No one said you need to give them participation trophies just because you don't agree with keeping the highest Accounts from roadblocking them in Bronze 3. That's an exaggeration. What I said was you can't have a Seasonal competition and start Players further up than others, and call it progress. The same thing happens in other systems and all you get is people Ranking the same thing over and over. Very little changes. It's a fishbowl.
I think you need to justify this statement. This statement specifically. Because you keep saying things like this, and when challenged you say all you meant was something else entirely. But to keep the thread on a reasonably constructive stance, I think saying things like this should make the poster accountable to those statements. Name these other systems where you have a seasonal competition and start players "further up" and describe in what way people "rank the same thing over and over." I don't even understand how staggered start affects rank up decisions at all. If I'm making rank up decisions for Battlegrounds specifically, what tier I start in seems to be a non-issue.
War.
1. Everyone starts with zero season points. No one starts at a higher progress tier in war. People keep their war ratings from the previous war, but that is not the same thing.
2. Even if we were to concede that this is remotely the same situation, preserving war rating does not directly affect war rank up decisions, except insofar as a ratings reset *might* cause some alliances to stop ranking for defender altogether, as they wouldn't need to if they were no longer going to face comparable strength alliances in war seasons. They'd just be able to destroy most of the competition with the defense they had, which is the exact opposite of what you implied.
3. I don't think you understand war at all. Whatever your feelings about it, whatever you think people like or dislike about it, which are all subjective opinions, making the statement that ratings reset would somehow promote progress and prevent people from "ranking the same thing over and over" is so far outside the boundaries of reality it falls within the scope of "not even wrong." It is objectively inconsistent with reality. If this is how you believe war works, applying that flawed reasoning to Battlegrounds would result in wildly incorrect conclusions.
I'm struggling to come up with a wrong line of thought that arrives at this conclusion, much less a logically consistent one.
People start with 0 Points, but you of all people should know the Points are correlated with the Tier you're in, and that ties directly to War Rating. Not only is this carried over, but Tiers 1-5 are frozen in the Off-Season. Half-loss for anyone else. I respect you, I really do. Don't question my intelligence concerning War. It's no secret that it's centered around the Top Players. Progress is minimal if at all for anyone else, and there is very little movement from Season to Season because it's been made a monopoly. Players earn the same thing Season after Season because it's been designed to benefit those at the top. We will debate this ad nauseum because you have invested a great deal of energy into it, but I'm not disillusioned about it. It is what it is, but I'm not pretending it's a game mode anyone can get any farther in unless they join the Holy Grail of Alliances.
Not only do you not understand but you also refuse to listen to those who do.
Not that yours doesn't count towards this discussion, of course. The last bit of your post was the important part I think, considering none of us really know the answer to what kind of competitive its supposed to be.
Yeah, it seems strange to have a mode that is heavily marketed as "competitive", but that the players still don't know what that's supposed to mean from Kabam.
You asked a lot of other questions in there, but I don't think you intended me or anyone to answer them all.
I was trying to clarify which forms of gameplay you are potentially lobbying for. And which might not be things you care about, or that you might be against.
The moral of the story is that I'm in the group that thinks that in a head to head like this, either everyone can potentially face anyone in a given match, or the groups should be separated one way or another. I also think that either roster needs to matter in a meaningful way, or it shouldnt matter at all.
It would be nice to get clarification from Kabam in terms of what they want. Including giving feedback on your paragraph there.
Personally, I don't think they really know what they want for parameters yet. Because they are less concerned with how, and more concerned with what they can get with regards to key outcomes for things like mode popularity, motivating to spend, keeping spending players happy, trying to deliver some form of "competitive" play, etc.
With regards to roster mattering, do you specifically mean a better roster account should always get a "better" advantage over an account with a weaker roster? And should that advantage be easier fights, better rewards, and/or something else?
It also probably boils down answering these three things: 1) is it required that lesser accounts accrue lesser rewards (for the same amount of effort) 2) is it required that lesser accounts have a harder time progressing -OR- lesser accounts must progress on a separate, lower tier track (for the same amount of effort) 3) is it required that greater accounts have the option to sandbag and farm lesser accounts
He is fixating on UC cause its the lowest allowed in BGs, u reach UC at around lvl 37-40.. it doesnt even make sense you are competing against people 20+ lvls below...
