Update: Finally got to GC! However, I can't win a single match there. I mean I would understand being stuck there by winning a couple then losing the points but no. Cant win a single one. All the more reason for Kabam to make changes. Let's hope it gets better after the changes
if you can’t win a singe GC match then you don’t deserve to be there. Enjoy the hard fought rewards you’ve been gifted.
No, it means I'm just at where I belong. And it doesn't mean the situation will continue like this. Right now the competition in GC is too high. Just so few accounts with the best of the best players there. As more people start ascending to GC, the average player skill will decrease and the matchups will get easier
This is the dark side of allowing players to advance in VT by beating up lower opponents. Players start deciding the competition in GC is too high.
So how would you like to resolve that situation? Should we ask some of them to play with only one hand?
You're being matched against the weakest players in GC. How many of those matches do you believe you deserve to win, and how would you like Kabam to hand you those victories?
How do you know I'm being matched with weakest players in GC? There are only few people in gc right now that I get matched with players out of my current tier. Sometimes as high as from high quantum.
And the solution is, change the matchmaking in GC to match players based on total hero rating. So that in every rank, players are ranked based on their results of competiton against players in their same tier. Example: let's assume players are divided into 5 tiers based on hero rating. arcane 3 will have 500 total players with 100 of them from each tier. Quantum 3 will have 300 total with 60 from each tier. It will go like this until the top ranks where the best players of their own tiers will belong.
This idea should go hand in hand with different rewards based on titles with lower titles getting significantly lower rewards.
See now, that's the heart of one of the arguments right there. People consider it an insult that people with lower Titles are getting the same Rewards. I believe that's called en"Title"ment.
I would argue the other way round. An uncollected account wanting to face other low UC accounts but wants same rewards as top ranked accounts is the true definition of en’Title’ment as you said.
Althrough out this process, people have been transfixed on the subject of the Rewards. It started as a Matchmaking discussion, and the argument has been the Rewards these Players are getting. Over and over, we've gone back to the Rewards. Why? Players don't just want better Rewards. They want to keep Rewards out of the hands of the Players they consider undeserving. People want a fair and reasonable competition for their own level of progression. They also want Rewards that are appropriate to that. Which has always been my concern where Rewards come in. Is it appropriate, is it fair, and is it harmful to their level of progression or the overall system. So yes, I can see some concerns about giving lower Players Rewards that aren't in line with where they're at. What I'm not as concerned with is how much people THINK others deserve or should get. That's not only a kangaroo court, it's going to go to the extreme everytime. Meaning, people almost always say they either deserve nothing, because competition and all, or they grossly undervalue their efforts and what's significant at that stage. I'm more concerned with what's appropriate. Within the competition as it is right now, they're earning their Rewards. You can't deny that. I agree that too high a Reward for progression is damaging. I'm not feeding the idea that someone with a lower Title MUST get less Rewards because it's a competition. Not EQ.
If you go back and read carefully, the person I responded to wanted a title based GC and title based leaderboard placement. So there would be a UC/cav/TB/paragon version of celestial, arcane, mysterium so on and so forth. If that’s the case why should the rewards be the same for all titles? Or do you think that’s fair/appropriate/harmless to their level of progression?
That wouldn't work. I was one of the people that suggested that originally, along with a number of other suggestions. DNA pretty much summed it up. You keep a skilled Cav Player for example, from progressing past their allotment. In my opinion, that would also be a logistic nightmare for payouts.
That would be a progression gate, and it wouldnt be the first time using one.. Same argument was used for EoP, skilled Cavs should have been able to participate; but Kabam decided to gate it... BGs should be gated as well.. it doesn't make sense to have UC and end game Paragon argueing over rewards...
Why should it be gated? What problems will that lead to?
It should be gated...problems? None... It would incentive people to reach a higher progression... BG should have been lvl 60 required and TB+... There shouldn't exist any argument over rewards between the top progression and 3rd or 4th level of progression over rewards in the SAME competition.
Update: Finally got to GC! However, I can't win a single match there. I mean I would understand being stuck there by winning a couple then losing the points but no. Cant win a single one. All the more reason for Kabam to make changes. Let's hope it gets better after the changes
if you can’t win a singe GC match then you don’t deserve to be there. Enjoy the hard fought rewards you’ve been gifted.
No, it means I'm just at where I belong. And it doesn't mean the situation will continue like this. Right now the competition in GC is too high. Just so few accounts with the best of the best players there. As more people start ascending to GC, the average player skill will decrease and the matchups will get easier
This is the dark side of allowing players to advance in VT by beating up lower opponents. Players start deciding the competition in GC is too high.
So how would you like to resolve that situation? Should we ask some of them to play with only one hand?
You're being matched against the weakest players in GC. How many of those matches do you believe you deserve to win, and how would you like Kabam to hand you those victories?
How do you know I'm being matched with weakest players in GC? There are only few people in gc right now that I get matched with players out of my current tier. Sometimes as high as from high quantum.
And the solution is, change the matchmaking in GC to match players based on total hero rating. So that in every rank, players are ranked based on their results of competiton against players in their same tier. Example: let's assume players are divided into 5 tiers based on hero rating. arcane 3 will have 500 total players with 100 of them from each tier. Quantum 3 will have 300 total with 60 from each tier. It will go like this until the top ranks where the best players of their own tiers will belong.
This idea should go hand in hand with different rewards based on titles with lower titles getting significantly lower rewards.
See now, that's the heart of one of the arguments right there. People consider it an insult that people with lower Titles are getting the same Rewards. I believe that's called en"Title"ment.
I would argue the other way round. An uncollected account wanting to face other low UC accounts but wants same rewards as top ranked accounts is the true definition of en’Title’ment as you said.
