever they're using is not the average of the Top 5 Champs.
Prestige is just the generic term many of us are using knowing that some type of roster strength algorithm is being used. We dont know it it's the traditional prestige, if it's a broader type of prestige of maybe top 10 to 15 or if they mixed in pi or something else along with prestige.
Basically, trying to say what I just said gets long winded, so simply referring to matchmaking as prestige based isn't technically inaccurate as we really don't know and it is most likely based on the equation somewhere.
Being specific is important, considering people are familiar with Prestige here.
Well again, NO ONE knows exactly what it is, so how can we be specific. Sure DNA did a post that he doesn't think it's prestige, but does he know for 100% sure? As usual you arguing just to argue.
I would say I am 99% certain that BG is not matching players based on reasonably close prestige. In other words, it is not taking your prestige and looking for players within some small range of your prestige. At the moment only two possibilities would match the data I’ve collected so far:
One: prestige bands. In other words, the game separates everyone into prestige ranges and tries to match within that range. Suppose one of these ranges is 14000 to 16000 (just for purposes of discussion). A player with 14001 prestige will not match against a player with 13999 prestige even though that player is essentially an identical match, but they will match against a player with 15999 prestige because even though they are about 2000 prestige apart they are in the same band. I don’t think this is what’s happening, but it is not contradicted by the data.
Two: roster strength alternate metric. The game is computing some other number that is loosely correlated with prestige but it not actually prestige, and is matching based on that. Possibly with close match, possibly with band matching.
No other option is consistent with my observations that I can think of.
I’m 99% certain and not 100% certain because it is always possible I’ve overlooked something in this situation that would recontextualize my observations. But given the relatively straight forward (presumably) options available for a match maker, the odds of that are small.
Also, some people are using the term “prestige” to refer to roster strength in general, but I would say a not-ignorably large number are using it more literally. For example, there are people suggesting that since the match maker is (or appears to be) using prestige for matching, people should avoid prestige-significant rank ups. But if it is a broader roster strength metric that is being used, that advice would be misleading.
Whether it operates like this or not, I would tend to think there’s some expansion of the band in an effort to find a match—within limits, obviously.
My experience tends to suggest the longer I wait for a match, the more likely it’s going to be someone at or below my “strength”, however that’s defined. Immediate matches have almost always been my matches against what I would consider “stronger” accounts. I cannot recall ever matching against someone with 5*’s in an immediate match, but I tend to see select 5* champs (avoid, e.g.) in a match that takes longer to find.
Perhaps that’s just my interpretation, but it seems to hold true for me.
I tend to get easier matches when it has to search for a while so that does strongly suggest it's going outside of what's considered your band.
I can't find the thread but someone with a normal 700k account came up against someone with a 900k account but he had an r5 6* and plenty of r3/r4 champs. That suggests total hero rating plays a big part. The other accounts prestige and top 30 would have been way higher.
It might be a more complicated calculation that takes into account prestige or top 30 champs as well but I'd say that definitely suggests total hero rating plays a part.
Arguing the semantics of "prestige matchmaking" is just a waste of time and an attempt to derail the discussion. We don't know the exact algorithm be we know that it takes into account our roster strength. We've always used prestige to talk about roster strength so that's why it's still being used. Don't let a troll derail these threads with semantics.
@Kabam Miike@Kabam Lyra why are these comments all ignored? Matchmaking by prestige has ruined BGs for your “advanced but not whales”. There are so many posts on why you shouldn’t r4 more champs, or even 6*r5. Matchmaking by prestige does not make sense. Either just randomly match by tier, or different different levels of rewards based on game progression. What type of game design is this? And why is everyone so silent on this at Kabam?
Prestige isn't being used, and DNA clarified as much. Whatever they're using is not the average of the Top 5 Champs.
Prestige is just the generic term many of us are using knowing that some type of roster strength algorithm is being used. We dont know it it's the traditional prestige, if it's a broader type of prestige of maybe top 10 to 15 or if they mixed in pi or something else along with prestige.
Basically, trying to say what I just said gets long winded, so simply referring to matchmaking as prestige based isn't technically inaccurate as we really don't know and it is most likely based on the equation somewhere.
Being specific is important, considering people are familiar with Prestige here.
Well again, NO ONE knows exactly what it is, so how can we be specific. Sure DNA did a post that he doesn't think it's prestige, but does he know for 100% sure? As usual you arguing just to argue.
