Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
Calling someone scum is completely unnecessary.
The kindest word i couldve chosen.
Because they think different to you?
You need to be taken off these forums. Any thread you get involved in becomes a shambles and descends into childish arguments and name calling.
Utterly pathetic.
Why do you automaticallly think that it's because they "think different"? I dont not care if everybody thinks like me i do not want everybody to think like me, but that does not mean i cannot tell them that they're stupid.
Oh just think about how much worse off the world would be if nobody ever criticized anyone who "thought differently than them" and remind me what month is it again?
Im not saying this because they think differently than me im saying it cause the way they think is absolutely egregious and pathetic.
You belong to Twitter Your ideology will thrive there Forums is for reasonable players
So what you're essentially saying is i should just sit there and watch something unjust happen
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
Literally, no one is arguing for Paragons fighting UC or Cavs.
Why dont they belong in a rank and why do you?
Maybe because he faced stiffer competition to get there? 🤷♂️
How? By fighting players at and below your rank?
All Paragons that reached Platinum3 were facing consistently other Paragons till there (from Bronze3 up to Gold1). On the other hand, all UC players that reached Platinum3 were facing other similar low accounts. Even if the matches are between equal power accounts, competition level is much higher between higher accounts and room for mistakes limited or zero. But thanks to the new 2/1 medal system, most people from all tiers advance till Platinum tiers, where Prestige matchmaking is wearing off gradually, and stronger competitors move up the ladder. BGs are a competition that the strongest competitors should move up. Not the most skilled, not the most experienced (with game/characters knowledge), not the strongest accounts, but players with the combination of all. These define how strong a competitor is, and the game mode should reward them all (not punish progressed accounts), in order to find the stronger competitors, that should make it to GC 🙂
Agreed BGs weren't made to make you get more champions they were advertised as PvP battles where survival of the fittest will be followed UC and below players have mistaken BGs as a method to make themselves more powerful than the content they will face in story so that they can stomp through acts which is wrong
Then remove all rewards from the game mode problem solved.
Why do you automaticallly think that it's because they "think different"? I dont not care if everybody thinks like me i do not want everybody to think like me, but that does not mean i cannot tell them that they're stupid.
Oh just think about how much worse off the world would be if nobody ever criticized anyone who "thought differently than them" and remind me what month is it again?
Im not saying this because they think differently than me im saying it cause the way they think is absolutely egregious and pathetic.
Yet it requires someone to think differently than you for you to refer to them as “stupid” or “pathetic”. So while you are willing to argue that you are okay with people disagreeing with you, you’re clearly not okay when them thinking their stance is an acceptable one to have. There is a significant difference between disagreeing by presenting a position and disagreeing by demeaning another person because of their position. You cross that line and then some constantly and consistently, which of course just snowballs because your hostility is responded to with more hostility. We’re all going to disagree with each other at some point, but there’s better ways to have those discussions and none of those ways involve name calling or attacking people’s intelligence.
Cause it is essentially bullying... they can walk around here with some sort of superiority complex and glorified oppression scheme but when i call them out for it, im the bad guy?
Maybe have an opinion that dosent make you look like a tyrant...
I’m not here to excuse or justify anyone else’s behavior, but you have been the common thread in many of the posts that get derailed by such behavior, including in your own posts. Wasn’t it just last week that you started name calling and throwing around middle finger emojis to try and get your own thread closed? That’s not a good look. And yet you continue to pursue that behavior and get upset when you receive it back. You can call people out without trying to degrade them every step of the way, just like I did in my previous post. Nobody should be bullying anybody on the forums and no one is excused or justified in ever doing it, but when is the appropriate response ever going to be escalating the problem? Stand up for yourself, yes, but that doesn’t justify the actions you’ve been taking either. You have the freedom to be the bigger person and walk away. In my opinion (take it or leave it and if we disagree we can just leave it at a disagreement and move on), I think it would be wise to take that approach.
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
Literally, no one is arguing for Paragons fighting UC or Cavs.
Why dont they belong in a rank and why do you?
Maybe because he faced stiffer competition to get there? 🤷♂️
How? By fighting players at and below your rank?
All Paragons that reached Platinum3 were facing consistently other Paragons till there (from Bronze3 up to Gold1). On the other hand, all UC players that reached Platinum3 were facing other similar low accounts. Even if the matches are between equal power accounts, competition level is much higher between higher accounts and room for mistakes limited or zero. But thanks to the new 2/1 medal system, most people from all tiers advance till Platinum tiers, where Prestige matchmaking is wearing off gradually, and stronger competitors move up the ladder. BGs are a competition that the strongest competitors should move up. Not the most skilled, not the most experienced (with game/characters knowledge), not the strongest accounts, but players with the combination of all. These define how strong a competitor is, and the game mode should reward them all (not punish progressed accounts), in order to find the stronger competitors, that should make it to GC 🙂
The competition level is the same, just because a paragon is fighting an account their level dosent suddenly mean they're fighting at 200%, players grow and adapt 50% right now could equal 100% 1 month ago
Competition level is far from the same. Among paragons, everyone is good at parry, intercept, and has good basic game knowledge. DNA had a great comment about it awhile ago how there are 3 or 4 pillars to BGs and what decides matches. Only 1 of these pillars is roster depth.
