As I'm reading through all this, all I'm thinking to myself is that we want to advance in BG's to get better rewards to improve our roster to make advancing in BG's easier BUT it sounds as if the more you improve your roster, the harder it is to advance in BG's because of the matchmaking system.
It has nothing to do with building a Roster. Having the highest Champs is not entirely what BGs are about. It's about strategy, using the Nodes to your advantage, and having many options.
Honestly, while I feel your pain, this is a you problem which is exacerbated by the matchmaking parameters.
I have 12 R4s in my deck and the rest are R3. Virtually all of the accounts I’m facing have at least that, many have close to full decks of R4s but that doesn’t mean they’re actually good at the game. The smaller/similar accounts I’m facing tend to be similar players to myself - from T1/2 alliances, so there’s no freebies.
Somehow I did ok yesterday…roster isn’t the answer, it’s just knowing what matchups are good, which are bad, what drafts are going to slow the opponent down. It’s rare you’re going to get a hard counter for fights and you should expect to finish fights in around a minute with 90%+ left. Your wins come from forcing an 80s fight, or making the opponent have to use their best attacker on an easy defender to stay in the game.
A lot of the players struggling don’t take proper planning into account, most of the time even someone like @Worknprogress won’t come out with a massively different draft to a mid range paragon because most of the time that Paragon is going to pick his R4s over his R3s, so the only real advantage is sig levels and he’s probably got the new releases in his deck because he spends.
Every match between paragons, a paragon loses. Maybe the design is that only regular platinum or master war+ paragons are supposed to advance through the VC and that your average skill paragon (so the bottom 60%) just aren't supposed to progress through the VC.
Which is odd, because bar some outliers, paragons will be, on average, amongst the best players in the game. Skill wise. Your somewhat have to be.
I'd agree with the opp, it's not really so much the matchmaking, as the ladder. If you're only able to achieve 40% win rate as a paragon (but with your skills and game knowledge would easily hit 70% against TBs or Cavs), you're not going to get above, probably, gold. And we have many examples here and in the other threads of just that; people can't get out of silver or gold on their main, but sailed to the GC on their much lower alt.
At every bracket, at least 50% of the player base, will be feeling disenfranchised.
So, that lower half will stop playing. What does that mean for you and worknprogress?
Death spiral.
It means eventually the *paragons* you are currently ploughing through, won't be playing in the future. You'll have to climb only against other paragons at much higher than the average skill and roster. Then the 50% of them that don't progress (this is zero sum remember, there's always a paragon losing), will also quit playing. Then you only get matched against worknprogress.... 😁
In short, the game mode is probably already dead, kabam and the player base just haven't realised it yet.
It's a competition. A Paragon wins, and a Paragon loses. That's how it goes. Is every Paragon supposed to win every Match?
If it’s actually a competition everyone should be playing everybody. Shouldn’t be Paragons only play paragons.
So....because a Paragon can't win against a Paragon, they should take out UC? Cav? That the logic?
If it’s a competition that offers the same rewards then everyone should just play play each other. Because a UC can’t beat a Paragon they should get an easy ride through all the rewards? Ultimately this thread is about BG killing drive of the OP in playing the game. That’s the OPs opinion and a lot of people share it. I share it. When you get to the point of fairly equal accounts with fairly equal skill all playing each other the ability to string together consecutive wins is really really hard. It becomes demoralising. Just treat this as feedback to Kabam that a portion of the player base is feeling a bit jaded with BG’s how it is. They can choose to ignore it if they want. But it’s a good thing they are getting active feedback in a constructive way.
I'm sorry, but having the same Rewards doesn't justify Accounts using other Accounts that are VASTLY behind them as fuel to get out of the VT. Anyone gets the same Rewards in the VT, and what one person gets takes nothing away from another. That doesn't happen until the GC. Is it perfect as it is? No. Clearly not. I'm just tired of people saying the same Rewards excuse as if we don't all get the same Rewards either way. We get currency that we buy whatever we want with, and the Ranking doesn't even start until GC. All of that is besides the fact that people want to use much lower Accounts to breeze through rather than take on Accounts in their own range. Rewards don't always justify anything. There are limitations to that excuse.
A few things here…
1. We don’t all get the same rewards either way. There are just shy of 40K BG tokens for making it from Bronze through Diamond. Players who aren’t able to progress that far miss out on some if not most of those tokens. I think we can all agree that BGs aren’t a matter of just showing your deck to another person like a card game of War, but it is a fundamental denial of the way matches work to suggest roster strength isn’t a major part of BGs. The fact that roster strength is highly significant is the main point used to justify segregating competition by size/strength/prestige in the first place. If building my roster gets me more matches against @Worknprogress but staying put gets me more against early Paragons or late TBs, my incentives are very clear.