Althrough out this process, people have been transfixed on the subject of the Rewards. It started as a Matchmaking discussion, and the argument has been the Rewards these Players are getting. Over and over, we've gone back to the Rewards. Why? Players don't just want better Rewards. They want to keep Rewards out of the hands of the Players they consider undeserving. People want a fair and reasonable competition for their own level of progression. They also want Rewards that are appropriate to that. Which has always been my concern where Rewards come in. Is it appropriate, is it fair, and is it harmful to their level of progression or the overall system. So yes, I can see some concerns about giving lower Players Rewards that aren't in line with where they're at. What I'm not as concerned with is how much people THINK others deserve or should get. That's not only a kangaroo court, it's going to go to the extreme everytime. Meaning, people almost always say they either deserve nothing, because competition and all, or they grossly undervalue their efforts and what's significant at that stage. I'm more concerned with what's appropriate. Within the competition as it is right now, they're earning their Rewards. You can't deny that. I agree that too high a Reward for progression is damaging. I'm not feeding the idea that someone with a lower Title MUST get less Rewards because it's a competition. Not EQ.
If you go back and read carefully, the person I responded to wanted a title based GC and title based leaderboard placement. So there would be a UC/cav/TB/paragon version of celestial, arcane, mysterium so on and so forth. If that’s the case why should the rewards be the same for all titles? Or do you think that’s fair/appropriate/harmless to their level of progression?
That wouldn't work. I was one of the people that suggested that originally, along with a number of other suggestions. DNA pretty much summed it up. You keep a skilled Cav Player for example, from progressing past their allotment. In my opinion, that would also be a logistic nightmare for payouts.
That would be a progression gate, and it wouldnt be the first time using one.. Same argument was used for EoP, skilled Cavs should have been able to participate; but Kabam decided to gate it... BGs should be gated as well.. it doesn't make sense to have UC and end game Paragon argueing over rewards...
Why should it be gated? What problems will that lead to?
It should be gated...problems? None... It would incentive people to reach a higher progression... BG should have been lvl 60 required and TB+... There shouldn't exist any argument over rewards between the top progression and 3rd or 4th level of progression over rewards in the SAME competition.
So you don't think limiting it to TB and Para would lead to issues with Matchmaking?
Update: Finally got to GC! However, I can't win a single match there. I mean I would understand being stuck there by winning a couple then losing the points but no. Cant win a single one. All the more reason for Kabam to make changes. Let's hope it gets better after the changes
if you can’t win a singe GC match then you don’t deserve to be there. Enjoy the hard fought rewards you’ve been gifted.
No, it means I'm just at where I belong. And it doesn't mean the situation will continue like this. Right now the competition in GC is too high. Just so few accounts with the best of the best players there. As more people start ascending to GC, the average player skill will decrease and the matchups will get easier
This is the dark side of allowing players to advance in VT by beating up lower opponents. Players start deciding the competition in GC is too high.
So how would you like to resolve that situation? Should we ask some of them to play with only one hand?
You're being matched against the weakest players in GC. How many of those matches do you believe you deserve to win, and how would you like Kabam to hand you those victories?
How do you know I'm being matched with weakest players in GC? There are only few people in gc right now that I get matched with players out of my current tier. Sometimes as high as from high quantum.
And the solution is, change the matchmaking in GC to match players based on total hero rating. So that in every rank, players are ranked based on their results of competiton against players in their same tier. Example: let's assume players are divided into 5 tiers based on hero rating. arcane 3 will have 500 total players with 100 of them from each tier. Quantum 3 will have 300 total with 60 from each tier. It will go like this until the top ranks where the best players of their own tiers will belong.
This idea should go hand in hand with different rewards based on titles with lower titles getting significantly lower rewards.
See now, that's the heart of one of the arguments right there. People consider it an insult that people with lower Titles are getting the same Rewards. I believe that's called en"Title"ment.
I would argue the other way round. An uncollected account wanting to face other low UC accounts but wants same rewards as top ranked accounts is the true definition of en’Title’ment as you said.
Althrough out this process, people have been transfixed on the subject of the Rewards. It started as a Matchmaking discussion, and the argument has been the Rewards these Players are getting. Over and over, we've gone back to the Rewards. Why? Players don't just want better Rewards. They want to keep Rewards out of the hands of the Players they consider undeserving. People want a fair and reasonable competition for their own level of progression. They also want Rewards that are appropriate to that. Which has always been my concern where Rewards come in. Is it appropriate, is it fair, and is it harmful to their level of progression or the overall system. So yes, I can see some concerns about giving lower Players Rewards that aren't in line with where they're at. What I'm not as concerned with is how much people THINK others deserve or should get. That's not only a kangaroo court, it's going to go to the extreme everytime. Meaning, people almost always say they either deserve nothing, because competition and all, or they grossly undervalue their efforts and what's significant at that stage. I'm more concerned with what's appropriate. Within the competition as it is right now, they're earning their Rewards. You can't deny that. I agree that too high a Reward for progression is damaging. I'm not feeding the idea that someone with a lower Title MUST get less Rewards because it's a competition. Not EQ.
If you go back and read carefully, the person I responded to wanted a title based GC and title based leaderboard placement. So there would be a UC/cav/TB/paragon version of celestial, arcane, mysterium so on and so forth. If that’s the case why should the rewards be the same for all titles? Or do you think that’s fair/appropriate/harmless to their level of progression?
That wouldn't work. I was one of the people that suggested that originally, along with a number of other suggestions. DNA pretty much summed it up. You keep a skilled Cav Player for example, from progressing past their allotment. In my opinion, that would also be a logistic nightmare for payouts.
That would be a progression gate, and it wouldnt be the first time using one.. Same argument was used for EoP, skilled Cavs should have been able to participate; but Kabam decided to gate it... BGs should be gated as well.. it doesn't make sense to have UC and end game Paragon argueing over rewards...
Why should it be gated? What problems will that lead to?
It should be gated...problems? None... It would incentive people to reach a higher progression... BG should have been lvl 60 required and TB+... There shouldn't exist any argument over rewards between the top progression and 3rd or 4th level of progression over rewards in the SAME competition.
So you don't think limiting it to TB and Para would lead to issues with Matchmaking?