If I played BGs on my UC account, I would crush more than 90% of the "competition" at my level because I possess both skill and game knowledge. I know how to fight a lot of tougher defenders and how to maximize my attackers and finish fights with minimal mistakes. With those tools in hand, it wouldn't be a competition for me and I could easily have my uncollected account in Gladiator. It wouldn't even be a competition, it would just be me crushing noobs who don't know as much about the game as I do.
Also, there has to be a line drawn somewhere for lower accounts to lose their protections. No matter where that line is, people will cry and say it is unfair. Many before have complained that their UC accounts were facing TB and Paragons in GC. Instead of allowing lower accounts easier access to the actual competitive part of BGs, yielding an extra 10k tokens on everyone else, kabam decided it was time to draw the line sooner. They're still being quite generous for letting lower accounts get all the VT rewards all the way up to platinum.
Why do you automaticallly think that it's because they "think different"? I dont not care if everybody thinks like me i do not want everybody to think like me, but that does not mean i cannot tell them that they're stupid.
Oh just think about how much worse off the world would be if nobody ever criticized anyone who "thought differently than them" and remind me what month is it again?
Im not saying this because they think differently than me im saying it cause the way they think is absolutely egregious and pathetic.
Yet it requires someone to think differently than you for you to refer to them as “stupid” or “pathetic”. So while you are willing to argue that you are okay with people disagreeing with you, you’re clearly not okay when them thinking their stance is an acceptable one to have. There is a significant difference between disagreeing by presenting a position and disagreeing by demeaning another person because of their position. You cross that line and then some constantly and consistently, which of course just snowballs because your hostility is responded to with more hostility. We’re all going to disagree with each other at some point, but there’s better ways to have those discussions and none of those ways involve name calling or attacking people’s intelligence.
Cause it is essentially bullying... they can walk around here with some sort of superiority complex and glorified oppression scheme but when i call them out for it, im the bad guy?
Maybe have an opinion that dosent make you look like a tyrant...
I’m not here to excuse or justify anyone else’s behavior, but you have been the common thread in many of the posts that get derailed by such behavior, including in your own posts. Wasn’t it just last week that you started name calling and throwing around middle finger emojis to try and get your own thread closed? That’s not a good look. And yet you continue to pursue that behavior and get upset when you receive it back. You can call people out without trying to degrade them every step of the way, just like I did in my previous post. Nobody should be bullying anybody on the forums and no one is excused or justified in ever doing it, but when is the appropriate response ever going to be escalating the problem? Stand up for yourself, yes, but that doesn’t justify the actions you’ve been taking either. You have the freedom to be the bigger person and walk away. In my opinion (take it or leave it and if we disagree we can just leave it at a disagreement and move on), I think it would be wise to take that approach.
No i havent, i havent actually started anything. All i ever did was defend my self, in the specific thread you're mentioning i was being as kind as possible i possibly couls before someone came in and started something which they did because they were holding a grudge over another post, one that was meant to potentially help people, infact if you look past those two post the only thing stupid ive ever posted was a poll about an overrated champion or something, which was a mistake i admitted to if you look at any post prior or after that they're all completely normal, all ive ever done was defend myself which yes may have devolved into an argument with insults being thrown, and whilst it wasnt completely right, it was completely fair.
Half of this comment section is saying smaller accounts don't belong in Plat, the other half is saying they shouldn't get unfair matches and it's always the same people lol smaller accounts CAN be in Plat as long as they beat stronger accounts who also deserve to be in Plat. Neither side is right, both are half right.
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
Literally, no one is arguing for Paragons fighting UC or Cavs.
Why dont they belong in a rank and why do you?
Maybe because he faced stiffer competition to get there? 🤷♂️
How? By fighting players at and below your rank?
All Paragons that reached Platinum3 were facing consistently other Paragons till there (from Bronze3 up to Gold1). On the other hand, all UC players that reached Platinum3 were facing other similar low accounts. Even if the matches are between equal power accounts, competition level is much higher between higher accounts and room for mistakes limited or zero. But thanks to the new 2/1 medal system, most people from all tiers advance till Platinum tiers, where Prestige matchmaking is wearing off gradually, and stronger competitors move up the ladder. BGs are a competition that the strongest competitors should move up. Not the most skilled, not the most experienced (with game/characters knowledge), not the strongest accounts, but players with the combination of all. These define how strong a competitor is, and the game mode should reward them all (not punish progressed accounts), in order to find the stronger competitors, that should make it to GC 🙂
The competition level is the same, just because a paragon is fighting an account their level dosent suddenly mean they're fighting at 200%, players grow and adapt 50% right now could equal 100% 1 month ago
Competition level is far from the same. Among paragons, everyone is good at parry, intercept, and has good basic game knowledge. DNA had a great comment about it awhile ago how there are 3 or 4 pillars to BGs and what decides matches. Only 1 of these pillars is roster depth.
If I played BGs on my UC account, I would crush more than 90% of the "competition" at my level because I possess both skill and game knowledge. I know how to fight a lot of tougher defenders and how to maximize my attackers and finish fights with minimal mistakes. With those tools in hand, it wouldn't be a competition for me and I could easily have my uncollected account in Gladiator. It wouldn't even be a competition, it would just be me crushing noobs who don't know as much about the game as I do.