Ive had matches ranging from 14.5 k to 17k. And my prestige is 16k. So if it's prestige it's not really relevant and we don't have to rank down champs and not rank good champs. Cause even with low prestige champs , if you want to have R4 champs awakened and high sig you'll easily cross into 15k
Arguing the semantics of "prestige matchmaking" is just a waste of time and an attempt to derail the discussion. We don't know the exact algorithm be we know that it takes into account our roster strength. We've always used prestige to talk about roster strength so that's why it's still being used. Don't let a troll derail these threads with semantics.
Perhaps. The more I chew on the arguments here and elsewhere, I find myself agreeing with @DNA3000 and others that the more manageable solution is to shift the way “coins” accrue based on wins and losses. In particular, I like his suggestion to make every fight count, with 2-1 losses and wins counting differently from shutouts.
There’s a lot to consider in terms of how it all gets structured, but the punitive nature of the node seems to be one of the root causes of player dissatisfaction.
To be honest, I understand what you're saying, but there is also another side to it. BG skill is about BG skill. I can't look at that as an absolute and say the largest Accounts MUST advance faster because there has to be an element of winning their Matches. Same for lower Accounts. If someone is say, at the OP's progression, and they perform better in BGs then they deserve to advance. I have to say it has to work both ways. You can't argue that "fair" Matches are unfair, and expect progress to be accelerated purely based on size in the same breath. I've been pretty vocal about the need for something to average out at the beginning, but I also believe in the ability of someone to fight their way up. I don't automatically consider it the result of Matches just because a lower Account has advanced and people with higher Accounts aren't. You have to fight smart. You have to bring the right counters. Sometimes you have to invest in some Shields. You have to think on your feet depending on Bans and counters. So I'm not denying either side's arguments. I just think there's an element of people not beating their own Matches as well.
I'll focus on your last sentence about people beating their own matches. What you still seem to have trouble digesting is that there is an enormous difference between "own matches" at lower rosters such as a UC or Cav at 7-9k prestige compared to "own matches" of a low to medium paragon player who will have to face accounts stacked with 20+ r4 6 stars and newest elite defenders.
At the lower levels, a slightly above decent player can easily advance to GC in not much time. In the medium paragon area where you have to fight the best players and rosters in the game for every single fight starting in bronze 3, even a well above average player will struggle to pull off multiple wins ina row, making it ridiculously painful to even get out of early BG tiers.
The difference is, at the Paragon level (the highest representative marker for progress), you should be able to overcome that. You can't rely on OP Champs and selective Ranking forever.
To be honest, I understand what you're saying, but there is also another side to it. BG skill is about BG skill. I can't look at that as an absolute and say the largest Accounts MUST advance faster because there has to be an element of winning their Matches. Same for lower Accounts. If someone is say, at the OP's progression, and they perform better in BGs then they deserve to advance. I have to say it has to work both ways. You can't argue that "fair" Matches are unfair, and expect progress to be accelerated purely based on size in the same breath. I've been pretty vocal about the need for something to average out at the beginning, but I also believe in the ability of someone to fight their way up. I don't automatically consider it the result of Matches just because a lower Account has advanced and people with higher Accounts aren't. You have to fight smart. You have to bring the right counters. Sometimes you have to invest in some Shields. You have to think on your feet depending on Bans and counters. So I'm not denying either side's arguments. I just think there's an element of people not beating their own Matches as well.
I'll focus on your last sentence about people beating their own matches. What you still seem to have trouble digesting is that there is an enormous difference between "own matches" at lower rosters such as a UC or Cav at 7-9k prestige compared to "own matches" of a low to medium paragon player who will have to face accounts stacked with 20+ r4 6 stars and newest elite defenders.
At the lower levels, a slightly above decent player can easily advance to GC in not much time. In the medium paragon area where you have to fight the best players and rosters in the game for every single fight starting in bronze 3, even a well above average player will struggle to pull off multiple wins ina row, making it ridiculously painful to even get out of early BG tiers.
The difference is, at the Paragon level (the highest representative marker for progress), you should be able to overcome that. You can't rely on OP Champs and selective Ranking forever.
You are clearly missing the point here 🤦♂️
He obviously thinks that when two Paragons face each other they both can win and progress up the ladder. He hasn't figured out that when two Paragons face each other one HAS to lose and fall down the ladder.