2. When you say “ranking doesn’t even start until GC” I’m not sure I get your point. For the solo event, rankings aren’t dependent on getting to the GC. The alliance event is a completely different event and based on full alliance points. The ~40K BG tokens you get for advancing to GC are quite possibly some of the most valuable items many players will get from playing BGs, especially since anyone who can’t make the top 5000 receives at best some allotment of 6* shards and 6* stones for solo.
3. As @Worknprogress suggested earlier, I’d say the decision to matchmake based on some version of “prestige” (or whatever it is) is about as bad an idea as requiring more matches to advance (which would serve to demoralize everyone who plays BGs). There is a ton of content available in MCoC and it nearly requires full-time commitment to do it all. If the time:effort ratio doesn’t work in BGs, there are again very clear incentives for players—especially many who have invested a ton in MCoC. I don’t think the game team wants that kind of disincentive active in this mode.
Rewards are great, but it’s a stressful game mode. I have a full life. Family, kids, demanding job, etc. I play this game to relax, not to grind and go nowhere. I didn’t play BG’s last season because the Meta didn’t seem enjoyable and it was a great relief.
BG’s is where this game is heading. It’s a competitive mode that requires you to rank up champs that you wouldn’t normally. It’s a money maker and not going anywhere.
If you don’t enjoy it, reassess your commitment to the game and play it accordingly. I did and it’s been more enjoyable.
Exactly this. I feel like this is the game mode that will make me retire from the game after 7 odd years. The best rewards are in BG so it’s essential for progression but I don’t have an hour distraction free every day to play BGs.
I can handle stressful content like once a month but not everyday for sure
Honestly, while I feel your pain, this is a you problem which is exacerbated by the matchmaking parameters.
I have 12 R4s in my deck and the rest are R3. Virtually all of the accounts I’m facing have at least that, many have close to full decks of R4s but that doesn’t mean they’re actually good at the game. The smaller/similar accounts I’m facing tend to be similar players to myself - from T1/2 alliances, so there’s no freebies.
Somehow I did ok yesterday…roster isn’t the answer, it’s just knowing what matchups are good, which are bad, what drafts are going to slow the opponent down. It’s rare you’re going to get a hard counter for fights and you should expect to finish fights in around a minute with 90%+ left. Your wins come from forcing an 80s fight, or making the opponent have to use their best attacker on an easy defender to stay in the game.
A lot of the players struggling don’t take proper planning into account, most of the time even someone like @Worknprogress won’t come out with a massively different draft to a mid range paragon because most of the time that Paragon is going to pick his R4s over his R3s, so the only real advantage is sig levels and he’s probably got the new releases in his deck because he spends.
Every match between paragons, a paragon loses. Maybe the design is that only regular platinum or master war+ paragons are supposed to advance through the VC and that your average skill paragon (so the bottom 60%) just aren't supposed to progress through the VC.
Which is odd, because bar some outliers, paragons will be, on average, amongst the best players in the game. Skill wise. Your somewhat have to be.
I'd agree with the opp, it's not really so much the matchmaking, as the ladder. If you're only able to achieve 40% win rate as a paragon (but with your skills and game knowledge would easily hit 70% against TBs or Cavs), you're not going to get above, probably, gold. And we have many examples here and in the other threads of just that; people can't get out of silver or gold on their main, but sailed to the GC on their much lower alt.
At every bracket, at least 50% of the player base, will be feeling disenfranchised.
So, that lower half will stop playing. What does that mean for you and worknprogress?
Death spiral.
It means eventually the *paragons* you are currently ploughing through, won't be playing in the future. You'll have to climb only against other paragons at much higher than the average skill and roster. Then the 50% of them that don't progress (this is zero sum remember, there's always a paragon losing), will also quit playing. Then you only get matched against worknprogress.... 😁
In short, the game mode is probably already dead, kabam and the player base just haven't realised it yet.
It's a competition. A Paragon wins, and a Paragon loses. That's how it goes. Is every Paragon supposed to win every Match?
If it’s actually a competition everyone should be playing everybody. Shouldn’t be Paragons only play paragons.
So....because a Paragon can't win against a Paragon, they should take out UC? Cav? That the logic?
If it’s a competition that offers the same rewards then everyone should just play play each other. Because a UC can’t beat a Paragon they should get an easy ride through all the rewards? Ultimately this thread is about BG killing drive of the OP in playing the game. That’s the OPs opinion and a lot of people share it. I share it. When you get to the point of fairly equal accounts with fairly equal skill all playing each other the ability to string together consecutive wins is really really hard. It becomes demoralising. Just treat this as feedback to Kabam that a portion of the player base is feeling a bit jaded with BG’s how it is. They can choose to ignore it if they want. But it’s a good thing they are getting active feedback in a constructive way.
