Battlegrounds matchmaking is broken

I'm sure I'm not the only one with this issue, I keep getting matched against people with so much better rosters than me, rather than people who are actually around my roster rating. I have 1 r4 6 star and a decent amount of r3s, but I'm getting matched up against people with R5 6 stars. I don't have a chance of winning these.
Here's my account:

And here are just 2 examples of who I've been matched against:

Are others having similar problems?

Comments

pseudosane

You are in Diamond my guy. Why shouldnt you face others in Diamond with you?

DrZola

Diamond 2? For a 12K prestige account, that’s terrific. I’m surprised you haven’t faced more accounts that size on your climb through the ranks.

What size accounts have you been facing?

Dr. Zola

FishyGill

You are in Diamond my guy. Why shouldnt you face others in Diamond with you?

I should but there should be some sort of similar rating in matchmaking so that you have a chance of winning. I should be against others with similar accounts to me. If there aren't many, there will definitely be some without r5 6 stars.

Chococookies822

You are in Diamond my guy. Why shouldnt you face others in Diamond with you?

matchmaking is based on roster rating, I’m in the same league and I keep getting matched up with people with rosters of 80% 5 stars, for reference I’ve got 4 rank 4 6 stars and the rest of my deck are rank 3 6 stars. It’s essentially death matches for them it always feels so dirty pulling 56-54k points on every fight just bc I killed them in 20 hits.

FishyGill

Diamond 2? For a 12K prestige account, that’s terrific. I’m surprised you haven’t faced more accounts that size on your climb through the ranks.

What size accounts have you been facing?

Dr. Zola

Thanks I appreciate that! I have been facing quite a lot of accounts with a lot of r4s but I'm able to play and draft very strategically in order to win. It's just against these sorts of accounts with r5s I feel no matter how strategically I play I won't be able to win.

DrZola

You are in Diamond my guy. Why shouldnt you face others in Diamond with you?
matchmaking is based on roster rating, I’m in the same league and I keep getting matched up with people with rosters of 80% 5 stars, for reference I’ve got 4 rank 4 6 stars and the rest of my deck are rank 3 6 stars. It’s essentially death matches for them it always feels so dirty pulling 56-54k points on every fight just bc I killed them in 20 hits.

That would be a welcome change for a lot of accounts with 4-5X the number of R4 you have, if only for a brief string of matches. Most accounts with larger rosters face nothing but doppelgänger accounts with 90% the same champs ranked. Drafting and bugs become a very significant factor in determining who wins.

Dr. Zola

Chatterofforums

Why do you think you should get the same or better rewards than those you are facing and think you shouldn't have to face stronger players?

You know there are still thousands of paragons with 16k+ prestige accounts stuck way lower than you in victory track and therefore getting worse BG rewards than you.

You are correct that BG matchmaking is broken as it is completely illogical and broken to have it set up to where you are getting better rewards than far stronger accounts that you don't have to face.

FishyGill

Why do you think you should get the same or better rewards than those you are facing and think you shouldn't have to face stronger players?

You know there are still thousands of paragons with 16k+ prestige accounts stuck way lower than you in victory track and therefore getting worse BG rewards than you.

You are correct that BG matchmaking is broken as it is completely illogical and broken to have it set up to where you are getting better rewards than far stronger accounts that you don't have to face.

The whole point of battlegrounds is the more you win, the better rewards you get. These stronger accounts that are below me in the victory track are getting worse rewards, because they have been getting less wins. It isn't illogical that I get better rewards than stronger accounts, because I have won more than those accounts. You also seem to have missed my other reply, practically every match is an account that is much stronger than me with lots of r4s, but I still beat them because I play strategically to the best of my ability. However, there is a limit to how many people I can beat purely by playing strategically and the best I can, and that's what the problem is, I shouldn't be having to face this limit. Furthermore, your argument breaks down when you think about the fact that these much stronger accounts get to go against much weaker ones too. The reason I don't have to face these far stronger accounts below me is because I've already faced them and beaten them strategically.

Chatterofforums

Why do you think you should get the same or better rewards than those you are facing and think you shouldn't have to face stronger players?

You know there are still thousands of paragons with 16k+ prestige accounts stuck way lower than you in victory track and therefore getting worse BG rewards than you.