It would solve them... At least it would be a smaller gap of matchmaking disparity
Update: Finally got to GC! However, I can't win a single match there. I mean I would understand being stuck there by winning a couple then losing the points but no. Cant win a single one. All the more reason for Kabam to make changes. Let's hope it gets better after the changes
if you can’t win a singe GC match then you don’t deserve to be there. Enjoy the hard fought rewards you’ve been gifted.
No, it means I'm just at where I belong. And it doesn't mean the situation will continue like this. Right now the competition in GC is too high. Just so few accounts with the best of the best players there. As more people start ascending to GC, the average player skill will decrease and the matchups will get easier
This is the dark side of allowing players to advance in VT by beating up lower opponents. Players start deciding the competition in GC is too high.
So how would you like to resolve that situation? Should we ask some of them to play with only one hand?
You're being matched against the weakest players in GC. How many of those matches do you believe you deserve to win, and how would you like Kabam to hand you those victories?
How do you know I'm being matched with weakest players in GC? There are only few people in gc right now that I get matched with players out of my current tier. Sometimes as high as from high quantum.
And the solution is, change the matchmaking in GC to match players based on total hero rating. So that in every rank, players are ranked based on their results of competiton against players in their same tier. Example: let's assume players are divided into 5 tiers based on hero rating. arcane 3 will have 500 total players with 100 of them from each tier. Quantum 3 will have 300 total with 60 from each tier. It will go like this until the top ranks where the best players of their own tiers will belong.
This idea should go hand in hand with different rewards based on titles with lower titles getting significantly lower rewards.
See now, that's the heart of one of the arguments right there. People consider it an insult that people with lower Titles are getting the same Rewards. I believe that's called en"Title"ment.
I would argue the other way round. An uncollected account wanting to face other low UC accounts but wants same rewards as top ranked accounts is the true definition of en’Title’ment as you said.
Althrough out this process, people have been transfixed on the subject of the Rewards. It started as a Matchmaking discussion, and the argument has been the Rewards these Players are getting. Over and over, we've gone back to the Rewards. Why? Players don't just want better Rewards. They want to keep Rewards out of the hands of the Players they consider undeserving. People want a fair and reasonable competition for their own level of progression. They also want Rewards that are appropriate to that. Which has always been my concern where Rewards come in. Is it appropriate, is it fair, and is it harmful to their level of progression or the overall system. So yes, I can see some concerns about giving lower Players Rewards that aren't in line with where they're at. What I'm not as concerned with is how much people THINK others deserve or should get. That's not only a kangaroo court, it's going to go to the extreme everytime. Meaning, people almost always say they either deserve nothing, because competition and all, or they grossly undervalue their efforts and what's significant at that stage. I'm more concerned with what's appropriate. Within the competition as it is right now, they're earning their Rewards. You can't deny that. I agree that too high a Reward for progression is damaging. I'm not feeding the idea that someone with a lower Title MUST get less Rewards because it's a competition. Not EQ.
If you go back and read carefully, the person I responded to wanted a title based GC and title based leaderboard placement. So there would be a UC/cav/TB/paragon version of celestial, arcane, mysterium so on and so forth. If that’s the case why should the rewards be the same for all titles? Or do you think that’s fair/appropriate/harmless to their level of progression?
That wouldn't work. I was one of the people that suggested that originally, along with a number of other suggestions. DNA pretty much summed it up. You keep a skilled Cav Player for example, from progressing past their allotment. In my opinion, that would also be a logistic nightmare for payouts.
That would be a progression gate, and it wouldnt be the first time using one.. Same argument was used for EoP, skilled Cavs should have been able to participate; but Kabam decided to gate it... BGs should be gated as well.. it doesn't make sense to have UC and end game Paragon argueing over rewards...
Why should it be gated? What problems will that lead to?
It should be gated...problems? None... It would incentive people to reach a higher progression... BG should have been lvl 60 required and TB+... There shouldn't exist any argument over rewards between the top progression and 3rd or 4th level of progression over rewards in the SAME competition.
So you don't think limiting it to TB and Para would lead to issues with Matchmaking?
It would solve them... At least it would be a smaller gap of matchmaking disparity
Update: Finally got to GC! However, I can't win a single match there. I mean I would understand being stuck there by winning a couple then losing the points but no. Cant win a single one. All the more reason for Kabam to make changes. Let's hope it gets better after the changes
if you can’t win a singe GC match then you don’t deserve to be there. Enjoy the hard fought rewards you’ve been gifted.
No, it means I'm just at where I belong. And it doesn't mean the situation will continue like this. Right now the competition in GC is too high. Just so few accounts with the best of the best players there. As more people start ascending to GC, the average player skill will decrease and the matchups will get easier
This is the dark side of allowing players to advance in VT by beating up lower opponents. Players start deciding the competition in GC is too high.
So how would you like to resolve that situation? Should we ask some of them to play with only one hand?
You're being matched against the weakest players in GC. How many of those matches do you believe you deserve to win, and how would you like Kabam to hand you those victories?
How do you know I'm being matched with weakest players in GC? There are only few people in gc right now that I get matched with players out of my current tier. Sometimes as high as from high quantum.
And the solution is, change the matchmaking in GC to match players based on total hero rating. So that in every rank, players are ranked based on their results of competiton against players in their same tier. Example: let's assume players are divided into 5 tiers based on hero rating. arcane 3 will have 500 total players with 100 of them from each tier. Quantum 3 will have 300 total with 60 from each tier. It will go like this until the top ranks where the best players of their own tiers will belong.
This idea should go hand in hand with different rewards based on titles with lower titles getting significantly lower rewards.
See now, that's the heart of one of the arguments right there. People consider it an insult that people with lower Titles are getting the same Rewards. I believe that's called en"Title"ment.
I would argue the other way round. An uncollected account wanting to face other low UC accounts but wants same rewards as top ranked accounts is the true definition of en’Title’ment as you said.
