@Stature The sticking point there is that you're saying "the same content" but it's not. Low folks are doing easier fights for the same rewards.
One of the things that I think causes some people to have a different perspective on this is the fact that some people see a difference between fighting against easier defenders in BG or AW, and fighting against easier defenders in PvE content.
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
This is a point I tried to make previously in a comment to GW in another thread. Saying that a lower roster strength person is facing the same difficulty facing another lower roster strength person as compared to a high tier paragon vs paragon matchup is like saying an uncollected account should get the same rewards for exploring UC difficulty tier of monthly quest as a paragon gets for clearing TB quest since they are working with the same relative difficulty.
What I said was it's different, but not to the extent that people are saying. We don't need to rehash it here, but the comparative increase in difficulty is similar. You can't logically look at a Match with a lower Player and say they're easy compared to what you're using. You have to look at what they come up against with what they have, and compare that to what you come up against with what you have. I've heard the assertion many times and it almost always omits the other side of the equation.
You havent said what they're using. My alt had more than half a dozen 6* before it even got uc, mostly from this last holiday. Lots of 5* too. When I do bg I'm facing people with accounts my size that have plenty of champs to use after banning their top 3.
I'm not getting into the Alt situation. That's not a statement for anything related to people who are there with their Mains. Not that I particularly have any issues with people running Alts. I just don't consider that a testament to people there trying to progress at that stage in the game. It's not the same. As for your point, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. The difference between Rosters for both the lower Player Matches and the higher Player Matches is relatively the same.
@Stature The sticking point there is that you're saying "the same content" but it's not. Low folks are doing easier fights for the same rewards.
One of the things that I think causes some people to have a different perspective on this is the fact that some people see a difference between fighting against easier defenders in BG or AW, and fighting against easier defenders in PvE content.
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
This is a point I tried to make previously in a comment to GW in another thread. Saying that a lower roster strength person is facing the same difficulty facing another lower roster strength person as compared to a high tier paragon vs paragon matchup is like saying an uncollected account should get the same rewards for exploring UC difficulty tier of monthly quest as a paragon gets for clearing TB quest since they are working with the same relative difficulty.
What I said was it's different, but not to the extent that people are saying. We don't need to rehash it here, but the comparative increase in difficulty is similar. You can't logically look at a Match with a lower Player and say they're easy compared to what you're using. You have to look at what they come up against with what they have, and compare that to what you come up against with what you have. I've heard the assertion many times and it almost always omits the other side of the equation.
This is the point I am trying to make. In the monthly UC difficulty, the comparative difficulty a true UC player is facing is almost the same as the difficulty for me in the TB quest. Does that mean we both should get the same amount of rewards -an UC account for clearing the corresponding difficulty and me for clearing the TB difficulty?
if we're fated to imbalance BG, then we should tackle who gets the imbalances, what the imbalances should be, and their expected impact.
which of the following should matter for getting an "advantage" in BG?: 1) progression level 2) roster diversity 3) roster star level/rank/sig 4) player knowledge+skill 5) draft luck 6) nodes luck (does it fit your roster) 7) total spend 8) recent spend 9) actual spend at that moment to buy an advantage 10) BG spend 11) alliance 12) years on account 13) total time on account 14) in content creator program 15) community celebrity 16) number of posts on forum 17) likes/equivalent on forum 18) position on leaderboard 19) surveys filled out 20) login calendar 21) other
What type of advantages should there be?: 1) cheaper prices in the Battlegrounds store 2) better rewards on BG Events 3) more matchups with lower accounts 4) greater difference in level between accounts when playing lower accounts 5) less matchups with greater accounts 6) lower difference in level between accounts when playing higher accounts 7) more coins gained per win 8) less coins lost per loss 9) start at a higher tier in VT 10) Kabam tracking power level of decks used, and using that to match vs. a weaker deck 11) Kabam tracking power level of decks used, and using that to match vs. a deck that has bad matchups 12) change the draft to give higher frequency of best Champs showing up in draft 13) change draft to give lower frequency of best Camps to opponents 14) change the draft to give higher frequency of counters to whatever opponent drafts 15) change the draft to give opponent lower frequency of counters to whatever you draft 16) give you more time on the BG timer 17) give opponent less time on the BG timer 18) give you extra bonus points in the BG scoring 19) give opponent points reductions in the BG scoring 20) give a special UI that gives suggestions for which Character to draft 21) give you bonus beneficial nodes or Incursion style choice nodes 22) give opponent additional difficulty nodes 23) give you an option to swap in a Character of your choice that you didn't draft 24) allow your use of boosts 25) allow the use of heals an revives after each fight, these affect health and scoring 26) give you a certain number of bans that you can assign to players so that you don't get matched to them 27) give you more ban selections 28) give your opponent less ban selections 29) let you pick a champion that cannot be banned 30) extra special items in the battlegrounds store 31) access to premium limited access battlegrounds 32) other
For each of those 2 questions, which numbers should be included in Imbalanced BG?
After that, we will set the degree and range of those advantages. Then we can project the impact.
I had a whole thing typed up but it got boring so I scratched that and am replacing it with a hypothetical: aliens come down and demand we present the top 100 mcoc bg gc players to compete against their best alien players for the fate of the world. Do you take the top 100, or do you filter out the lower accounts that had an easier ride and send up the strongest dudes? If your answer is filter it out to save the world, then the system is not raising the most worthy to the top ranks currently.
