You say it's the best of the best, but if it was, they would be winning Matches within their own range. That's the point. People aren't the best of the best because their Rosters would be able to flatten those much smaller than theirs. They're the best of the best because they're the best of the best.
You're only the best of the best if you face the best. If you're just the best of the rest, you are not the best of the best.
But it is the GC that decides who's the best of the best, and in the GC no one gets to hide behind their roster. Everyone must face everyone if they hope to climb to the top. If they don't have a strong enough roster to climb to the top, too bad. They can't cry that their roster is holding them back, or it isn't fair. It is fair, because BG is not about the most skilled player, it is about the strongest player.
The VT is not about the best of the best. It is about who's good enough. And in the VT, the only thing having a stronger roster does is hand you stronger opponents. Ranking up the right champion can get you more wins, but ranking up in general just hands you stronger opponents. It is the only area of the game where ranking up a stronger roster does not unambiguously grant the player a progressional or strategic advantage.
The proof is in the fact that if it didn't hurt my progress elsewhere in the game, I would rank down my roster for BG. I know this because when deck matching was the match algorithm, I did in effect rank down my roster - to a deck of 5/50 champs. And I did spectacularly well with it.
If prestige/roster strength matching is fair, then deck matching must also be fair. Conversely, if deck matching is not fair, prestige/roster strength matching is equally unfair.
You say it's the best of the best, but if it was, they would be winning Matches within their own range. That's the point. People aren't the best of the best because their Rosters would be able to flatten those much smaller than theirs. They're the best of the best because they're the best of the best.
You're only the best of the best if you face the best. If you're just the best of the rest, you are not the best of the best.
But it is the GC that decides who's the best of the best, and in the GC no one gets to hide behind their roster. Everyone must face everyone if they hope to climb to the top. If they don't have a strong enough roster to climb to the top, too bad. They can't cry that their roster is holding them back, or it isn't fair. It is fair, because BG is not about the most skilled player, it is about the strongest player.
The VT is not about the best of the best. It is about who's good enough. And in the VT, the only thing having a stronger roster does is hand you stronger opponents. Ranking up the right champion can get you more wins, but ranking up in general just hands you stronger opponents. It is the only area of the game where ranking up a stronger roster does not unambiguously grant the player a progressional or strategic advantage.
The proof is in the fact that if it didn't hurt my progress elsewhere in the game, I would rank down my roster for BG. I know this because when deck matching was the match algorithm, I did in effect rank down my roster - to a deck of 5/50 champs. And I did spectacularly well with it.
If prestige/roster strength matching is fair, then deck matching must also be fair. Conversely, if deck matching is not fair, prestige/roster strength matching is equally unfair.
I have no qualms with the GC. What the previous poster keeps pushing is the idea that better Players are stuck in the VT. Which means a certain amount of onus is on their own performance if that assertion is being made. My whole point is that the Matchmaking can't be blamed for one's own inability to win Matches. I'm not pointing fingers with that claim. It applies to me as well. The difference is, if I'm beaten, I'm beaten. I'm not blaming the Players with half my Roster who made it to the GC. I'm accepting that my OWN abilities have come up short. I was merely responding to the claim that the best of the best are stuck there. I think at some point, one has to accept their own lack of success.
After a day of reasonable matches, today is once again another story of a complete matchmaking mess - I still don't understand why I'm matched with individuals who are two shields in when I have none? Rosters are also not comparable - it's just tiring to waste time
You expect them to count how many shields they have within that tier?! So you only want to fight those who have won (or not won) the exact amount of wins in that exact same tier and you want rosters to be comparable to each other too?! That's a whole new level of overly high expectations!
1) Again, the current matchmaking heavily favors progress for lower accounts.
2) The implication that lower accounts aren't taking rewards from higher accounts is completely false. If you have an easy path into GC in week 1, while I don't get there til week 4, you have a 3 week head start on GC rewards that pushes higher accounts further down the ladder.
