**Attention Summoners**
Due to issues surrounding Defensive Tactics, points from the current matchup in Alliance Wars will be removed after the season.
War Rating will remain untouched.
We are reducing the minimum matchup cutoff from 5 to 4 for this season.
We will continue to monitor the impact of this decision.

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

11820222324

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    I'm sure people have their motivations for doing it, but every Season suspicion runs rampant. So much so that people are more focused on everyone else's Accounts than their own. This isn't a new thing for this game, or games in general. It happens. It's the dark side of being competitive.
    That's not to say it isn't a real concern, or there aren't reasons for it. It just stands to reason that it's the largest focus every Season.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    See, that's where I disagree in part. I don't have to focus on what everyone else is getting for my own experience. I have to focus on what I'm doing. Is it important to be cognizant of what something suspicious looks like? For sure. However, we see hyperfocus. Every Loss is suspected cheating. The game glitches and the person is reported for modding. All of this becomes cumbersome, and really starts to erode the experience.
    As for the Rewards, I have a different view. The cheating Players shouldn't be able to keep the Rewards, no doubt. Neither should the other Player, though. That's less of a moral question for me, and more of a "based on results" issue. Readjustments are easier, on paper not necessarily in the system. You remove the cheaters, and compile the list. Redistribution of the individual Losses isn't feasible. It's a tremendous amount of work.
    I like DNA's suggestion of negative Trophies, in combination with the 3 strike system. At the very least it dissuades them from repeating the behavior.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    That's not what I said. You're twisting my comments.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★

    That's not what I said. You're twisting my comments.

    How so?
    Not once did I say every Player was a greedy narcissist who can't accept a Loss. Nor did I generalize everyone as such.
    I said there's a hyperfocus on other Players and whether they're cheating or not, and that's not healthy.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    Aside from your conjecture? What would you like me to discuss. It's never going to be an immediate ban scenario.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★

    Aside from your conjecture? What would you like me to discuss. It's never going to be an immediate ban scenario.

    Using more staff, putting a greater emphasis on investigations, better utilization of player reporting, reasons we need all of that, and means by which to make up the rewards gaps due to their own failure to identify, and rectify the effects of, cheaters...
    How about the CIA?
  • Doctorwho13Doctorwho13 Posts: 433 ★★★
    @DNA3000
    I believe you play Injustice2 as well. Or if it seem familiar with it

    Could their “Champions Arena” set up ve plausible regarding PVP and extrapolating that to BG?

    Specifically. They grab 100 random players. Whether low threat or high threat. Put them in the same bracket. And then fight it out. You only immediately fight those 3 ahead of you or 3 behind you in your placement.

    That could mean - here anyway - having a mix of one UC, one Cav and one paragon ahead of you or behind you. You pick your opponent of the 6. Yes. Some will only pick lower ranks. But based on placement sometimes all you get is paragon.

    But at least you have the chance of fighting equal or near equal accounts. And if you beat the higher threat level you’ve earned it and advance with the appropriate points (2, 4, 6 or 8)
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 16,474 Guardian

    @DNA3000
    I believe you play Injustice2 as well. Or if it seem familiar with it

    Could their “Champions Arena” set up ve plausible regarding PVP and extrapolating that to BG?

    Specifically. They grab 100 random players. Whether low threat or high threat. Put them in the same bracket. And then fight it out. You only immediately fight those 3 ahead of you or 3 behind you in your placement.

    That could mean - here anyway - having a mix of one UC, one Cav and one paragon ahead of you or behind you. You pick your opponent of the 6. Yes. Some will only pick lower ranks. But based on placement sometimes all you get is paragon.

    But at least you have the chance of fighting equal or near equal accounts. And if you beat the higher threat level you’ve earned it and advance with the appropriate points (2, 4, 6 or 8)

    Would it work? Possibly. But it would be a totally different game mode from what BG currently is. Although I don't really play I2 anymore, so I am not a champions arena expert, my understanding of it is that its a segmented competition, much like AQ used to be with promotions and demotions based on relative bracket performance, and it is a much more (potentially) intensive game mode where you can't (or at least, it isn't designed to allow) just pop in and out whenever you want. I think this was softened after release, but it is still a much more structured type game mode where participation is intended to be focused and sustained.

