Fix Battlegrounds in three easy steps (that we can argue about until the end of time)

DrZola · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality.

Dr. Zola

GroundedWisdom · March 2023

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality.

Dr. Zola

Once again, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I never said anything about leaving the system as-is. My main point is one which you and I inherently disagree on. There should be some kind of regulatory process starting out. Not an easy street to the GC for them.
Consequently, I don't agree with an easy street for higher Players by way of taking advantage of lower ones. I don't justify one and negate the other.
We were talking about the Rewards, and the amount of Trophies earned in the VT. I said the Store regulates what a Player can buy at the various progress levels, so the amount they earn is not the main focus to limiting them.
I don't care what size the Account is. If they're winning fairly, they've earned it in any system. Period.
I don't agree with anyone taking advantage of anything. The difference is, and it's a fundamental one, one side wants to take willful advantage of the other. The other side is playing their way through with the Matches they get. There's no intentional manipulation, no alteration of Rosters to milk the system, no attempt to play the Matchmaking. They're just winning the Matches they get. That's not exploit-y. That's playing the game, and it isn't even grey area taking advantage of it. They're playing honestly.

Stature · March 2023

DrZola said:

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality. Dr. Zola

The point might be that >500K accounts are getting >500K worthy rewards for beating >500K accounts. While 3-4M accounts are getting 3-4M account level rewards for beating 3-4M accounts. The system lets some >500K teams advance while some (or many) 3-4M accounts do not. There are probably a lot more >500K teams (or 500k-1M teams) as compared to 3-4M accounts, but 3-4M accounts are more vocal on forums. We do not know what % of each account type are moving up, though it is likely a high % of larger accounts are blocked due to the current setup because they block each others progress. This isn't great and needs to change.

>500K accounts largely being restricted to playing >500K accounts is not ideal. Any new system is likely to face these teams off against larger teams. However, it definitely isn't fair to face off >500K accounts against 3-4M accounts but then decide the awards based who the winner is. If the smaller team wins they get lesser rewards and the larger team gets to keep higher rewards while handing them easier wins. To me this feels exceptionally unfair and will most likely drive the smaller teams out of the mode. I don't think we can have a sustainable system which results in all strong accounts progressing and all or most of the smaller accounts not progressing. Further, if rewards are incrementally neutred for the smaller account through stores, there is hardly any incentive for them to play the mode.

Coppin · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.

What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..

DrZola · March 2023

Stature said:

DrZola said:

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality. Dr. Zola
The point might be that >500K accounts are getting >500K worthy rewards for beating >500K accounts. While 3-4M accounts are getting 3-4M account level rewards for beating 3-4M accounts. The system lets some >500K teams advance while some (or many) 3-4M accounts do not. There are probably a lot more >500K teams (or 500k-1M teams) as compared to 3-4M accounts, but 3-4M accounts are more vocal on forums. We do not know what % of each account type are moving up, though it is likely a high % of larger accounts are blocked due to the current setup because they block each others progress. This isn't great and needs to change.

>500K accounts largely being restricted to playing >500K accounts is not ideal. Any new system is likely to face these teams off against larger teams. However, it definitely isn't fair to face off >500K accounts against 3-4M accounts but then decide the awards based who the winner is. If the smaller team wins they get lesser rewards and the larger team gets to keep higher rewards while handing them easier wins. To me this feels exceptionally unfair and will most likely drive the smaller teams out of the mode. I don't think we can have a sustainable system which results in all strong accounts progressing and all or most of the smaller accounts not progressing. Further, if rewards are incrementally neutred for the smaller account through stores, there is hardly any incentive for them to play the mode.

Not unreasonable points, and I think that’s what you will find agreement upon if you look past much of the spamming that has cluttered this and other threads—namely, that most higher rated players think it makes sense for the sake of the BGs mode to give equitable matchups to smaller accounts through some as yet undetermined point of advancement. Some have suggested through the entire VT, others through Gold, others in between—that’s a developer policy decision. Beyond that point, gradually opening the range of possible matchups seems to be the only way to honestly call this a competitive mode.

Where significant issues arise is allowing smaller accounts to progress through VT (some quickly) and even into GC by only facing similarly sized accounts. The perceived penalty assessed against players who have taken years (literally) to acquire and build a deep roster is in my opinion bad for BGs and the game. It sounds like you agree.

I go back to @DNA3000 ’s original post, which I think has a lot of good and actionable ideas. What I think we have now is a mode that is out of balance. I wish the team would allow a slightly longer time between this season and next to work at fixing some of the more glaring structural problems.

Dr. Zola

AverageDesi · March 2023

Dna wasn't lying about what he said in parentheses

Huenas · March 2023

Is this possible?

Stature · March 2023

DrZola said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality. Dr. Zola
The point might be that >500K accounts are getting >500K worthy rewards for beating >500K accounts. While 3-4M accounts are getting 3-4M account level rewards for beating 3-4M accounts. The system lets some >500K teams advance while some (or many) 3-4M accounts do not. There are probably a lot more >500K teams (or 500k-1M teams) as compared to 3-4M accounts, but 3-4M accounts are more vocal on forums. We do not know what % of each account type are moving up, though it is likely a high % of larger accounts are blocked due to the current setup because they block each others progress. This isn't great and needs to change.