3) There are two ways to "fairly" resolve BG matchmaking. Either everyone is subject to fighting everyone for the same rewards, OR, real brackets are created, with scaling rewards, for each of these currently invisible brackets.
Break//
I can't believe I'm engaging in another one of these threads debating logical facts with the same person again, but this is what happens between 7-hour events when BGs aren't worth doing.
I'm going to take a new approach to debunking your "fairness" argument though.
None of us really know what algorithm is at play to determine matchmaking, but we can all agree they're doing something to prevent samdbagging, and the result of that are the individual silos of competition that you deem to be fair.
So now to the point...I've had some outliers, but the majority of my matches have been with people within +/- 1 million of my hero rating.
If we assume the same is true for everyone, the difference in that 1 million rating, at thronebreaker levels, could be an extremely well rounded roster of 5* 5/65 champs, vs someone who has a limited number of 5/65, but 15 6* r3.
It has a lot to do with when you started playing, cause the pace at which folks get champs of higher rarities has increased significantly. For example, I have 22 4* r5 champs, cause when I started playing, I was getting quality 5* champs at pretty good clip, so I used the resources on them instead of the 4* champs. The proof is in the pudding, as it's routine to see folks plowing through Act 5 with 6* champs now.
Back to my point though...at lower levels, the disparity is roster development within whatever arbitrary matchmaking algorithm is in place, is likely creating the very "unfair" matchups you're railing against.
Me on the other hand, virtually everyone I face has a deck made up of pure 6*r3 at a minimum. Most probably have more r4 than r3, and some have r5 champs in their deck. Those lower level folks also aren't likely to have powerful defenders either, cause they're ranking up attackers for all the other content. This means in the ban phase, you can simply ban nuke attackers you don't have. At the top, you have to consider if you want to ban an incredible attacker, or a powerful defender you don't have a counter for.
So as I've explained before, the margin of error at the top is razor thin. The difference in a good or bad draft can be the difference in winning and losing, where as at the lower levels, with the wide range in roster types, a lot can be overcome with a champ that purely out powers another.
I have an advice for you guys, if you want to have fun in this game, try to play less difficult content with your favorite champs, grind revives and potions with your extra energy, and let it be OK for you to lose in BG, just play 2-3 matches a day and don't care about losing, You probably have a good roster already, if you prefer to be more competitive, prepare for the pain.....
I have no qualms with the GC. What the previous poster keeps pushing is the idea that better Players are stuck in the VT. Which means a certain amount of onus is on their own performance if that assertion is being made. My whole point is that the Matchmaking can't be blamed for one's own inability to win Matches.
Yes it can. The game defines "fair match" as "both players have similar rosters." But rosters are not strength. Your ability to win is strength. The game doesn't match equally strong players against each other, they match similar rosters against each other. The current match system defines "fairness" in an absurd way, then forces players to compete against opponents of wildly varying strength. Sometimes those matches are coincidentally even, but at other times they are wildly unbalanced. We know this because if a player has a consistent performance far below 50% that is the definition of being matched against consistently superior competition.
Battleground matches are in effect the one and only way we have to measure player combat strength in actual fact. Everything else is speculation. When we say stronger roster means the player is stronger, we mean that in a relative sense. Given two otherwise identical players, stronger roster means stronger player. But no two players are in fact identical. There's a very wide variety in skill, knowledge, and experience, and these factors are as important if not more important. But we don't match players of equal skill. We don't match players of equal knowledge or experience. We match on roster strength and call that "fair" even though this accounts for only a tiny percentage of the actual strength of the player. It would be just as fair to match players based on age or height.
It is ultimately your own performance that determines whether you win or not, but it is not your fault if you lose often if you're being matched against superior competition. And if your win percentage is 35%, say, then you are. Because that's how we define superior competition.
Comments
But it is the GC that decides who's the best of the best, and in the GC no one gets to hide behind their roster. Everyone must face everyone if they hope to climb to the top. If they don't have a strong enough roster to climb to the top, too bad. They can't cry that their roster is holding them back, or it isn't fair. It is fair, because BG is not about the most skilled player, it is about the strongest player.
