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

GroundedWisdom · March 18

Pretty sure I was clear enough.

o_o · March 18

GroundedWisdom said:
Pretty sure I was clear enough.

Dude. That was a polite request for clarification. Your writing style can make it difficult to grasp your meaning.

DrZola · March 18

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:
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.
I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate on that last sentence?

Neither do I.

I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t shift all prizes out of VT and into objectives. But I believe shifting *some* into participation objectives or objectives with a gross fight victory requirement (as just two potential examples) would alleviate the pressure on consecutive wins and the sense of futility that permeates BG at times. I also think there should be some advantage in the objectives to being at least TB or Paragon—hence the suggestion to open all objectives at Bronze (Win 1/2/3 and Play 3).

Sure—a *comprehensive* solution that fixes everything for everyone would be super nice. So would a lot of other things that aren’t very realistic. And a comprehensive solution will take a while, will require entirely new things to be built and just may not work as intended (I know that never happens, but…).

So try shifting incentives and creating more opportunities for players to enjoy success playing the mode. And turn the majority of the team’s energy toward policing cheats and making BGs a much less bug-ridden mode.

Dr. Zola

GroundedWisdom · March 18

That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.

GroundedWisdom · March 18

Well, reducing or reallocating the Rewards in the VT would ultimately result in that yes. That much should be obvious.
I've already stated my position in this discussion. If people are aiming for an angle to keep others from getting reasonable Rewards, I'm going to speak on it. It's one thing that there will be new design advantages. It's another to expect them to get little to nothing.

GroundedWisdom · March 18

I'm not speaking for Kabam at all. I'm speaking on what concerns me most. People don't want lower Players to have an easier path to the GC, fair enough. People don't want to restart every Season, fair enough. People want to keep anyone under them from getting something, not going to fly with me.

DrZola · March 18

GroundedWisdom said:
That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.

I think you continue to be confused. You are making the same arguments you’ve made for weeks, but the topic has changed materially.

There is quite literally nothing I suggested that will eliminate prizes for players winning along the VT. Lower accounts can continue to claim what they claim already and they can continue to face similar sized accounts all the way to GC.

The relief they and all other players would see is a marginal de-emphasizing on winning multiple sets of consecutive matches to gain BG tokens. That’s across the board— not just for upper end accounts.

VT remains essentially the same as always—personally, I’d suggest keeping tokens and marks about the same and increasing rewards slightly overall, but I’m fine if there’s a concern with over-rewarding if VT prizes decrease to keep things close to where they are today.

That’s not threatening to lower accounts—in fact, it might actually get more of them playing.

Dr. Zola

DNA3000 · March 18

GroundedWisdom said:
That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.

You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.

Scripps · March 18

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:
That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.
You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.

Finally, someone said it 💯

MiikeyMouse · March 19

Senyap teruih org bawah tanah ni.

GroundedWisdom · March 19

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:
That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.
You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.

That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.
As for the reallocation, that seems counterintuitive to what's already being put into place.

GroundedWisdom · March 19

I don't need to defend my views to every person in the Thread, and there's a difference between challenging my thoughts, and dog piling just because I don't agree with something being expressed here.

Stature · March 19

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:
That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.
You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.
That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.
As for the reallocation, that seems counterintuitive to what's already being put into place.

That and every other suggestion around that was to move some of the rewards from VT to participation. Why would you assume that implies taking away rewards from anyone. If anything, it would make rewards accessible to more players. When in doubt, it may serve you well to attribute the most noble possible intention to a statement. In general, people posting here want the game to do well and be enjoyable for the largest audience possible. There are people who want to see the world burn, but assuming they are all on MCoC forums does not help the discussion.

I think an arena style system which grants some trophies for a win within the match (arena grants 100 battlechips for individual wins even if the overall match is lost). Right now, the objectives offer 800 trophies for 3 matches (with one win). This and some of the VT rewards can be combined to offer some trophies per win in a match (could be 20 or 50, where ever the math balances out). This would encourage participation, even if win rates remained low.