>500K accounts largely being restricted to playing >500K accounts is not ideal. Any new system is likely to face these teams off against larger teams. However, it definitely isn't fair to face off >500K accounts against 3-4M accounts but then decide the awards based who the winner is. If the smaller team wins they get lesser rewards and the larger team gets to keep higher rewards while handing them easier wins. To me this feels exceptionally unfair and will most likely drive the smaller teams out of the mode. I don't think we can have a sustainable system which results in all strong accounts progressing and all or most of the smaller accounts not progressing. Further, if rewards are incrementally neutred for the smaller account through stores, there is hardly any incentive for them to play the mode.
Not unreasonable points, and I think that’s what you will find agreement upon if you look past much of the spamming that has cluttered this and other threads—namely, that most higher rated players think it makes sense for the sake of the BGs mode to give equitable matchups to smaller accounts through some as yet undetermined point of advancement. Some have suggested through the entire VT, others through Gold, others in between—that’s a developer policy decision. Beyond that point, gradually opening the range of possible matchups seems to be the only way to honestly call this a competitive mode.

Where significant issues arise is allowing smaller accounts to progress through VT (some quickly) and even into GC by only facing similarly sized accounts. The perceived penalty assessed against players who have taken years (literally) to acquire and build a deep roster is in my opinion bad for BGs and the game. It sounds like you agree.

I go back to @DNA3000 ’s original post, which I think has a lot of good and actionable ideas. What I think we have now is a mode that is out of balance. I wish the team would allow a slightly longer time between this season and next to work at fixing some of the more glaring structural problems.Dr. Zola

Agree with the changes needed in matchmaking. However, I also think it needs to come with changes to the rewards structure. Given the current state, the matchmaking changes will reduce win rates for smaller accounts while it increases the same for larger account, overall improving their progress. A lot of lower accounts will be in high silver/low gold tiers while most of the Paragon accounts will be in Diamond+. I assume that is the objective. Here's what that means with the current store prices.

Getting to Uru 3 (lowest tier of GC), gets you ~73K trophies in a season while getting to Gold 3 or Silver 1 gets ~22K trophies. This is including objectives and excluding solo/alliance milestones. A Paragon with 73K trophies can buy 100K 6-star shards, 2 full T5CC, 15 T5B and 30 T2A. That's 10 new champs, one r3 and some rank up material left over. A Cav with 22k trophies can buy ~19K 6-star shards. Even assuming that a 6-star means more to a Cav, I don't think it is equivalent to 10 new champs and inventory full of rank up materials at higher levels. Run this for 12 months, the gap between higher levels and lower will increase significantly due to a single game mode.

DrZola · March 2023

Stature said:

DrZola said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality. Dr. Zola
The point might be that >500K accounts are getting >500K worthy rewards for beating >500K accounts. While 3-4M accounts are getting 3-4M account level rewards for beating 3-4M accounts. The system lets some >500K teams advance while some (or many) 3-4M accounts do not. There are probably a lot more >500K teams (or 500k-1M teams) as compared to 3-4M accounts, but 3-4M accounts are more vocal on forums. We do not know what % of each account type are moving up, though it is likely a high % of larger accounts are blocked due to the current setup because they block each others progress. This isn't great and needs to change.

>500K accounts largely being restricted to playing >500K accounts is not ideal. Any new system is likely to face these teams off against larger teams. However, it definitely isn't fair to face off >500K accounts against 3-4M accounts but then decide the awards based who the winner is. If the smaller team wins they get lesser rewards and the larger team gets to keep higher rewards while handing them easier wins. To me this feels exceptionally unfair and will most likely drive the smaller teams out of the mode. I don't think we can have a sustainable system which results in all strong accounts progressing and all or most of the smaller accounts not progressing. Further, if rewards are incrementally neutred for the smaller account through stores, there is hardly any incentive for them to play the mode.
Not unreasonable points, and I think that’s what you will find agreement upon if you look past much of the spamming that has cluttered this and other threads—namely, that most higher rated players think it makes sense for the sake of the BGs mode to give equitable matchups to smaller accounts through some as yet undetermined point of advancement. Some have suggested through the entire VT, others through Gold, others in between—that’s a developer policy decision. Beyond that point, gradually opening the range of possible matchups seems to be the only way to honestly call this a competitive mode.

Where significant issues arise is allowing smaller accounts to progress through VT (some quickly) and even into GC by only facing similarly sized accounts. The perceived penalty assessed against players who have taken years (literally) to acquire and build a deep roster is in my opinion bad for BGs and the game. It sounds like you agree.

I go back to @DNA3000 ’s original post, which I think has a lot of good and actionable ideas. What I think we have now is a mode that is out of balance. I wish the team would allow a slightly longer time between this season and next to work at fixing some of the more glaring structural problems.Dr. Zola
Agree with the changes needed in matchmaking. However, I also think it needs to come with changes to the rewards structure. Given the current state, the matchmaking changes will reduce win rates for smaller accounts while it increases the same for larger account, overall improving their progress. A lot of lower accounts will be in high silver/low gold tiers while most of the Paragon accounts will be in Diamond+. I assume that is the objective. Here's what that means with the current store prices.

Getting to Uru 3 (lowest tier of GC), gets you ~73K trophies in a season while getting to Gold 3 or Silver 1 gets ~22K trophies. This is including objectives and excluding solo/alliance milestones. A Paragon with 73K trophies can buy 100K 6-star shards, 2 full T5CC, 15 T5B and 30 T2A. That's 10 new champs, one r3 and some rank up material left over. A Cav with 22k trophies can buy ~19K 6-star shards. Even assuming that a 6-star means more to a Cav, I don't think it is equivalent to 10 new champs and inventory full of rank up materials at higher levels. Run this for 12 months, the gap between higher levels and lower will increase significantly due to a single game mode.

There really is only one direction to go with rewards given that this is a PVP mode.

Dr. Zola

GroundedWisdom · March 2023

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..

One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.