You are correct that BG matchmaking is broken as it is completely illogical and broken to have it set up to where you are getting better rewards than far stronger accounts that you don't have to face.
The whole point of battlegrounds is the more you win, the better rewards you get. These stronger accounts that are below me in the victory track are getting worse rewards, because they have been getting less wins. It isn't illogical that I get better rewards than stronger accounts, because I have won more than those accounts. You also seem to have missed my other reply, practically every match is an account that is much stronger than me with lots of r4s, but I still beat them because I play strategically to the best of my ability. However, there is a limit to how many people I can beat purely by playing strategically and the best I can, and that's what the problem is, I shouldn't be having to face this limit. Furthermore, your argument breaks down when you think about the fact that these much stronger accounts get to go against much weaker ones too. The reason I don't have to face these far stronger accounts below me is because I've already faced them and beaten them strategically.

You are getting more wins ONLY because you are facing weaker accounts. They are facing ONLY stronger accounts to include nothing but end game players every single fight starting in bronze 3.

You are NOT winning more because you are better than them or because you have a better roster than them, you are winning more because of this ridiculously flawed matchmaking system that puts the weak against the weak and the strong against the strong all while everyone competing for same rewards.

And no, with extremely rare exceptions stronger accounts do BOT get to go against weaker accounts like yours. In face my entire way up from victory track this season, I only faces 2 players that had prestige under 16k and both were in diamond 1, way higher than they belong had they not been fighting only weaker rosters.

Once you have to start facing half decent accounts you can't hang anymore and immediately start complaining in forums.

FishyGill

Why do you think you should get the same or better rewards than those you are facing and think you shouldn't have to face stronger players?

You know there are still thousands of paragons with 16k+ prestige accounts stuck way lower than you in victory track and therefore getting worse BG rewards than you.

You are correct that BG matchmaking is broken as it is completely illogical and broken to have it set up to where you are getting better rewards than far stronger accounts that you don't have to face.
The whole point of battlegrounds is the more you win, the better rewards you get. These stronger accounts that are below me in the victory track are getting worse rewards, because they have been getting less wins. It isn't illogical that I get better rewards than stronger accounts, because I have won more than those accounts. You also seem to have missed my other reply, practically every match is an account that is much stronger than me with lots of r4s, but I still beat them because I play strategically to the best of my ability. However, there is a limit to how many people I can beat purely by playing strategically and the best I can, and that's what the problem is, I shouldn't be having to face this limit. Furthermore, your argument breaks down when you think about the fact that these much stronger accounts get to go against much weaker ones too. The reason I don't have to face these far stronger accounts below me is because I've already faced them and beaten them strategically.
You are getting more wins ONLY because you are facing weaker accounts. They are facing ONLY stronger accounts to include nothing but end game players every single fight starting in bronze 3.

You are NOT winning more because you are better than them or because you have a better roster than them, you are winning more because of this ridiculously flawed matchmaking system that puts the weak against the weak and the strong against the strong all while everyone competing for same rewards.

And no, with extremely rare exceptions stronger accounts do BOT get to go against weaker accounts like yours. In face my entire way up from victory track this season, I only faces 2 players that had prestige under 16k and both were in diamond 1, way higher than they belong had they not been fighting only weaker rosters.

Once you have to start facing half decent accounts you can't hang anymore and immediately start complaining in forums.

I've said multiple times I have been consistently against much stronger accounts and beating them, so no, I'm not getting more wins "ONLY because I'm facing weaker accounts" to mine.

You say the system is flawed by putting strong against strong and weak against weak? Huh? Would you have it that strong accounts fight weak accounts and get free wins? And we aren't competing for the same rewards. The cost of the battlegrounds store decreases as you progress to new levels (cavalier, thronebreaker, paragon) and so it's more difficult to get rewards when you are a weaker account. The fact you are a weak against a weak or a strong against a strong means it becomes based on skill rather than your roster.

These "half decent" accounts are ones with R5 6 stars and lots of r4s, whilst I have only one r4. I don't even know where your logic is coming from here.

FiiNCH

Why do you think you should get the same or better rewards than those you are facing and think you shouldn't have to face stronger players?

You know there are still thousands of paragons with 16k+ prestige accounts stuck way lower than you in victory track and therefore getting worse BG rewards than you.

