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.
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.
We are not getting matched with them, and u accused me of wanting to use them as stepping stones; but we are not getting matched with them. Gating game modes has been done before why would this be an exception?... It was done in Arenas, events, content, incursions... Why wouldn't it work in this format?...
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.
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.
Its an opinion based on personal experience, has a lot more weight than the assumption of number of players playing at the same time ...
Arenas aren't separated. Events and content are not PVP with Matchmaking needs. Incursions aren't even the same.
1- Arenas are not gated but they gate the champs u can use... Also yeah this is unfair for lower accounts cause even getting a 4* or a 5* depends on the roster size to actually grind 2- Events and content have been gated before where u needed at least 1 6* to be able to finish a path, right now SQ and Events are soft gated.. kinda based on difficulty 3- U don't get to use the competitiveness of PVP to fit your narrative.. if its competitive its everyone against everyone .... There is no such thing as a good competitive experience. 4- Incursion were gated as to roster too ..
So gating BGs is not as crazy as you make it sound
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.
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.
Its an opinion based on personal experience, has a lot more weight than the assumption of number of players playing at the same time ...
Hmm....so your personal experience is a statement to what the entire system is capable of doing? That's interesting.
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.
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.
We are not getting matched with them, and u accused me of wanting to use them as stepping stones; but we are not getting matched with them. Gating game modes has been done before why would this be an exception?... It was done in Arenas, events, content, incursions... Why wouldn't it work in this format?...
Because none of those modes need another player on the opposite side. I thought that was obvious. That was the reason solo incursions were launched.
You are not getting matched with them, isn't that the source of the complaints? If you remove them you are still left with a system where you have the same matches you've had so far - probably harder since you won't even get the occasional matches that you probably get now.
I want to clarify that by you, I don't mean Coppin - who is probably very good at the game, can take on most TB/Paragons and will probably enjoy a TB/Paragon exclusive BG - but the smaller TB/Paragon accounts who have been complaining the most. I can guarantee that they would not enjoy being repeatedly pummeled by the likes of you and will in a few seasons decide the mode is not worth it. Unless the rewards were so high that being in the lower tiers and getting smashed a few times every couple of days will help them progress in other modes.
BG as mode, unlike Arena and all the other modes you mentioned, needs someone to lose in every game. No one is losing when you are winning an Arena round or SQ or Incursions. That lower tier which loses more often than wins needs some incentive to keep playing. "They should know it will suck for them" is not a great motivator.
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.
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.
Its an opinion based on personal experience, has a lot more weight than the assumption of number of players playing at the same time ...
Hmm....so your personal experience is a statement to what the entire system is capable of doing? That's interesting.
So many twists and turns trying to be smart... My experience was an answer to your empty assumption wasn't it?.. its funny how i manage to answer your post; but you only nit pick parts or try to twist it or use semantics to fit your argument...
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Why doesn't that factor in? Lol. It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Why doesn't that factor in? Lol. It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Why would u factor it something that is already factored?... The game runs 24/7 for everyone in the world.. how are people in a different time zone a variable?...
After the last 3-4 pages, it occurs to me that I should apologize to @DNA3000 and the community in general for petitioning the moderators to move this thread back up to General. It was a decent thread. Once.
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Why doesn't that factor in? Lol. It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Why would u factor it something that is already factored?... The game runs 24/7 for everyone in the world.. how are people in a different time zone a variable?...
Do people not have to be on at the same time to match?
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Why doesn't that factor in? Lol. It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Why would u factor it something that is already factored?... The game runs 24/7 for everyone in the world.. how are people in a different time zone a variable?...
Do people not have to be on at the same time to match?
Like i said only pick the point that u can actually have some kind of argument to be tedious.. Yes they do.. now are they not?... Why would u factor in a timezone when its obvious someone will be playing on at the same time?... Do people all sleep at the same time?.. is there a black out time?...If someone doesnt match with me specifically they wont find a match?.. If for some reason I play at a time i am usually sleeping will the system assume that i should be asleep and not give me a match?... I repeat the game runs 24/7 around the world .. its not a variable to factor in.. its a constant.