If it was up to me, then I would just ditch the entire Victory track, and go back to how it was in the beta. Then somehow tie the rewards that were normally given out when progressing in VT to the wins you get in GC.
The idea of VT is to me one of the worst with the mode, and makes it sooooo damn boring compared to how it was in the betas.
That would be even worse with this bogus matchmaking that pairs lower rosters together...
If it was up to me, then I would just ditch the entire Victory track, and go back to how it was in the beta. Then somehow tie the rewards that were normally given out when progressing in VT to the wins you get in GC.
The idea of VT is to me one of the worst with the mode, and makes it sooooo damn boring compared to how it was in the betas.
That would be even worse with this bogus matchmaking that pairs lower rosters together...
The matchmaking in beta was based on points, not roster, so that wouldn't be an issue.
If it was up to me, then I would just ditch the entire Victory track, and go back to how it was in the beta. Then somehow tie the rewards that were normally given out when progressing in VT to the wins you get in GC.
The idea of VT is to me one of the worst with the mode, and makes it sooooo damn boring compared to how it was in the betas.
That would be even worse with this bogus matchmaking that pairs lower rosters together...
The matchmaking in beta was based on points, not roster, so that wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah but that was before implementing this different matchmaking systems to try to find a "fair" solution... Lets not forget this all started after DBag sandbaggers.. the solution to the sandbaggers was a lot easier than all this.. Only allow the highest PI champ... I understand people wouldn still manipulate a bit by putting a 5* that they don't own as a 6* but it would be almost minimal
If it was up to me, then I would just ditch the entire Victory track, and go back to how it was in the beta. Then somehow tie the rewards that were normally given out when progressing in VT to the wins you get in GC.
The idea of VT is to me one of the worst with the mode, and makes it sooooo damn boring compared to how it was in the betas.
That would be even worse with this bogus matchmaking that pairs lower rosters together...
The matchmaking in beta was based on points, not roster, so that wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah but that was before implementing this different matchmaking systems to try to find a "fair" solution... Lets not forget this all started after DBag sandbaggers.. the solution to the sandbaggers was a lot easier than all this.. Only allow the highest PI champ... I understand people wouldn still manipulate a bit by putting a 5* that they don't own as a 6* but it would be almost minimal
IMO, the only reason that we have prestige matchmaking in the VT is that there is no other way to rank people 'fairly'. If everyone had their own BG rating then you could go completely random, like in GC, and it would balance itself out like AW did when it started.
If it was up to me, then I would just ditch the entire Victory track, and go back to how it was in the beta. Then somehow tie the rewards that were normally given out when progressing in VT to the wins you get in GC.
The idea of VT is to me one of the worst with the mode, and makes it sooooo damn boring compared to how it was in the betas.
That would be even worse with this bogus matchmaking that pairs lower rosters together...
The matchmaking in beta was based on points, not roster, so that wouldn't be an issue.
Yeah but that was before implementing this different matchmaking systems to try to find a "fair" solution... Lets not forget this all started after DBag sandbaggers.. the solution to the sandbaggers was a lot easier than all this.. Only allow the highest PI champ... I understand people wouldn still manipulate a bit by putting a 5* that they don't own as a 6* but it would be almost minimal
IMO, the only reason that we have prestige matchmaking in the VT is that there is no other way to rank people 'fairly'. If everyone had their own BG rating then you could go completely random, like in GC, and it would balance itself out like AW did when it started.
The only way of having a fair competition is self awareness.... You gotta know your own limitations and not complain cause you can't get the rewards.. that's pure entitlment... If you are UC u should know that somewhere in the road you reached your roof.. same for Cavs... Does it suck? Yes it does specially because people who spend are already getting an advantage; but that's how the game run ALL THIS YEARS. I mean lets be completely honest... EQ TB difficulty was released.. great for TB and Paragon.. they tweaked the lower ones to match the easier champion aquisition, cause now UCs and Cavs have 6* and they went crazy... We had to go thru all that with 3-5*!! The only 1 thing that i can think could be fair, just to put a little enjoyment and maybe take advantage of a full roster for lower accounts is changing the VT mod weekly same as GC
Right. Let's just minimize the issue to people complaining.
If there was no complaints there would be no need for changes. There is like 5 people still waiting for your answers on claims u made... Stop avoiding them
Right. Let's just minimize the issue to people complaining.
If there was no complaints there would be no need for changes.