Also, there has to be a line drawn somewhere for lower accounts to lose their protections. No matter where that line is, people will cry and say it is unfair. Many before have complained that their UC accounts were facing TB and Paragons in GC. Instead of allowing lower accounts easier access to the actual competitive part of BGs, yielding an extra 10k tokens on everyone else, kabam decided it was time to draw the line sooner. They're still being quite generous for letting lower accounts get all the VT rewards all the way up to platinum.
I wouldnt say all paragons have that skill, ive fought alot of bad paragons, and alot of good uc or cavs, point being progression level dosent = skill
The point im trying to make overall here is that the competition level is the same because whilst the uc player is prone to making mistakes, so is the other uc player meaning its just as hard for them to win a match as it would be against 2 paragons
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
Half of this comment section is saying smaller accounts don't belong in Plat, the other half is saying they shouldn't get unfair matches and it's always the same people lol smaller accounts CAN be in Plat as long as they beat stronger accounts who also deserve to be in Plat. Neither side is right, both are half right.
The stronger you are the higher you should go. The stronger player is defined to be the player that can win more matches against the competition. And the competition is defined to be everyone else in the bracket they are in.
Everyone else. By definition if you can only beat players with weaker rosters and not players with stronger rosters, you are not the stronger player.
There are many Uncollected players who can probably beat the average Cav, and even weaker TBs. They should end up higher than those players. But only if they can beat them. But being the best Uncollected means the same as being the best blind player. That's great as a personal achievement, but we don't have prizes for best blind player, and neither do we have prizes for best UC player. We just reward players, based on their overall competitive strength.
A lot of this makes sense. As a smaller cav account I can say I mostly agree with a lot of the paragons here. I just think the main point for the smaller accounts and the reason the smaller accounts are complaining is bc it feels absolutely terrible to get to plat and then you literally can’t play battlegrounds anymore bc there is no chance you beat the higher level accounts. But I also realize that there has to be a teir in the vt that is basically the furthest a small account can progress. I just think the everybody needs to view it from the other persons side. It doesn’t feel good to be a cav put against a paragon and then to go to the forums and get told that you don’t deserve anything. But it also makes sense for the high level players. I don’t know, I agree with both sides. I think the current state of matchmaking is fine, but it could be improved (from a small account perspective). For me the main problem is the inconsistency. Up to platinum seems fine. But once you get there you can match from a paragon to a unc. I would rather just have all fights against a tb at that point and keep it consistent. I understand that the matchmaking changes at plat. But the road of increasing difficulty up to plat feels good, slowly increasing difficulty. But it feels like a roadblock once you get there. I would rather it just increase difficulty at a faster rate to not have it feel like this. Anyway, to a higher level account reading this, it provost sounds like complaining, but it’s just my opinion. Just to put it out there I have much more fun playing a account that is like 1.5x better than me than an account that is worse, so don’t think I just want easy fights.
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
Their playing at the highest level possible, their literally playing for the nfl, nba, and ,mbl.
Im not saying all players are the same skill level in their but it's alot different than highschoolers playing against professionals
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
Their playing at the highest level possible, their literally playing for the nfl, nba, and ,mbl.
Im not saying all players are the same skill level in their but it's alot different than highschoolers playing against professionals
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
But if those civilians, or even lower level boxers, wanted the prize money and titles Mike Tyson earned, wouldn’t they have to fight him for it? If they wanted to be the heavyweight champion, they would need to beat the champion, yes? If they wanted to earn multi-million dollar prize pools, they would have to take on bigger opponents, right? So an uncollected player that wants the titles and the bigger paydays should also have to fight the stronger opponents to get there. Now if BG worked like real boxing that would be a different story. There are titles in amateur boxing and other tiers of boxing as well that lesser skilled/experienced boxers could earn without having to fight someone like Tyson. The problem is BG is a one level system that everyone is on, so everyone goes into the same tournament tree with Tyson. Perhaps (and maybe hopefully) BGs will move away from this model in the future and have a UC/Cav tree where those smaller accounts can fight each other for rewards at the top of their tier. Of course then they would be complaining that they don’t get rewards that are as good as higher progressions, like the complaints we deal with every single SQ. Until a perfect solution can be found, the fairest solution is one where you need to earn the rewards that you want to take from someone else, and if you can’t beat them then you hit your limit.
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
Their playing at the highest level possible, their literally playing for the nfl, nba, and ,mbl.
Im not saying all players are the same skill level in their but it's alot different than highschoolers playing against professionals
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
But if those civilians, or even lower level boxers, wanted the prize money and titles Mike Tyson earned, wouldn’t they have to fight him for it? If they wanted to be the heavyweight champion, they would need to beat the champion, yes? If they wanted to earn multi-million dollar prize pools, they would have to take on bigger opponents, right? So an uncollected player that wants the titles and the bigger paydays should also have to fight the stronger opponents to get there. Now if BG worked like real boxing that would be a different story. There are titles in amateur boxing and other tiers of boxing as well that lesser skilled/experienced boxers could earn without having to fight someone like Tyson. The problem is BG is a one level system that everyone is on, so everyone goes into the same tournament tree with Tyson. Perhaps (and maybe hopefully) BGs will move away from this model in the future and have a UC/Cav tree where those smaller accounts can fight each other for rewards at the top of their tier. Of course then they would be complaining that they don’t get rewards that are as good as higher progressions, like the complaints we deal with every single SQ. Until a perfect solution can be found, the fairest solution is one where you need to earn the rewards that you want to take from someone else, and if you can’t beat them then you hit your limit.