Coppin · March 2023

Stature said:

DrZola said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality. Dr. Zola
The point might be that >500K accounts are getting >500K worthy rewards for beating >500K accounts. While 3-4M accounts are getting 3-4M account level rewards for beating 3-4M accounts. The system lets some >500K teams advance while some (or many) 3-4M accounts do not. There are probably a lot more >500K teams (or 500k-1M teams) as compared to 3-4M accounts, but 3-4M accounts are more vocal on forums. We do not know what % of each account type are moving up, though it is likely a high % of larger accounts are blocked due to the current setup because they block each others progress. This isn't great and needs to change.

>500K accounts largely being restricted to playing >500K accounts is not ideal. Any new system is likely to face these teams off against larger teams. However, it definitely isn't fair to face off >500K accounts against 3-4M accounts but then decide the awards based who the winner is. If the smaller team wins they get lesser rewards and the larger team gets to keep higher rewards while handing them easier wins. To me this feels exceptionally unfair and will most likely drive the smaller teams out of the mode. I don't think we can have a sustainable system which results in all strong accounts progressing and all or most of the smaller accounts not progressing. Further, if rewards are incrementally neutred for the smaller account through stores, there is hardly any incentive for them to play the mode.
Not unreasonable points, and I think that’s what you will find agreement upon if you look past much of the spamming that has cluttered this and other threads—namely, that most higher rated players think it makes sense for the sake of the BGs mode to give equitable matchups to smaller accounts through some as yet undetermined point of advancement. Some have suggested through the entire VT, others through Gold, others in between—that’s a developer policy decision. Beyond that point, gradually opening the range of possible matchups seems to be the only way to honestly call this a competitive mode.

Where significant issues arise is allowing smaller accounts to progress through VT (some quickly) and even into GC by only facing similarly sized accounts. The perceived penalty assessed against players who have taken years (literally) to acquire and build a deep roster is in my opinion bad for BGs and the game. It sounds like you agree.

I go back to @DNA3000 ’s original post, which I think has a lot of good and actionable ideas. What I think we have now is a mode that is out of balance. I wish the team would allow a slightly longer time between this season and next to work at fixing some of the more glaring structural problems.Dr. Zola
Agree with the changes needed in matchmaking. However, I also think it needs to come with changes to the rewards structure. Given the current state, the matchmaking changes will reduce win rates for smaller accounts while it increases the same for larger account, overall improving their progress. A lot of lower accounts will be in high silver/low gold tiers while most of the Paragon accounts will be in Diamond+. I assume that is the objective. Here's what that means with the current store prices.

Getting to Uru 3 (lowest tier of GC), gets you ~73K trophies in a season while getting to Gold 3 or Silver 1 gets ~22K trophies. This is including objectives and excluding solo/alliance milestones. A Paragon with 73K trophies can buy 100K 6-star shards, 2 full T5CC, 15 T5B and 30 T2A. That's 10 new champs, one r3 and some rank up material left over. A Cav with 22k trophies can buy ~19K 6-star shards. Even assuming that a 6-star means more to a Cav, I don't think it is equivalent to 10 new champs and inventory full of rank up materials at higher levels. Run this for 12 months, the gap between higher levels and lower will increase significantly due to a single game mode.

A paragon that gets 10 new champs?.. what kind of perfect world are u living in... Yes i get it u mean 10 crystals.. but those are hardly ever 10 new champs for a Paragon...

DrZola · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation…. No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.

Referencing the above excerpt…

I’m going to say this in the nicest way possible: have you forgotten all of the posts in the several BG threads over the past few weeks?

I ask because that is precisely what droves upon droves of commenters have found objectionable. Some of them even continued hitting their heads against the *loss after loss* wall purely because the rewards in BGs are better than any other mode. And I vaguely remember some folks even told those commenters the issue they should ponder wasn’t matchmaking but rather their own game skills.

Dr. Zola

Coppin · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.

And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...

Stature · March 2023

Coppin said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality. Dr. Zola
The point might be that >500K accounts are getting >500K worthy rewards for beating >500K accounts. While 3-4M accounts are getting 3-4M account level rewards for beating 3-4M accounts. The system lets some >500K teams advance while some (or many) 3-4M accounts do not. There are probably a lot more >500K teams (or 500k-1M teams) as compared to 3-4M accounts, but 3-4M accounts are more vocal on forums. We do not know what % of each account type are moving up, though it is likely a high % of larger accounts are blocked due to the current setup because they block each others progress. This isn't great and needs to change.

>500K accounts largely being restricted to playing >500K accounts is not ideal. Any new system is likely to face these teams off against larger teams. However, it definitely isn't fair to face off >500K accounts against 3-4M accounts but then decide the awards based who the winner is. If the smaller team wins they get lesser rewards and the larger team gets to keep higher rewards while handing them easier wins. To me this feels exceptionally unfair and will most likely drive the smaller teams out of the mode. I don't think we can have a sustainable system which results in all strong accounts progressing and all or most of the smaller accounts not progressing. Further, if rewards are incrementally neutred for the smaller account through stores, there is hardly any incentive for them to play the mode.
Not unreasonable points, and I think that’s what you will find agreement upon if you look past much of the spamming that has cluttered this and other threads—namely, that most higher rated players think it makes sense for the sake of the BGs mode to give equitable matchups to smaller accounts through some as yet undetermined point of advancement. Some have suggested through the entire VT, others through Gold, others in between—that’s a developer policy decision. Beyond that point, gradually opening the range of possible matchups seems to be the only way to honestly call this a competitive mode.

Where significant issues arise is allowing smaller accounts to progress through VT (some quickly) and even into GC by only facing similarly sized accounts. The perceived penalty assessed against players who have taken years (literally) to acquire and build a deep roster is in my opinion bad for BGs and the game. It sounds like you agree.