I'm sorry, but having the same Rewards doesn't justify Accounts using other Accounts that are VASTLY behind them as fuel to get out of the VT. Anyone gets the same Rewards in the VT, and what one person gets takes nothing away from another. That doesn't happen until the GC. Is it perfect as it is? No. Clearly not. I'm just tired of people saying the same Rewards excuse as if we don't all get the same Rewards either way. We get currency that we buy whatever we want with, and the Ranking doesn't even start until GC. All of that is besides the fact that people want to use much lower Accounts to breeze through rather than take on Accounts in their own range. Rewards don't always justify anything. There are limitations to that excuse.
A few things here…
1. We don’t all get the same rewards either way. There are just shy of 40K BG tokens for making it from Bronze through Diamond. Players who aren’t able to progress that far miss out on some if not most of those tokens. I think we can all agree that BGs aren’t a matter of just showing your deck to another person like a card game of War, but it is a fundamental denial of the way matches work to suggest roster strength isn’t a major part of BGs. The fact that roster strength is highly significant is the main point used to justify segregating competition by size/strength/prestige in the first place. If building my roster gets me more matches against @Worknprogress but staying put gets me more against early Paragons or late TBs, my incentives are very clear.
2. When you say “ranking doesn’t even start until GC” I’m not sure I get your point. For the solo event, rankings aren’t dependent on getting to the GC. The alliance event is a completely different event and based on full alliance points. The ~40K BG tokens you get for advancing to GC are quite possibly some of the most valuable items many players will get from playing BGs, especially since anyone who can’t make the top 5000 receives at best some allotment of 6* shards and 6* stones for solo.
3. As @Worknprogress suggested earlier, I’d say the decision to matchmake based on some version of “prestige” (or whatever it is) is about as bad an idea as requiring more matches to advance (which would serve to demoralize everyone who plays BGs). There is a ton of content available in MCoC and it nearly requires full-time commitment to do it all. If the time:effort ratio doesn’t work in BGs, there are again very clear incentives for players—especially many who have invested a ton in MCoC. I don’t think the game team wants that kind of disincentive active in this mode.
Dr. Zola
1. People who aren't progressing that far are not at odds with those who are. They're not winning the Matches they have. That's not the result of limited spacing. It's not the result of lower Players taking their spots. 2. Such spots don't occur until the GC. Meaning anyone can make it to the GC, provided they win their Matches. That's about as fair as it gets. Blaming lower Accounts for doing better is ignorant to the onus that they're just not winning their own Fights. 3. Not all content is the amalgamation of all other content. The Arena is an example. You can make it easier on yourself by having a wider Roster, but you can also compete with less if you amass enough Points.
It has nothing to do with building a Roster. Having the highest Champs is not entirely what BGs are about. It's about strategy, using the Nodes to your advantage, and having many options.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say UC/cav dont stand a chance against paragon and make a complete U turn and say it has nothing to do with building a roster and its all about strategy and using nodes to your advantage?
In this scenario I find myself siding with @GroundedWisdom statement about players not winning their fights and it has nothing to do with lower accounts progressing higher. I can understand why people get frustrated that they are not getting the VT milestones/tokens while someone with a lesser account gets them. However, those people progressing really is separate from my issue with BGs which is not being able to string the wins needed to get promoted and achieve the milestones. Could I play better and win more matches to advance, 100%. However I still find myself asking "why am I bothering playing" when I sink 30 minutes to 1 hour in BG's to not get any promotion, even one tier. I would appreciate some update that makes your time invested more worth while specifically in regards to promotions and gaining the milestones. How this should be done I do not know, only hope the devs will read this thread, hear everyone's feedback and have legitimate discussions of how to make BG's overall more enjoyable.
I keep on repeating it... Yes some of the match ups suck.. seems like short or weaker rosters have it good.. Truth is that there is a reason why URU 3 has a ranking placement of 999.999 players... U can brute force your way to it...Might take less or longer but its an achievable place; but thats the roof for a lot of players. At GC u will be facing strong rosters and have to play based on a point system ..
It has nothing to do with building a Roster. Having the highest Champs is not entirely what BGs are about. It's about strategy, using the Nodes to your advantage, and having many options.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to say UC/cav dont stand a chance against paragon and make a complete U turn and say it has nothing to do with building a roster and its all about strategy and using nodes to your advantage?