Levity aside, my questions above still stand:
1) What criteria should be getting an "advantage" in BG? (what stuff should people get advantages for) 2) What type of advantages should be given? (what advantages are people getting now, what should they be getting) 3) What is the degree and details of those advantages? (what should the specifics of those advantages be)
If we answer that in specific details, then we can project the impact. And build then implement the new system.
Seriously. This is the type of conversation we need to have to build a system. The actual details about what the advantages should be.
If we can't answer that. Then we're just spinning our wheels in these conversations about "rules through reasoning".
It's okay if people just want to be handed wins for their payment to the referee. It's okay they want that, they want a system that does that, and they want everyone to pretend that is not what is happening. But we still have to setup someone to actually rig the system in the way desired.
And also, if any system doesn't result in the Kabam (or various gatekeepers) getting the outcome it wants, and Kabam has the option to move away to something else they do want, it's gonna get iced anyway.
If we truly are all just squeaking wheels ("squeaky wheel gets the grease"), if there is really no interest in discussion that leads to related development. Then this is all just throwaway reasoning that is just another part of the fantasy.
Making a "top down" system (one that is based on just core principles and general parameters) will not work for solving BGs. Because rival battling power groups (Kabam, spenders, influencers, niche groups, general users, etc.) want corruption built into the system in a very particular way, to rig the outcome regardless of gameplay.
So instead we have to build a "bottom up" system. We rig it with a custom flexible "plug" (accounting term for thing added to make the numbers add up, when they don't on their own) to then filter the players' gameplay. That plug takes gameplay and then converts it into the rigged outcomes we want.
This is a political and business problem we're solving. This is not a gameplay issue (a gameplay issue would be if actually playing the mode/core loop/etc. wasn't fun/engaging/etc.). It's a brand and customer satisfaction issue. It's a profit thing.
And this isn't about aliens and Earth's defenders. Other than that it's also solving a fantasy problem. You don't want the most potentially skilled and knowledgeable players to win. You want to pay (and/or lobby) for the fantasy of being the man, or to accomplish fake goals. Which is fine. That is very, very standard for entertainment products.
I'm still waiting for you to name an event where currency gain was the same for all progression levels and only prices were different other than BGs.. @GroundedWisdom... Or are u just gonna argue and then ignore or let it pass when you get called out?...
AQ?
Yes and no. AQ gives the same amount of glory in an alliance with people of mixed progression. But there is no uniform rewards for effort across alliances of all prestige. A 17.5k prestige alliance earns entirely different rewards compared to a 5.5k prestige alliance even if they both run the highest map with the highest mods on all 5 days of the cycle. This is a soft limit based on progression/account strength that’s built into the potential rewards that can be earned.
That difference is mostly superficial. The difference between first order currencies like gold and glory and crystal shards is mostly marginal. We have component-like resources like catalyst fragments that can really only be used to buy one thing: full catalysts. And then we have more full fledged currencies like Glory that can be used to purchase a wide range of things with significant player agency. Special crystal shards that can be used to buy a limited number of things are in the middle. Not really full fledged currency, but not really distinct from currency either. To the extent that the developers reflect their economic thinking with crystal shards, those ideas are generally fully reflective of their attitudes towards the wider game economy.
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
Extremely superficial, u can't compare the RNG of a GM or Cav crystal to a currency that buys u cerain things.
Are you saying you would like to revise your statement from trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had difference prices associated with that currency to trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had different prices associated with that currency and wasn't buying items that had a random chance component to them? Because if so I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I also cannot think of a reason why I would want to, as I don't see what such a narrow example would demonstrate either way.
I'm not gonna ask u to do it, cause u won't find any. BGs is the only anomaly that has 4 progression levels earning the same for a SOLO game mode
Arena? Incursions? Are the chips or gold one gets per round in Arena based on their title? The 5/6 star arenas are unlocked at UC.
That difference is mostly superficial. The difference between first order currencies like gold and glory and crystal shards is mostly marginal. We have component-like resources like catalyst fragments that can really only be used to buy one thing: full catalysts. And then we have more full fledged currencies like Glory that can be used to purchase a wide range of things with significant player agency. Special crystal shards that can be used to buy a limited number of things are in the middle. Not really full fledged currency, but not really distinct from currency either. To the extent that the developers reflect their economic thinking with crystal shards, those ideas are generally fully reflective of their attitudes towards the wider game economy.
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
Extremely superficial, u can't compare the RNG of a GM or Cav crystal to a currency that buys u cerain things.
Are you saying you would like to revise your statement from trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had difference prices associated with that currency to trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had different prices associated with that currency and wasn't buying items that had a random chance component to them? Because if so I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I also cannot think of a reason why I would want to, as I don't see what such a narrow example would demonstrate either way.
I'm not gonna ask u to do it, cause u won't find any. BGs is the only anomaly that has 4 progression levels earning the same for a SOLO game mode
Arena? Incursions? Are the chips or gold one gets per round in Arena based on their title? The 5/6 star arenas are unlocked at UC.
In Arena players with bigger rosters earn more points and more quickly than lower rosters.
Incursions have different levels that aren't available to everyone.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
@Stature The sticking point there is that you're saying "the same content" but it's not. Low folks are doing easier fights for the same rewards.
One of the things that I think causes some people to have a different perspective on this is the fact that some people see a difference between fighting against easier defenders in BG or AW, and fighting against easier defenders in PvE content.