    The idea of picking opponents for reward bonuses and deficits is something I've considered, I probably posted about it somewhere in this or another thread, but that was not inspired by I2 (although it should have) but rather the MCOC arena where you are presented three arena teams and you pick one to fight. You can't literally do that in BG, but you could propose to BG to find a match based on equal, slightly higher, or slightly lower strength, which would be analogous to how I2's champions arena works. Again, an interesting idea, but in and of itself it doesn't directly addresss the problems most players are facing today, rather it adds an innovation to the mode that offers something completely new.

    Maybe BG4.0 could consider those kinds of ideas to liven up the mode, once it settles down.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 16,474 Guardian

    So after reading the official post on bg and its forward progress, it's clear kabam has for the foreseeable future settled on their preferred solutions to a lot of the concerns in here. The only area where they don't have a clear path is in the trophy mechanism/progress. As stated:
    "Unlike the reset and matchmaking problems, we haven’t yet settled on a solution to this problem. The solution might only apply to part of the VT or all of it, it might require you to queue with Elder’s Marks, it might only apply to a certain number of matches a day, it might require us to increase medal requirements for some or all of the VT ranks, or any combination of the above. However, the one thing to take away from this section is that we agree this is a problem and we are working to address it. This solution may or may not be implemented at the same time as seeding is introduced, but our goal is for it to not lag too far behind."
    So I guess the focus of this thread should probably narrow down to that.

    My guess is that they don't yet know and haven't investigated yet what the impact of their reseeding will have on track progress. They could try to analyze that mathematically once they settle on the details, or (more likely) try to get a feel for it with simulations (I know they used simulations to attempt to discover the same progress speed numbers I calculated a while back). They may be holding off on attempting to settle on the right approach for progress until those predictions are determined.
  • DrZolaDrZola Posts: 7,392 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    So after reading the official post on bg and its forward progress, it's clear kabam has for the foreseeable future settled on their preferred solutions to a lot of the concerns in here. The only area where they don't have a clear path is in the trophy mechanism/progress. As stated:
    "Unlike the reset and matchmaking problems, we haven’t yet settled on a solution to this problem. The solution might only apply to part of the VT or all of it, it might require you to queue with Elder’s Marks, it might only apply to a certain number of matches a day, it might require us to increase medal requirements for some or all of the VT ranks, or any combination of the above. However, the one thing to take away from this section is that we agree this is a problem and we are working to address it. This solution may or may not be implemented at the same time as seeding is introduced, but our goal is for it to not lag too far behind."
    So I guess the focus of this thread should probably narrow down to that.

    My guess is that they don't yet know and haven't investigated yet what the impact of their reseeding will have on track progress. They could try to analyze that mathematically once they settle on the details, or (more likely) try to get a feel for it with simulations (I know they used simulations to attempt to discover the same progress speed numbers I calculated a while back). They may be holding off on attempting to settle on the right approach for progress until those predictions are determined.
    So much of this is geared towards “solutions” that may spawn their own new problems. I wonder whether we will look back and think matchmaking wasn’t that awful after all.

    I’m not representative of every player, but I still believe adjusting the balance of rewards between winning and participation can go a long way towards alleviating the sense of frustration players feel with a mode that—for the most part—promises failure approx. half the time.

    I am convinced the team wants participation in BGs. I am also convinced the team needs to have a level of frustration in BGs. Without both, the game mode really doesn’t work well.

    We’ve batted this back and forth, and I tend to agree with a lot of your well-thought out suggested changes. But the one glaring thing I see underlying the complaints about BGs is the sense of wasted time and fruitless effort.

    In my view, wasted time and fruitless effort are bad features for a leisure activity. The ”easier” answer is to make the expenditure of time a little more rewarding and the effort a little more fruitful. I suggested shifting the opportunities to earn BG currency to a higher frequency and (possibly) higher amounts via participation rather than victory—without making a large change in the overall rewards for running BGs for a month. To me, it seems easier to shift the incentive structure than it does to rewrite the matchmaking engine.