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Why doesn't that factor in? Lol. It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Why would u factor it something that is already factored?... The game runs 24/7 for everyone in the world.. how are people in a different time zone a variable?...
Do people not have to be on at the same time to match?
Like i said only pick the point that u can actually have some kind of argument to be tedious.. Yes they do.. now are they not?... Why would u factor in a timezone when its obvious someone will be playing on at the same time?... Do people all sleep at the same time?.. is there a black out time?...If someone doesnt match with me specifically they wont find a match?.. If for some reason I play at a time i am usually sleeping will the system assume that i should be asleep and not give me a match?... I repeat the game runs 24/7 around the world .. its not a variable to factor in.. its a constant.
You're really not getting it, are you? Yes, the game runs 24/7. One of the things that makes BGs possible is the fact that people match from all over the world, at all different times. We're not playing separated by demographics. Hence, if people are not on, that affects who is available to Matchmake at the same time, as well as reduced numbers from a different system than UC/Cav.
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Why doesn't that factor in? Lol. It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Why would u factor it something that is already factored?... The game runs 24/7 for everyone in the world.. how are people in a different time zone a variable?...
Do people not have to be on at the same time to match?
Like i said only pick the point that u can actually have some kind of argument to be tedious.. Yes they do.. now are they not?... Why would u factor in a timezone when its obvious someone will be playing on at the same time?... Do people all sleep at the same time?.. is there a black out time?...If someone doesnt match with me specifically they wont find a match?.. If for some reason I play at a time i am usually sleeping will the system assume that i should be asleep and not give me a match?... I repeat the game runs 24/7 around the world .. its not a variable to factor in.. its a constant.
You're really not getting it, are you? Yes, the game runs 24/7. One of the things that makes BGs possible is the fact that people match from all over the world, at all different times. We're not playing separated by demographics. Hence, if people are not on, that affects who is available to Matchmake at the same time, as well as reduced numbers from a different system than UC/Cav.
And what part of UC and Cavs and TB and Paragons are already matching each other do u not get?... The match making system is already pairing them.. hence the feeling that Cavs and UC got it easy...
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Why doesn't that factor in? Lol. It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Why would u factor it something that is already factored?... The game runs 24/7 for everyone in the world.. how are people in a different time zone a variable?...
Do people not have to be on at the same time to match?
Like i said only pick the point that u can actually have some kind of argument to be tedious.. Yes they do.. now are they not?... Why would u factor in a timezone when its obvious someone will be playing on at the same time?... Do people all sleep at the same time?.. is there a black out time?...If someone doesnt match with me specifically they wont find a match?.. If for some reason I play at a time i am usually sleeping will the system assume that i should be asleep and not give me a match?... I repeat the game runs 24/7 around the world .. its not a variable to factor in.. its a constant.
You're really not getting it, are you? Yes, the game runs 24/7. One of the things that makes BGs possible is the fact that people match from all over the world, at all different times. We're not playing separated by demographics. Hence, if people are not on, that affects who is available to Matchmake at the same time, as well as reduced numbers from a different system than UC/Cav.
And what part of UC and Cavs and TB and Paragons are already matching each other do u not get?... The match making system is already pairing them.. hence the feeling that Cavs and UC got it easy...
The system is matching Players with a range in the VT. That range isn't specifically bound by Titles. That's also not taking place in the GC as far as I can tell.
My good god, is the troll still running at full tilt?
Paragons only match paragons *right now* and never have issues getting matches. The longest I've waited, UK time, whether first thing in the morning, at lunch, or in the evening is 20 seconds.
The thing that will stop paragons getting matches, is other paragons no longer playing, because the time spent is not worth it, because the matchmaking system and progression ladder are unrewarding and that has a death spiral built into it, if they don't fix it.
DNA's post literally addresses all of the issues raised. How can you come into this thread, try to start arguments, with the intention of misinterpreting his points, in bad faith, purely to rile people up?