Althrough out this process, people have been transfixed on the subject of the Rewards. It started as a Matchmaking discussion, and the argument has been the Rewards these Players are getting. Over and over, we've gone back to the Rewards. Why? Players don't just want better Rewards. They want to keep Rewards out of the hands of the Players they consider undeserving. People want a fair and reasonable competition for their own level of progression. They also want Rewards that are appropriate to that. Which has always been my concern where Rewards come in. Is it appropriate, is it fair, and is it harmful to their level of progression or the overall system. So yes, I can see some concerns about giving lower Players Rewards that aren't in line with where they're at. What I'm not as concerned with is how much people THINK others deserve or should get. That's not only a kangaroo court, it's going to go to the extreme everytime. Meaning, people almost always say they either deserve nothing, because competition and all, or they grossly undervalue their efforts and what's significant at that stage. I'm more concerned with what's appropriate. Within the competition as it is right now, they're earning their Rewards. You can't deny that. I agree that too high a Reward for progression is damaging. I'm not feeding the idea that someone with a lower Title MUST get less Rewards because it's a competition. Not EQ.
If you go back and read carefully, the person I responded to wanted a title based GC and title based leaderboard placement. So there would be a UC/cav/TB/paragon version of celestial, arcane, mysterium so on and so forth. If that’s the case why should the rewards be the same for all titles? Or do you think that’s fair/appropriate/harmless to their level of progression?
That wouldn't work. I was one of the people that suggested that originally, along with a number of other suggestions. DNA pretty much summed it up. You keep a skilled Cav Player for example, from progressing past their allotment. In my opinion, that would also be a logistic nightmare for payouts.
That would be a progression gate, and it wouldnt be the first time using one.. Same argument was used for EoP, skilled Cavs should have been able to participate; but Kabam decided to gate it... BGs should be gated as well.. it doesn't make sense to have UC and end game Paragon argueing over rewards...
Why should it be gated? What problems will that lead to?
It should be gated...problems? None... It would incentive people to reach a higher progression... BG should have been lvl 60 required and TB+... There shouldn't exist any argument over rewards between the top progression and 3rd or 4th level of progression over rewards in the SAME competition.
So you don't think limiting it to TB and Para would lead to issues with Matchmaking?
It would solve them... At least it would be a smaller gap of matchmaking disparity
You'd be waiting a long time for Matches.
Is that your argument then? That the match making is unfair cause it just pairs you up with the 1st person available?... Good we would wait a bit longer... (Doubt thaaat much longer) but at least we wouldn't have 600 threads about Cavs with 3 r3s fighting rosters with 10 r4s in GC... The main problem with this community and the player base is the entitlement of a reward, its usually comming from the lower progression levels.
Actually, entitlement knows no bounds. Also, I don't care if they complain about being overpowered in the GC. That's where the Rank Rewards begin, and it's as it should be. There's a difference between a complaint because something is unpleasant or unfavorable, and a complaint because something is a significant issue. Both are significant issues. Meaning, both higher and lower arguments. The solution is not "Kick them out and give us all the Rewards.".
Nobody defends current matchmaking system and still we dont have any response from Kabam. Lot of threads on forum and not even a single post
We did get a response a couple days ago though. They didn't give us any dates or details but they've acknowledged the issue and they're probably already planning some changes for next season or the one after.
Actually, entitlement knows no bounds. Also, I don't care if they complain about being overpowered in the GC. That's where the Rank Rewards begin, and it's as it should be. There's a difference between a complaint because something is unpleasant or unfavorable, and a complaint because something is a significant issue. Both are significant issues. Meaning, both higher and lower arguments. The solution is not "Kick them out and give us all the Rewards.".
Who said kick em out?.. i said it should have been TB+ lvl 60 from the beginning... Now the only solution is creating a baby battleground... I think the main argument is if this was a fair matchmaking meaning a battle royal.. would they have even made it to GC to complain ?... I agree with the part of GC being the rank rewards.. I have said many times that VT is just milestones.. some get it quicker some get it slower... And as u said both higher and lower have have valid arguments about their own situation.. but higher should not have to argue with lower.. Do they each have valid arguments? Yes; but should they be able to sit on the same table and argue with each other? No
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
It's not the same as War. People keep making that comparison because some form of Roster-dependent Matchmaking is being used, but they're two different game modes. As for manipulating progress for easy Matches, that's half the reason we're here. Sandbagging was a thing. I don't have much sympathy for people trying to manipulate an outcome. Reducing the Rewards overall was something I considered. That would definitely make it less competitive. However, the Rewards are not just to help one demographic. They're there to reward everyone playing appropriately. There is no "due" outside of results in these things. It's not like AQ where Alliances put the same thing up every week and come to expect them. They earn what they earn during the Season. Are there problems? Sure. I'm not ignoring points by focusing on other aspects. I'm bringing to light what is being ignored because it doesn't serve what some people want. It's not just a game mode for the Top Players. Not sure how many times I can say that before people accept that. You can't just claim "We've been here longer, we're higher, we must dominate it.". We've seen that happen in War. It's primarily for the benefit of the Top Players, and people scarcely get ahead. Sorry, but that's the reality. Players can't just join another Alliance in BGs. They're using their own Accounts. Which means everyone's growth and experience matters. Not just "Kill or be killed.".
You are missing the point of my statement because you are not listening/comprehending correctly because you only care about your opinion. I didn’t say it was the same as war. I said AW had the same type of issue. That is a very clear statement.
Similar and same are close comparisons, but not the same meaning.
The word similar means they are not identical, so continue with your dismissive behavior because you do not understand the words that someone is saying and making false equivalences and straw man arguments. If you actually listened to other people’s opinions you would go a lot further in life and influencing people.
And I didn’t say we were here long we must dominate… you are saying that is what I said. I was trying to explain other’s feelings on the matter, but you are too narcissistic in your own opinions matter more than everyone else that you can’t even hear what others are saying.
And you are ignoring points… like you ignored and misrepresented mine just now. You can’t blame others for your lack of understanding and empathy.