I also said there were limits. Those limits are not soft limits. They're hard limits. Once you pair two extremes, there's only one outcome. Also, I'm pretty sure you're picking aspects of my statements without context.
Honestly, while I feel your pain, this is a you problem which is exacerbated by the matchmaking parameters.
I have 12 R4s in my deck and the rest are R3. Virtually all of the accounts I’m facing have at least that, many have close to full decks of R4s but that doesn’t mean they’re actually good at the game. The smaller/similar accounts I’m facing tend to be similar players to myself - from T1/2 alliances, so there’s no freebies.
Somehow I did ok yesterday…roster isn’t the answer, it’s just knowing what matchups are good, which are bad, what drafts are going to slow the opponent down. It’s rare you’re going to get a hard counter for fights and you should expect to finish fights in around a minute with 90%+ left. Your wins come from forcing an 80s fight, or making the opponent have to use their best attacker on an easy defender to stay in the game.
A lot of the players struggling don’t take proper planning into account, most of the time even someone like @Worknprogress won’t come out with a massively different draft to a mid range paragon because most of the time that Paragon is going to pick his R4s over his R3s, so the only real advantage is sig levels and he’s probably got the new releases in his deck because he spends.
Every match between paragons, a paragon loses. Maybe the design is that only regular platinum or master war+ paragons are supposed to advance through the VC and that your average skill paragon (so the bottom 60%) just aren't supposed to progress through the VC.
Which is odd, because bar some outliers, paragons will be, on average, amongst the best players in the game. Skill wise. Your somewhat have to be.
I'd agree with the opp, it's not really so much the matchmaking, as the ladder. If you're only able to achieve 40% win rate as a paragon (but with your skills and game knowledge would easily hit 70% against TBs or Cavs), you're not going to get above, probably, gold. And we have many examples here and in the other threads of just that; people can't get out of silver or gold on their main, but sailed to the GC on their much lower alt.
At every bracket, at least 50% of the player base, will be feeling disenfranchised.
So, that lower half will stop playing. What does that mean for you and worknprogress?
Death spiral.
It means eventually the *paragons* you are currently ploughing through, won't be playing in the future. You'll have to climb only against other paragons at much higher than the average skill and roster. Then the 50% of them that don't progress (this is zero sum remember, there's always a paragon losing), will also quit playing. Then you only get matched against worknprogress.... 😁
In short, the game mode is probably already dead, kabam and the player base just haven't realised it yet.
It's a competition. A Paragon wins, and a Paragon loses. That's how it goes. Is every Paragon supposed to win every Match?
If it’s actually a competition everyone should be playing everybody. Shouldn’t be Paragons only play paragons.
So....because a Paragon can't win against a Paragon, they should take out UC? Cav? That the logic?
If it’s a competition that offers the same rewards then everyone should just play play each other. Because a UC can’t beat a Paragon they should get an easy ride through all the rewards? Ultimately this thread is about BG killing drive of the OP in playing the game. That’s the OPs opinion and a lot of people share it. I share it. When you get to the point of fairly equal accounts with fairly equal skill all playing each other the ability to string together consecutive wins is really really hard. It becomes demoralising. Just treat this as feedback to Kabam that a portion of the player base is feeling a bit jaded with BG’s how it is. They can choose to ignore it if they want. But it’s a good thing they are getting active feedback in a constructive way.
I'm sorry, but having the same Rewards doesn't justify Accounts using other Accounts that are VASTLY behind them as fuel to get out of the VT. Anyone gets the same Rewards in the VT, and what one person gets takes nothing away from another. That doesn't happen until the GC. Is it perfect as it is? No. Clearly not. I'm just tired of people saying the same Rewards excuse as if we don't all get the same Rewards either way. We get currency that we buy whatever we want with, and the Ranking doesn't even start until GC. All of that is besides the fact that people want to use much lower Accounts to breeze through rather than take on Accounts in their own range. Rewards don't always justify anything. There are limitations to that excuse.
A few things here…
1. We don’t all get the same rewards either way. There are just shy of 40K BG tokens for making it from Bronze through Diamond. Players who aren’t able to progress that far miss out on some if not most of those tokens. I think we can all agree that BGs aren’t a matter of just showing your deck to another person like a card game of War, but it is a fundamental denial of the way matches work to suggest roster strength isn’t a major part of BGs. The fact that roster strength is highly significant is the main point used to justify segregating competition by size/strength/prestige in the first place. If building my roster gets me more matches against @Worknprogress but staying put gets me more against early Paragons or late TBs, my incentives are very clear.