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
A BG match is not just you facing a defender, but you attacking and defending in the same round. The result is determined by the relative difference between attacking and defending. In this case there is a meaningful difference in difficulty based on the opponent you face.
When I face Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ, it only matters if I can win that match. When someone fights your 6* defenders with their 5* attacker and you fight their 5* defender with your 6* attacker, your roster advantage is multiplied many times - your defender can stay up longer and your attacker needs less time to win. The result is then defined as difference between these already skewed matches. It isn't this lopsided even in AW where one can largely close the defense gap with better skills. The attack bonus for taking down the defender is not influenced by how the your defender did in the corresponding match up (yes there are tie-breakers on duration, but it is a small advantage). Given the time limit on BG matches, at a certain roster gap the advantage may be insurmountable.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
The demand for rewards is also two sided, because every BG match has a winner. When a Cav faces Cav or a TB faces TB (I'm using titles in place of roster strength, not making a direct comparison), those matches are of equal difficulty for both sides. Whoever wins gets the rewards. When a TB faces Cav how should the difficulty be rated? If the TB wins should they get awarded for the equivalent of winning the Cav difficulty and vice versa?
EQ difficulties are measured in defender PI and node complexity, because the result is measured by an absolute metric. Either the defender is down or not. BG results are measured by a relative metric, you not only put up points, winning is determined by how many points you took off from your opponent. Within the BG scoring system, a Cav facing a Cav is of equivalent difficulty to a Paragon facing Paragon. A Cav facing a Paragon is a harder fight for the Cav (vs. facing a Cav) and a easier fight for the Paragon (vs. facing the Paragon) - realistically, the Cav should get more if they win that match up than a Paragon since the odds of the Cav winning is very low.
A proposed solution: The victory token granted for BG wins and losses are too chunky, leading to the current dissatisfaction. Instead of the current system of 2/3/4/5 tokens to move up a tier, it would be better if it was changed to a 2000-5000 token system - I'm using arbitrary numbers, they just need to be large enough. In matches which are equivalent, Cav vs. Cav, TB vs. TB there are 1000 tokens up for grabs. The winner gets 1000 tokens, the loser loses 1000 (or 500 etc. as per your suggestion). When a Cav matches up against a Paragon (roster strength equivalent not title) the token division can be more skewed, if the Cav wins the token share is +1000/-1000, if the Paragon wins +500/-500 (can be graded finer across that curve).
What this does is it allows for a random match making from the beginning, since the penalty of losing to stronger accounts (and the advantage from winning against easier ones) is attuned to reflect the nature of the challenge. A strong player with a strong account can progress quickly, since they will have a high win rate anyway. A really good player but with a weaker roster can progress fast by beating the stronger account, until they hit a ceiling. A strong account but average skills can progress at a good rate (higher title will place higher). The lower accounts can progress, probably at a slow rate but are not penalized extensively for the fact that most of the competition has a stronger account.
Expanding the number of tokens then allows for fractionalization and managing progress as required. Higher you go you can accrue and lose tokens at a slower pace, necessitating more matches to be played to progress without pushing one back too much. This is a more flexible system which can be tweaked as the format evolves.
That difference is mostly superficial. The difference between first order currencies like gold and glory and crystal shards is mostly marginal. We have component-like resources like catalyst fragments that can really only be used to buy one thing: full catalysts. And then we have more full fledged currencies like Glory that can be used to purchase a wide range of things with significant player agency. Special crystal shards that can be used to buy a limited number of things are in the middle. Not really full fledged currency, but not really distinct from currency either. To the extent that the developers reflect their economic thinking with crystal shards, those ideas are generally fully reflective of their attitudes towards the wider game economy.
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
Extremely superficial, u can't compare the RNG of a GM or Cav crystal to a currency that buys u cerain things.
Are you saying you would like to revise your statement from trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had difference prices associated with that currency to trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had different prices associated with that currency and wasn't buying items that had a random chance component to them? Because if so I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I also cannot think of a reason why I would want to, as I don't see what such a narrow example would demonstrate either way.
I'm not gonna ask u to do it, cause u won't find any. BGs is the only anomaly that has 4 progression levels earning the same for a SOLO game mode
Arena? Incursions? Are the chips or gold one gets per round in Arena based on their title? The 5/6 star arenas are unlocked at UC.
In Arena players with bigger rosters earn more points and more quickly than lower rosters.
Incursions have different levels that aren't available to everyone.
It was a specific comment saying solo modes offer differential rewards by progression titles. Every solo mode offers same rewards for same content irrespective of the progression titles.
I'm still waiting for you to name an event where currency gain was the same for all progression levels and only prices were different other than BGs.. @GroundedWisdom... Or are u just gonna argue and then ignore or let it pass when you get called out?...
AQ?
Yes and no. AQ gives the same amount of glory in an alliance with people of mixed progression. But there is no uniform rewards for effort across alliances of all prestige. A 17.5k prestige alliance earns entirely different rewards compared to a 5.5k prestige alliance even if they both run the highest map with the highest mods on all 5 days of the cycle. This is a soft limit based on progression/account strength that’s built into the potential rewards that can be earned.
As Graves said 1- AQ is not solo and i asked for SOLO examples 2- AQ is a collaboration of 30 people, where THEY pick their own difficulty, the reward and point system is based on Prestiege. 3- If u want to use AQ as a comparisson.. sure then lets do it the same way BGs is doing it.. Throw everybody UC, Cav, TB, and Paragon into map 8... See how the lower players fair..