GroundedWisdom · March 19

Stature said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:
That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.
You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.
That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.
As for the reallocation, that seems counterintuitive to what's already being put into place.
That and every other suggestion around that was to move some of the rewards from VT to participation. Why would you assume that implies taking away rewards from anyone. If anything, it would make rewards accessible to more players. When in doubt, it may serve you well to attribute the most noble possible intention to a statement. In general, people posting here want the game to do well and be enjoyable for the largest audience possible. There are people who want to see the world burn, but assuming they are all on MCoC forums does not help the discussion.

I think an arena style system which grants some trophies for a win within the match (arena grants 100 battlechips for individual wins even if the overall match is lost). Right now, the objectives offer 800 trophies for 3 matches (with one win). This and some of the VT rewards can be combined to offer some trophies per win in a match (could be 20 or 50, where ever the math balances out). This would encourage participation, even if win rates remained low.

Throughout this month and a half (appx) long conversation, people have suggested a number of things. I'm not being pessimistic. I'm being honest, there's a difference. There are some views that just want to keep the lowest from getting Rewards. I'm not in favor of that. I've also been in the conversation too long to be nonchalant about it. That doesn't mean I'm disrespecting the people sharing ideas. It means my views are strong and unwavering.
What the Objectives already do is encourage people to do just that, participate. You get 600 no matter what, and an extra 200 for the Win. Regardless of my somewhat tender views on people starting out, it is still a competition. There will be Wins and there will be Losses. There's really no getting around that. Every Player, from the bottom to the top, will have to accept losing sooner or later, and all that will do is make it advantageous to hang out in the lower rungs because "taking it easy" is still paying enough out to not try that hard.
The motivation needs to be winning. Otherwise it just results in the same thing we see in War.
Alliances that are playing lightly and taking advantage of the easy kills. That skews the whole system.

GroundedWisdom · March 19

We have a direction moving forward, even though it isn't implemented yet. Whatever we suggest will still have to accommodate future scenarios, and it's a competition when all is said and done.
*If you really wanted to motivate people, you could swap the Objectives. 200 for participating, 600 for a Win.

GroundedWisdom · March 19

o_o said:

GroundedWisdom said:
"the forum's sages" is quite a term. Personally, I discuss viewpoints. I respect everyone and their right to have opinions on here. I'm not going to agree or disagree on the basis of who it's coming from. There's enough of that going around as it is.
You think ‘forum sages’ is quite a term? There’s this guy in the forums who calls himself Gr… oh… um, never mind.

Note that my suggestion was not to agree or disagree with anyone in particular. It was to listen to people’s polite feedback about the way you communicate.

Side note, but the name really had less to do with my perceived position in the Forum, and more how I approach my life.

DNA3000 · March 19

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:
That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.
You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.
That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.

The suggestion, if I recall correctly, was to shift rewards from VT paths to objectives. So accusing that suggestion of "keeping rewards from players" is a characterization, and one that should be supported by some direct evidence or deduction, as all characterizations should be.

What makes a comment a characterization is when it doesn't address the details, it attempts to apply a judgment. If someone suggests moving rewards from here to there that only takes reward away from players if the opportunities are not reasonably similar. If there's no obvious attempt to do so, and none can be pointed out, that would be an unfair characterization. We should try to avoid those.

If someone were to suggest eliminating VT rewards and adding them to GC rewards, it would be fair to say that is removing rewards from VT caliber players and adding them to GC caliber players. But that's now a conclusion not a characterization, because it is both obvious and easy to demonstrate for completeness that this removes rewards from a very large class of players (players who remain in VT) who will have no access to them. And the counter-argument that any VT player could get them if they just get into GC is itself counterable by the clear observation that the game mode is not designed to allow everyone into GC. The fair argument would be, for anyone suggesting moving rewards from VT to GC on the grounds that everyone *can* get to GC, is would they support attempts by Kabam to make it easier for everyone to get into GC. If the answer is no, then their argument falls apart.