2. When you say “ranking doesn’t even start until GC” I’m not sure I get your point. For the solo event, rankings aren’t dependent on getting to the GC. The alliance event is a completely different event and based on full alliance points. The ~40K BG tokens you get for advancing to GC are quite possibly some of the most valuable items many players will get from playing BGs, especially since anyone who can’t make the top 5000 receives at best some allotment of 6* shards and 6* stones for solo.
3. As @Worknprogress suggested earlier, I’d say the decision to matchmake based on some version of “prestige” (or whatever it is) is about as bad an idea as requiring more matches to advance (which would serve to demoralize everyone who plays BGs). There is a ton of content available in MCoC and it nearly requires full-time commitment to do it all. If the time:effort ratio doesn’t work in BGs, there are again very clear incentives for players—especially many who have invested a ton in MCoC. I don’t think the game team wants that kind of disincentive active in this mode.
Dr. Zola
1. People who aren't progressing that far are not at odds with those who are. They're not winning the Matches they have. That's not the result of limited spacing. It's not the result of lower Players taking their spots. 2. Such spots don't occur until the GC. Meaning anyone can make it to the GC, provided they win their Matches. That's about as fair as it gets. Blaming lower Accounts for doing better is ignorant to the onus that they're just not winning their own Fights. 3. Not all content is the amalgamation of all other content. The Arena is an example. You can make it easier on yourself by having a wider Roster, but you can also compete with less if you amass enough Points.
Interesting points. I will try to keep it brief.
1. That’s *true*, but mainly because competition is siloed. Cavs beating Cavs in the Cav divisions don’t directly affect TBs. Within siloes, it’s a zero sum game, which suggests siloing does affect players. Handicapping competition deeper into VT just accentuates that effect. 2. I’d suggest that it’s not ignorant to say it takes a lot to *move* a Paragon account much, and that it only takes a little to be a difference maker in Paragon BG matches. Not the same for lower divisions. The argument that matchplay is the same at every BG division is true in the same sense that, say, high school basketball and the NBA both play with a ball the same size and a court and goal with comparable dimensions. 3. You play all content with the same champs. Champs gained or enhanced via BGs are used in every facet of the game. Pretty amalgamated.
1. That's true because of the competition itself. There are not limited spots for any of them, and they're not bound to a Rating like War, or a Tier system. Anyone can reach the GC with enough consecutive Wins. 2. I'm not too keen on that analogy. We're not being "paid" as NBA, or High School Players. We're earning the same Resource to be used in a separate store, in the VT. There are no Players playing above their pay grade. There is no pay grade. You get the same amount for hitting each Milestone as anyone else, regardless of where you're at, and you're free to use it on whatever Rewards are available to you in the Store. I would argue it's the same for the people among lower levels of progress. Not all lower Players are advancing. Only the most skilled at BGs. 3. Yes, you do. That doesn't mean that I deserve a head start in a competition just because I complete certain Story content. That's like saying, I've done Abyss, I've done all Carinas, I've done all of 8.1, I should get more Points and weaker opponents in the Arena. Not as a given, no.
BG-bad technology-wasting energy-wasting time-causing irritability-increasing time in this game-increasing desire not to play the game. Decided to fade out BG All the roles that should be available at this stage already exist There is no need to play games like this More and more people don't want to play More and more people hate BG BG is only for people with good skills
1. That's true because of the competition itself. There are not limited spots for any of them, and they're not bound to a Rating like War, or a Tier system. Anyone can reach the GC with enough consecutive Wins. 2. I'm not too keen on that analogy. We're not being "paid" as NBA, or High School Players. We're earning the same Resource to be used in a separate store, in the VT. There are no Players playing above their pay grade. There is no pay grade. You get the same amount for hitting each Milestone as anyone else, regardless of where you're at, and you're free to use it on whatever Rewards are available to you in the Store. I would argue it's the same for the people among lower levels of progress. Not all lower Players are advancing. Only the most skilled at BGs. 3. Yes, you do. That doesn't mean that I deserve a head start in a competition just because I complete certain Story content. That's like saying, I've done Abyss, I've done all Carinas, I've done all of 8.1, I should get more Points and weaker opponents in the Arena. Not as a given, no.
Nice. Quick thoughts:
1. There is a tier system: it’s the silos. That’s where the issue comes in. 2. We all get “paid” the same at each tier we reach, or as you said, “we are earning the same resources.” The issue is that’s the same “payment” per tier for each individual silo, and each silo isn’t close to being the same. Cf. NBA/High school 3. If you’ve done all of the things you mention, then you absolutely earn more arena points because your champs are likely ranked higher than someone who hasn’t. Consider Worknprogress—he’s done more content than I have and he absolutely earns more points running his champs in arena than I do. That’s the nature of progressive games.