But lower progression levels were never getting the same rewards as paragons the store is tilted towards their progression level and they cant climb as high up the solo obj.
They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
I actually directly addressed this in the post you replied to (and in many, many, many other posts elsewhere).
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
Because fair fights do not make a fair competition when that fairness is engineered.
Let's imagine a competition with four players. Two Paragons A and B and two Uncollected players C and D. If "fairnes" is the two Paragons only match against each other and the two UCs only matching against each other, you could end up with a situation where, say, A wins 60% of his matches against B, while C wins 70% of her matches against D. After many matches are played, we could end up with A winning 60, B winning 40, C winning 70, and D winning 30 matches out of a hundred. In which case, by ranking they would be ranked C, A, B, D. But that's perverse, because both A and B are obviously stronger than C and D, and would almost certainly easily beat both in head to head matches.
The people who think this is fair will claim that C should be the winner, because they got more wins. But they only got more wins because they didn't have to play everyone. There are three other competitors and they only had to play one of them. They were shielded from actually playing the entire field of competition. In handing that player "fair" individual fights, the entire competition became broken, because the strongest players did not rise to the top.
Some people think even that is besides the point. To them, the point is not strongest player wins, but best performing player in their roster strength bracket should win. In other words, the best UC can and should beat the best Paragon if the best UC exceeds all UCs by more than the best Paragon exceeds all Paragons.
To me, this is completely nonsensical. Comparing the best UC to the best Paragon is a meaningless comparison. It is a completely engineered comparison. It does not look for the strongest competitor. It throws all competitors into one single competitive environment and then artificially segments them into a lot of little completely separate competitions isolated from each other, and yet still tries to make overarching statements about the collective competition without any justification.
There's only one competition on Earth I can think of that does this, and that's dog shows. Everyone knows that comparing the best terrier to the best hound is completely arbitrary. Everyone universally understands this a completely subjective competition. Battlegrounds is not.
The bottom line is this. In a competition, the strongest players should come out ahead. In any competition in which the lowest roster players are allowed to only fight each other and the highest roster players are compelled to only fight each other, the odds of a UC player winning their matches is essentially statistically identical. It is just as easy for a UC player to advance as a Paragon player, because both are facing roughly equal competition. This means roster strength confers no advantage in general, and in specific cases it can confer a disadvantage.
In MCOC, this is seen as a disqualifying characteristic of any match system, because MCOC is not about neutralizing roster advantage.
They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
I actually directly addressed this in the post you replied to (and in many, many, many other posts elsewhere).
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
Because fair fights do not make a fair competition when that fairness is engineered.
Let's imagine a competition with four players. Two Paragons A and B and two Uncollected players C and D. If "fairnes" is the two Paragons only match against each other and the two UCs only matching against each other, you could end up with a situation where, say, A wins 60% of his matches against B, while C wins 70% of her matches against D. After many matches are played, we could end up with A winning 60, B winning 40, C winning 70, and D winning 30 matches out of a hundred. In which case, by ranking they would be ranked C, A, B, D. But that's perverse, because both A and B are obviously stronger than C and D, and would almost certainly easily beat both in head to head matches.
The people who think this is fair will claim that C should be the winner, because they got more wins. But they only got more wins because they didn't have to play everyone. There are three other competitors and they only had to play one of them. They were shielded from actually playing the entire field of competition. In handing that player "fair" individual fights, the entire competition became broken, because the strongest players did not rise to the top.
Some people think even that is besides the point. To them, the point is not strongest player wins, but best performing player in their roster strength bracket should win. In other words, the best UC can and should beat the best Paragon if the best UC exceeds all UCs by more than the best Paragon exceeds all Paragons.
To me, this is completely nonsensical. Comparing the best UC to the best Paragon is a meaningless comparison. It is a completely engineered comparison. It does not look for the strongest competitor. It throws all competitors into one single competitive environment and then artificially segments them into a lot of little completely separate competitions isolated from each other, and yet still tries to make overarching statements about the collective competition without any justification.
There's only one competition on Earth I can think of that does this, and that's dog shows. Everyone knows that comparing the best terrier to the best hound is completely arbitrary. Everyone universally understands this a completely subjective competition. Battlegrounds is not.
The bottom line is this. In a competition, the strongest players should come out ahead. In any competition in which the lowest roster players are allowed to only fight each other and the highest roster players are compelled to only fight each other, the odds of a UC player winning their matches is essentially statistically identical. It is just as easy for a UC player to advance as a Paragon player, because both are facing roughly equal competition. This means roster strength confers no advantage in general, and in specific cases it can confer a disadvantage.
In MCOC, this is seen as a disqualifying characteristic of any match system, because MCOC is not about neutralizing roster advantage.
This i understand however this is not what i atleast have been advocating for, obviously the system is designed to only work within the parameters of the system, give it an orange when it wants an apple then bad things happen, the system can only work the way the system works, but that does not mean that it is the correct system to use.