That's a reasonable way to make the assertion that someone is trying to "take rewards away from players" in this made up example of mine. It is fair, it is reasonable, it targets the explicit details of the suggestion, and it is supported by clear logical thinking. This is what I think most people would like to see when challenging a suggestion. If it is flawed, we should uncover and examine those flaws. But characterizations alone do not further the conversation in that direction.

GroundedWisdom · March 19

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:

DNA3000 said:

GroundedWisdom said:
That's the ultimate outcome. The expectations are exceeding what's reasonable, and it can be worded whatever way seems to circumnavigate that, but I'm not so bipartisan.
You have a tendency to oversimplify other peoples positions and complain when the same thing happens to you, but you also express yourself in strange ways that make it almost impossible to know what you actually meant in detail. For example, just exactly what do you mean by “I’m not so bipartisan?” Is that an admission that you are, in fact, very partisan? Probably not, but who could possibly know.

When someone asks for clarification, clarify. When you say “I think we can stop at trying to prevent Players in the VT from getting Rewards” in one sense all suggestions, including all of yours, can be claimed to do that. Someone is getting rewards they wouldn’t if anything changed. Someone is not getting rewards they might otherwise get if *nothing* changes. So on a certain level, everyone is vulnerable to this accusation, which also means it is a meaningless statement, because it is a truism. Is true for everyone, will always be true for everyone.

The *presumption* is that’s not what you meant, so for this statement to be more than a meaningless jab, there should be a specific context in which this is *uniquely true* for some line of discussion. Because absent that, I don’t count myself among the “we” in that sentence. And at the moment, I can think of no valid one. And saying “hey we all know” is the last refuge of the circumpartisans.
That's because we have a number of opinions being expressed here, and I'm not responding to all of them.
Someone suggested doing away with the Rewards in the VT. That's what I was responding to in terms of keeping Players from Rewards.
The suggestion, if I recall correctly, was to shift rewards from VT paths to objectives. So accusing that suggestion of "keeping rewards from players" is a characterization, and one that should be supported by some direct evidence or deduction, as all characterizations should be.

What makes a comment a characterization is when it doesn't address the details, it attempts to apply a judgment. If someone suggests moving rewards from here to there that only takes reward away from players if the opportunities are not reasonably similar. If there's no obvious attempt to do so, and none can be pointed out, that would be an unfair characterization. We should try to avoid those.

If someone were to suggest eliminating VT rewards and adding them to GC rewards, it would be fair to say that is removing rewards from VT caliber players and adding them to GC caliber players. But that's now a conclusion not a characterization, because it is both obvious and easy to demonstrate for completeness that this removes rewards from a very large class of players (players who remain in VT) who will have no access to them. And the counter-argument that any VT player could get them if they just get into GC is itself counterable by the clear observation that the game mode is not designed to allow everyone into GC. The fair argument would be, for anyone suggesting moving rewards from VT to GC on the grounds that everyone *can* get to GC, is would they support attempts by Kabam to make it easier for everyone to get into GC. If the answer is no, then their argument falls apart.

That's a reasonable way to make the assertion that someone is trying to "take rewards away from players" in this made up example of mine. It is fair, it is reasonable, it targets the explicit details of the suggestion, and it is supported by clear logical thinking. This is what I think most people would like to see when challenging a suggestion. If it is flawed, we should uncover and examine those flaws. But characterizations alone do not further the conversation in that direction.