"He" understands completely. In any Match, someone wins and someone loses. The point "he" was making was that it's not unique to a Paragon, and it's not entirely the fault of the system if people are not winning enough. Comparatively, I'm less sympathetic if a Paragon is not advancing than a Player earlier on because they're theoretically more experienced with more access to Resources.
It's also not unique to any Title. A number of people have been slogging it, Paragon or otherwise. It's the nature of the game mode as it is. You need consecutive Wins, and without the right circumstances and a trunk load of Shields, it's a challenge.
Perhaps. The more I chew on the arguments here and elsewhere, I find myself agreeing with @DNA3000 and others that the more manageable solution is to shift the way “coins” accrue based on wins and losses. In particular, I like his suggestion to make every fight count, with 2-1 losses and wins counting differently from shutouts.
There’s a lot to consider in terms of how it all gets structured, but the punitive nature of the node seems to be one of the root causes of player dissatisfaction. Dr. Zola
I agree. Even if the matchmaking is a perfect ELO implementation in VT and everybody is granted a (or close to) 50% win rate, this would mean we will all have a rough time stringing medals to advance at that rate.
The medal accrual or the softening of the medal requirements would be my first priority, then the matchmaking. Or get rid of VT altogether and change the reward structure.
Knowing how vocal is @DNA3000 with the devs, it would be interesting to know the feedback from the team, how likely it is that his idea or any other in this direction will be adopted.
"He" understands completely. In any Match, someone wins and someone loses. The point "he" was making was that it's not unique to a Paragon, and it's not entirely the fault of the system if people are not winning enough. Comparatively, I'm less sympathetic if a Paragon is not advancing than a Player earlier on because they're theoretically more experienced with more access to Resources.
I think you’ve made this point before (about less sympathy for one group versus another), but I would suggest there’s no reason to have a hard bias against Paragon accounts just because they are Paragons. Paragons are scrambling to keep up at their level just like UC and TB accounts at their levels. Typically, they need access to resources relative to the size and development of their accounts just like UC and TB. The fact that the resources may be different in absolute terms doesn’t really change things.
I wouldn’t consider it *entitlement* to think that working hard to build your roster and invest in your champs over years via all the various game modes should naturally give you an advantage in modes like BGs. With that said, if the team wants BGs to be more of a mode for developing accounts and the very tip-top accounts, that’s their choice.
I never said I had a hard bias. I said I was less sympathetic than I am for people starting out, and starting the competition. I get that everyone has concerns.
This topic has been beaten to death by both sides. Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
I think it's based of a prestige band. My prestige is 15.4k out of 25 matches I had 5 under 15 k 3 of those were roughly 14.5 1 was 11k and the other 13k. Most were 16k plus. I also faced 1 guy who only had 5* in his deck but his prestige was 16k plus. I think he tried to get around it and it didn't work that way so definitely has something to do with prestige. The guy with 5* was Paragon just didn't have any 6* in deck fyi.
This topic has been beaten to death by both sides. Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
This topic has been beaten to death by both sides. Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
Technically they did do one extremely vague comment about always looking at making matchmaking better. The comment was made on a post from last season and only after several of us kept tagging the mods until we got a response but the response wasn't overly useful and nothing again since despite so much constant activity on the topic.
This topic has been beaten to death by both sides. Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
Technically they did do one extremely vague comment about always looking at making matchmaking better. The comment was made on a post from last season and only after several of us kept tagging the mods until we got a response but the response wasn't overly useful and nothing again since despite so much constant activity on the topic.
Well then, let me rephrase. I am surprised the game team has nothing to add to this. I'm sure the mods would have taken the complaints to the game team to work on.
This topic has been beaten to death by both sides. Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
Technically they did do one extremely vague comment about always looking at making matchmaking better. The comment was made on a post from last season and only after several of us kept tagging the mods until we got a response but the response wasn't overly useful and nothing again since despite so much constant activity on the topic.
Well then, let me rephrase. I am surprised the game team has nothing to add to this. I'm sure the mods would have taken the complaints to the game team to work on.
They probably did.. and the devs probably are thinking the same as some players... Why would a lower roster get the same rewards as a strong roster by getting easier or even matches...
This topic has been beaten to death by both sides. Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
Technically they did do one extremely vague comment about always looking at making matchmaking better. The comment was made on a post from last season and only after several of us kept tagging the mods until we got a response but the response wasn't overly useful and nothing again since despite so much constant activity on the topic.