That difference is mostly superficial. The difference between first order currencies like gold and glory and crystal shards is mostly marginal. We have component-like resources like catalyst fragments that can really only be used to buy one thing: full catalysts. And then we have more full fledged currencies like Glory that can be used to purchase a wide range of things with significant player agency. Special crystal shards that can be used to buy a limited number of things are in the middle. Not really full fledged currency, but not really distinct from currency either. To the extent that the developers reflect their economic thinking with crystal shards, those ideas are generally fully reflective of their attitudes towards the wider game economy.
As I said, it is not exactly the same (because no two things ever are) but the more important point is that it reflects the idea of "equal stuff but different prices" in the same way the BG economy does, and is a reasonable precedent for it.
Extremely superficial, u can't compare the RNG of a GM or Cav crystal to a currency that buys u cerain things.
Are you saying you would like to revise your statement from trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had difference prices associated with that currency to trying to find a case where everyone earned the same amount of currency but had different prices associated with that currency and wasn't buying items that had a random chance component to them? Because if so I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I also cannot think of a reason why I would want to, as I don't see what such a narrow example would demonstrate either way.
I'm not gonna ask u to do it, cause u won't find any. BGs is the only anomaly that has 4 progression levels earning the same for a SOLO game mode
Arena? Incursions? Are the chips or gold one gets per round in Arena based on their title? The 5/6 star arenas are unlocked at UC.
1- Very true arenas are open from UC, can UC buy TB arena crystals? No they can't. As Ironman said.. arena scoring is based on roster... How long do u think it would take for a UC to reach the milestones in the 6* featured arena?... It takes my roster 50 matches...
2- Incursions are gated.. if u don't have the roster u can't do higher sectors and earn more artifacts.
@Stature The sticking point there is that you're saying "the same content" but it's not. Low folks are doing easier fights for the same rewards.
One of the things that I think causes some people to have a different perspective on this is the fact that some people see a difference between fighting against easier defenders in BG or AW, and fighting against easier defenders in PvE content.
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
This is a point I tried to make previously in a comment to GW in another thread. Saying that a lower roster strength person is facing the same difficulty facing another lower roster strength person as compared to a high tier paragon vs paragon matchup is like saying an uncollected account should get the same rewards for exploring UC difficulty tier of monthly quest as a paragon gets for clearing TB quest since they are working with the same relative difficulty.
What I said was it's different, but not to the extent that people are saying. We don't need to rehash it here, but the comparative increase in difficulty is similar. You can't logically look at a Match with a lower Player and say they're easy compared to what you're using. You have to look at what they come up against with what they have, and compare that to what you come up against with what you have. I've heard the assertion many times and it almost always omits the other side of the equation.
You havent said what they're using. My alt had more than half a dozen 6* before it even got uc, mostly from this last holiday. Lots of 5* too. When I do bg I'm facing people with accounts my size that have plenty of champs to use after banning their top 3.
I'm not getting into the Alt situation. That's not a statement for anything related to people who are there with their Mains. Not that I particularly have any issues with people running Alts. I just don't consider that a testament to people there trying to progress at that stage in the game. It's not the same. As for your point, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. The difference between Rosters for both the lower Player Matches and the higher Player Matches is relatively the same.
Yeah don't patronize me cuz. I know what youre saying, I just don't agree with you. I would bet most of those small accounts that are hitting the high gc and top of the rankings aren't first time players, rather they're folks with some experience. You're talking about a major cross section of the community and saying "don't count those, they don't matter."
I'm not patronizing you. That's just not what I'm speaking to. There's a vast difference between a Player playing for the first time and someone with years of experience running an Alt.
@Stature The sticking point there is that you're saying "the same content" but it's not. Low folks are doing easier fights for the same rewards.
One of the things that I think causes some people to have a different perspective on this is the fact that some people see a difference between fighting against easier defenders in BG or AW, and fighting against easier defenders in PvE content.
Is there a difference between fighting against Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ and fighting against my 6* defenders in BG? For the purposes of discussing difficulty, I say no. I think most people would say no. But there are some people who say yes.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Would it make a difference if I was working for Kabam? Suppose I was hired to be a BG opponent in battlegrounds. So I'm no longer a player competitor, I'm in effect a content designer. I design decks for players to fight, and I act as the server to draft opponents and fight in the AI's place. Is there a difference between fighting against my Cav account and my Paragon account, vs playing Cav difficulty and TB difficulty in EQ? If so, what is it?
If you deserve more rewards for beating TB difficulty than Cav difficulty, you should probably deserve more rewards for beating DNA's Paragon tier BG opponent vs DNA's Cav tier BG opponent. But that's what's happening now, only Kabam keeps forgetting to send me checks. We the competitors are all, in a sense, creating the challenge content for Kabam when we act as opponents for other players. That's what we are all doing for each other. So why shouldn't players get some sort of advantage or reward boost for defeating the harder content we are all creating in BG?
I'm not specifically advocating for higher rewards for higher progress players. But I do recognize the difficulty difference, and it is something I tried to respond to in my original suggestions. Not specifically by handing out more rewards, but in other structural ways.