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
Half of this comment section is saying smaller accounts don't belong in Plat, the other half is saying they shouldn't get unfair matches and it's always the same people lol smaller accounts CAN be in Plat as long as they beat stronger accounts who also deserve to be in Plat. Neither side is right, both are half right.
The stronger you are the higher you should go. The stronger player is defined to be the player that can win more matches against the competition. And the competition is defined to be everyone else in the bracket they are in.
Everyone else. By definition if you can only beat players with weaker rosters and not players with stronger rosters, you are not the stronger player.
There are many Uncollected players who can probably beat the average Cav, and even weaker TBs. They should end up higher than those players. But only if they can beat them. But being the best Uncollected means the same as being the best blind player. That's great as a personal achievement, but we don't have prizes for best blind player, and neither do we have prizes for best UC player. We just reward players, based on their overall competitive strength.
Yeah that's what I said, I don't disagree with that, any player regardless of progression or rating can be in any league as long as they can beat the competition (both weaker and stronger players) in that same league
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
Calling someone scum is completely unnecessary.
The kindest word i couldve chosen.
Do better.
Why do you insist on replying when you have no clue whats going on
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
Their playing at the highest level possible, their literally playing for the nfl, nba, and ,mbl.
Im not saying all players are the same skill level in their but it's alot different than highschoolers playing against professionals
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
But if those civilians, or even lower level boxers, wanted the prize money and titles Mike Tyson earned, wouldn’t they have to fight him for it? If they wanted to be the heavyweight champion, they would need to beat the champion, yes? If they wanted to earn multi-million dollar prize pools, they would have to take on bigger opponents, right? So an uncollected player that wants the titles and the bigger paydays should also have to fight the stronger opponents to get there. Now if BG worked like real boxing that would be a different story. There are titles in amateur boxing and other tiers of boxing as well that lesser skilled/experienced boxers could earn without having to fight someone like Tyson. The problem is BG is a one level system that everyone is on, so everyone goes into the same tournament tree with Tyson. Perhaps (and maybe hopefully) BGs will move away from this model in the future and have a UC/Cav tree where those smaller accounts can fight each other for rewards at the top of their tier. Of course then they would be complaining that they don’t get rewards that are as good as higher progressions, like the complaints we deal with every single SQ. Until a perfect solution can be found, the fairest solution is one where you need to earn the rewards that you want to take from someone else, and if you can’t beat them then you hit your limit.
But lower progression levels were never getting the same rewards as paragons the store is tilted towards their progression level and they cant climb as high up the solo obj.
That's a whole different thing. The rewards for advancing through VT and GC are trophy tokens, relic shards, etc. Those are the actual rewards, not the items you can buy in the BGs store. If you get to GC and do 2 or 3 matches, you'll earn 10k trophy tokens regardless of progression level, and the same goes for the goodies you obtain by reaching a new rank in VT. So as far as BGs is concerned, UC through Paragon are all fighting for the same rewards.
What threads featuring certain folks break down to:
All i can say is, if you want some fun in matchmaking, display the rank, battledeck team strength and win/loss record during the Accept countdown screen. Will it solve everything? Prolly naw. Will it be entertaining AF? Swipe left is all bgs needed...
A lot of this makes sense. As a smaller cav account I can say I mostly agree with a lot of the paragons here. I just think the main point for the smaller accounts and the reason the smaller accounts are complaining is bc it feels absolutely terrible to get to plat and then you literally can’t play battlegrounds anymore bc there is no chance you beat the higher level accounts. But I also realize that there has to be a teir in the vt that is basically the furthest a small account can progress. I just think the everybody needs to view it from the other persons side. It doesn’t feel good to be a cav put against a paragon and then to go to the forums and get told that you don’t deserve anything. But it also makes sense for the high level players. I don’t know, I agree with both sides. I think the current state of matchmaking is fine, but it could be improved (from a small account perspective). For me the main problem is the inconsistency. Up to platinum seems fine. But once you get there you can match from a paragon to a unc. I would rather just have all fights against a tb at that point and keep it consistent. I understand that the matchmaking changes at plat. But the road of increasing difficulty up to plat feels good, slowly increasing difficulty. But it feels like a roadblock once you get there. I would rather it just increase difficulty at a faster rate to not have it feel like this. Anyway, to a higher level account reading this, it provost sounds like complaining, but it’s just my opinion. Just to put it out there I have much more fun playing a account that is like 1.5x better than me than an account that is worse, so don’t think I just want easy fights.
Ok, now think about the Paragons who have to get to Plat by only facing 17k+ accounts.
I get that it sucks to hit the wall, but seeing how hard you're hitting it should put into perspective how strong some players actually are.
They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
I actually directly addressed this in the post you replied to (and in many, many, many other posts elsewhere).
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
Because fair fights do not make a fair competition when that fairness is engineered.
Let's imagine a competition with four players. Two Paragons A and B and two Uncollected players C and D. If "fairnes" is the two Paragons only match against each other and the two UCs only matching against each other, you could end up with a situation where, say, A wins 60% of his matches against B, while C wins 70% of her matches against D. After many matches are played, we could end up with A winning 60, B winning 40, C winning 70, and D winning 30 matches out of a hundred. In which case, by ranking they would be ranked C, A, B, D. But that's perverse, because both A and B are obviously stronger than C and D, and would almost certainly easily beat both in head to head matches.