Well then, let me rephrase. I am surprised the game team has nothing to add to this. I'm sure the mods would have taken the complaints to the game team to work on.
They probably did.. and the devs probably are thinking the same as some players... Why would a lower roster get the same rewards as a strong roster by getting easier or even matches...
We can't assume they have done anything based on their one and only extremely vague response which is why these posts and comments on this topic need to continue.
When the weaker accounts were complaining about sandbagging and then the pause and time out strategy, moderators were quick to respond and Inform the community that they were addressing the issue with the game team.
Those issues only effected the lower players and mods were quick to address them and inform community they were trying to get resolution. That's part of why this current situation is aggravating as we haven't got any such acknowledgement.
I can't help but feel and assume that they are doing what we see sometimes, which is just ignore the community in hopes people give up and stop complaining. I hope I'm wrong on my current assumption, but until I hear something different, then it's the only thing I can assume.
This topic has been beaten to death by both sides. Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
Technically they did do one extremely vague comment about always looking at making matchmaking better. The comment was made on a post from last season and only after several of us kept tagging the mods until we got a response but the response wasn't overly useful and nothing again since despite so much constant activity on the topic.
Well then, let me rephrase. I am surprised the game team has nothing to add to this. I'm sure the mods would have taken the complaints to the game team to work on.
They probably did.. and the devs probably are thinking the same as some players... Why would a lower roster get the same rewards as a strong roster by getting easier or even matches...
We can't assume they have done anything based on their one and only extremely vague response which is why these posts and comments on this topic need to continue.
When the weaker accounts were complaining about sandbagging and then the pause and time out strategy, moderators were quick to respond and Inform the community that they were addressing the issue with the game team.
Those issues only effected the lower players and mods were quick to address them and inform community they were trying to get resolution. That's part of why this current situation is aggravating as we haven't got any such acknowledgement.
I can't help but feel and assume that they are doing what we see sometimes, which is just ignore the community in hopes people give up and stop complaining. I hope I'm wrong on my current assumption, but until I hear something different, then it's the only thing I can assume.
Sandbagging was a douche move from stronger rosters... The pause thing... Was a douche move from some players... But u gotta admit that they can't be catering to lower ends constantly.. specially when they are "Taking advantage of the game itself". What do i mean by that?.. U have cavs saying "ohh im cavallier i shouldnt have to face TB and Paragon"..meanwhile they have 5 r3s 🤣 I understand what you are saying; but constantly catering to the lower end makes the game dull...
This topic has been beaten to death by both sides. Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
Technically they did do one extremely vague comment about always looking at making matchmaking better. The comment was made on a post from last season and only after several of us kept tagging the mods until we got a response but the response wasn't overly useful and nothing again since despite so much constant activity on the topic.
Well then, let me rephrase. I am surprised the game team has nothing to add to this. I'm sure the mods would have taken the complaints to the game team to work on.
They probably did.. and the devs probably are thinking the same as some players... Why would a lower roster get the same rewards as a strong roster by getting easier or even matches...
We can't assume they have done anything based on their one and only extremely vague response which is why these posts and comments on this topic need to continue.
When the weaker accounts were complaining about sandbagging and then the pause and time out strategy, moderators were quick to respond and Inform the community that they were addressing the issue with the game team.
Those issues only effected the lower players and mods were quick to address them and inform community they were trying to get resolution. That's part of why this current situation is aggravating as we haven't got any such acknowledgement.
I can't help but feel and assume that they are doing what we see sometimes, which is just ignore the community in hopes people give up and stop complaining. I hope I'm wrong on my current assumption, but until I hear something different, then it's the only thing I can assume.
Sandbagging was a douche move from stronger rosters... The pause thing... Was a douche move from some players... But u gotta admit that they can't be catering to lower ends constantly.. specially when they are "Taking advantage of the game itself". What do i mean by that?.. U have cavs saying "ohh im cavallier i shouldnt have to face TB and Paragon"..meanwhile they have 5 r3s 🤣 I understand what you are saying; but constantly catering to the lower end makes the game dull...
Maybe your new to this conversation but what your telling me right now is what I've been saying since season 1.