This is a point I tried to make previously in a comment to GW in another thread. Saying that a lower roster strength person is facing the same difficulty facing another lower roster strength person as compared to a high tier paragon vs paragon matchup is like saying an uncollected account should get the same rewards for exploring UC difficulty tier of monthly quest as a paragon gets for clearing TB quest since they are working with the same relative difficulty.
What I said was it's different, but not to the extent that people are saying. We don't need to rehash it here, but the comparative increase in difficulty is similar. You can't logically look at a Match with a lower Player and say they're easy compared to what you're using. You have to look at what they come up against with what they have, and compare that to what you come up against with what you have. I've heard the assertion many times and it almost always omits the other side of the equation.
You havent said what they're using. My alt had more than half a dozen 6* before it even got uc, mostly from this last holiday. Lots of 5* too. When I do bg I'm facing people with accounts my size that have plenty of champs to use after banning their top 3.
I'm not getting into the Alt situation. That's not a statement for anything related to people who are there with their Mains. Not that I particularly have any issues with people running Alts. I just don't consider that a testament to people there trying to progress at that stage in the game. It's not the same. As for your point, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. The difference between Rosters for both the lower Player Matches and the higher Player Matches is relatively the same.
Yeah don't patronize me cuz. I know what youre saying, I just don't agree with you. I would bet most of those small accounts that are hitting the high gc and top of the rankings aren't first time players, rather they're folks with some experience. You're talking about a major cross section of the community and saying "don't count those, they don't matter."
I'm not patronizing you. That's just not what I'm speaking to. There's a vast difference between a Player playing for the first time and someone with years of experience running an Alt.
How does someone get Uncollected before playing the game?
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
You're adding on to my views, which is why I'm being somewhat curt. I want protection for Players who are starting out, rather than being thrown into BGs with the highest Players taking advantage of their easy Loss and keeping them from actually getting into the game mode. What I agree with is that has an adverse effect which is why I never actually suggested "Prestige Matches" for the entirety of the VT. I consider Rank Rewards to begin at GC. I say, and have said, that people need to take a look at their own Losses, and not just point the finger at other Players making it. Still rings true. If you can't make it to the GC by winning relatively equal Matches and you need to rely on Matches of Players much lower than what you're using, then you don't deserve it. Personal opinion. Perhaps if you weren't taking excerpts from my conversations without context and adding conjecture, I'd be somewhat less sarcastic.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Arena? Incursions? Are the chips or gold one gets per round in Arena based on their title? The 5/6 star arenas are unlocked at UC.
1- Very true arenas are open from UC, can UC buy TB arena crystals? No they can't. As Ironman said.. arena scoring is based on roster... How long do u think it would take for a UC to reach the milestones in the 6* featured arena?... It takes my roster 50 matches...
2- Incursions are gated.. if u don't have the roster u can't do higher sectors and earn more artifacts.
We are not arguing rosters right? You said no solo mode offers same amount of currency to players of different progression levels. The limited point is every mode offers same amount of currency to all players who play that mode at a given difficulty. If the UC has enough 6 stars, it takes them the same number of matches it takes you too, that's a moot point.
I'm still not sure of the source of your dissatisfaction in BG. You are upset with Cav/UC players who are not strong enough, because you think they are getting easy progress (by beating teams you would beat easily). I don't always agree with this but completely understand the view. I think this is a fair complaint.
But you are also upset with Cavs who have a strong rosters (because you think they are lazy or some other character flaw) - I don't get this. These Cavs are not progressing by beating easier opponents. If they have TB rosters, they are being matched against TB rosters and progressing by winning those matches. They are also losing to TBs/Paragons, they are playing the same competition as TB/Paragons. Matching isn't happening by title.
You just seem to be upset that UC/Cav players are even allowed to be in the same competition. Why? UC/Cav is just a title based on where the player is in the story mode. It is not a measure of roster strength, player skill or even knowledge of the game. If they are good enough to win in the mode, they should get the rewards. And if they are good enough to win in an completely open mode, then they should get the same rewards as anyone else doing so.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
Like I said, I’ve been away from the thread and figured I would revisit. I’m just trying to get a handle on actual positions people have and actual solutions people have suggested.
Your comment illustrates the tension between a general view and a more detailed one focused on digging down into actual mechanics and how things might work. @DNA3000 (I believe) wanted this thread to focus on actual implementable ideas, rather than just conceptual objections. I agree that staggered starts are one type of actual mechanic to consider (and one used in multiple real world contexts like marathons).
In service of trying to get it back on track, I think it’s helpful to restore some collegiality and get folks on the record for specifics they support. That’s all I’m trying to do.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
For top spots? In Bronze to Gold of the VT? K buds.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
For top spots? In Bronze to Gold of the VT? K buds.
Bronze, Gold and all the precious metals out there.. Can i get to GC without going thru all those?.... Your position is clear.. u want the lower progression to have it "easy" or "fair" up to plat or diamond... Do you understand that some Paragons couldn't even get out of silver or gold?... Are u implying its lack of skill?...
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
I've already elaborated on that. You have a competition. One that measures progress from square one, up the ladder. Point A to Point B. Doing that means the results are biased and skewed.
Oh so now you have a competition... Competing for top spots means dog eat dog... Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
For top spots? In Bronze to Gold of the VT? K buds.
Bronze, Gold and all the precious metals out there.. Can i get to GC without going thru all those?.... Your position is clear.. u want the lower progression to have it "easy" or "fair" up to plat or diamond... Do you understand that some Paragons couldn't even get out of silver or gold?... Are u implying its lack of skill?...