You are correct that BG matchmaking is broken as it is completely illogical and broken to have it set up to where you are getting better rewards than far stronger accounts that you don't have to face.
The whole point of battlegrounds is the more you win, the better rewards you get. These stronger accounts that are below me in the victory track are getting worse rewards, because they have been getting less wins. It isn't illogical that I get better rewards than stronger accounts, because I have won more than those accounts. You also seem to have missed my other reply, practically every match is an account that is much stronger than me with lots of r4s, but I still beat them because I play strategically to the best of my ability. However, there is a limit to how many people I can beat purely by playing strategically and the best I can, and that's what the problem is, I shouldn't be having to face this limit. Furthermore, your argument breaks down when you think about the fact that these much stronger accounts get to go against much weaker ones too. The reason I don't have to face these far stronger accounts below me is because I've already faced them and beaten them strategically.
You are getting more wins ONLY because you are facing weaker accounts. They are facing ONLY stronger accounts to include nothing but end game players every single fight starting in bronze 3.

You are NOT winning more because you are better than them or because you have a better roster than them, you are winning more because of this ridiculously flawed matchmaking system that puts the weak against the weak and the strong against the strong all while everyone competing for same rewards.

And no, with extremely rare exceptions stronger accounts do BOT get to go against weaker accounts like yours. In face my entire way up from victory track this season, I only faces 2 players that had prestige under 16k and both were in diamond 1, way higher than they belong had they not been fighting only weaker rosters.

Once you have to start facing half decent accounts you can't hang anymore and immediately start complaining in forums.

Telling someone they’re ONLY progressing because they get easier match-ups then people like you is:

a) incorrect
b) makes you look bitter AF.

You come across so elitist and it’s not a good look.

Coppin

Why do you think you should get the same or better rewards than those you are facing and think you shouldn't have to face stronger players?

You know there are still thousands of paragons with 16k+ prestige accounts stuck way lower than you in victory track and therefore getting worse BG rewards than you.

You are correct that BG matchmaking is broken as it is completely illogical and broken to have it set up to where you are getting better rewards than far stronger accounts that you don't have to face.
The whole point of battlegrounds is the more you win, the better rewards you get. These stronger accounts that are below me in the victory track are getting worse rewards, because they have been getting less wins. It isn't illogical that I get better rewards than stronger accounts, because I have won more than those accounts. You also seem to have missed my other reply, practically every match is an account that is much stronger than me with lots of r4s, but I still beat them because I play strategically to the best of my ability. However, there is a limit to how many people I can beat purely by playing strategically and the best I can, and that's what the problem is, I shouldn't be having to face this limit. Furthermore, your argument breaks down when you think about the fact that these much stronger accounts get to go against much weaker ones too. The reason I don't have to face these far stronger accounts below me is because I've already faced them and beaten them strategically.
You are getting more wins ONLY because you are facing weaker accounts. They are facing ONLY stronger accounts to include nothing but end game players every single fight starting in bronze 3.

You are NOT winning more because you are better than them or because you have a better roster than them, you are winning more because of this ridiculously flawed matchmaking system that puts the weak against the weak and the strong against the strong all while everyone competing for same rewards.

And no, with extremely rare exceptions stronger accounts do BOT get to go against weaker accounts like yours. In face my entire way up from victory track this season, I only faces 2 players that had prestige under 16k and both were in diamond 1, way higher than they belong had they not been fighting only weaker rosters.

Once you have to start facing half decent accounts you can't hang anymore and immediately start complaining in forums.
I've said multiple times I have been consistently against much stronger accounts and beating them, so no, I'm not getting more wins "ONLY because I'm facing weaker accounts" to mine.

You say the system is flawed by putting strong against strong and weak against weak? Huh? Would you have it that strong accounts fight weak accounts and get free wins? And we aren't competing for the same rewards. The cost of the battlegrounds store decreases as you progress to new levels (cavalier, thronebreaker, paragon) and so it's more difficult to get rewards when you are a weaker account. The fact you are a weak against a weak or a strong against a strong means it becomes based on skill rather than your roster.

These "half decent" accounts are ones with R5 6 stars and lots of r4s, whilst I have only one r4. I don't even know where your logic is coming from here.