Perhaps a bit direct and assumptive on my part, were it not supported by strong views on lower Players earning Rewards by certain individuals althroughout the subject. I'll give you that I'm somewhat less composed towards it, for sure.
There is a fine line between concern for the overall system and wanting to see those who have benefited cauterized and penalized somehow. People have what they were asking for being implemented. Which is great. I'm still going to look out for the other Players in this because no one participates in a system very long if they're marginalized. Call me sensitive, but it's a concern for me. A little kick in the bum is motivation. Ignore them completely, and the numbers will dwindle. I feel confident in saying that. If it sways too much to one side, we will see some months from now.
No one likes to be told their gaming experience is inconsequential. That includes with actions as well as words.

GroundedWisdom · March 19

I do appreciate you taking the time to share another approach with me, though. Thank you.

o_o · March 19

GroundedWisdom said:

o_o said:

GroundedWisdom said:
"the forum's sages" is quite a term. Personally, I discuss viewpoints. I respect everyone and their right to have opinions on here. I'm not going to agree or disagree on the basis of who it's coming from. There's enough of that going around as it is.
You think ‘forum sages’ is quite a term? There’s this guy in the forums who calls himself Gr… oh… um, never mind.

Note that my suggestion was not to agree or disagree with anyone in particular. It was to listen to people’s polite feedback about the way you communicate.
Side note, but the name really had less to do with my perceived position in the Forum, and more how I approach my life.

Nice, if I had chosen my name that way it would probably be something like ExistentialAngst

GroundedWisdom · March 19

o_o said:

GroundedWisdom said:

o_o said:

GroundedWisdom said:
"the forum's sages" is quite a term. Personally, I discuss viewpoints. I respect everyone and their right to have opinions on here. I'm not going to agree or disagree on the basis of who it's coming from. There's enough of that going around as it is.
You think ‘forum sages’ is quite a term? There’s this guy in the forums who calls himself Gr… oh… um, never mind.

Note that my suggestion was not to agree or disagree with anyone in particular. It was to listen to people’s polite feedback about the way you communicate.
Side note, but the name really had less to do with my perceived position in the Forum, and more how I approach my life.
Nice, if I had chosen my name that way it would probably be something like ExistentialAngst

Love that. Very punk.

Coppin · March 19

"For those Uncollected or Cavalier players who in past seasons have climbed high up on the VT, it’s time to focus on growing your accounts if you want to continue to compete at that level."

So happy about this...I guess i wasn't so wrong..
Tough break.. start progressing...

DrZola · March 19

Fredhorst23 said:

GroundedWisdom said:
Well, reducing or reallocating the Rewards in the VT would ultimately result in that yes. That much should be obvious.
I've already stated my position in this discussion. If people are aiming for an angle to keep others from getting reasonable Rewards, I'm going to speak on it. It's one thing that there will be new design advantages. It's another to expect them to get little to nothing.
What I was talking about was moving the rewards to different parts of progress, or adding rewards to different parts. Ill reiterate that I spend most of my time in VT. When I say "reward individual fights" or "reward in addition to victory trophies," I don't mean for any particular bracket. I'd expect to do that for every fight win in every tier.

That’s what’s at the root of my suggestions.

I think the kneejerk reaction that strawmans this as “taking prizes from little guys” not only misses the point, but in fact misses the entire argument.

As I understand your suggestion, there’s a marginal reallocation that *softens* the impact of losing streaks (or, to be more precise, the absence of frequent winning streaks). Nothing reallocates prizes away from any particular segment of the player base—in fact, overall prizes may be increased by a (again) marginal amount.

I assume you favor an approach like this precisely because it is marginal—it doesn’t require a massive overhaul, it can be easily undone and/or tweaked, and it works within the existing system to encourage participation while preserving the idea that this remains a competition. Parts of the existing system can still be tuned as well if needed. It is playing “small ball” (to use a dreaded sports analogy)—incremental change to try to accomplish at least one or two of the things needed to keep the mode viable. Why build an AI-driven mechanical algorithmically precise nail driving machine when a $5.99 hardware store hammer will do just fine?

However, perhaps I misunderstand you. There’s a lot of that going around, apparently. Please elaborate or correct if I’m off base.

Regards,

Dr. Zola

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

Comments