Evidently it's a lack of something or they would be making more progress. That has nothing to do with anyone else and their Matches. The system is pretty clear. You win, you move up.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Correct. Which is why it makes little sense to reward thin roster development in a mode like BGs.
Dr. Zola
I'm not sure why you're asserting something that's already been discussed.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing if it's the case. I think expanding Rosters has always been something that some Players fall short on. They think Prestige, and they think the most popular/effective overall. They don't think wide range. I think that's part of the lack of preparedness some Players may be facing. I've always been a proponent of widening Rosters, not only going for the "best", as high as possible. We already have a number of game modes that focus on that. I think it's useful to have one that centers around breadth as well. One thing that has been true in general, although not for everyone, is people are way too selective in their Ranking choices and use of Champs. This has changed somewhat over the years, but I've still maintained the same stance. I Rank anything and everything I feel at the time. I may never have all Champs Ranked as high as they can go, but that's the neverending goal.
I think you may be coming around.
BGs is an ideal place to encourage players to expand the breadth and depth of their rosters. Which is, of course, why it rewards smaller accounts for ranking a handful of super-useful champs for their decks so they can thrash other less fortunate smaller accounts and leapfrog players who have spent years building things like roster breadth and depth.
Dr. Zola
The same is true for Players who consider themselves the Top because they've rushed through Story with a few select Rank-Ups. Just being Paragon doesn't make a Player have more breadth and depth. It goes both ways.
Holy buckets, you can't actually believe this statement.
Absolutely. You have Players content-rushing and calling it progress. Watch some YouTube, do a Google search, and rush through the content for the Titles. That isn't all there is to progress, and it creates a handicap when you're talking about content that tests the extensiveness of their Rosters.
So you're saying that all the people in here complaining about unfair matchmaking "content-rushed" to gain a title and should just get good? Wow, this is a new low GW.
Did I say anything close to that?
Honestly, it's very hard to pin down exactly what you argue as you change you position from day to day and change what we're discussing as well. You're arguing that Paragons are complaining because they content-rushed. You are also complaining that rewards are lower for those who choose to stagnate their progress. TBH, considering how easy it is to gain titles now, pandering to the lower titles makes no sense.
Did I say all Paragons? No. I said those who are content-rushing and not developing the width. Did I complain the Rewards are lower? No. I said the Store limits what they can buy, and that's a good thing. Try to keep up.
You and many other “defenders of the weak” consistently ignore, that VT except Trophies, gives also plenty of relic shards but more importantly plenty of Elder Marks as rewards (which translate on much more points and of course better rewards at solo and alliance BG events). Rewards are the same for all, it’s the same rewards pool. If players want to buy more with their trophies, and have better prices they can get Cavalier, Thronebreaker or Paragon. Nothing prohibit them to do so. Like nothing prohibits an UC or Cav player, to save his current Trophy tokens and use them when they get a better title. Enough with “they have different prizes” arguement, people are not fool 😠
Then what's the argument when they get the better Title? Let's be honest here. Half this argument is about keeping people from getting Rewards. If there's a justifiable reason that it adversely affects the system, then I'm willing to listen. As I have been. If the argument is that people are personally offended by Players earning Rewards, I'm less likely to engage thought into that. Nothing is stopping a Player from doing that with ANY Resource. This is no different.
I believe part of the argument is that the system is set up to greatly reward players who have thin roster development over players who have spent time and resources building a deep and broad roster.
It isn’t being against “players earning rewards”—it is objecting to a system (as currently structured) that undermines the idea that players shouldn’t be able to rush through with a few select rankups and get top shelf prizes.
Anyone who supports the notion that roster depth/breadth matters would probably agree.
Dr. Zola
There are aspects that ARE about keeping other Players from Rewards, but I'm not digressing. The reason that I said you're asserting something that's been discussed was because I already accepted that was an issue. My main points have been made in spades. First is having something keeping the lowest Players from being bashed about at the start. The second was that I don't agree with starting Players halfway up the ladder, and how that just creates a stagnant system. I have no idea why people keep implying that I'm petitioning for lower Players to have an easier time, but that's not what my points are.
Well, you’ve certainly made a lot of posts. I’m just coming back to the thread and trying to figure out where things stand.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
If you can't figure out my stance based on all those comments, then I don't know what to tell you. If you can't distinguish personal opinion from what I'm suggesting, that's unfortunate. I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT. My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards. One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
No need to attack. This was actually meant to be a clarifying and friendly post. I’m trying to demonstrate why others think your positions favor making things easier for small accounts. Those quotes are a fair selection of your comments that support that proposition.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me: 1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC. 2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level. 3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I find it interesting how he doesn't want small accounts being destroyed out of the gate but he is also against a staggered start which would prevent smaller accounts from being destroyed at the start.
Like I said, I’ve been away from the thread and figured I would revisit. I’m just trying to get a handle on actual positions people have and actual solutions people have suggested.
Your comment illustrates the tension between a general view and a more detailed one focused on digging down into actual mechanics and how things might work. @DNA3000 (I believe) wanted this thread to focus on actual implementable ideas, rather than just conceptual objections. I agree that staggered starts are one type of actual mechanic to consider (and one used in multiple real world contexts like marathons).
In service of trying to get it back on track, I think it’s helpful to restore some collegiality and get folks on the record for specifics they support. That’s all I’m trying to do.