I go back to @DNA3000 ’s original post, which I think has a lot of good and actionable ideas. What I think we have now is a mode that is out of balance. I wish the team would allow a slightly longer time between this season and next to work at fixing some of the more glaring structural problems.Dr. Zola
Agree with the changes needed in matchmaking. However, I also think it needs to come with changes to the rewards structure. Given the current state, the matchmaking changes will reduce win rates for smaller accounts while it increases the same for larger account, overall improving their progress. A lot of lower accounts will be in high silver/low gold tiers while most of the Paragon accounts will be in Diamond+. I assume that is the objective. Here's what that means with the current store prices.

Getting to Uru 3 (lowest tier of GC), gets you ~73K trophies in a season while getting to Gold 3 or Silver 1 gets ~22K trophies. This is including objectives and excluding solo/alliance milestones. A Paragon with 73K trophies can buy 100K 6-star shards, 2 full T5CC, 15 T5B and 30 T2A. That's 10 new champs, one r3 and some rank up material left over. A Cav with 22k trophies can buy ~19K 6-star shards. Even assuming that a 6-star means more to a Cav, I don't think it is equivalent to 10 new champs and inventory full of rank up materials at higher levels. Run this for 12 months, the gap between higher levels and lower will increase significantly due to a single game mode.
A paragon that gets 10 new champs?.. what kind of perfect world are u living in... Yes i get it u mean 10 crystals.. but those are hardly ever 10 new champs for a Paragon...

My bad. But if that's the only problem you have with it, it is hardly material. The point is that if you push smaller teams lower and want them as a stepping stone for your progress, the current rewards structure barely works. One would get better rewards by just playing AW at lower levels - 60-70 fights in G3 over a season (with free revives) is far less stressful than what would be at least 150 fights against mostly bigger accounts in BG.

If all the small teams move out. Then you'll be left with the same complaints as now, 50% of the Paragons struggling to progress. What do you think will happen when Paragons with bigger accounts keep opening 10 additional crystals a month and adding another r3/r4 for the next season while the remaining ones are 50-60% behind. That's what death spirals look like.

For all your complaints about undeserved rewards for smaller accounts, that is probably the path that leads to a long term competitive game mode.

Coppin · March 2023

Stature said:

Coppin said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality. Dr. Zola
The point might be that >500K accounts are getting >500K worthy rewards for beating >500K accounts. While 3-4M accounts are getting 3-4M account level rewards for beating 3-4M accounts. The system lets some >500K teams advance while some (or many) 3-4M accounts do not. There are probably a lot more >500K teams (or 500k-1M teams) as compared to 3-4M accounts, but 3-4M accounts are more vocal on forums. We do not know what % of each account type are moving up, though it is likely a high % of larger accounts are blocked due to the current setup because they block each others progress. This isn't great and needs to change.

>500K accounts largely being restricted to playing >500K accounts is not ideal. Any new system is likely to face these teams off against larger teams. However, it definitely isn't fair to face off >500K accounts against 3-4M accounts but then decide the awards based who the winner is. If the smaller team wins they get lesser rewards and the larger team gets to keep higher rewards while handing them easier wins. To me this feels exceptionally unfair and will most likely drive the smaller teams out of the mode. I don't think we can have a sustainable system which results in all strong accounts progressing and all or most of the smaller accounts not progressing. Further, if rewards are incrementally neutred for the smaller account through stores, there is hardly any incentive for them to play the mode.
Not unreasonable points, and I think that’s what you will find agreement upon if you look past much of the spamming that has cluttered this and other threads—namely, that most higher rated players think it makes sense for the sake of the BGs mode to give equitable matchups to smaller accounts through some as yet undetermined point of advancement. Some have suggested through the entire VT, others through Gold, others in between—that’s a developer policy decision. Beyond that point, gradually opening the range of possible matchups seems to be the only way to honestly call this a competitive mode.

Where significant issues arise is allowing smaller accounts to progress through VT (some quickly) and even into GC by only facing similarly sized accounts. The perceived penalty assessed against players who have taken years (literally) to acquire and build a deep roster is in my opinion bad for BGs and the game. It sounds like you agree.

I go back to @DNA3000 ’s original post, which I think has a lot of good and actionable ideas. What I think we have now is a mode that is out of balance. I wish the team would allow a slightly longer time between this season and next to work at fixing some of the more glaring structural problems.Dr. Zola
Agree with the changes needed in matchmaking. However, I also think it needs to come with changes to the rewards structure. Given the current state, the matchmaking changes will reduce win rates for smaller accounts while it increases the same for larger account, overall improving their progress. A lot of lower accounts will be in high silver/low gold tiers while most of the Paragon accounts will be in Diamond+. I assume that is the objective. Here's what that means with the current store prices.

Getting to Uru 3 (lowest tier of GC), gets you ~73K trophies in a season while getting to Gold 3 or Silver 1 gets ~22K trophies. This is including objectives and excluding solo/alliance milestones. A Paragon with 73K trophies can buy 100K 6-star shards, 2 full T5CC, 15 T5B and 30 T2A. That's 10 new champs, one r3 and some rank up material left over. A Cav with 22k trophies can buy ~19K 6-star shards. Even assuming that a 6-star means more to a Cav, I don't think it is equivalent to 10 new champs and inventory full of rank up materials at higher levels. Run this for 12 months, the gap between higher levels and lower will increase significantly due to a single game mode.
A paragon that gets 10 new champs?.. what kind of perfect world are u living in... Yes i get it u mean 10 crystals.. but those are hardly ever 10 new champs for a Paragon...
My bad. But if that's the only problem you have with it, it is hardly material. The point is that if you push smaller teams lower and want them as a stepping stone for your progress, the current rewards structure barely works. One would get better rewards by just playing AW at lower levels - 60-70 fights in G3 over a season (with free revives) is far less stressful than what would be at least 150 fights against mostly bigger accounts in BG.