It's infuriating and I wish the mods would jail this troll.
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Oh mr GroundedWisdom.. you are not so smart.. why do you have to factor in time zones when this is a game pretty much running 24/7 around the world?.. That shouldnt even be a factor.. when I'm taking my 8hs of sleep in the US someone in Japan is playing... Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players... Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
Why doesn't that factor in? Lol. It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Why would u factor it something that is already factored?... The game runs 24/7 for everyone in the world.. how are people in a different time zone a variable?...
Do people not have to be on at the same time to match?
Like i said only pick the point that u can actually have some kind of argument to be tedious.. Yes they do.. now are they not?... Why would u factor in a timezone when its obvious someone will be playing on at the same time?... Do people all sleep at the same time?.. is there a black out time?...If someone doesnt match with me specifically they wont find a match?.. If for some reason I play at a time i am usually sleeping will the system assume that i should be asleep and not give me a match?... I repeat the game runs 24/7 around the world .. its not a variable to factor in.. its a constant.
You're really not getting it, are you? Yes, the game runs 24/7. One of the things that makes BGs possible is the fact that people match from all over the world, at all different times. We're not playing separated by demographics. Hence, if people are not on, that affects who is available to Matchmake at the same time, as well as reduced numbers from a different system than UC/Cav.
And what part of UC and Cavs and TB and Paragons are already matching each other do u not get?... The match making system is already pairing them.. hence the feeling that Cavs and UC got it easy...
The system is matching Players with a range in the VT. That range isn't specifically bound by Titles. That's also not taking place in the GC as far as I can tell.
🤣🤣🤣 Lets see how matchmaking is working: 1st Priority find similar strength (related to progression but i see i could leave a door open to nit pick... ) 2nd priority: find someone within the same tier, its 2nd because u could play someone in bronze 1 being in silver 3 and so on.. Also your GC statement is false... It will make u play someone within the streghth and tier; thats cause its constantly updating... I played many Gamma 1 and 2 and Quantum 2 and 3 being in Arcane...and it was all similar strength rosters... Now With all this 1st and 2nd priority not once i had a hard time to find a match; but apparently to u.. it would make finding a match really hard...
For the love of all that's holy. Some of you just don't know when to shut your mouths. All of the pedantic bickering is adding nothing to this or any discussion on the forum. Please learn when to let things go.
I agree with @DrZola, I was happy to see the thread moved but had a nagging feeling that moving it to a more accessed area meant more chance of a complete derailment.
In my opinion, the Battlegrounds game mode has three primary issues that I believe represent the majority of objections for the design of BG... I'm going to tackle all three in one overarching set of suggestions.
I suggest you incorporate into your research and modeling, the consideration of how Blizzard's video game Hearthstone has incorporated their sister mode to MCOC's Battlegrounds, called "Ranked".
They have been using their "Ranked" system since 2013. Including a major change that occurred in April 1st 2020.
A breakdown of their current system can be read at the hearthstone.fandom wiki. And their page for "Ranked" also includes a link to the archive for the system(s) they used from 2013-2020.
It also includes details for 14 patch notes and the key changes that occurred to the mode over the course of time.
If it would make it easier, I can copy-and-pate those wiki pages onto this thread, or another, at your request. Also, if any of the Hearthstone jargon or other context becomes an issue, please let me know and I will try to address. I have not played Hearthstone for years now, but I should still be pretty familiar with their setup and be able to acclimate any changes fairly well.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing efforts to help develop and improve the game and the community.
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Logically, the answer would be to ensure that the match making system had the minimum number of restrictions on who could match against who, because the more restrictions you place, the more people you eliminate from competing with each other, the more likely it is that someone will fail to get a match in a reasonable amount of time.
The *minimum* match restriction would be to match opponents of roughly equal strength, where strength was defined to be their relative ability to win against comparable competition. All other match restrictions would be a luxury, that someone would have to justify given the potential turnstile match rate penalty those additional restrictions would impose.