Dr. Zola
It just impossible.. there is absolute no way to have a fair competing ground when you are putting 4 different progression levels competing... Its like putting peewee, high school varsity, minor league and major league in the same competition... Its just not possible ..
Comments
As for your point, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. The difference between Rosters for both the lower Player Matches and the higher Player Matches is relatively the same.
1) What criteria should be getting an "advantage" in BG? (what stuff should people get advantages for)
2) What type of advantages should be given? (what advantages are people getting now, what should they be getting)
3) What is the degree and details of those advantages? (what should the specifics of those advantages be)
If we answer that in specific details, then we can project the impact. And build then implement the new system.
Seriously. This is the type of conversation we need to have to build a system. The actual details about what the advantages should be.
If we can't answer that. Then we're just spinning our wheels in these conversations about "rules through reasoning".
It's okay if people just want to be handed wins for their payment to the referee. It's okay they want that, they want a system that does that, and they want everyone to pretend that is not what is happening. But we still have to setup someone to actually rig the system in the way desired.
And also, if any system doesn't result in the Kabam (or various gatekeepers) getting the outcome it wants, and Kabam has the option to move away to something else they do want, it's gonna get iced anyway.
If we truly are all just squeaking wheels ("squeaky wheel gets the grease"), if there is really no interest in discussion that leads to related development. Then this is all just throwaway reasoning that is just another part of the fantasy.
It's all good.
So instead we have to build a "bottom up" system. We rig it with a custom flexible "plug" (accounting term for thing added to make the numbers add up, when they don't on their own) to then filter the players' gameplay. That plug takes gameplay and then converts it into the rigged outcomes we want.
This is a political and business problem we're solving. This is not a gameplay issue (a gameplay issue would be if actually playing the mode/core loop/etc. wasn't fun/engaging/etc.). It's a brand and customer satisfaction issue. It's a profit thing.
And this isn't about aliens and Earth's defenders. Other than that it's also solving a fantasy problem. You don't want the most potentially skilled and knowledgeable players to win. You want to pay (and/or lobby) for the fantasy of being the man, or to accomplish fake goals. Which is fine. That is very, very standard for entertainment products.
Incursions have different levels that aren't available to everyone.
I would suggest that your posts over the whole course of the BG discussion that suggested size/progression based matchmaking should remain through most or all of the VT are likely what created the impression that you want smaller accounts to have it easier.
Comments like these…
“This idea that they're not supposed to get out of the VT without facing the top Paragons is not realistic”
“my personal feelings are that the VT should all be moderated and the competition should start in the GC”
“I believe the suggestion was for the first 3 Brackets. Up to Diamond 3. That's what I was responding to as a "free ride". Which, I don't see the complaint with either way, considering it's all-out in the GC. So anyone who isn't able enough won't go far.”
“The GC is the actual race.”
“I also indicated the first 5 Tiers of using some mechanic that is similar to what we've seen was suggested, and I could get behind”
“I think there has to be something keeping things fair to a certain point, yes. What that point is, is still up for debate. Someone suggested the first 5 Tiers. I'd say at least half myself, but that's just me.”
These comments are what give others the impression you want an easier path for smaller accounts. That may be a defensible position, and I wouldn’t disown it if that’s what you believe in. But I don’t think it’s fair to wonder why people think you want an easier path for smaller accounts.
Dr. Zola
When I face Kabam's 6* defenders in EQ, it only matters if I can win that match. When someone fights your 6* defenders with their 5* attacker and you fight their 5* defender with your 6* attacker, your roster advantage is multiplied many times - your defender can stay up longer and your attacker needs less time to win. The result is then defined as difference between these already skewed matches. It isn't this lopsided even in AW where one can largely close the defense gap with better skills. The attack bonus for taking down the defender is not influenced by how the your defender did in the corresponding match up (yes there are tie-breakers on duration, but it is a small advantage). Given the time limit on BG matches, at a certain roster gap the advantage may be insurmountable.
The demand for rewards is also two sided, because every BG match has a winner. When a Cav faces Cav or a TB faces TB (I'm using titles in place of roster strength, not making a direct comparison), those matches are of equal difficulty for both sides. Whoever wins gets the rewards. When a TB faces Cav how should the difficulty be rated? If the TB wins should they get awarded for the equivalent of winning the Cav difficulty and vice versa?
EQ difficulties are measured in defender PI and node complexity, because the result is measured by an absolute metric. Either the defender is down or not. BG results are measured by a relative metric, you not only put up points, winning is determined by how many points you took off from your opponent. Within the BG scoring system, a Cav facing a Cav is of equivalent difficulty to a Paragon facing Paragon. A Cav facing a Paragon is a harder fight for the Cav (vs. facing a Cav) and a easier fight for the Paragon (vs. facing the Paragon) - realistically, the Cav should get more if they win that match up than a Paragon since the odds of the Cav winning is very low.
A proposed solution:
The victory token granted for BG wins and losses are too chunky, leading to the current dissatisfaction. Instead of the current system of 2/3/4/5 tokens to move up a tier, it would be better if it was changed to a 2000-5000 token system - I'm using arbitrary numbers, they just need to be large enough. In matches which are equivalent, Cav vs. Cav, TB vs. TB there are 1000 tokens up for grabs. The winner gets 1000 tokens, the loser loses 1000 (or 500 etc. as per your suggestion). When a Cav matches up against a Paragon (roster strength equivalent not title) the token division can be more skewed, if the Cav wins the token share is +1000/-1000, if the Paragon wins +500/-500 (can be graded finer across that curve).