The people who think this is fair will claim that C should be the winner, because they got more wins. But they only got more wins because they didn't have to play everyone. There are three other competitors and they only had to play one of them. They were shielded from actually playing the entire field of competition. In handing that player "fair" individual fights, the entire competition became broken, because the strongest players did not rise to the top.
Some people think even that is besides the point. To them, the point is not strongest player wins, but best performing player in their roster strength bracket should win. In other words, the best UC can and should beat the best Paragon if the best UC exceeds all UCs by more than the best Paragon exceeds all Paragons.
To me, this is completely nonsensical. Comparing the best UC to the best Paragon is a meaningless comparison. It is a completely engineered comparison. It does not look for the strongest competitor. It throws all competitors into one single competitive environment and then artificially segments them into a lot of little completely separate competitions isolated from each other, and yet still tries to make overarching statements about the collective competition without any justification.
There's only one competition on Earth I can think of that does this, and that's dog shows. Everyone knows that comparing the best terrier to the best hound is completely arbitrary. Everyone universally understands this a completely subjective competition. Battlegrounds is not.
The bottom line is this. In a competition, the strongest players should come out ahead. In any competition in which the lowest roster players are allowed to only fight each other and the highest roster players are compelled to only fight each other, the odds of a UC player winning their matches is essentially statistically identical. It is just as easy for a UC player to advance as a Paragon player, because both are facing roughly equal competition. This means roster strength confers no advantage in general, and in specific cases it can confer a disadvantage.
In MCOC, this is seen as a disqualifying characteristic of any match system, because MCOC is not about neutralizing roster advantage.
This i understand however this is not what i atleast have been advocating for, obviously the system is designed to only work within the parameters of the system, give it an orange when it wants an apple then bad things happen, the system can only work the way the system works, but that does not mean that it is the correct system to use.
You have been consistently advocating for matches where both players have equallly strong (or roughly so) rosters, and highlighting the perceived problem when players of disparate roster strength are matched against each other. This example, which I first used to discuss the exact same issue in alliance war, highlights the problem with the belief that equal match ups are "fair." They lead to degenerate results.
Let's say that again we have two very strong roster accounts A and B, and A is stronger than B. We also have two weak roster accounts C and D, and C is stronger than D. If we only allow "fair" matches then A matches against B and C matches against D repeatedly, because those are the only "fair" match ups. And then we end up in a situation where if we compare ranks we get A C B D, or even more perversely we could get C A D B. The people who think this is somehow fair are a tiny minority of people.
Suppose we match winners against winners and losers against losers, which would be a simplified version of ELO matching (the way GC finds matches). In that case we could still have A vs B and C vs D in their first match ups, but then when A and C wins their records become 1-0 and B and D become 0-1. Now the 1-0 record players face each other and the 0-1 players face each other. A will most likely win over C and B will most likely win over D. A will then have a 2-0 record, B and C will both have 1-1 records, and D will have an 0-2 record. If B now matches against C, as they have equal records, B will most likely win and give him a 2-1 record, while C will drop to 1-2.
By record they would now be ranked A, B, C, and D, which is identical to their actual intrinsic strength. Matching this way, ignoring their roster strength, generates a properly sorted competitor order. That's what we generally want in a competition - we want the stronger competitors to finish higher and weaker competitors to finish lower - so that's the more fair match formula. It treats competitors in the proper way commensurate with their actual competitive strength. The match system that only makes "fair" matches ends up sorting the competitors into an order that doesn't represent their actual strength. It unfairly demotes stronger players relative to weaker ones. That's what is meant by matches being fair but the competition as a whole being unfair. If stronger players finish behind weaker players because the match system allowed weaker players to overtake stronger ones, that's intrinsically unfair.
In effect, the purpose to having matches is not to give players fair fights. It is to sort the players into the correct order from strongest to weakest. Any match system that attempts to make the individual matches "fair" but fails to properly sort the competitors is a failure.
But lower progression levels were never getting the same rewards as paragons the store is tilted towards their progression level and they cant climb as high up the solo obj.
As previously mentioned in several other threads, this argument is specious. If the reward is not the tokens but what can be bought with the tokens, then the value of what can be bought must also be judged relative to progression. If I get 1000 tokens and a lower progress player also gets 1000 tokens, that's an equal reward. If the player objects that I can buy a Nexus crystal while he can only buy a regular crystal, I can retort that a regular crystal helps him a lot more than a Nexus crystal helps me.
Progression-based rewards are intended to have similar value to different progression players in proportion to their current level of progress. Nothing is perfect so someone can always point to situations where in their opinion the Cav reward is better than the UC reward even relative to progress, but that's practical reality. The intent is for them to have similar value, so in the end 1000 tokens has the same relative value for everyone.
Two different players of different progress tiers nevertheless get the same rewards in BG for the same progress, because they get the same amount of stuff. To the extent that stuff has different value because it can buy different things for different progress players, that different absolute value is intended to have the same relative value, puitting us right back to square one: different progress players get the same relative reward for the same level of participation.
You can't arbitrarily pick a point halfway through the economic value chain. In terms of absolute value, it is just the basket of stuff. If you're going to consider the relative progressional value of a basket of rewards, it must be considered relative to the players in those respective progressional tiers. You can't assume reward value is relative, but player perceived value is absolute.