Whatever they end up doing, if anything at all, I highly doubt it has much of an effect on me personally so in the end I don't particularly care that much. Regardless of that, I do think the current setup is ridiculous and certainly not conducive to player retention. The only suggestion I'm vehemently against that I've seen is increasing the amount of matches needed for VT across the board to pad for the players struggling. Making the VT even longer for players that aren't struggling is a terrible idea as it's already a massive waste of time for them to begin with.
One of the underlying rationales for my 2/1/0/-1 scoring idea was specifically to address this. If you make it easier to earn trophies and increase the number you need, highly skilled players who should blast through VT specifically because they are in fact significantly better than the competition would then find themselves slogging through a longer VT. By granting them two trophies for a sweep, players who win more often 2/0 by outclassing their competition would rise faster, offsetting a potentially larger trophy requirement.
Nothing's perfect of course, someone will likely see a slower VT to pay for less frustration for other players that would backslide less, but I think it is a reasonable compromise to make the experience for those who will likely remain in VT less punishing without punishing the top competitors that ought to be the drivers of the competitive side of the game mode.
1. That's true because of the competition itself. There are not limited spots for any of them, and they're not bound to a Rating like War, or a Tier system. Anyone can reach the GC with enough consecutive Wins. 2. I'm not too keen on that analogy. We're not being "paid" as NBA, or High School Players. We're earning the same Resource to be used in a separate store, in the VT. There are no Players playing above their pay grade. There is no pay grade. You get the same amount for hitting each Milestone as anyone else, regardless of where you're at, and you're free to use it on whatever Rewards are available to you in the Store. I would argue it's the same for the people among lower levels of progress. Not all lower Players are advancing. Only the most skilled at BGs. 3. Yes, you do. That doesn't mean that I deserve a head start in a competition just because I complete certain Story content. That's like saying, I've done Abyss, I've done all Carinas, I've done all of 8.1, I should get more Points and weaker opponents in the Arena. Not as a given, no.
Nice. Quick thoughts:
1. There is a tier system: it’s the silos. That’s where the issue comes in. 2. We all get “paid” the same at each tier we reach, or as you said, “we are earning the same resources.” The issue is that’s the same “payment” per tier for each individual silo, and each silo isn’t close to being the same. Cf. NBA/High school 3. If you’ve done all of the things you mention, then you absolutely earn more arena points because your champs are likely ranked higher than someone who hasn’t. Consider Worknprogress—he’s done more content than I have and he absolutely earns more points running his champs in arena than I do. That’s the nature of progressive games.
Dr. Zola
1. The tier system you're referring to is called Matches within our own range. The opposite is a one-tiered system that only serves to benefit one demographic of Player. That's how you ensure people are tested based on their own strengths starting out. The opposite is a shark tank. 2. The Rewards are paid based on performance in the VT. You go up, you get the next Milestone. Those Milestones are the same for everyone, you just have to earn them. Within BGs. Not in every other aspect of the game. 3. The Arena is time and effort. You could also have 3 R5s, and an infinite number of Units for Refreshes, theoretically.
@DNA3000 in regards to your comment, I think part of the problem is everyone has to slog through VT from the bottom each time and go thorough each rank. Maybe starting people in different tiers in relation to where they finished the season prion could help.
@DNA3000 in regards to your comment, I think part of the problem is everyone has to slog through VT from the bottom each time and go thorough each rank. Maybe starting people in different tiers in relation to where they finished the season prion could help.
VT is simple Milestones.. they take time but that's what it is... GC is the rank reward points gain... Wouldnt make sense to make people start where they left, there would be no rewards for climbing up
The amount of time and energy I’ve thrown at this season to only be at Silver 3 is embarrassingly sad. I feel stupid and frustrated
Jokes aside, I feel your frustration and I bet the biggest percentage of Paragons doing BGs, feel it too. And the frustration gets even bigger when you check the GC lower standings, and see what accounts made it there. I’ve reached GC all previous seasons without putting serious effort, only by using spare energy. This season, after nearly 30 matches I’m still at Gold3. Limited my play to only daily objectives. I suggest you do the same, to avoid further frustration 😉 Prestige matchmaking, bugs, modders and the punitive structure of VT, turned a very promising game mode into an annoying experience. If the rewards weren’t the best in the game, I personally wouldn’t bother at all with BGs. Let’s hope Kabam takes seriously these concerns, and comes up with solutions (many of them have been suggested in this post’s previous comments) 🤞
The amount of time and energy I’ve thrown at this season to only be at Silver 3 is embarrassingly sad. I feel stupid and frustrated
Jokes aside, I feel your frustration and I bet the biggest percentage of Paragons doing BGs, feel it too. And the frustration gets even bigger when you check the GC lower standings, and see what accounts made it there. I’ve reached GC all previous seasons without putting serious effort, only by using spare energy. This season, after nearly 30 matches I’m still at Gold3. Limited my play to only daily objectives. I suggest you do the same, to avoid further frustration 😉 Prestige matchmaking, bugs, modders and the punitive structure of VT, turned a very promising game mode into an annoying experience. If the rewards weren’t the best in the game, I personally wouldn’t bother at all with BGs. Let’s hope Kabam takes seriously these concerns, and comes up with solutions (many of them have been suggested in this post’s previous comments) 🤞
If its makes u feel any better.. match ups get even or easier at plat 🤣
@DNA3000 in regards to your comment, I think part of the problem is everyone has to slog through VT from the bottom each time and go thorough each rank. Maybe starting people in different tiers in relation to where they finished the season prion could help.