    When I say “easier,” I don’t mean it’s easier to get the team to implement it. I’m sure whenever the subject of enhancing or shifting rewards for players comes up they all shove wax in their ears and go back to coding.

    I mean it’s likely to be easier to implement and to undo and to adjust than overhauling an entire matchmaking system built on some version of deck prestige. Neither is it an exclusive fix—it can go hand in hand with some of the others being evaluated. But I do think it’s worth discussion, and I don’t see it on the list of things being considered.

    Dr. Zola
  • DrZolaDrZola Posts: 7,392 ★★★★★
    edited March 18

    Most of what's been discussed in here comes down to two main ideas right? There's a restructured trophy process, or bigger rewards (or more reward avenues). What about changing the trophy process to what DNA put up here, but also attach a small reward directly to those trophies? Nothing crazy but like 100 bg tokens per win trophy?

    That’s a valid idea as well. Honestly, I think there are a number of different avenues that don’t require massive overhauls. Things like you suggested shift incentives just a little and help to make the mode feel less zero-sum.

    Other examples: Tokens for fight (not match) win. An objective that rewards tokens for winning X fights per objective cycle. All objectives available starting at Bronze for Paragon; all available starting at Silver for TB.

    Overhauling matchmaking sounds great too. But it also sounds complicated. And experience with this game suggests simpler, more direct approaches may actually perform better.

    Dr. Zola
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    Not to sound too pessimistic, but I don't think more Rewards for the game mode is wise. They're already significant enough to be a point of contention.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    I'm aware of what you proposed, in terms of shifting. I read it. I just don't think that approach is going to solve the larger issues. Essentially it's more Rewards for less Wins. That doesn't promote competition at all. Consequently, it's literally the same thing that lower Players are being accused of.
  • DrZolaDrZola Posts: 7,392 ★★★★★

    I'm aware of what you proposed, in terms of shifting. I read it. I just don't think that approach is going to solve the larger issues. Essentially it's more Rewards for less Wins. That doesn't promote competition at all. Consequently, it's literally the same thing that lower Players are being accused of.

    Unsurprisingly, still no. Marginally increasing overall rewards and marginally shifting rewards to favor participation in a mode that requires participation to succeed is a simple way to lessen frustration and actually encourage players to participate more.

    That’s not even close to weenie accounts making it to GC and nabbing the 40-50K tokens by only facing other weenie accounts.

    Dr. Zola
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    I'm aware of what you proposed, in terms of shifting. I read it. I just don't think that approach is going to solve the larger issues. Essentially it's more Rewards for less Wins. That doesn't promote competition at all. Consequently, it's literally the same thing that lower Players are being accused of.

    Unsurprisingly, still no. Marginally increasing overall rewards and marginally shifting rewards to favor participation in a mode that requires participation to succeed is a simple way to lessen frustration and actually encourage players to participate more.

    That’s not even close to weenie accounts making it to GC and nabbing the 40-50K tokens by only facing other weenie accounts.

    Dr. Zola
    There's already an Objective that encourages people to play without winning. It's still a game mode that gives the majority of Rewards for winning. What you're asking for is a shift in Rewards to pacify Players. Then what? Shift them again once the changes are implemented?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    Greekhit said:

    Not to sound too pessimistic, but I don't think more Rewards for the game mode is wise. They're already significant enough to be a point of contention.

    My understanding is that people are talking about redistribution of rewards, not more rewards.
    Reducing VT tier rewards and adding them f.e. at win or play matches objectives, is basically what they suggest.
    Why should they be redistributed? Players are going to be earning them, and that's all they'll be getting, once the new system takes hold.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 33,135 ★★★★★
    Well I disagree. Changing the entire system to streamline progress, and consequently resolve the Matchmaking concerns is enough. On top of that, they're looking at giving Players a way to earn what they would have in the VT. I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards.
This discussion has been closed.