I don’t really even know what this thread is about already but don’t let this distract you from the fact that Hector is going to be running 3 Honda civics with spoon engines, and on top of that, he went into Harry’s and bought 3 T66 turbos with nos, and a motec exhaust system…
Bgs isn’t meant for cavs to make it to gc. GC is meant for paragons and tbs people who’ve progressed through the game built up skill built a roster know how the game works cavs and UC need a area where it filters in paragons and tbs it should motivate them to grind for those ranks not just do bgs the higher the progression the better rewards without this kinda matchmaking ruins the whole progression gets you better rewards progression was added to lock off areas some places shouldn’t have access to one very big area is eq/sq others like gauntlet and eop are examples of this not all content is meant for all progression this goes for bgs to if the cav player wants access to it they need to go do act 6 simple as that they will get better rewards and build a better roster and they will make it there
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
Their playing at the highest level possible, their literally playing for the nfl, nba, and ,mbl.
Im not saying all players are the same skill level in their but it's alot different than highschoolers playing against professionals
Hey Kabam, stop gifting UC and Cavs Platnium. They do not belong there.
So you think you deserve to be in the rank you're in by stomping players that have no chance of beating you? What did you do to deserve it? You think you're entitled to free points because you're account is larger?
The absolute lowest kind of scum
You act as if he was just gifted a larger account or that it's very easy. Take the tokens you've earned due to Kabam's generosity and buy resources to help you clear content. That would help you; whining here won't.
It dosent matter if it was gifted at all in any other sport ever players arent allowed to used the skills they honed to stomp less skilled people
In *every* sport ever players are allowed to use the skills they honed to stomp on less skilled players.
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
You must have gotten lost looking for Marvel's Kumbaya of Champions, friend. This is a contest, in which the highest rosters filter towards the highest rankings. Exactly how many UC and cav players do you think should progress to the absolute highest tiers of the competition to be able to continue getting matched against one another?
Comments
Reasonable meaning it's okay to bully?
If I played BGs on my UC account, I would crush more than 90% of the "competition" at my level because I possess both skill and game knowledge. I know how to fight a lot of tougher defenders and how to maximize my attackers and finish fights with minimal mistakes. With those tools in hand, it wouldn't be a competition for me and I could easily have my uncollected account in Gladiator. It wouldn't even be a competition, it would just be me crushing noobs who don't know as much about the game as I do.
Also, there has to be a line drawn somewhere for lower accounts to lose their protections. No matter where that line is, people will cry and say it is unfair. Many before have complained that their UC accounts were facing TB and Paragons in GC. Instead of allowing lower accounts easier access to the actual competitive part of BGs, yielding an extra 10k tokens on everyone else, kabam decided it was time to draw the line sooner. They're still being quite generous for letting lower accounts get all the VT rewards all the way up to platinum.
We can't only fight people equal to ourselves, because that defeats the purpose of BG being a competition.
The VT is the competitive track that determines who gets into GC, which is not intended to be everyone.
If you don't like the fact that in competitions weaker players tend to lose and stronger players tend to win, Battlegrounds might not be for you.
The higher you go in VT, the stronger the competition will get. That's deliberate and intentional. You should rise to about the level of your overall competitive strength.
Let's remember why VT even exists. It is there to offer weaker accounts opportunities to participate. It is not there to give weaker accounts an even chance to overtake stronger accounts.
The point im trying to make overall here is that the competition level is the same because whilst the uc player is prone to making mistakes, so is the other uc player meaning its just as hard for them to win a match as it would be against 2 paragons
There is no low skill division in the NFL (the NFC south notwithstanding)
There is no low skill division in the NBA.
There is no low skill division in the MLB.
People keep pointing out that professional basketball players don't get to stomp on high school players. But that's because they play completely different competitive sports. There's no competition in which high school teams are in the same competition as professional teams.
It is not uncommon in open Chess tournaments to have ratings differentials of as much as 500 ELO points between competitors. To put this into perspective, a 500 ELO point advantage translates roughly to a 95% probability of winning.
And the example I keep pointing to when people try to make the claim that sports works differently, the lowest payroll in the MLB is currently the Oakland A's at $42M USD. The highest is the Mets at $265M. There are some complicating factors to how salary should be judged, but any way you look at it the teams spending the most on roster are spending at least five times more than the teams spending the least. Moreover the A's are in the AL West, which contains the Mariners ($103M), the Astros ($155M), the Angels ($143M), and the Rangers ($154M). The average roster payroll of their divisional rivals is about $140M, over three times higher. Even its closest rival spends over twice the amount on its roster.
The A's don't get to pick the Orioles ($50M), the Pirates ($58M), and the Rays ($60M) as their competition. They play the teams in their division, regardless of how much they spend on roster. They play who's in front of them, or they don't play at all.
Building roster is part of the game, both in MCOC and in most sports. Even in sports with salary caps, some teams build roster better, and some do horrible. But regardless, in no sport do we look at the results of roster building and then match up the best rosters and the worst rosters. If you suck at building roster, that's just too bad. If you think Russel Wilson is god tier and you're wrong, you are just going to lose a lot. If you take a gamble that Brock Purdy might be good for the current meta and you're right you are going to promote out of the regular season track and into the playoffs circuit.