VT is simple Milestones.. they take time but that's what it is... GC is the rank reward points gain... Wouldnt make sense to make people start where they left, there would be no rewards for climbing up
To be fair, I never agreed with the VT into GC setup to begin with. It made more sense to me to do just a tanked tier system, but that’s why I don’t design game content
The underlying problem is that the Matchmaking system and the Progression system are fundamentally at odds with each other. The goal of good matchmaking in any game (e.g., War rating, Chess ELO, youth sport, etc.) is to pair roughly equitable opponents so each has a roughly 50-50 shot at winning. That keeps everyone engaged and motivated, and prevents your good players from being bored and your weaker players from leaving. The goal of the current progression system, however, is to win more often than you lose, so you can string together enough consecutive wins to move up. If you're routinely winning ~65% of your matches, then you'll make steady progress through the victory track, but it's an indication of a bad matchmaking (hence the months of understandable complaining from smaller accounts). If you're winning 50% of your matches, it's a sign of accurate matchmaking, but then making progress would be entirely reliant on the RNG luck of what order your wins come in. Imagine a world in which Lagacy and Fintech only ever faced each other in the Victory Track, and they just road-blocked each other from getting the necessary win-streaks. You wouldn't say they're not skilled enough to make it out, right? Git gud!
I think the betas did it better, or even something like the current war rating system. Basically everyone starts in Gladiator Circuit (with a seeded ELO score based on your prestige or title) and you move up or down based on skill. Your rating stays with you from season to season, and the higher you finish and the stronger competition you match with, the better rewards you get. The current rewards from the Victory Track are essentially a participation reward, and could easily become monthly milestones based on the number of wins you accrue, or could be a points-based system like war where losing in Masters gives a lot more points than winning in Silver. In that kind of scenario, winning ~50% of your matches and holding steady isn't a soul-crushing roadblock and the milestones would make it be not a waste of your time.
Comments
I need to lay down.
1. We don’t all get the same rewards either way. There are just shy of 40K BG tokens for making it from Bronze through Diamond. Players who aren’t able to progress that far miss out on some if not most of those tokens. I think we can all agree that BGs aren’t a matter of just showing your deck to another person like a card game of War, but it is a fundamental denial of the way matches work to suggest roster strength isn’t a major part of BGs. The fact that roster strength is highly significant is the main point used to justify segregating competition by size/strength/prestige in the first place. If building my roster gets me more matches against @Worknprogress but staying put gets me more against early Paragons or late TBs, my incentives are very clear.
2. When you say “ranking doesn’t even start until GC” I’m not sure I get your point. For the solo event, rankings aren’t dependent on getting to the GC. The alliance event is a completely different event and based on full alliance points. The ~40K BG tokens you get for advancing to GC are quite possibly some of the most valuable items many players will get from playing BGs, especially since anyone who can’t make the top 5000 receives at best some allotment of 6* shards and 6* stones for solo.
3. As @Worknprogress suggested earlier, I’d say the decision to matchmake based on some version of “prestige” (or whatever it is) is about as bad an idea as requiring more matches to advance (which would serve to demoralize everyone who plays BGs). There is a ton of content available in MCoC and it nearly requires full-time commitment to do it all. If the time:effort ratio doesn’t work in BGs, there are again very clear incentives for players—especially many who have invested a ton in MCoC. I don’t think the game team wants that kind of disincentive active in this mode.
Dr. Zola
I can handle stressful content like once a month but not everyday for sure
2. Such spots don't occur until the GC. Meaning anyone can make it to the GC, provided they win their Matches. That's about as fair as it gets. Blaming lower Accounts for doing better is ignorant to the onus that they're just not winning their own Fights.
3. Not all content is the amalgamation of all other content. The Arena is an example. You can make it easier on yourself by having a wider Roster, but you can also compete with less if you amass enough Points.