This would seem to be a strong argument for ensuring that Paragons and TBs are not restricted to only matching with each other.
Let's look at this logically. Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season. It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other. We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing. 25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them. Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally. You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling. Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Logically, the answer would be to ensure that the match making system had the minimum number of restrictions on who could match against who, because the more restrictions you place, the more people you eliminate from competing with each other, the more likely it is that someone will fail to get a match in a reasonable amount of time.
The *minimum* match restriction would be to match opponents of roughly equal strength, where strength was defined to be their relative ability to win against comparable competition. All other match restrictions would be a luxury, that someone would have to justify given the potential turnstile match rate penalty those additional restrictions would impose.
This would seem to be a strong argument for ensuring that Paragons and TBs are not restricted to only matching with each other.
Nor have I argued for that as a base. I simply stated there needs to be some kind of kicker to the process until such metric reflects equal strength. Otherwise, it's just a losing start at the expense of the lowest demographic, and you're scarce to have them motivated to play. Which I'm sure is fine, and in some cases the objective of, some people in the discussion. I'm not so quick to accept that.
In my opinion, the Battlegrounds game mode has three primary issues that I believe represent the majority of objections for the design of BG... I'm going to tackle all three in one overarching set of suggestions.
I suggest you incorporate into your research and modeling, the consideration of how Blizzard's video game Hearthstone has incorporated their sister mode to MCOC's Battlegrounds, called "Ranked".
They have been using their "Ranked" system since 2013. Including a major change that occurred in April 1st 2020.
A breakdown of their current system can be read at the hearthstone.fandom wiki. And their page for "Ranked" also includes a link to the archive for the system(s) they used from 2013-2020.
It also includes details for 14 patch notes and the key changes that occurred to the mode over the course of time.
If it would make it easier, I can copy-and-pate those wiki pages onto this thread, or another, at your request. Also, if any of the Hearthstone jargon or other context becomes an issue, please let me know and I will try to address. I have not played Hearthstone for years now, but I should still be pretty familiar with their setup and be able to acclimate any changes fairly well.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing efforts to help develop and improve the game and the community.
I am not a Hearthstone player, so I am not an expert on Ranked. However, it comes up frequently in conversation regarding BG design, at least in other discussion venues besides the forums, so I am passingly familiar. I suspect BG does take inspiration from Hearthstone as there are a lot of clear similarities, although other competitive environments likely implement similar concepts.
Hearthstone has two differences to BG that we have to keep in mind. The first is that its been around for many years, and that means it has had a chance to evolve along with its player community. The current system is a much more complex system than it had at launch, when it had a need to present a system that players could rapidly acclimate themselves to and navigate. BG is still an infant relatively speaking, and would not be able to accommodate the kind of systems Hearthstone currently has. So we can't simply look to a well-established system like Hearthstone for inspiration as if they "did the work" for us, because in a sense any game trying to follow in its footsteps would need to literally follow in their footsteps to some degree, to ensure their playerbase could keep up with the growing system complexity.
The second is that Hearthstone is a bigger game than the Battleground game mode. It has at least an order of magnitude more players. This means they not only can accommodate more player partitioning, they are almost compelled to do so. A thousand players competing within the same competitive group is a disaster for a turnstile based game that needs to real time match, because that's too few. But a million players all competing within the same competitive group can also be a disaster because it can become too unwieldy. So while some of the changes Hearthstone has made over time has been due to gaining the experience to develop more sophisticated systems (changes in how MMR is calculated, say) many of them are responses to their own game data - making things easier for newer players, for example, is something that probably happens as part of the evolutionary journey: the game has existed for long enough, and a veteran player base has developed over sufficient amounts of time, that years down the road there's a need to revisit the early player experience, because the early player experience didn't originally have to deal with ensconced veterans and a complex meta history.
We can take inspiration from other games, but we have to be very careful about simply adopting other game's solutions to our problems. Their problems are not our problems, even if they are described similarly, and their players are not our players and what is acceptable in one community won't necessarily be in another.