The worst part is that you probably didn’t read that I practically agree with you in my statements and a possible solution. I am just addressing your behavior and argumentative attitude that plagues this forum and why most people shut you off and say you are wrong. You have lack of consideration of what they are going through, and that makes people not like you.
You been doing this for years in these forums, so I doubt you even care. But there is a reason most people don’t like you and your opinions. Meanwhile, I see your points and made my suggestions on how to fix things without including reduction in rewards, I made a misstatement and corrected it. I never once said we should allow smaller account to fit bigger ones…. I, in fact, defended that and suggested they might want to consider breaking up BG in divisions with appropriate rewards. However that is not an immediate fix to the situation, right? It would take a lot of additional work and coding.
What was my proposal? Reduce the pricing on shields and elder marks to make them more obtainable and reasonably priced compared to the rewards. That is a huge difference. If shields were cheaper, people might buy them more often in order to preserve their standing (especially if they have 1-2 wins)… right?
But at 90 units or 1,140 Trophy Token, it cost $3.34 to do that… or a few hours of arena grinding. And that is just for a chance to move up, but not penalize them should they make a mistake… or if you have read other posts, the game crashes and the lose the mark and the units/tokens they spent.
If you hadn't gathered by now, I'm not arguing lower Players matter more than higher. I'm arguing everyone matters.
I get your argument, but you don’t carry the same “consideration” for other people’s opinions that are different that yours, in the arguments you create in claiming they don’t care about others. That my friend is the hypocritical reality. You have valid points, it is your delivery that is a problem…. And it is a problem with most on here that have an emotional attachment to a game or opinion.
Weren't you keeping me on Block because I'm a "troll"? I'm not discussing the matter with you as long as you continue to make personal comments about me. If you can't engage without being rude, I can't be bothered. Nor did I ever disagree with your proposed idea of reducing the cost. I just think it's a bit outside the issue, but you're free to suggest that. If you have points to make without calling me a narcissistic troll who has been hypocritical for years, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. If not, I have no interest.
The idea of a game is to make it fun and engaging to get people to play it more. The hopes is that the might spend a bit to keep the game going and for the company to make profit.
You aren’t going to promote spending in any capacity my making something frustrating and then overcharging on was to make it “less frustrating”. That will make people upset.
Listen, I know a lot about intentions, end users and trying to make money. I work on a couple major websites as a digital marketing manager for SEO and SEM. User interface, customer experience and the reasons why they come to my websites are something I know a lot about. While this is a game, it is failing at the basic elements that make people want to play/use it.
That is why my proposal to fix the issue isn’t coming from a place of emotion. I get what Kabam’s needs are, what the lower level account needs are, and what the bigger accounts like mine are. The most immediate thing Kabam could do is cost reduction of things EVERYONE could use no matter what their prestige is and make the bitter cost of losing less painful and less costly.
Like I said, it most likely wan’t their intent to make it this frustrating, it is the unfortunate side effect based on the design and adjustments they made.
They should also seriously look at input issues and these crashes. I know they say inputs are on the client side, but that is not a solution. I worked in IT and the amount of complaints states that even if it is client side, there is something wrong with the code that is causing the issues. I also understand how tough it is for Kabam. There are so many device types, OS, and other factors (phone degradation, how many apps are running, if the user updated their OS, etc). That is why they ask for more information so they can investigate. It isn’t an easy fix, but the state of the game is causing frustration all around.
I use to complain years ago about the issues, and in the past 2-2 1/2 it hasn’t been only me and a few others.
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly, but there is absolutely a way to keep it reasonable. There's no way Accounts should be pecking off the lowest because "Rewards and stuffs". I'm not talking about throughout the competition. People will inevitably play up to their limits. I'm talking about expecting a mayhem system right out the gate and calling it fair, just because the same Rewards are being fought for. That's insanity. Which means something needs to mitigate the start. People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all. The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.". One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly, but there is absolutely a way to keep it reasonable. There's no way Accounts should be pecking off the lowest because "Rewards and stuffs". I'm not talking about throughout the competition. People will inevitably play up to their limits. I'm talking about expecting a mayhem system right out the gate and calling it fair, just because the same Rewards are being fought for. That's insanity. Which means something needs to mitigate the start. People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all. The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.". One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
That's why they should have their baby battleground, reach their limit and not complain about getting to fight "way higher accounts".. Kabam has created a false sense of competition. Paragons facing Paragons.. that's ok if u wanna climb up u should be facing hard matches; but cavs complaining about "unfair matches" in GC? Really?... The sportmanship conduct would be.. "wow i guess i reached my roof, I'm happy" but no.. they complain cause they can't expect rewards once they hit the roof. I know so many people that made it to GC with their low accounts within 10-15 days.. and since then they haven't been able to complete any of the win objectives and complaining about "hard" matches...
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly, but there is absolutely a way to keep it reasonable. There's no way Accounts should be pecking off the lowest because "Rewards and stuffs". I'm not talking about throughout the competition. People will inevitably play up to their limits. I'm talking about expecting a mayhem system right out the gate and calling it fair, just because the same Rewards are being fought for. That's insanity. Which means something needs to mitigate the start. People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all. The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.". One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
That's why they should have their baby battleground, reach their limit and not complain about getting to fight "way higher accounts".. Kabam has created a false sense of competition. Paragons facing Paragons.. that's ok if u wanna climb up u should be facing hard matches; but cavs complaining about "unfair matches" in GC? Really?... The sportmanship conduct would be.. "wow i guess i reached my roof, I'm happy" but no.. they complain cause they can't expect rewards once they hit the roof. I know so many people that made it to GC with their low accounts within 10-15 days.. and since then they haven't been able to complete any of the win objectives and complaining about "hard" matches...