If all the small teams move out. Then you'll be left with the same complaints as now, 50% of the Paragons struggling to progress. What do you think will happen when Paragons with bigger accounts keep opening 10 additional crystals a month and adding another r3/r4 for the next season while the remaining ones are 50-60% behind. That's what death spirals look like.

For all your complaints about undeserved rewards for smaller accounts, that is probably the path that leads to a long term competitive game mode.

I wanted as a stepping stone?.. I don't even want them to compete for the same rewards...
They should have their own BG with UCs and Cavs
And why on earth do people keep on comparing it with AW?.. AW alliance leaders and officers ensure they put together their best team.. with that argument then . Alliances should not be able to pick and choose their members.. they should let any UC or Cav player join a P1 P2 alliance or even masters...cause "its not fair they don't get the gaming experience" of an upper tier war...

GroundedWisdom · March 2023

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...

I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.

Stature · March 2023

Coppin said:

Stature said:

Coppin said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

Stature said:

DrZola said:

1. Have you looked at the standings? Do you think the >500K rated accounts are all cheating, because I don’t. But they got there somehow, and it wasn’t via beating a bunch of 3-4M accounts. If you think all the 200-400K accounts they climbed over are all new little Beromen accounts, then I think that’s unlikely.
2. You throw around terms like “appropriate” and “genuinely playing” and “organically.” Do those terms have meanings? If so, define. Because I think taking advantage of an artificially segregated system to slingshot progress feels kind of exploit-y.

Not trying to be difficult, but I think the notion that all the little guys are just hustling and trying hard to get a little piece of the pie isn’t moored in reality. Dr. Zola
The point might be that >500K accounts are getting >500K worthy rewards for beating >500K accounts. While 3-4M accounts are getting 3-4M account level rewards for beating 3-4M accounts. The system lets some >500K teams advance while some (or many) 3-4M accounts do not. There are probably a lot more >500K teams (or 500k-1M teams) as compared to 3-4M accounts, but 3-4M accounts are more vocal on forums. We do not know what % of each account type are moving up, though it is likely a high % of larger accounts are blocked due to the current setup because they block each others progress. This isn't great and needs to change.

>500K accounts largely being restricted to playing >500K accounts is not ideal. Any new system is likely to face these teams off against larger teams. However, it definitely isn't fair to face off >500K accounts against 3-4M accounts but then decide the awards based who the winner is. If the smaller team wins they get lesser rewards and the larger team gets to keep higher rewards while handing them easier wins. To me this feels exceptionally unfair and will most likely drive the smaller teams out of the mode. I don't think we can have a sustainable system which results in all strong accounts progressing and all or most of the smaller accounts not progressing. Further, if rewards are incrementally neutred for the smaller account through stores, there is hardly any incentive for them to play the mode.
Not unreasonable points, and I think that’s what you will find agreement upon if you look past much of the spamming that has cluttered this and other threads—namely, that most higher rated players think it makes sense for the sake of the BGs mode to give equitable matchups to smaller accounts through some as yet undetermined point of advancement. Some have suggested through the entire VT, others through Gold, others in between—that’s a developer policy decision. Beyond that point, gradually opening the range of possible matchups seems to be the only way to honestly call this a competitive mode.

Where significant issues arise is allowing smaller accounts to progress through VT (some quickly) and even into GC by only facing similarly sized accounts. The perceived penalty assessed against players who have taken years (literally) to acquire and build a deep roster is in my opinion bad for BGs and the game. It sounds like you agree.

I go back to @DNA3000 ’s original post, which I think has a lot of good and actionable ideas. What I think we have now is a mode that is out of balance. I wish the team would allow a slightly longer time between this season and next to work at fixing some of the more glaring structural problems.Dr. Zola
Agree with the changes needed in matchmaking. However, I also think it needs to come with changes to the rewards structure. Given the current state, the matchmaking changes will reduce win rates for smaller accounts while it increases the same for larger account, overall improving their progress. A lot of lower accounts will be in high silver/low gold tiers while most of the Paragon accounts will be in Diamond+. I assume that is the objective. Here's what that means with the current store prices.

Getting to Uru 3 (lowest tier of GC), gets you ~73K trophies in a season while getting to Gold 3 or Silver 1 gets ~22K trophies. This is including objectives and excluding solo/alliance milestones. A Paragon with 73K trophies can buy 100K 6-star shards, 2 full T5CC, 15 T5B and 30 T2A. That's 10 new champs, one r3 and some rank up material left over. A Cav with 22k trophies can buy ~19K 6-star shards. Even assuming that a 6-star means more to a Cav, I don't think it is equivalent to 10 new champs and inventory full of rank up materials at higher levels. Run this for 12 months, the gap between higher levels and lower will increase significantly due to a single game mode.
A paragon that gets 10 new champs?.. what kind of perfect world are u living in... Yes i get it u mean 10 crystals.. but those are hardly ever 10 new champs for a Paragon...
My bad. But if that's the only problem you have with it, it is hardly material. The point is that if you push smaller teams lower and want them as a stepping stone for your progress, the current rewards structure barely works. One would get better rewards by just playing AW at lower levels - 60-70 fights in G3 over a season (with free revives) is far less stressful than what would be at least 150 fights against mostly bigger accounts in BG.