Comments
However, I can tell you a few things that might be somewhat helpful:
1. The situation should improve a bit over time, as the stronger accounts win and advance track. Those accounts should move out of bronze, and you shouldn’t have to face them in later weeks. However, there won’t be a dramatic change over time because there will still be lots of other strong accounts in bronze, they will just drop in frequency, hopefully to the point it becomes easier to string wins together.
2. If you’re the type of player with surplus units, you could consider buying victory shields. I wouldn’t spend money on them, but they are not super expensive. The key is to use them efficiently. I would wait until you have two trophies and them to try to get the third.
3. Don’t chase promotion. If you stick to trying to get the every-other-day battlegrounds objectives, those have a significant amount of rewards. Promotion has more, of course, but chasing promotion under the current system is a recipe for burn out. But taking what you can get and then stepping away will allow you to get a reasonable haul of BG rewards with far less stress. This in combination with #1 above might be the best way to survive the current iteration of the match maker until saner systems prevail.
One: prestige bands. In other words, the game separates everyone into prestige ranges and tries to match within that range. Suppose one of these ranges is 14000 to 16000 (just for purposes of discussion). A player with 14001 prestige will not match against a player with 13999 prestige even though that player is essentially an identical match, but they will match against a player with 15999 prestige because even though they are about 2000 prestige apart they are in the same band. I don’t think this is what’s happening, but it is not contradicted by the data.
Two: roster strength alternate metric. The game is computing some other number that is loosely correlated with prestige but it not actually prestige, and is matching based on that. Possibly with close match, possibly with band matching.
No other option is consistent with my observations that I can think of.
I’m 99% certain and not 100% certain because it is always possible I’ve overlooked something in this situation that would recontextualize my observations. But given the relatively straight forward (presumably) options available for a match maker, the odds of that are small.
Also, some people are using the term “prestige” to refer to roster strength in general, but I would say a not-ignorably large number are using it more literally. For example, there are people suggesting that since the match maker is (or appears to be) using prestige for matching, people should avoid prestige-significant rank ups. But if it is a broader roster strength metric that is being used, that advice would be misleading.
My experience tends to suggest the longer I wait for a match, the more likely it’s going to be someone at or below my “strength”, however that’s defined. Immediate matches have almost always been my matches against what I would consider “stronger” accounts. I cannot recall ever matching against someone with 5*’s in an immediate match, but I tend to see select 5* champs (avoid, e.g.) in a match that takes longer to find.
Perhaps that’s just my interpretation, but it seems to hold true for me.
Dr. Zola
I can't find the thread but someone with a normal 700k account came up against someone with a 900k account but he had an r5 6* and plenty of r3/r4 champs. That suggests total hero rating plays a big part. The other accounts prestige and top 30 would have been way higher.
It might be a more complicated calculation that takes into account prestige or top 30 champs as well but I'd say that definitely suggests total hero rating plays a part.
There’s a lot to consider in terms of how it all gets structured, but the punitive nature of the node seems to be one of the root causes of player dissatisfaction.
Dr. Zola
You are clearly missing the point here 🤦♂️
The medal accrual or the softening of the medal requirements would be my first priority, then the matchmaking. Or get rid of VT altogether and change the reward structure.
Knowing how vocal is @DNA3000 with the devs, it would be interesting to know the feedback from the team, how likely it is that his idea or any other in this direction will be adopted.
I wouldn’t consider it *entitlement* to think that working hard to build your roster and invest in your champs over years via all the various game modes should naturally give you an advantage in modes like BGs. With that said, if the team wants BGs to be more of a mode for developing accounts and the very tip-top accounts, that’s their choice.
Dr. Zola
Frankly, the only worrisome thing is a Kabam mod hasnt cared enough to even chip in.... once. multiple long threads with hundreds of comments, and not a SINGLE mod comment. Thats the worrisome part.
When the weaker accounts were complaining about sandbagging and then the pause and time out strategy, moderators were quick to respond and Inform the community that they were addressing the issue with the game team.
Those issues only effected the lower players and mods were quick to address them and inform community they were trying to get resolution. That's part of why this current situation is aggravating as we haven't got any such acknowledgement.
I can't help but feel and assume that they are doing what we see sometimes, which is just ignore the community in hopes people give up and stop complaining. I hope I'm wrong on my current assumption, but until I hear something different, then it's the only thing I can assume.
I understand what you are saying; but constantly catering to the lower end makes the game dull...
Dr. Zola