Who said that was an issue? People will complain regardless. If they're facing stiff competition in the GC, I'm fine with that. What I'm talking about is the beginning of the VT, and to be honest, I wouldn't care if it was the whole VT. However, people are upset lower Players are getting to the GC faster, and I'm not blind to that. My points have been pretty clear. Putting everyone in the same mish mash at the START is not reasonable. I'm quite fine with them balancing out later on. They'll complain either way, because the GC is the actual Ranking competition, and it should be ELO.
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly, but there is absolutely a way to keep it reasonable. There's no way Accounts should be pecking off the lowest because "Rewards and stuffs". I'm not talking about throughout the competition. People will inevitably play up to their limits. I'm talking about expecting a mayhem system right out the gate and calling it fair, just because the same Rewards are being fought for. That's insanity. Which means something needs to mitigate the start. People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all. The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.". One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
That's why they should have their baby battleground, reach their limit and not complain about getting to fight "way higher accounts".. Kabam has created a false sense of competition. Paragons facing Paragons.. that's ok if u wanna climb up u should be facing hard matches; but cavs complaining about "unfair matches" in GC? Really?... The sportmanship conduct would be.. "wow i guess i reached my roof, I'm happy" but no.. they complain cause they can't expect rewards once they hit the roof. I know so many people that made it to GC with their low accounts within 10-15 days.. and since then they haven't been able to complete any of the win objectives and complaining about "hard" matches...
Who said that was an issue? People will complain regardless. If they're facing stiff competition in the GC, I'm fine with that. What I'm talking about is the beginning of the VT, and to be honest, I wouldn't care if it was the whole VT. However, people are upset lower Players are getting to the GC faster, and I'm not blind to that. My points have been pretty clear. Putting everyone in the same mish mash at the START is not reasonable. I'm quite fine with them balancing out later on. They'll complain either way, because the GC is the actual Ranking competition, and it should be ELO.
Look at the title, i guess u spent so much time in here argueing that you are not even looking at the title of the post...
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly, but there is absolutely a way to keep it reasonable. There's no way Accounts should be pecking off the lowest because "Rewards and stuffs". I'm not talking about throughout the competition. People will inevitably play up to their limits. I'm talking about expecting a mayhem system right out the gate and calling it fair, just because the same Rewards are being fought for. That's insanity. Which means something needs to mitigate the start. People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all. The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.". One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
That's why they should have their baby battleground, reach their limit and not complain about getting to fight "way higher accounts".. Kabam has created a false sense of competition. Paragons facing Paragons.. that's ok if u wanna climb up u should be facing hard matches; but cavs complaining about "unfair matches" in GC? Really?... The sportmanship conduct would be.. "wow i guess i reached my roof, I'm happy" but no.. they complain cause they can't expect rewards once they hit the roof. I know so many people that made it to GC with their low accounts within 10-15 days.. and since then they haven't been able to complete any of the win objectives and complaining about "hard" matches...
Who said that was an issue? People will complain regardless. If they're facing stiff competition in the GC, I'm fine with that. What I'm talking about is the beginning of the VT, and to be honest, I wouldn't care if it was the whole VT. However, people are upset lower Players are getting to the GC faster, and I'm not blind to that. My points have been pretty clear. Putting everyone in the same mish mash at the START is not reasonable. I'm quite fine with them balancing out later on. They'll complain either way, because the GC is the actual Ranking competition, and it should be ELO.
Look at the title, i guess u spent so much time in here argueing that you are not even looking at the title of the post...
I'm aware of the Title. I'm also aware that the subject has been talked about for some time. People have the right to make whatever Threads they want, and we have the right to agree or disagree with them. Keeping people out of the GC just because we don't want them to complain about the difference in competition isn't a viable reason to steer the system that way. It's not about complaints. It's about what's fair for as many people as possible. There's always going to be someone complaining.
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly, but there is absolutely a way to keep it reasonable. There's no way Accounts should be pecking off the lowest because "Rewards and stuffs". I'm not talking about throughout the competition. People will inevitably play up to their limits. I'm talking about expecting a mayhem system right out the gate and calling it fair, just because the same Rewards are being fought for. That's insanity. Which means something needs to mitigate the start. People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all. The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.". One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
That's why they should have their baby battleground, reach their limit and not complain about getting to fight "way higher accounts".. Kabam has created a false sense of competition. Paragons facing Paragons.. that's ok if u wanna climb up u should be facing hard matches; but cavs complaining about "unfair matches" in GC? Really?... The sportmanship conduct would be.. "wow i guess i reached my roof, I'm happy" but no.. they complain cause they can't expect rewards once they hit the roof. I know so many people that made it to GC with their low accounts within 10-15 days.. and since then they haven't been able to complete any of the win objectives and complaining about "hard" matches...
Who said that was an issue? People will complain regardless. If they're facing stiff competition in the GC, I'm fine with that. What I'm talking about is the beginning of the VT, and to be honest, I wouldn't care if it was the whole VT. However, people are upset lower Players are getting to the GC faster, and I'm not blind to that. My points have been pretty clear. Putting everyone in the same mish mash at the START is not reasonable. I'm quite fine with them balancing out later on. They'll complain either way, because the GC is the actual Ranking competition, and it should be ELO.
Look at the title, i guess u spent so much time in here argueing that you are not even looking at the title of the post...
I'm aware of the Title. I'm also aware that the subject has been talked about for some time. People have the right to make whatever Threads they want, and we have the right to agree or disagree with them. Keeping people out of the GC just because we don't want them to complain about the difference in competition isn't a viable reason to steer the system that way. It's not about complaints. It's about what's fair for as many people as possible. There's always going to be someone complaining.
Why do u keep on putting words I didn't say to fit your argument?... When did I ever say we need to keep them out of GC?.. There is a reason why most competitive sports have divisions... Well there should be a division. You also say "what is fair for as many people as possible" well i will answer quoting you "I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly", as broad as the gap between the lowest and highest... UC and Cav shouldn't even sit at this table to argue that matches are hard.