If all the small teams move out. Then you'll be left with the same complaints as now, 50% of the Paragons struggling to progress. What do you think will happen when Paragons with bigger accounts keep opening 10 additional crystals a month and adding another r3/r4 for the next season while the remaining ones are 50-60% behind. That's what death spirals look like.

For all your complaints about undeserved rewards for smaller accounts, that is probably the path that leads to a long term competitive game mode.
I wanted as a stepping stone?.. I don't even want them to compete for the same rewards...
They should have their own BG with UCs and Cavs
And why on earth do people keep on comparing it with AW?.. AW alliance leaders and officers ensure they put together their best team.. with that argument then . Alliances should not be able to pick and choose their members.. they should let any UC or Cav player join a P1 P2 alliance or even masters...cause "its not fair they don't get the gaming experience" of an upper tier war...

How do you think a Paragon only BG would work? I hardly think there are enough to consistently create matches, let alone all the other issues that would pop up. Why would the players left in Bronze tiers after the first couple of weeks even log on after that? Participation would fall off a cliff in a couple of seasons.

I wasn't comparing it with AW, just highlighting that the rewards a Cav gets in the current BG set up is less than what they would get from being in a G3 alliance and doing 5 wars. They are not competing for the same rewards as you are, it's not even close.

Coppin · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.

Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...

GroundedWisdom · March 2023

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...

Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?

Coppin · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?

Again with putting words in my mouth?... When did i say 2 different BGs 1 casual 1 competitive?...
2 BGs 2 competitive modes.. 1 for UC & Cav 1 for TB and Paragon with adjusted rewards..
You cannot have a competitive mode with 4 different progression levels competing with each other.

GroundedWisdom · March 2023

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?
Again with putting words in my mouth?... When did i say 2 different BGs 1 casual 1 competitive?...
2 BGs 2 competitive modes.. 1 for UC & Cav 1 for TB and Paragon with adjusted rewards..
You cannot have a competitive mode with 4 different progression levels competing with each other.

Evidently you can, because what you fail to see is it wouldn't work with 2 different BGs. There aren't enough Players to successfully run Matchmaking for both.

Coppin · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?
Again with putting words in my mouth?... When did i say 2 different BGs 1 casual 1 competitive?...
2 BGs 2 competitive modes.. 1 for UC & Cav 1 for TB and Paragon with adjusted rewards..
You cannot have a competitive mode with 4 different progression levels competing with each other.
Evidently you can, because what you fail to see is it wouldn't work with 2 different BGs. There aren't enough Players to successfully run Matchmaking for both.

Really?.. cause UC and Cavs are matching perfectly with each other and TB and Paragons fighting each other in VT... What data do u have to back this statement and where are u getting this data from?
Do you have the number of total players and their play times?..
I am pretty sure that it wouldn't work to fit your narrative... But in my road to GC i remember maybe 3 matches against TBs and except for that bugged day I dont remember waiting over 30 secs for a match...

GroundedWisdom · March 2023

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?
Again with putting words in my mouth?... When did i say 2 different BGs 1 casual 1 competitive?...
2 BGs 2 competitive modes.. 1 for UC & Cav 1 for TB and Paragon with adjusted rewards..
You cannot have a competitive mode with 4 different progression levels competing with each other.
Evidently you can, because what you fail to see is it wouldn't work with 2 different BGs. There aren't enough Players to successfully run Matchmaking for both.
Really?.. cause UC and Cavs are matching perfectly with each other and TB and Paragons fighting each other in VT... What data do u have to back this statement and where are u getting this data from?
Do you have the number of total players and their play times?..
I am pretty sure that it wouldn't work to fit your narrative... But in my road to GC i remember maybe 3 matches against TBs and except for that bugged day I dont remember waiting over 30 secs for a match...

That mean you can run two whole systems separately? Pretty sure you're isolating those results from each other.

Stature · March 2023

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...

Why would think it is feasible. You already have a lot of TBs and Paragons complaining that they mostly face TBs and Paragons in BG and hence cannot progress. How do you think that will play out when TBs and Paragons will play only TBs and Paragons? Will you then say "If u are TB u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck" and when the TBs leave that "If u are an early Paragon u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck". That only goes in one direction which ends in you posting that "I am leaving BGs, I only get matched against whales/youtubers and modders".

Apart from the above, we don't even know if there is a critical mass of TB/Paragons alone to support a BG mode. Realistically, a UC/Cav only BG is likely to survive much longer than a TB/Paragon only BG. The best outcome for BGs is where a lot of people across progression levels (title/roster) can participate and where weaker teams are provided with atleast enough resources to improve rosters to eventually have a strong competitive mode. At that point where there are enough strong players, it could be possible to create separate BGs for higher tiers only. You can get what you want, I doubt it is feasible today without completely killing the mode.

Coppin · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?
Again with putting words in my mouth?... When did i say 2 different BGs 1 casual 1 competitive?...
2 BGs 2 competitive modes.. 1 for UC & Cav 1 for TB and Paragon with adjusted rewards..
You cannot have a competitive mode with 4 different progression levels competing with each other.
Evidently you can, because what you fail to see is it wouldn't work with 2 different BGs. There aren't enough Players to successfully run Matchmaking for both.
Really?.. cause UC and Cavs are matching perfectly with each other and TB and Paragons fighting each other in VT... What data do u have to back this statement and where are u getting this data from?
Do you have the number of total players and their play times?..
I am pretty sure that it wouldn't work to fit your narrative... But in my road to GC i remember maybe 3 matches against TBs and except for that bugged day I dont remember waiting over 30 secs for a match...
That mean you can run two whole systems separately? Pretty sure you're isolating those results from each other.