U r competing for the same rewards, which is trophy tokens... It should be dog eat dog... Why do u think there are Paragons struggling?.. cause they have no skills?.. The cost in battlegrounds store decreased due to progression level in the danger store... Yet lower progressions were able to earn less...different from BGs where u earn the same ammount as each progression level

Pikok

Bg is competitive mode. Why you think you should be able to progress to next tier of rewards if you are not able to win with guys on same tier as you? In bg important is skill and roster. You should not progress if you dont have both.

Pikok

And like I wrote in other thread bg is a mode where sharks are fighting with sharks and fishes swimming unnoticed by sharks. And those fishes thinking they are sharks. No offense ofc but this thread is confirmation of my words

unknown

This content has been removed.

FishyGill

Bg is competitive mode. Why you think you should be able to progress to next tier of rewards if you are not able to win with guys on same tier as you? In bg important is skill and roster. You should not progress if you dont have both.

I've literally said so many times my problem is that I'm facing people who are no where near on the same tier as me 😂

FishyGill

And like I wrote in other thread bg is a mode where sharks are fighting with sharks and fishes swimming unnoticed by sharks. And those fishes thinking they are sharks. No offense ofc but this thread is confirmation of my words

I don't understand that analogy what do you mean?

Pikok

And like I wrote in other thread bg is a mode where sharks are fighting with sharks and fishes swimming unnoticed by sharks. And those fishes thinking they are sharks. No offense ofc but this thread is confirmation of my words
I don't understand that analogy what do you mean?

I am sure you dont

Pikok

Bg is competitive mode. Why you think you should be able to progress to next tier of rewards if you are not able to win with guys on same tier as you? In bg important is skill and roster. You should not progress if you dont have both.
I've literally said so many times my problem is that I'm facing people who are no where near on the same tier as me 😂

They are in same tier. Diamond vs diamond. Bronze vs bronze

FishyGill

Bg is competitive mode. Why you think you should be able to progress to next tier of rewards if you are not able to win with guys on same tier as you? In bg important is skill and roster. You should not progress if you dont have both.
I've literally said so many times my problem is that I'm facing people who are no where near on the same tier as me 😂
They are in same tier. Diamond vs diamond. Bronze vs bronze

Same tier ≠ Fair fight.
According to your logic, a paragon Vs uncollected in a silver match for example would be fair.

Pikok

Bg is competitive mode. Why you think you should be able to progress to next tier of rewards if you are not able to win with guys on same tier as you? In bg important is skill and roster. You should not progress if you dont have both.
I've literally said so many times my problem is that I'm facing people who are no where near on the same tier as me 😂
They are in same tier. Diamond vs diamond. Bronze vs bronze
Same tier ≠ Fair fight.
According to your logic, a paragon Vs uncollected in a silver match for example would be fair.

Yes it would be. As it is fair when I have 100 points in GC and I am fighting guy which also have 100 points. According to your logic in GC you also should fight guys with same roster as it is „fair”

unknown

This content has been removed.

Pikok

Oh lol. You even have a fish in nickname. Like I said no offense but comparison to sharks and fishes are literally 100% true

DNA3000

Why do you think you should get the same or better rewards than those you are facing and think you shouldn't have to face stronger players?

You know there are still thousands of paragons with 16k+ prestige accounts stuck way lower than you in victory track and therefore getting worse BG rewards than you.

You are correct that BG matchmaking is broken as it is completely illogical and broken to have it set up to where you are getting better rewards than far stronger accounts that you don't have to face.
The whole point of battlegrounds is the more you win, the better rewards you get. These stronger accounts that are below me in the victory track are getting worse rewards, because they have been getting less wins. It isn't illogical that I get better rewards than stronger accounts, because I have won more than those accounts. You also seem to have missed my other reply, practically every match is an account that is much stronger than me with lots of r4s, but I still beat them because I play strategically to the best of my ability. However, there is a limit to how many people I can beat purely by playing strategically and the best I can, and that's what the problem is, I shouldn't be having to face this limit. Furthermore, your argument breaks down when you think about the fact that these much stronger accounts get to go against much weaker ones too. The reason I don't have to face these far stronger accounts below me is because I've already faced them and beaten them strategically.