Disagree. That mentality gives license to any kind of taking advantage.
Are u accusing me of taking advantage?...Cause I'm asking for a fair competition...and unfortunately in a fair competition someone has to lose for the other to win...
Right. Let's just minimize the issue to people complaining.
If there was no complaints there would be no need for changes.
Disagree. That mentality gives license to any kind of taking advantage.
Are u accusing me of taking advantage?...Cause I'm asking for a fair competition...and unfortunately in a fair competition someone has to lose for the other to win...
I'm not accusing you of anything. I said the mentality that if people didn't complain, there wouldn't be any reason to change anything, gives license to any kind of taking advantage. If something is a problem, it's a problem. You don't believe it's an issue, which is fine. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue.
He is fixating on UC cause its the lowest allowed in BGs, u reach UC at around lvl 37-40.. it doesnt even make sense you are competing against people 20+ lvls below...
You aren't competing against them, they are not blocking your progress and they aren't getting the same rewards. For all purposes they are playing a different competition. You only get matched against them when there isn't anyone in your range to be matched against. You can do what DNA did and game the system if you want to.
The current system is exactly what you want - two different competitions for different levels. Just under the same banner. Your current placings and game experience would be slightly worse if it was bifurcated into two separate competitions since there wouldn't be the occasional easy match-ups which happen currently.
He is fixating on UC cause its the lowest allowed in BGs, u reach UC at around lvl 37-40.. it doesnt even make sense you are competing against people 20+ lvls below...
You aren't competing against them, they are not blocking your progress and they aren't getting the same rewards. For all purposes they are playing a different competition. You only get matched against them when there isn't anyone in your range to be matched against. You can do what DNA did and game the system if you want to.
The current system is exactly what you want - two different competitions for different levels. Just under the same banner. Your current placings and game experience would be slightly worse if it was bifurcated into two separate competitions since there wouldn't be the occasional easy match-ups which happen currently.
One of the main reasons this is even a discussion is that those low accounts ARE in the top gc rankings though.
I wouldnt say TOP, but they had easier access to the 30k trophies in VT... And somehow because Paragons get a better price on some items their 30k earning is not the same as 30k for Cavs... When its their own choice to be TB...its 1 fight that doesnt even require a specific kit to beat.. If anything BGs is slowing player progression and allowing faster champ acquisition and rank up with the least effort...
He is fixating on UC cause its the lowest allowed in BGs, u reach UC at around lvl 37-40.. it doesnt even make sense you are competing against people 20+ lvls below...
You aren't competing against them, they are not blocking your progress and they aren't getting the same rewards. For all purposes they are playing a different competition. You only get matched against them when there isn't anyone in your range to be matched against. You can do what DNA did and game the system if you want to.
The current system is exactly what you want - two different competitions for different levels. Just under the same banner. Your current placings and game experience would be slightly worse if it was bifurcated into two separate competitions since there wouldn't be the occasional easy match-ups which happen currently.
One of the main reasons this is even a discussion is that those low accounts ARE in the top gc rankings though.
Let's break that up then. Suppose there were two different BG competitions - One for UC/Cavs and on for TB/Paragaon.
The lower accounts who are in GC now will also be in GC in the UC/Cav comp. Actually, they would be higher placed since they won't have to face any of the higher accounts they face in GC today (which they mostly bypassed in VT). The TB/Paragon account in GC will also be in the GC of the new exclusive BG, because they would have the same path to get there (they are stronger/more skilled within the competition). They would also be very similarly placed as they are now. The TB/Paragons in VT will still remain there, they weren't able to string together enough wins to get out earlier, why would you expect them to do so now?
Now to rewards. The UC/Cav comp pays out fewer trophies, say 50% of what the TB/Paragon one does, which you can use in the store. The current store already does that - it charges Cav 3x of what it costs Paragons to buy items and some items are gated. Cutting trophies by 50% and keeping a common store isn't going to materially change what resources UC/Cavs get from the competition. Reducing the trophy count will not change what devs think is the right amount of resources lower progression accounts should have access to.
On why we need more people in the same competition. A match happens when two people are looking for a match at the same time. You need both players to be online and then to be in the BG mode at the same time. Even if a million people spend an hour a day on the game, only 4% of those will be online in any given hour - what % of those would be clicking the BG match button in the same minute? If you restrict the game mode to only top 5-10% of player base how much worse would the odds of finding a match get? I don't have the answers but I would think this is one mode where you want a lot of players playing at any given time.