Do you have any data that says it can't? At least i got proof of my experience...

Coppin · March 2023

Stature said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Why would think it is feasible. You already have a lot of TBs and Paragons complaining that they mostly face TBs and Paragons in BG and hence cannot progress. How do you think that will play out when TBs and Paragons will play only TBs and Paragons? Will you then say "If u are TB u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck" and when the TBs leave that "If u are an early Paragon u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck". That only goes in one direction which ends in you posting that "I am leaving BGs, I only get matched against whales/youtubers and modders".

Apart from the above, we don't even know if there is a critical mass of TB/Paragons alone to support a BG mode. Realistically, a UC/Cav only BG is likely to survive much longer than a TB/Paragon only BG. The best outcome for BGs is where a lot of people across progression levels (title/roster) can participate and where weaker teams are provided with atleast enough resources to improve rosters to eventually have a strong competitive mode. At that point where there are enough strong players, it could be possible to create separate BGs for higher tiers only. You can get what you want, I doubt it is feasible today without completely killing the mode.

🤣🤣🤣
The TB vs Paragon complaint is that UC and Cavs are climbing over them...its not about fighting each other...Its that 1 part is getting to GC easier than the other...

GroundedWisdom · March 2023

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?
Again with putting words in my mouth?... When did i say 2 different BGs 1 casual 1 competitive?...
2 BGs 2 competitive modes.. 1 for UC & Cav 1 for TB and Paragon with adjusted rewards..
You cannot have a competitive mode with 4 different progression levels competing with each other.
Evidently you can, because what you fail to see is it wouldn't work with 2 different BGs. There aren't enough Players to successfully run Matchmaking for both.
Really?.. cause UC and Cavs are matching perfectly with each other and TB and Paragons fighting each other in VT... What data do u have to back this statement and where are u getting this data from?
Do you have the number of total players and their play times?..
I am pretty sure that it wouldn't work to fit your narrative... But in my road to GC i remember maybe 3 matches against TBs and except for that bugged day I dont remember waiting over 30 secs for a match...
That mean you can run two whole systems separately? Pretty sure you're isolating those results from each other.
Do you have any data that says it can't? At least i got proof of my experience...

Oh, well then it MUST be doable.

Coppin · March 2023

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?
Again with putting words in my mouth?... When did i say 2 different BGs 1 casual 1 competitive?...
2 BGs 2 competitive modes.. 1 for UC & Cav 1 for TB and Paragon with adjusted rewards..
You cannot have a competitive mode with 4 different progression levels competing with each other.
Evidently you can, because what you fail to see is it wouldn't work with 2 different BGs. There aren't enough Players to successfully run Matchmaking for both.
Really?.. cause UC and Cavs are matching perfectly with each other and TB and Paragons fighting each other in VT... What data do u have to back this statement and where are u getting this data from?
Do you have the number of total players and their play times?..
I am pretty sure that it wouldn't work to fit your narrative... But in my road to GC i remember maybe 3 matches against TBs and except for that bugged day I dont remember waiting over 30 secs for a match...
That mean you can run two whole systems separately? Pretty sure you're isolating those results from each other.
Do you have any data that says it can't? At least i got proof of my experience...
Oh, well then it MUST be doable.

So u can actually claim it can't be done without any data.. but u can't see that it could be done without any data either.. wow...just wow rofl..

Stature · March 2023

Coppin said:

Stature said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Why would think it is feasible. You already have a lot of TBs and Paragons complaining that they mostly face TBs and Paragons in BG and hence cannot progress. How do you think that will play out when TBs and Paragons will play only TBs and Paragons? Will you then say "If u are TB u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck" and when the TBs leave that "If u are an early Paragon u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck". That only goes in one direction which ends in you posting that "I am leaving BGs, I only get matched against whales/youtubers and modders".

Apart from the above, we don't even know if there is a critical mass of TB/Paragons alone to support a BG mode. Realistically, a UC/Cav only BG is likely to survive much longer than a TB/Paragon only BG. The best outcome for BGs is where a lot of people across progression levels (title/roster) can participate and where weaker teams are provided with atleast enough resources to improve rosters to eventually have a strong competitive mode. At that point where there are enough strong players, it could be possible to create separate BGs for higher tiers only. You can get what you want, I doubt it is feasible today without completely killing the mode.
🤣🤣🤣
The TB vs Paragon complaint is that UC and Cavs are climbing over them...its not about fighting each other...Its that 1 part is getting to GC easier than the other...

I must have misread all the posts which went "Why am I getting matched with a team with r4s when I have only 1/2/3 of those". Removing UC/Cav will not make progress any easier. Only way you are going to get easier progress is by getting matched with them - that is what most of the complaints were about, that a weaker team climbed above them without facing them (the qualifier is important). In a TB/Paragon only format, BG progress can only be harder. I don't understand why you think it'll work.

On the part about getting to GC easier, they are also getting lesser rewards for doing so on a (supposedly) easier path. Personally, I think it is no harder than the path for the top Paragon accounts who are also in GC. Because relatively the Cav accounts who are in GC are overpowering their brackets at the same rate as the top Paragon account are beating their competition. But the Cavs are getting at least 5x lesser rewards for the same effort. You just think mid-Paragons or high-TBs are entitled to the progress made by the high-Cavs.