I wouldn't recommend replicating other game's forum or gameplay information on our forums: the moderators would likely consider that off topic. However, if you have some *specific* element of Hearthstone's ranked system that you believe would be interesting to consider for Battlegrounds, feel free to mention that specific thing, and if I am qualified to express an opinion on it I will try to do so.
Comments
Gating game modes has been done before why would this be an exception?...
It was done in Arenas, events, content, incursions... Why wouldn't it work in this format?...
2- Events and content have been gated before where u needed at least 1 6* to be able to finish a path, right now SQ and Events are soft gated.. kinda based on difficulty
3- U don't get to use the competitiveness of PVP to fit your narrative.. if its competitive its everyone against everyone .... There is no such thing as a good competitive experience.
4- Incursion were gated as to roster too ..
So gating BGs is not as crazy as you make it sound
You are not getting matched with them, isn't that the source of the complaints? If you remove them you are still left with a system where you have the same matches you've had so far - probably harder since you won't even get the occasional matches that you probably get now.
I want to clarify that by you, I don't mean Coppin - who is probably very good at the game, can take on most TB/Paragons and will probably enjoy a TB/Paragon exclusive BG - but the smaller TB/Paragon accounts who have been complaining the most. I can guarantee that they would not enjoy being repeatedly pummeled by the likes of you and will in a few seasons decide the mode is not worth it. Unless the rewards were so high that being in the lower tiers and getting smashed a few times every couple of days will help them progress in other modes.
BG as mode, unlike Arena and all the other modes you mentioned, needs someone to lose in every game. No one is losing when you are winning an Arena round or SQ or Incursions. That lower tier which loses more often than wins needs some incentive to keep playing. "They should know it will suck for them" is not a great motivator.
My experience was an answer to your empty assumption wasn't it?.. its funny how i manage to answer your post; but you only nit pick parts or try to twist it or use semantics to fit your argument...
Let's say the system has...oh, I don't know....50k Players competing in a Season.
It's hard to say how many are TB and Paragon, which is probably lower than 50%, but let's say 50%. Even split. 25k in one, 25k in the other.
We're not considering Alts because one Account is being used at any time, unless Uri Geller is competing.
25k that are running BGs in each BG. Factor in the Brackets for the VT, and the GC. That's a number, with multiple Tiers each. You have to Match Players within due time within each of them.
Not to mention timing. It's in real time, so those Players have to be active at the same times, dependent on how active they are in BGs. Some play hard, some occasionally.
You also have to factor in time zones and scheduling.
Tell me again how you can successfully run Matches that don't have irritating wait times with those numbers and factors. I'm dying to know.
Also assuming a low number such as 50k for a multi million dollar company.. not even counting the hundred of thousands of f2p players...
Well big deal lets say you are right... The 15-20 seconds it takes to find a match would take 30.. woah big deal ..
It's not just you playing. Someone needs to be looking at the same time as you. I'm pretty sure that is affected by how many people are playing at the same time.
Dr. Zola
If anything it should be easier as can remove all background logic, might easy some space on sever and improve general issues with game
Yes they do.. now are they not?... Why would u factor in a timezone when its obvious someone will be playing on at the same time?... Do people all sleep at the same time?.. is there a black out time?...If someone doesnt match with me specifically they wont find a match?.. If for some reason I play at a time i am usually sleeping will the system assume that i should be asleep and not give me a match?...
I repeat the game runs 24/7 around the world .. its not a variable to factor in.. its a constant.
Yes, the game runs 24/7. One of the things that makes BGs possible is the fact that people match from all over the world, at all different times.
We're not playing separated by demographics.
Hence, if people are not on, that affects who is available to Matchmake at the same time, as well as reduced numbers from a different system than UC/Cav.
Paragons only match paragons *right now* and never have issues getting matches. The longest I've waited, UK time, whether first thing in the morning, at lunch, or in the evening is 20 seconds.
The thing that will stop paragons getting matches, is other paragons no longer playing, because the time spent is not worth it, because the matchmaking system and progression ladder are unrewarding and that has a death spiral built into it, if they don't fix it.