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly, but there is absolutely a way to keep it reasonable. There's no way Accounts should be pecking off the lowest because "Rewards and stuffs". I'm not talking about throughout the competition. People will inevitably play up to their limits. I'm talking about expecting a mayhem system right out the gate and calling it fair, just because the same Rewards are being fought for. That's insanity. Which means something needs to mitigate the start. People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all. The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.". One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
That's why they should have their baby battleground, reach their limit and not complain about getting to fight "way higher accounts".. Kabam has created a false sense of competition. Paragons facing Paragons.. that's ok if u wanna climb up u should be facing hard matches; but cavs complaining about "unfair matches" in GC? Really?... The sportmanship conduct would be.. "wow i guess i reached my roof, I'm happy" but no.. they complain cause they can't expect rewards once they hit the roof. I know so many people that made it to GC with their low accounts within 10-15 days.. and since then they haven't been able to complete any of the win objectives and complaining about "hard" matches...
Who said that was an issue? People will complain regardless. If they're facing stiff competition in the GC, I'm fine with that. What I'm talking about is the beginning of the VT, and to be honest, I wouldn't care if it was the whole VT. However, people are upset lower Players are getting to the GC faster, and I'm not blind to that. My points have been pretty clear. Putting everyone in the same mish mash at the START is not reasonable. I'm quite fine with them balancing out later on. They'll complain either way, because the GC is the actual Ranking competition, and it should be ELO.
Look at the title, i guess u spent so much time in here argueing that you are not even looking at the title of the post...
I'm aware of the Title. I'm also aware that the subject has been talked about for some time. People have the right to make whatever Threads they want, and we have the right to agree or disagree with them. Keeping people out of the GC just because we don't want them to complain about the difference in competition isn't a viable reason to steer the system that way. It's not about complaints. It's about what's fair for as many people as possible. There's always going to be someone complaining.
Why do u keep on putting words I didn't say to fit your argument?... When did I ever say we need to keep them out of GC?.. There is a reason why most competitive sports have divisions... Well there should be a division. You also say "what is fair for as many people as possible" well i will answer quoting you "I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly", as broad as the gap between the lowest and highest... UC and Cav shouldn't even sit at this table to argue that matches are hard.
Well they should, because they're a part of the competition, and have been since its inception. So we might as well address it as it is.
That's where I disagree. Having Titles doesn't mean we're literally playing a different game. It's progress markers, and they're loose. Meaning, there is a myriad of differences in between. If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Stop putting words in my mouth. When did i say they should be denied anything?.. if they made it to GC good for them; my question was.. if matchmaking was fair as it should have been, by creating a battle royale in VT do u think they would have made it to GC?.. and even if they did, they shouldn't be complaining about unfair matches should they?.. they reached a peak and they are ranked as they should... And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?... A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
You can't overpower them in Bronze 3 and call it reaching their peak. They're in BGs. Which means we have to look at things as they are. It's clear the intention was to include them as well.
There is absolute no way to guarantee fairness when u put 4 progression levels to compete with each other.
I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly, but there is absolutely a way to keep it reasonable. There's no way Accounts should be pecking off the lowest because "Rewards and stuffs". I'm not talking about throughout the competition. People will inevitably play up to their limits. I'm talking about expecting a mayhem system right out the gate and calling it fair, just because the same Rewards are being fought for. That's insanity. Which means something needs to mitigate the start. People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all. The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.". One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
That's why they should have their baby battleground, reach their limit and not complain about getting to fight "way higher accounts".. Kabam has created a false sense of competition. Paragons facing Paragons.. that's ok if u wanna climb up u should be facing hard matches; but cavs complaining about "unfair matches" in GC? Really?... The sportmanship conduct would be.. "wow i guess i reached my roof, I'm happy" but no.. they complain cause they can't expect rewards once they hit the roof. I know so many people that made it to GC with their low accounts within 10-15 days.. and since then they haven't been able to complete any of the win objectives and complaining about "hard" matches...
Who said that was an issue? People will complain regardless. If they're facing stiff competition in the GC, I'm fine with that. What I'm talking about is the beginning of the VT, and to be honest, I wouldn't care if it was the whole VT. However, people are upset lower Players are getting to the GC faster, and I'm not blind to that. My points have been pretty clear. Putting everyone in the same mish mash at the START is not reasonable. I'm quite fine with them balancing out later on. They'll complain either way, because the GC is the actual Ranking competition, and it should be ELO.
Look at the title, i guess u spent so much time in here argueing that you are not even looking at the title of the post...
I'm aware of the Title. I'm also aware that the subject has been talked about for some time. People have the right to make whatever Threads they want, and we have the right to agree or disagree with them. Keeping people out of the GC just because we don't want them to complain about the difference in competition isn't a viable reason to steer the system that way. It's not about complaints. It's about what's fair for as many people as possible. There's always going to be someone complaining.
Why do u keep on putting words I didn't say to fit your argument?... When did I ever say we need to keep them out of GC?.. There is a reason why most competitive sports have divisions... Well there should be a division. You also say "what is fair for as many people as possible" well i will answer quoting you "I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly", as broad as the gap between the lowest and highest... UC and Cav shouldn't even sit at this table to argue that matches are hard.
Well they should, because they're a part of the competition, and have been since its inception. So we might as well address it as it is.
Love how u keep on replying; but not answering and not answering why you keep on putting words I have never said just to fit your argument.. Should they get to GC yes.. should they be asking to make matches in GC fair... No... They don't like it . Well ask for a division where they can be at the top... I repeat 4 progression levels and they are asking for easier matches to compete in GC its ridiculous
We're literally agreeing on the same thing, but you keep repeating it. Asking for even Matches in the GC is not reasonable. What I don't agree with is that it's feasible for an entirely separate BGs for lower Players.
Comments
BG should have been lvl 60 required and TB+...
There shouldn't exist any argument over rewards between the top progression and 3rd or 4th level of progression over rewards in the SAME competition.
Good we would wait a bit longer... (Doubt thaaat much longer) but at least we wouldn't have 600 threads about Cavs with 3 r3s fighting rosters with 10 r4s in GC...
