Battleground updates - a huge swing and a miss
Hyperion
Member Posts: 66 ★
I know your not going to please everyone but to me this update seems absolute nonsense.
Yay get more medals for each win, but make you need more medals to progress up a tier seems counter intuitive.
I understand only losing one medal and then winning 2 leaves you in a better position, but surely if you TRULY want people to feel like they have had their time valued, then you would have left the progression level the same.
Just take the mode down. FIX IT. Put a login calendar with compensatory trophy tokens and relic shards so people don't lose out on progression and rewards while its being fixed and then bring it back.
At face value, this seems so easy to implement, and then you will have greater engagement upon its return.
Don't botch this Kabam. Please.
Yay get more medals for each win, but make you need more medals to progress up a tier seems counter intuitive.
I understand only losing one medal and then winning 2 leaves you in a better position, but surely if you TRULY want people to feel like they have had their time valued, then you would have left the progression level the same.
Just take the mode down. FIX IT. Put a login calendar with compensatory trophy tokens and relic shards so people don't lose out on progression and rewards while its being fixed and then bring it back.
At face value, this seems so easy to implement, and then you will have greater engagement upon its return.
Don't botch this Kabam. Please.
4
Comments
No mention of matchmaking, which is the worst thing about BGs anyway so until that changes I won't be happy.
It would be nice though, if any moderator confirms that late VT more loose matchmaking will remain for next seasons.
Thanks, Kabam.
For a deeper dive in the difference: Analyzing the Battlegrounds Medal Changes
I suck at Battlegrounds. I'm absolutely awful. In most seasons I can't get out of Bronze (Paragon player, multiple Rank 4s, R5 and 7*s). Before this buggy season, if I analyse my previous 15 matches against these new conditions, I still don't get out of Bronze.
I accept that this is because I'm not hitting a 50% win rate, but why is 50% the accepted standard. Is this an arbitrary number based oh you win some you lose some?
Now let's say we were to introduce a new player into this group of competitors. Say we start him or her at the bottom. Initially, he will be winning more than he is losing, because we are matching him against the weakest players. And so he would rise higher in the rankings, and match against stronger and stronger opponents. Eventually, he will rise to a point where he was exactly as strong as his competition, and be winning 50% of his matches. As a result, he would be winning as often as losing, and in the long run he would stay where he was in the rankings.
50/50 is the point where you are equal with your competition. In an idealized competition, everyone should eventually reach a point where they rise or fall to the level of their strength and be fighting against equals, and reach this 50% win percentage.
The Victory track is not intended to be a perfectly idealized competition, however. The idea is the VT should balance participation and competition, because the VT exists to promote participation in the mode. GC is purely competitive with no real participation rewards: its all ranked rewards. So the VT should start rewarding participation more than competition, and slowly shift to rewarding competition over participation as you get closer to GC (so there isn't an abrupt change in behavior). So for a player who wins about 50% of their matches, they should promote quickly through VT, then more slowly, then finally arrive at GC where a 50% win rate basically gets you nowhere.
50% is not so much a "standard" as it is a point of reference. In an idealized competition, we know what is supposed to happen to someone who wins half the time. They don't go up, they don't go down. Where ever they are, they are where they are supposed to be. Kabam uses this to tune the behavior of BG to what they want, relative to this behavior. This is a standard game theory technique.