I don't understand what higher accounts will gain from splitting the competition into two. It isn't matchmaking that's impacting accounts moving through VT but the win-loss progression system. Removing lower accounts from the competition will not make it any easier or faster for larger accounts to progress.
Lower accounts on the other hand will probably progress faster. At least at the top, because there will be space created for them. The average ones will have no change probably. Reward structure might be changed but access to resources will be similar to what they have now - costs will be adjusted.
If the only aim is to reduce the trophy count for smaller account then splitting competitions would be a great move. It isn't going to improve progression or experience at the top.
He is fixating on UC cause its the lowest allowed in BGs, u reach UC at around lvl 37-40.. it doesnt even make sense you are competing against people 20+ lvls below...
You aren't competing against them, they are not blocking your progress and they aren't getting the same rewards. For all purposes they are playing a different competition. You only get matched against them when there isn't anyone in your range to be matched against. You can do what DNA did and game the system if you want to.
The current system is exactly what you want - two different competitions for different levels. Just under the same banner. Your current placings and game experience would be slightly worse if it was bifurcated into two separate competitions since there wouldn't be the occasional easy match-ups which happen currently.
One of the main reasons this is even a discussion is that those low accounts ARE in the top gc rankings though.
Let's break that up then. Suppose there were two different BG competitions - One for UC/Cavs and on for TB/Paragaon.
The lower accounts who are in GC now will also be in GC in the UC/Cav comp. Actually, they would be higher placed since they won't have to face any of the higher accounts they face in GC today (which they mostly bypassed in VT). The TB/Paragon account in GC will also be in the GC of the new exclusive BG, because they would have the same path to get there (they are stronger/more skilled within the competition). They would also be very similarly placed as they are now. The TB/Paragons in VT will still remain there, they weren't able to string together enough wins to get out earlier, why would you expect them to do so now?
Now to rewards. The UC/Cav comp pays out fewer trophies, say 50% of what the TB/Paragon one does, which you can use in the store. The current store already does that - it charges Cav 3x of what it costs Paragons to buy items and some items are gated. Cutting trophies by 50% and keeping a common store isn't going to materially change what resources UC/Cavs get from the competition. Reducing the trophy count will not change what devs think is the right amount of resources lower progression accounts should have access to.
On why we need more people in the same competition. A match happens when two people are looking for a match at the same time. You need both players to be online and then to be in the BG mode at the same time. Even if a million people spend an hour a day on the game, only 4% of those will be online in any given hour - what % of those would be clicking the BG match button in the same minute? If you restrict the game mode to only top 5-10% of player base how much worse would the odds of finding a match get? I don't have the answers but I would think this is one mode where you want a lot of players playing at any given time.
I don't understand what higher accounts will gain from splitting the competition into two. It isn't matchmaking that's impacting accounts moving through VT but the win-loss progression system. Removing lower accounts from the competition will not make it any easier or faster for larger accounts to progress.
Lower accounts on the other hand will probably progress faster. At least at the top, because there will be space created for them. The average ones will have no change probably. Reward structure might be changed but access to resources will be similar to what they have now - costs will be adjusted.
If the only aim is to reduce the trophy count for smaller account then splitting competitions would be a great move. It isn't going to improve progression or experience at the top.
Cav should be a transition and the choice to stay there should be punished then... They should be aiming to higher progression not sit there.. so it wouldnt be a big issue to compete in a dif BG for less rewards... Do you have any idea how many Cavs with TB rosters are shielding themselves behind the title and saying . Ohh i am matching with Paragons.. unfair...guess why?.. their roster is too big for their title... They are getting a faster rate of champ rank up mats and champ aquisition and not even excusing their lack of progression. The store having different prices is just another excuse, because no one is stopping their accounts with multiple r3s from killing the Grandmaster...they just don't wanna do it... Oh well 7* are comming.. the gap will be bigger.. r5s will be more common.. can't wait to see what they are going to complain about
I might not always agree with DNA3000, but Kabam would be remiss not to listen. This is the most comprehensive and balanced approach I have seen. It fixes the main issues of matchmaking and progression.
IMO, the only reason that we have prestige matchmaking in the VT is that there is no other way to rank people 'fairly'. If everyone had their own BG rating then you could go completely random, like in GC, and it would balance itself out like AW did when it started.