The main problem with this community and the player base is the entitlement of a reward, its usually comming from the lower progression levels.
Also, I don't care if they complain about being overpowered in the GC. That's where the Rank Rewards begin, and it's as it should be. There's a difference between a complaint because something is unpleasant or unfavorable, and a complaint because something is a significant issue. Both are significant issues. Meaning, both higher and lower arguments. The solution is not "Kick them out and give us all the Rewards.".
Now the only solution is creating a baby battleground...
I think the main argument is if this was a fair matchmaking meaning a battle royal.. would they have even made it to GC to complain ?...
I agree with the part of GC being the rank rewards.. I have said many times that VT is just milestones.. some get it quicker some get it slower...
And as u said both higher and lower have have valid arguments about their own situation.. but higher should not have to argue with lower..
Do they each have valid arguments? Yes; but should they be able to sit on the same table and argue with each other? No
If a Cav plays smart and hard and they make it to the GC, should they be denied what they worked for? Essentially what you're saying is because there are Rewards at stake (which progression limits what you can have and use regardless), then the competition should be limited. A Paragon isn't playing an entirely different game than a Cav. Not in the literal sense.
Similar and same are close comparisons, but not the same meaning.
The word similar means they are not identical, so continue with your dismissive behavior because you do not understand the words that someone is saying and making false equivalences and straw man arguments. If you actually listened to other people’s opinions you would go a lot further in life and influencing people.
And I didn’t say we were here long we must dominate… you are saying that is what I said. I was trying to explain other’s feelings on the matter, but you are too narcissistic in your own opinions matter more than everyone else that you can’t even hear what others are saying.
And you are ignoring points… like you ignored and misrepresented mine just now. You can’t blame others for your lack of understanding and empathy.
The worst part is that you probably didn’t read that I practically agree with you in my statements and a possible solution. I am just addressing your behavior and argumentative attitude that plagues this forum and why most people shut you off and say you are wrong. You have lack of consideration of what they are going through, and that makes people not like you.
You been doing this for years in these forums, so I doubt you even care. But there is a reason most people don’t like you and your opinions. Meanwhile, I see your points and made my suggestions on how to fix things without including reduction in rewards, I made a misstatement and corrected it. I never once said we should allow smaller account to fit bigger ones…. I, in fact, defended that and suggested they might want to consider breaking up BG in divisions with appropriate rewards. However that is not an immediate fix to the situation, right? It would take a lot of additional work and coding.
What was my proposal? Reduce the pricing on shields and elder marks to make them more obtainable and reasonably priced compared to the rewards. That is a huge difference. If shields were cheaper, people might buy them more often in order to preserve their standing (especially if they have 1-2 wins)… right?
But at 90 units or 1,140 Trophy Token, it cost $3.34 to do that… or a few hours of arena grinding. And that is just for a chance to move up, but not penalize them should they make a mistake… or if you have read other posts, the game crashes and the lose the mark and the units/tokens they spent.
If you have points to make without calling me a narcissistic troll who has been hypocritical for years, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. If not, I have no interest.
You aren’t going to promote spending in any capacity my making something frustrating and then overcharging on was to make it “less frustrating”. That will make people upset.
Listen, I know a lot about intentions, end users and trying to make money. I work on a couple major websites as a digital marketing manager for SEO and SEM. User interface, customer experience and the reasons why they come to my websites are something I know a lot about. While this is a game, it is failing at the basic elements that make people want to play/use it.
That is why my proposal to fix the issue isn’t coming from a place of emotion. I get what Kabam’s needs are, what the lower level account needs are, and what the bigger accounts like mine are. The most immediate thing Kabam could do is cost reduction of things EVERYONE could use no matter what their prestige is and make the bitter cost of losing less painful and less costly.
Like I said, it most likely wan’t their intent to make it this frustrating, it is the unfortunate side effect based on the design and adjustments they made.
They should also seriously look at input issues and these crashes. I know they say inputs are on the client side, but that is not a solution. I worked in IT and the amount of complaints states that even if it is client side, there is something wrong with the code that is causing the issues. I also understand how tough it is for Kabam. There are so many device types, OS, and other factors (phone degradation, how many apps are running, if the user updated their OS, etc). That is why they ask for more information so they can investigate. It isn’t an easy fix, but the state of the game is causing frustration all around.
I use to complain years ago about the issues, and in the past 2-2 1/2 it hasn’t been only me and a few others.
And as i said before, fair or unfair Kabam has used gate restrictions in the past... EoP one of the examples.. why weren't cavs able to play it?...
A Paragon is not playing a different game, but its playing at a different level...the fact that so many progression levels are thrown into the same competition is ridiculous...
People get so hell-bent on the rewards aspect that they call any kind of overpowering fair. That's not always the case. Not when you're not even giving anyone a chance to progress at all.
The objective is to earn our way to our own limits and progress from that. Not to petition to keep Rewards out of the hands of others, and let's be honest. That's what it's been. A great deal of "They shouldn't have this or that.".
One side is concern for the system as a whole. The other is just plain monopolizing the game mode.
Paragons facing Paragons.. that's ok if u wanna climb up u should be facing hard matches; but cavs complaining about "unfair matches" in GC? Really?... The sportmanship conduct would be.. "wow i guess i reached my roof, I'm happy" but no.. they complain cause they can't expect rewards once they hit the roof.
I know so many people that made it to GC with their low accounts within 10-15 days.. and since then they haven't been able to complete any of the win objectives and complaining about "hard" matches...
There is a reason why most competitive sports have divisions... Well there should be a division.
You also say "what is fair for as many people as possible" well i will answer quoting you "I know that people use the term fairness quite broadly", as broad as the gap between the lowest and highest...
UC and Cav shouldn't even sit at this table to argue that matches are hard.
Should they get to GC yes.. should they be asking to make matches in GC fair... No...
They don't like it . Well ask for a division where they can be at the top...
I repeat 4 progression levels and they are asking for easier matches to compete in GC its ridiculous