Battlegrounds matching making is indeed broken. You shouldn't start getting those matches in Platinum 2. You should be getting those matches in Bronze 2. You don't, because Kabam lets you get to P2 because it thinks the game mode would be better off with a higher level of accessibility. And I personally advocated for higher advocacy from day one of the original closed beta myself. And every day I see posts like this, I regret that decision just a little bit more.

DrZola

Why do you think you should get the same or better rewards than those you are facing and think you shouldn't have to face stronger players?

You know there are still thousands of paragons with 16k+ prestige accounts stuck way lower than you in victory track and therefore getting worse BG rewards than you.

You are correct that BG matchmaking is broken as it is completely illogical and broken to have it set up to where you are getting better rewards than far stronger accounts that you don't have to face.
The whole point of battlegrounds is the more you win, the better rewards you get. These stronger accounts that are below me in the victory track are getting worse rewards, because they have been getting less wins. It isn't illogical that I get better rewards than stronger accounts, because I have won more than those accounts. You also seem to have missed my other reply, practically every match is an account that is much stronger than me with lots of r4s, but I still beat them because I play strategically to the best of my ability. However, there is a limit to how many people I can beat purely by playing strategically and the best I can, and that's what the problem is, I shouldn't be having to face this limit. Furthermore, your argument breaks down when you think about the fact that these much stronger accounts get to go against much weaker ones too. The reason I don't have to face these far stronger accounts below me is because I've already faced them and beaten them strategically.
You are getting more wins ONLY because you are facing weaker accounts. They are facing ONLY stronger accounts to include nothing but end game players every single fight starting in bronze 3.

You are NOT winning more because you are better than them or because you have a better roster than them, you are winning more because of this ridiculously flawed matchmaking system that puts the weak against the weak and the strong against the strong all while everyone competing for same rewards.

And no, with extremely rare exceptions stronger accounts do BOT get to go against weaker accounts like yours. In face my entire way up from victory track this season, I only faces 2 players that had prestige under 16k and both were in diamond 1, way higher than they belong had they not been fighting only weaker rosters.

Once you have to start facing half decent accounts you can't hang anymore and immediately start complaining in forums.
I've said multiple times I have been consistently against much stronger accounts and beating them, so no, I'm not getting more wins "ONLY because I'm facing weaker accounts" to mine.

You say the system is flawed by putting strong against strong and weak against weak? Huh? Would you have it that strong accounts fight weak accounts and get free wins? And we aren't competing for the same rewards. The cost of the battlegrounds store decreases as you progress to new levels (cavalier, thronebreaker, paragon) and so it's more difficult to get rewards when you are a weaker account. The fact you are a weak against a weak or a strong against a strong means it becomes based on skill rather than your roster.

These "half decent" accounts are ones with R5 6 stars and lots of r4s, whilst I have only one r4. I don't even know where your logic is coming from here.

Trying to drain some of the vitriol out of this thread—the problem you note is one that has been discussed ad infinitum over the past few months.

No one discounts your skills. But with accounts at the upper end of the range, all we face are similar sized accounts with highly developed rosters. Much of the advantage hinges on the draft or who gets the worst AI/bugs in fights. And because of the requirement that only streaks enable tier climbing, the opportunity to advance gets rough—rougher than it might be for accounts with 75% of those rosters or that prestige.

In the rare instance a smaller account drifts by—and by that I mean 14.5-15K—I can almost certainly count on a win unless everything goes against me.

Think of it this way: if you play against yourself—your own account and skill level—over the course of 100 fights, do you reckon You#1 would win more than You#2? Perhaps, but I would suggest you’d trend more towards 50-50. And it’s highly likely neither “You” would build much of a streak.

That, in a nutshell, is what playing 16K+ accounts over and over often feels like.

Dr. Zola

Chatterofforums

Op, based on your logic, a really good little league team should be allowed to only go against little league teams while then being able to get the same rewards as the professional athletes (to include multimillion contract) and then compete in MLB playoffs (which many professional teams won't make it into who would squash the little league team) for chance at World Series Crown.

Sounds ridiculous right? Well that is EXACTLY what you are asking for in BGs

FishyGill

Op, based on your logic, a really good little league team should be allowed to only go against little league teams while then being able to get the same rewards as the professional athletes (to include multimillion contract) and then compete in MLB playoffs (which many professional teams won't make it into who would squash the little league team) for chance at World Series Crown.