The goal of prestige/roster matching is not to be "fair" at least not as I use the word (nor as the devs do). In a competitive sense, ELO matching is seen as fair, or at least fair enough - if it wasn't, GC wouldn't use it. So why match that way in VT?
Consider VT didn't originally match that way. VT previously matched on deck strength and then was changed to roster strength. Why match on deck strength? It isn't for fairness. It is to encourage participation. The VT tracks themselves exist to encourage participation, by providing a venue where players of all progression levels can theoretically feel like they can succeed to some significant degree. By only competing with other players of similar deck strength, the game doesn't often create visually striking mismatches which can be discouraging to newer players. This reduces the local feeling of disappointment having lost an unwinnable match.
To put it bluntly, deck matching is intended to encourage players to blame themselves when they lose, rather than the game mode.
Deck matching was switched to roster matching for two reasons. First, deck matching could be manipulated, ala 2* decks. Second, at least in Kabam's opinion, deck matching failed to properly encourage players to develop roster. If you could do everything you wanted with a 5/50 deck in BG, there was no incentive to rank up 5* or 6* champs. Moving to roster strength matching was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone.
None of this is about fairness. It is about game mode psychology. You could even argue that the pockets of resistance towards changing VT reflect this psychological manipulation gamesmanship. Kabam is not in the business of telling players they are right or wrong about the intent of the game mode. They hope that when they settle on how they want it to work it will be an opaque ink blot that everyone sees what they want to see in it, at least in VT.
You can't blanket everyone who is at that stage as "choosing to be there".
If u make a separate BG with different rewards or currency it would push them to progress and try to get the better rewards ... And im sorry if a person is Cav with multiple r3s they are chosing to stay there.
You can't blanket everyone who is at that stage as "choosing to be there".
If u make a separate BG with different rewards or currency it would push them to progress and try to get the better rewards ... And im sorry if a person is Cav with multiple r3s they are chosing to stay there.
I have no idea why you're so hung up on the currency, but that's a non-issue. As for Cavs, what you're describing is a very small subset of Players who just haven't done the Story content. It's not a fair assessment to paint everyone who is Cav in that light.
He is fixating on UC cause its the lowest allowed in BGs, u reach UC at around lvl 37-40.. it doesnt even make sense you are competing against people 20+ lvls below...
You aren't competing against them, they are not blocking your progress and they aren't getting the same rewards. For all purposes they are playing a different competition. You only get matched against them when there isn't anyone in your range to be matched against. You can do what DNA did and game the system if you want to.
The current system is exactly what you want - two different competitions for different levels. Just under the same banner. Your current placings and game experience would be slightly worse if it was bifurcated into two separate competitions since there wouldn't be the occasional easy match-ups which happen currently.
One of the main reasons this is even a discussion is that those low accounts ARE in the top gc rankings though.
Let's break that up then. Suppose there were two different BG competitions - One for UC/Cavs and on for TB/Paragaon.
The lower accounts who are in GC now will also be in GC in the UC/Cav comp. Actually, they would be higher placed since they won't have to face any of the higher accounts they face in GC today (which they mostly bypassed in VT). The TB/Paragon account in GC will also be in the GC of the new exclusive BG, because they would have the same path to get there (they are stronger/more skilled within the competition). They would also be very similarly placed as they are now. The TB/Paragons in VT will still remain there, they weren't able to string together enough wins to get out earlier, why would you expect them to do so now?
Now to rewards. The UC/Cav comp pays out fewer trophies, say 50% of what the TB/Paragon one does, which you can use in the store. The current store already does that - it charges Cav 3x of what it costs Paragons to buy items and some items are gated. Cutting trophies by 50% and keeping a common store isn't going to materially change what resources UC/Cavs get from the competition. Reducing the trophy count will not change what devs think is the right amount of resources lower progression accounts should have access to.
On why we need more people in the same competition. A match happens when two people are looking for a match at the same time. You need both players to be online and then to be in the BG mode at the same time. Even if a million people spend an hour a day on the game, only 4% of those will be online in any given hour - what % of those would be clicking the BG match button in the same minute? If you restrict the game mode to only top 5-10% of player base how much worse would the odds of finding a match get? I don't have the answers but I would think this is one mode where you want a lot of players playing at any given time.