Yes some of the match ups suck.. seems like short or weaker rosters have it good..
Truth is that there is a reason why URU 3 has a ranking placement of 999.999 players... U can brute force your way to it...Might take less or longer but its an achievable place; but thats the roof for a lot of players. At GC u will be facing strong rosters and have to play based on a point system ..
1. That’s *true*, but mainly because competition is siloed. Cavs beating Cavs in the Cav divisions don’t directly affect TBs. Within siloes, it’s a zero sum game, which suggests siloing does affect players. Handicapping competition deeper into VT just accentuates that effect.
2. I’d suggest that it’s not ignorant to say it takes a lot to *move* a Paragon account much, and that it only takes a little to be a difference maker in Paragon BG matches. Not the same for lower divisions. The argument that matchplay is the same at every BG division is true in the same sense that, say, high school basketball and the NBA both play with a ball the same size and a court and goal with comparable dimensions.
3. You play all content with the same champs. Champs gained or enhanced via BGs are used in every facet of the game. Pretty amalgamated.
Dr. Zola
2. I'm not too keen on that analogy. We're not being "paid" as NBA, or High School Players. We're earning the same Resource to be used in a separate store, in the VT. There are no Players playing above their pay grade. There is no pay grade. You get the same amount for hitting each Milestone as anyone else, regardless of where you're at, and you're free to use it on whatever Rewards are available to you in the Store. I would argue it's the same for the people among lower levels of progress. Not all lower Players are advancing. Only the most skilled at BGs.
3. Yes, you do. That doesn't mean that I deserve a head start in a competition just because I complete certain Story content. That's like saying, I've done Abyss, I've done all Carinas, I've done all of 8.1, I should get more Points and weaker opponents in the Arena. Not as a given, no.
Decided to fade out BG
All the roles that should be available at this stage already exist
There is no need to play games like this
More and more people don't want to play
More and more people hate BG
BG is only for people with good skills
1. There is a tier system: it’s the silos. That’s where the issue comes in.
2. We all get “paid” the same at each tier we reach, or as you said, “we are earning the same resources.” The issue is that’s the same “payment” per tier for each individual silo, and each silo isn’t close to being the same. Cf. NBA/High school
3. If you’ve done all of the things you mention, then you absolutely earn more arena points because your champs are likely ranked higher than someone who hasn’t. Consider Worknprogress—he’s done more content than I have and he absolutely earns more points running his champs in arena than I do. That’s the nature of progressive games.
Dr. Zola
Nothing's perfect of course, someone will likely see a slower VT to pay for less frustration for other players that would backslide less, but I think it is a reasonable compromise to make the experience for those who will likely remain in VT less punishing without punishing the top competitors that ought to be the drivers of the competitive side of the game mode.
2. The Rewards are paid based on performance in the VT. You go up, you get the next Milestone. Those Milestones are the same for everyone, you just have to earn them. Within BGs. Not in every other aspect of the game.
3. The Arena is time and effort. You could also have 3 R5s, and an infinite number of Units for Refreshes, theoretically.
@DNA3000 in regards to your comment, I think part of the problem is everyone has to slog through VT from the bottom each time and go thorough each rank. Maybe starting people in different tiers in relation to where they finished the season prion could help.
GC is the rank reward points gain...
Wouldnt make sense to make people start where they left, there would be no rewards for climbing up
And the frustration gets even bigger when you check the GC lower standings, and see what accounts made it there.
I’ve reached GC all previous seasons without putting serious effort, only by using spare energy.
This season, after nearly 30 matches I’m still at Gold3.
Limited my play to only daily objectives.
I suggest you do the same, to avoid further frustration 😉
Prestige matchmaking, bugs, modders and the punitive structure of VT, turned a very promising game mode into an annoying experience.
If the rewards weren’t the best in the game, I personally wouldn’t bother at all with BGs.
Let’s hope Kabam takes seriously these concerns, and comes up with solutions (many of them have been suggested in this post’s previous comments) 🤞
I think the betas did it better, or even something like the current war rating system. Basically everyone starts in Gladiator Circuit (with a seeded ELO score based on your prestige or title) and you move up or down based on skill. Your rating stays with you from season to season, and the higher you finish and the stronger competition you match with, the better rewards you get. The current rewards from the Victory Track are essentially a participation reward, and could easily become monthly milestones based on the number of wins you accrue, or could be a points-based system like war where losing in Masters gives a lot more points than winning in Silver. In that kind of scenario, winning ~50% of your matches and holding steady isn't a soul-crushing roadblock and the milestones would make it be not a waste of your time.
Just my two cents.