DNA's post literally addresses all of the issues raised. How can you come into this thread, try to start arguments, with the intention of misinterpreting his points, in bad faith, purely to rile people up?
It's infuriating and I wish the mods would jail this troll.
Lets see how matchmaking is working:
1st Priority find similar strength (related to progression but i see i could leave a door open to nit pick... )
2nd priority: find someone within the same tier, its 2nd because u could play someone in bronze 1 being in silver 3 and so on..
Also your GC statement is false... It will make u play someone within the streghth and tier; thats cause its constantly updating... I played many Gamma 1 and 2 and Quantum 2 and 3 being in Arcane...and it was all similar strength rosters...
Now With all this 1st and 2nd priority not once i had a hard time to find a match; but apparently to u.. it would make finding a match really hard...
Hi DNA3000,
I suggest you incorporate into your research and modeling, the consideration of how Blizzard's video game Hearthstone has incorporated their sister mode to MCOC's Battlegrounds, called "Ranked".
They have been using their "Ranked" system since 2013. Including a major change that occurred in April 1st 2020.
A breakdown of their current system can be read at the hearthstone.fandom wiki. And their page for "Ranked" also includes a link to the archive for the system(s) they used from 2013-2020.
It also includes details for 14 patch notes and the key changes that occurred to the mode over the course of time.
If it would make it easier, I can copy-and-pate those wiki pages onto this thread, or another, at your request. Also, if any of the Hearthstone jargon or other context becomes an issue, please let me know and I will try to address. I have not played Hearthstone for years now, but I should still be pretty familiar with their setup and be able to acclimate any changes fairly well.
Thank you for your time, consideration, and ongoing efforts to help develop and improve the game and the community.
The *minimum* match restriction would be to match opponents of roughly equal strength, where strength was defined to be their relative ability to win against comparable competition. All other match restrictions would be a luxury, that someone would have to justify given the potential turnstile match rate penalty those additional restrictions would impose.
This would seem to be a strong argument for ensuring that Paragons and TBs are not restricted to only matching with each other.
Hearthstone has two differences to BG that we have to keep in mind. The first is that its been around for many years, and that means it has had a chance to evolve along with its player community. The current system is a much more complex system than it had at launch, when it had a need to present a system that players could rapidly acclimate themselves to and navigate. BG is still an infant relatively speaking, and would not be able to accommodate the kind of systems Hearthstone currently has. So we can't simply look to a well-established system like Hearthstone for inspiration as if they "did the work" for us, because in a sense any game trying to follow in its footsteps would need to literally follow in their footsteps to some degree, to ensure their playerbase could keep up with the growing system complexity.
The second is that Hearthstone is a bigger game than the Battleground game mode. It has at least an order of magnitude more players. This means they not only can accommodate more player partitioning, they are almost compelled to do so. A thousand players competing within the same competitive group is a disaster for a turnstile based game that needs to real time match, because that's too few. But a million players all competing within the same competitive group can also be a disaster because it can become too unwieldy. So while some of the changes Hearthstone has made over time has been due to gaining the experience to develop more sophisticated systems (changes in how MMR is calculated, say) many of them are responses to their own game data - making things easier for newer players, for example, is something that probably happens as part of the evolutionary journey: the game has existed for long enough, and a veteran player base has developed over sufficient amounts of time, that years down the road there's a need to revisit the early player experience, because the early player experience didn't originally have to deal with ensconced veterans and a complex meta history.
We can take inspiration from other games, but we have to be very careful about simply adopting other game's solutions to our problems. Their problems are not our problems, even if they are described similarly, and their players are not our players and what is acceptable in one community won't necessarily be in another.
I wouldn't recommend replicating other game's forum or gameplay information on our forums: the moderators would likely consider that off topic. However, if you have some *specific* element of Hearthstone's ranked system that you believe would be interesting to consider for Battlegrounds, feel free to mention that specific thing, and if I am qualified to express an opinion on it I will try to do so.