I don't understand what higher accounts will gain from splitting the competition into two. It isn't matchmaking that's impacting accounts moving through VT but the win-loss progression system. Removing lower accounts from the competition will not make it any easier or faster for larger accounts to progress.
Lower accounts on the other hand will probably progress faster. At least at the top, because there will be space created for them. The average ones will have no change probably. Reward structure might be changed but access to resources will be similar to what they have now - costs will be adjusted.
If the only aim is to reduce the trophy count for smaller account then splitting competitions would be a great move. It isn't going to improve progression or experience at the top.
Cav should be a transition and the choice to stay there should be punished then... They should be aiming to higher progression not sit there.. so it wouldnt be a big issue to compete in a dif BG for less rewards... Do you have any idea how many Cavs with TB rosters are shielding themselves behind the title and saying . Ohh i am matching with Paragons.. unfair...guess why?.. their roster is too big for their title... They are getting a faster rate of champ rank up mats and champ aquisition and not even excusing their lack of progression. The store having different prices is just another excuse, because no one is stopping their accounts with multiple r3s from killing the Grandmaster...they just don't wanna do it... Oh well 7* are comming.. the gap will be bigger.. r5s will be more common.. can't wait to see what they are going to complain about
1. They are already competing for lesser rewards. Maybe it is still high in your opinion, but obviously not what the devs think. You really can't change that, if not BG there will be some other avenue. 2. I thought you were upset about teams with weak rosters being in GC - that isn't Cavs with TB rosters. Matches are not on title, it's some measure of roster strength, Cavs with TB rosters would be a negatively impacted group. Cavs who are matching with Paragons (and complaining about it) are hardly benefiting in the current set up. You take them out, Paragons are going to complain more. A Cav with a TB roster, high in GC, almost definitely got there the hard way. 3. If Cavs have TB rosters, they have already access to the rank up materials. BG is hardly life changing for them.
Feels like you don't really care about BG or matchmaking as long as other players do not get access to resources. Very strong vibe of "I got mine, time to pull the ladder up".
You can't blanket everyone who is at that stage as "choosing to be there".
If u make a separate BG with different rewards or currency it would push them to progress and try to get the better rewards ... And im sorry if a person is Cav with multiple r3s they are chosing to stay there.
I have no idea why you're so hung up on the currency, but that's a non-issue. As for Cavs, what you're describing is a very small subset of Players who just haven't done the Story content. It's not a fair assessment to paint everyone who is Cav in that light.
Why an i fixated on rewards or currency... Cause its all about rewards.. or you think that the lower accounts complaining about not advancing past plat or diamond cause they match with TBs and Paragons.. are complaining because of their gaming experience...because there is a person behind the account and his feelings are getting hurt...
Comments
Only allow the highest PI champ... I understand people wouldn still manipulate a bit by putting a 5* that they don't own as a 6* but it would be almost minimal
If you are UC u should know that somewhere in the road you reached your roof.. same for Cavs...
Does it suck? Yes it does specially because people who spend are already getting an advantage; but that's how the game run ALL THIS YEARS.
I mean lets be completely honest...
EQ TB difficulty was released.. great for TB and Paragon.. they tweaked the lower ones to match the easier champion aquisition, cause now UCs and Cavs have 6* and they went crazy... We had to go thru all that with 3-5*!!
The only 1 thing that i can think could be fair, just to put a little enjoyment and maybe take advantage of a full roster for lower accounts is changing the VT mod weekly same as GC
There is like 5 people still waiting for your answers on claims u made... Stop avoiding them
If something is a problem, it's a problem. You don't believe it's an issue, which is fine. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue.
The current system is exactly what you want - two different competitions for different levels. Just under the same banner. Your current placings and game experience would be slightly worse if it was bifurcated into two separate competitions since there wouldn't be the occasional easy match-ups which happen currently.
And somehow because Paragons get a better price on some items their 30k earning is not the same as 30k for Cavs... When its their own choice to be TB...its 1 fight that doesnt even require a specific kit to beat..
If anything BGs is slowing player progression and allowing faster champ acquisition and rank up with the least effort...
The lower accounts who are in GC now will also be in GC in the UC/Cav comp. Actually, they would be higher placed since they won't have to face any of the higher accounts they face in GC today (which they mostly bypassed in VT). The TB/Paragon account in GC will also be in the GC of the new exclusive BG, because they would have the same path to get there (they are stronger/more skilled within the competition). They would also be very similarly placed as they are now. The TB/Paragons in VT will still remain there, they weren't able to string together enough wins to get out earlier, why would you expect them to do so now?