What this does is it allows for a random match making from the beginning, since the penalty of losing to stronger accounts (and the advantage from winning against easier ones) is attuned to reflect the nature of the challenge. A strong player with a strong account can progress quickly, since they will have a high win rate anyway. A really good player but with a weaker roster can progress fast by beating the stronger account, until they hit a ceiling. A strong account but average skills can progress at a good rate (higher title will place higher). The lower accounts can progress, probably at a slow rate but are not penalized extensively for the fact that most of the competition has a stronger account.
Expanding the number of tokens then allows for fractionalization and managing progress as required. Higher you go you can accrue and lose tokens at a slower pace, necessitating more matches to be played to progress without pushing one back too much. This is a more flexible system which can be tweaked as the format evolves.
1- AQ is not solo and i asked for SOLO examples
2- AQ is a collaboration of 30 people, where THEY pick their own difficulty, the reward and point system is based on Prestiege.
3- If u want to use AQ as a comparisson.. sure then lets do it the same way BGs is doing it.. Throw everybody UC, Cav, TB, and Paragon into map 8... See how the lower players fair.. 1- Very true arenas are open from UC, can UC buy TB arena crystals? No they can't.
As Ironman said.. arena scoring is based on roster... How long do u think it would take for a UC to reach the milestones in the 6* featured arena?... It takes my roster 50 matches...
2- Incursions are gated.. if u don't have the roster u can't do higher sectors and earn more artifacts.
I want something keeping Players from being taken advantage of in the beginning of the VT.
My personal opinion is I could care less if it was all through the VT because that's where the actual Ranking starts and if you can't win a "fair" Match, you don't deserve those Rank Rewards.
One is something I feel is best. The other is just my own feelings. Not hard.
As an aside, I would also suggest blaming other players or calling them bitter or entitled are not good ways to make your case.
Three things I take away from the excerpts above and your reply to me:
1. You want protection for smaller accounts that may extend all the way into the GC.
2. You consider “actual rankings” to begin at the GC level.
3. You think the primary reason larger account players struggle is a capability deficit that prevents them from winning “fair” matches.
All defensible positions, if that’s what you think. But if you’re perplexed that people think what they do about your views, I don’t believe it’s hard to figure out why.
Dr. Zola
I want protection for Players who are starting out, rather than being thrown into BGs with the highest Players taking advantage of their easy Loss and keeping them from actually getting into the game mode. What I agree with is that has an adverse effect which is why I never actually suggested "Prestige Matches" for the entirety of the VT.
I consider Rank Rewards to begin at GC.
I say, and have said, that people need to take a look at their own Losses, and not just point the finger at other Players making it. Still rings true.
If you can't make it to the GC by winning relatively equal Matches and you need to rely on Matches of Players much lower than what you're using, then you don't deserve it. Personal opinion.
Perhaps if you weren't taking excerpts from my conversations without context and adding conjecture, I'd be somewhat less sarcastic.
As Ironman said.. arena scoring is based on roster... How long do u think it would take for a UC to reach the milestones in the 6* featured arena?... It takes my roster 50 matches...
2- Incursions are gated.. if u don't have the roster u can't do higher sectors and earn more artifacts.
We are not arguing rosters right? You said no solo mode offers same amount of currency to players of different progression levels. The limited point is every mode offers same amount of currency to all players who play that mode at a given difficulty. If the UC has enough 6 stars, it takes them the same number of matches it takes you too, that's a moot point.
I'm still not sure of the source of your dissatisfaction in BG. You are upset with Cav/UC players who are not strong enough, because you think they are getting easy progress (by beating teams you would beat easily). I don't always agree with this but completely understand the view. I think this is a fair complaint.
But you are also upset with Cavs who have a strong rosters (because you think they are lazy or some other character flaw) - I don't get this. These Cavs are not progressing by beating easier opponents. If they have TB rosters, they are being matched against TB rosters and progressing by winning those matches. They are also losing to TBs/Paragons, they are playing the same competition as TB/Paragons. Matching isn't happening by title.
You just seem to be upset that UC/Cav players are even allowed to be in the same competition. Why? UC/Cav is just a title based on where the player is in the story mode. It is not a measure of roster strength, player skill or even knowledge of the game. If they are good enough to win in the mode, they should get the rewards. And if they are good enough to win in an completely open mode, then they should get the same rewards as anyone else doing so.
Competing for top spots means dog eat dog...
Its either a competition or its just content to get by and collect rewards....
Your comment illustrates the tension between a general view and a more detailed one focused on digging down into actual mechanics and how things might work. @DNA3000 (I believe) wanted this thread to focus on actual implementable ideas, rather than just conceptual objections. I agree that staggered starts are one type of actual mechanic to consider (and one used in multiple real world contexts like marathons).
In service of trying to get it back on track, I think it’s helpful to restore some collegiality and get folks on the record for specifics they support. That’s all I’m trying to do.
Dr. Zola
Can i get to GC without going thru all those?....
Your position is clear.. u want the lower progression to have it "easy" or "fair" up to plat or diamond...
Do you understand that some Paragons couldn't even get out of silver or gold?... Are u implying its lack of skill?...
Its like putting peewee, high school varsity, minor league and major league in the same competition...
Its just not possible ..