Sounds ridiculous right? Well that is EXACTLY what you are asking for in BGs

The rewards aren't the same however since the store costs change based on progression level.

DNA3000

Bg is competitive mode. Why you think you should be able to progress to next tier of rewards if you are not able to win with guys on same tier as you? In bg important is skill and roster. You should not progress if you dont have both.
I've literally said so many times my problem is that I'm facing people who are no where near on the same tier as me 😂
They are in same tier. Diamond vs diamond. Bronze vs bronze
Same tier ≠ Fair fight.
According to your logic, a paragon Vs uncollected in a silver match for example would be fair.

You are conflating fair fights with fair competitions. A fair fight is when both sides have an equal chance of winning. No competition actually attempts to organize fair fights by that definition throughout, because the goal of a competition is to find the strongest competitor. So to win, you have to beat everyone else, directly or indirectly. In no competition is a competitor allowed to dodge other competitors because it would be "unfair" to fight them. Eventually, you have to face the strongest competitors, or lose.

The more you win, the more you should face other competitors who also win. And you can't ask to look through all of your competition and pick the one you want to face, because that is affording you the opportunity to face weaker competitors than the rest of the competition. To the extent that the VT has a goal, it is to promote to higher tiers. If you're always allowed to face weaker competition than other competitors in a tier to reach the next tier, you are being granted an unfair advantage.

Let's imagine a very simple competition with just four players, A, B, C, ,and D. A and B both have about 12000 prestige (the game does NOT match on prestige, but let's set that aside for simplicity here) while C and D both have about 15000 prestige. In round one, A faces B and C faces D. This seems reasonable: the two lower players face each other and the two higher players face each other. Let's say that B is significantly more skilled than A, while D is marginally better than C. B beats A and D beats C. Now we go to round two. Should B face D (the winners) or should B face A again while D faces C again? If you believe that it would be "unfair" for B to face D because of the large rating difference, then in every round of the competition B will face A and D will face C. If B is substantially stronger than A then B will win most of the matches, while C and D will split their match ups evenly.

After fifty rounds, B has a record of 42 and 8, A has a record of 8 and 42, C has a record of 22 and 28, and D has a record of 28 and 22. So with a record of 42 and 8, B is the overwhelming winner of this competition.

Now, some people think that's perfectly fine. However, most people, along with almost every legitimate competition in the world, would think this is perverse. In round two B should have faced D (and probably lost). Eventually, over many rounds, B would find himself facing A half the time and C or D half the time (eventually mostly C), and the overall rankings would have probably ended up (last to first) A, B, C, D. Which reflects their true competitive strength.

In the real world, which includes MCOC alliance war and MCOC Battlegrounds Gladiator track competitions, competitors in these kinds of open competitions are generally matched by a competitive rating (often ELO or similar) which is computed based on their ability to win. Wins and losses are all that matter. We don't factor in the competitor's competitive strengths or weaknesses. We don't match chess players by how many tournaments they played in or their age or how strong their coach is. We don't match track and field runners by the length of their legs. You show up and you face everyone, and if you win you face other winners.

Victory track is the weird oddball exception, where weaker players are overwhelmingly matched against other weaker players most of the time. This isn't done because it makes the competition more "fair." Rather the reverse: it is done specifically because it is unfair, because Kabam wants to ensure that lower progression players are not completely shut out of the higher tiers of competition. Because they know in a truly fair competition, they would be.

The moment you step into the Gladiator Circuit, those protections completely expire. GC matches on rating, and nothing else. You are not allowed to hand pick your competition. But even in the higher VT tiers, you can sometimes match against stronger roster players, simply because the number of weaker roster players thins out at higher tiers. The harder it is to find a match, the more likely the game will expand the match range and locate a player further away from your roster.

FishyGill

I originally posted this to see other people's thoughts. I understand all of your views although I don't entirely agree with them but I appreciate seeing your inputs and I do agree to a level with them, not entirely but partially. But I'm gonna leave it here, I may be missing something in my reasoning seeing that a lot of you share the same view. Thanks guys for all the input.

unknown

This content has been removed.