Now to rewards. The UC/Cav comp pays out fewer trophies, say 50% of what the TB/Paragon one does, which you can use in the store. The current store already does that - it charges Cav 3x of what it costs Paragons to buy items and some items are gated. Cutting trophies by 50% and keeping a common store isn't going to materially change what resources UC/Cavs get from the competition. Reducing the trophy count will not change what devs think is the right amount of resources lower progression accounts should have access to.
On why we need more people in the same competition. A match happens when two people are looking for a match at the same time. You need both players to be online and then to be in the BG mode at the same time. Even if a million people spend an hour a day on the game, only 4% of those will be online in any given hour - what % of those would be clicking the BG match button in the same minute? If you restrict the game mode to only top 5-10% of player base how much worse would the odds of finding a match get? I don't have the answers but I would think this is one mode where you want a lot of players playing at any given time.
I don't understand what higher accounts will gain from splitting the competition into two. It isn't matchmaking that's impacting accounts moving through VT but the win-loss progression system. Removing lower accounts from the competition will not make it any easier or faster for larger accounts to progress.
Lower accounts on the other hand will probably progress faster. At least at the top, because there will be space created for them. The average ones will have no change probably. Reward structure might be changed but access to resources will be similar to what they have now - costs will be adjusted.
If the only aim is to reduce the trophy count for smaller account then splitting competitions would be a great move. It isn't going to improve progression or experience at the top.
I am Paragon and cannot get out of Silver 1.
I play Battlegrounds so I automatically feel bad about myself.
They are getting a faster rate of champ rank up mats and champ aquisition and not even excusing their lack of progression.
The store having different prices is just another excuse, because no one is stopping their accounts with multiple r3s from killing the Grandmaster...they just don't wanna do it...
Oh well 7* are comming.. the gap will be bigger.. r5s will be more common.. can't wait to see what they are going to complain about
Consider VT didn't originally match that way. VT previously matched on deck strength and then was changed to roster strength. Why match on deck strength? It isn't for fairness. It is to encourage participation. The VT tracks themselves exist to encourage participation, by providing a venue where players of all progression levels can theoretically feel like they can succeed to some significant degree. By only competing with other players of similar deck strength, the game doesn't often create visually striking mismatches which can be discouraging to newer players. This reduces the local feeling of disappointment having lost an unwinnable match.
To put it bluntly, deck matching is intended to encourage players to blame themselves when they lose, rather than the game mode.
Deck matching was switched to roster matching for two reasons. First, deck matching could be manipulated, ala 2* decks. Second, at least in Kabam's opinion, deck matching failed to properly encourage players to develop roster. If you could do everything you wanted with a 5/50 deck in BG, there was no incentive to rank up 5* or 6* champs. Moving to roster strength matching was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone.
None of this is about fairness. It is about game mode psychology. You could even argue that the pockets of resistance towards changing VT reflect this psychological
manipulationgamesmanship. Kabam is not in the business of telling players they are right or wrong about the intent of the game mode. They hope that when they settle on how they want it to work it will be an opaque ink blot that everyone sees what they want to see in it, at least in VT.And im sorry if a person is Cav with multiple r3s they are chosing to stay there.
As for Cavs, what you're describing is a very small subset of Players who just haven't done the Story content. It's not a fair assessment to paint everyone who is Cav in that light.
2. I thought you were upset about teams with weak rosters being in GC - that isn't Cavs with TB rosters. Matches are not on title, it's some measure of roster strength, Cavs with TB rosters would be a negatively impacted group. Cavs who are matching with Paragons (and complaining about it) are hardly benefiting in the current set up. You take them out, Paragons are going to complain more. A Cav with a TB roster, high in GC, almost definitely got there the hard way.
3. If Cavs have TB rosters, they have already access to the rank up materials. BG is hardly life changing for them.
Feels like you don't really care about BG or matchmaking as long as other players do not get access to resources. Very strong vibe of "I got mine, time to pull the ladder up".
Cause its all about rewards.. or you think that the lower accounts complaining about not advancing past plat or diamond cause they match with TBs and Paragons.. are complaining because of their gaming experience...because there is a person behind the account and his feelings are getting hurt...