The VT is not about the best of the best. It is about who's good enough. And in the VT, the only thing having a stronger roster does is hand you stronger opponents. Ranking up the right champion can get you more wins, but ranking up in general just hands you stronger opponents. It is the only area of the game where ranking up a stronger roster does not unambiguously grant the player a progressional or strategic advantage.
The proof is in the fact that if it didn't hurt my progress elsewhere in the game, I would rank down my roster for BG. I know this because when deck matching was the match algorithm, I did in effect rank down my roster - to a deck of 5/50 champs. And I did spectacularly well with it.
If prestige/roster strength matching is fair, then deck matching must also be fair. Conversely, if deck matching is not fair, prestige/roster strength matching is equally unfair.
I was merely responding to the claim that the best of the best are stuck there. I think at some point, one has to accept their own lack of success.
1) Again, the current matchmaking heavily favors progress for lower accounts.
2) The implication that lower accounts aren't taking rewards from higher accounts is completely false. If you have an easy path into GC in week 1, while I don't get there til week 4, you have a 3 week head start on GC rewards that pushes higher accounts further down the ladder.
3) There are two ways to "fairly" resolve BG matchmaking. Either everyone is subject to fighting everyone for the same rewards, OR, real brackets are created, with scaling rewards, for each of these currently invisible brackets.
Break//
I can't believe I'm engaging in another one of these threads debating logical facts with the same person again, but this is what happens between 7-hour events when BGs aren't worth doing.
I'm going to take a new approach to debunking your "fairness" argument though.
None of us really know what algorithm is at play to determine matchmaking, but we can all agree they're doing something to prevent samdbagging, and the result of that are the individual silos of competition that you deem to be fair.
So now to the point...I've had some outliers, but the majority of my matches have been with people within +/- 1 million of my hero rating.
If we assume the same is true for everyone, the difference in that 1 million rating, at thronebreaker levels, could be an extremely well rounded roster of 5* 5/65 champs, vs someone who has a limited number of 5/65, but 15 6* r3.
It has a lot to do with when you started playing, cause the pace at which folks get champs of higher rarities has increased significantly. For example, I have 22 4* r5 champs, cause when I started playing, I was getting quality 5* champs at pretty good clip, so I used the resources on them instead of the 4* champs. The proof is in the pudding, as it's routine to see folks plowing through Act 5 with 6* champs now.
Back to my point though...at lower levels, the disparity is roster development within whatever arbitrary matchmaking algorithm is in place, is likely creating the very "unfair" matchups you're railing against.
Me on the other hand, virtually everyone I face has a deck made up of pure 6*r3 at a minimum. Most probably have more r4 than r3, and some have r5 champs in their deck. Those lower level folks also aren't likely to have powerful defenders either, cause they're ranking up attackers for all the other content. This means in the ban phase, you can simply ban nuke attackers you don't have. At the top, you have to consider if you want to ban an incredible attacker, or a powerful defender you don't have a counter for.
So as I've explained before, the margin of error at the top is razor thin. The difference in a good or bad draft can be the difference in winning and losing, where as at the lower levels, with the wide range in roster types, a lot can be overcome with a champ that purely out powers another.
Battleground matches are in effect the one and only way we have to measure player combat strength in actual fact. Everything else is speculation. When we say stronger roster means the player is stronger, we mean that in a relative sense. Given two otherwise identical players, stronger roster means stronger player. But no two players are in fact identical. There's a very wide variety in skill, knowledge, and experience, and these factors are as important if not more important. But we don't match players of equal skill. We don't match players of equal knowledge or experience. We match on roster strength and call that "fair" even though this accounts for only a tiny percentage of the actual strength of the player. It would be just as fair to match players based on age or height.
It is ultimately your own performance that determines whether you win or not, but it is not your fault if you lose often if you're being matched against superior competition. And if your win percentage is 35%, say, then you are. Because that's how we define superior competition.