GroundedWisdom · March 2023

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:

GroundedWisdom said:

Coppin said:
People who keep on argueing with the "difference" of prices in the market depending on progression seem to forget that staying in a progression level is a choice...
What makes them think that they don't have the roster to beat content and progress; but have the roster to compete with people who progressed further?
What difference does that make? Are they not able to save their Resources now? There's no logical reason to keep people from saving their Resources until they hit the next progression marker.
Rofl didn't u argue on another thread that "they most likely don't save" ...and now u are going to say they can?.. they can do whatever they want with their trophies.. thet shouldn't complain about the price gap between titles cause its their choice to stay in there.
I said they're not likely to. Not anyone genuinely trying to progress at that level. They're probably going to use their Resources to build their Account and progress like anyone else playing reasonably.
No idea why you have an assumption that everyone at that level just chooses to stay there.
Pretty sure I never once complained that there were limits in the Store. I think I justified the reason.
DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DrZola said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Who is going to do that? What lower Player is going to hoard their Trophies like that? Not many. Not the Players that are genuinely there. They're going to use their Resources.
Someone making an Alt isn't a statement to Players at that stage.
The same people who focus ranking 12-15 strong 6*’s plus a handful of annoying 5* defenders and keep their rating under 900K so they can demolish pre-teens in the handout division of Battlegrounds.

Dr. Zola
So...people who want to take advantage of the system should dictate what Players get. Roll the dice and land on Boardwalk.
You may have missed the point.

Let me try to retrace the argument arc:

1. Lower rated accounts get fast tracked through VT and get lots of BG tokens.
2. Some people argue that isn’t a problem because the BG store restricts prize availability based on titles and progression (digression: lower rated players complain this aspect of the BG store isn’t fair even though the game team has done extensive work to keep the costs relative to where they think progression and prizes will be equitable).
3. The counter argument to (2) is that lower rated players who game the system by depressing their ratings can hoard tokens until they are able to unlock better BG store prizes via title progression. This is amplified by the fact there is no volume increase in the prices of BG store items.
4. I believe you countered that players wouldn’t do (3).
5. I and others suggested that’s precisely what players who game the system by artificially depressing their account rating to steamroll small accounts would do.
6. You brought up dice and Monopoly. A different game, but I think you meant to suggest rules shouldn’t be tailored to prevent people gaming the system.
7. Previously, you’ve been whole-heartedly in favor of policing people gaming the BG system (cf: deck manipulation, fight pausing, etc.). As an experienced player, you also know hoarding is common in a resource gathering game like MCoC.

That’s where we are I think.

Dr. Zola
I brought up Monopoly because that's exactly what designing the system around people taking advantage of it entails. "We're going to steamroll them. If we can't do that, we're going to sandbag. If we can't do that, we're going to complain they don't deserve the Rewards they get. If that doesn't work, we're going to dummy our Accounts and take them out."
What you're suggesting is the chief concern is people who are looking for any way to take advantage of the system. While I agree that it's a high priority, I do not agree to allowing them to dictate what the necessity is for people at that stage in the game. That's not a testament to what's appropriate for people who are there organically, and not bastardizing the system.
And you think accounts that are taking advantage of the ratings silos (and not otherwise modding or cheating, as you define it) who nevertheless steamroll small accounts on their way up are doing it all “organically”?

Dr. Zola
That's literally conjecture. I said Players who are genuinely playing at that stage are not represented by those cases. Nor should their experience OR Rewards be dictated by anything other than what's appropriate for them. Otherwise that's just a manipulation tactic.
What experience though? Lol its a competitive pvp mode in a gacha game..
One which people wouldn't bother playing if their gaming experience wasn't part of the equation. That much is true for a Player at the very top, all the way down to the bottom.
No one is going to participate in a game mode that results in Loss after Loss from the onset.
And that is why u need a separate battleground...
There is absolute NO WAY to guarantee reasonable matching and rewards in a PVP mode in a Gacha game with 4 different progression titled competing with each other...
If u are an UC or Cav u should already enter BGs knowing its gonna suck cause you are going to face TB and Para.. not expect the system to ensure you enjoy an experience.. cause guess what?.. Paragons and TB, who have invested x ammount of times the time to develope a roster, bought items, invested x thousand of units to progress and unlock masteries.. are not really enjoying their own experience seeing UCs and Cavs go into GC while they are stuck in Gold...
I have no issues with them facing them eventually. I have issues with them facing them with no rhyme or reason, in the first few Brackets.
It's not feasible to have a separate BGs. That's been discussed.
Who discussed it? Lol your opinion is that its not feasible, and if anything u and i argued about it and you claim is not feasible...
Kabam Jax already elaborated that they're not looking to create a "casual" mode. Is that not along the same lines as what you're suggesting?
Again with putting words in my mouth?... When did i say 2 different BGs 1 casual 1 competitive?...
2 BGs 2 competitive modes.. 1 for UC & Cav 1 for TB and Paragon with adjusted rewards..
You cannot have a competitive mode with 4 different progression levels competing with each other.
Evidently you can, because what you fail to see is it wouldn't work with 2 different BGs. There aren't enough Players to successfully run Matchmaking for both.
Really?.. cause UC and Cavs are matching perfectly with each other and TB and Paragons fighting each other in VT... What data do u have to back this statement and where are u getting this data from?
Do you have the number of total players and their play times?..
I am pretty sure that it wouldn't work to fit your narrative... But in my road to GC i remember maybe 3 matches against TBs and except for that bugged day I dont remember waiting over 30 secs for a match...
That mean you can run two whole systems separately? Pretty sure you're isolating those results from each other.
Do you have any data that says it can't? At least i got proof of my experience...
Oh, well then it MUST be doable.
So u can actually claim it can't be done without any data.. but u can't see that it could be done without any data either.. wow...just wow rofl..

Right. Because we all support our thoughts here based on insider data.
Your opinion is no more supported than my own based on that argument.

Fix Battlegrounds in three easy steps (that we can argue about until the end of time)

Comments