Everyone else. By definition if you can only beat players with weaker rosters and not players with stronger rosters, you are not the stronger player.
There are many Uncollected players who can probably beat the average Cav, and even weaker TBs. They should end up higher than those players. But only if they can beat them. But being the best Uncollected means the same as being the best blind player. That's great as a personal achievement, but we don't have prizes for best blind player, and neither do we have prizes for best UC player. We just reward players, based on their overall competitive strength.
Im not saying all players are the same skill level in their but it's alot different than highschoolers playing against professionals
Or to be more accurate They're in the NBA, NFL, and MBL, im not saying all players there are of the same skill level but it's alot different from them playing against higherschoolers, or to be more accurate, there is a difference bewteen mike tyson fighting another pro boxer vs him fighting a random civillian, and i actually think theres a rule/law that dosent allow them to do that in the first place.
If every fights matches as equal as possible everyones happy?
Nobodys getting stomped, and the matches are fair im not quite understanding why thats a problem?
Now if BG worked like real boxing that would be a different story. There are titles in amateur boxing and other tiers of boxing as well that lesser skilled/experienced boxers could earn without having to fight someone like Tyson. The problem is BG is a one level system that everyone is on, so everyone goes into the same tournament tree with Tyson. Perhaps (and maybe hopefully) BGs will move away from this model in the future and have a UC/Cav tree where those smaller accounts can fight each other for rewards at the top of their tier. Of course then they would be complaining that they don’t get rewards that are as good as higher progressions, like the complaints we deal with every single SQ. Until a perfect solution can be found, the fairest solution is one where you need to earn the rewards that you want to take from someone else, and if you can’t beat them then you hit your limit.
Let's imagine a competition with four players. Two Paragons A and B and two Uncollected players C and D. If "fairnes" is the two Paragons only match against each other and the two UCs only matching against each other, you could end up with a situation where, say, A wins 60% of his matches against B, while C wins 70% of her matches against D. After many matches are played, we could end up with A winning 60, B winning 40, C winning 70, and D winning 30 matches out of a hundred. In which case, by ranking they would be ranked C, A, B, D. But that's perverse, because both A and B are obviously stronger than C and D, and would almost certainly easily beat both in head to head matches.
The people who think this is fair will claim that C should be the winner, because they got more wins. But they only got more wins because they didn't have to play everyone. There are three other competitors and they only had to play one of them. They were shielded from actually playing the entire field of competition. In handing that player "fair" individual fights, the entire competition became broken, because the strongest players did not rise to the top.
Some people think even that is besides the point. To them, the point is not strongest player wins, but best performing player in their roster strength bracket should win. In other words, the best UC can and should beat the best Paragon if the best UC exceeds all UCs by more than the best Paragon exceeds all Paragons.
To me, this is completely nonsensical. Comparing the best UC to the best Paragon is a meaningless comparison. It is a completely engineered comparison. It does not look for the strongest competitor. It throws all competitors into one single competitive environment and then artificially segments them into a lot of little completely separate competitions isolated from each other, and yet still tries to make overarching statements about the collective competition without any justification.
There's only one competition on Earth I can think of that does this, and that's dog shows. Everyone knows that comparing the best terrier to the best hound is completely arbitrary. Everyone universally understands this a completely subjective competition. Battlegrounds is not.
The bottom line is this. In a competition, the strongest players should come out ahead. In any competition in which the lowest roster players are allowed to only fight each other and the highest roster players are compelled to only fight each other, the odds of a UC player winning their matches is essentially statistically identical. It is just as easy for a UC player to advance as a Paragon player, because both are facing roughly equal competition. This means roster strength confers no advantage in general, and in specific cases it can confer a disadvantage.
In MCOC, this is seen as a disqualifying characteristic of any match system, because MCOC is not about neutralizing roster advantage.
You're not doing what you think you're doing
All i can say is, if you want some fun in matchmaking, display the rank, battledeck team strength and win/loss record during the Accept countdown screen. Will it solve everything? Prolly naw. Will it be entertaining AF? Swipe left is all bgs needed...
I get that it sucks to hit the wall, but seeing how hard you're hitting it should put into perspective how strong some players actually are.
Let's say that again we have two very strong roster accounts A and B, and A is stronger than B. We also have two weak roster accounts C and D, and C is stronger than D. If we only allow "fair" matches then A matches against B and C matches against D repeatedly, because those are the only "fair" match ups. And then we end up in a situation where if we compare ranks we get A C B D, or even more perversely we could get C A D B. The people who think this is somehow fair are a tiny minority of people.
Suppose we match winners against winners and losers against losers, which would be a simplified version of ELO matching (the way GC finds matches). In that case we could still have A vs B and C vs D in their first match ups, but then when A and C wins their records become 1-0 and B and D become 0-1. Now the 1-0 record players face each other and the 0-1 players face each other. A will most likely win over C and B will most likely win over D. A will then have a 2-0 record, B and C will both have 1-1 records, and D will have an 0-2 record. If B now matches against C, as they have equal records, B will most likely win and give him a 2-1 record, while C will drop to 1-2.
By record they would now be ranked A, B, C, and D, which is identical to their actual intrinsic strength. Matching this way, ignoring their roster strength, generates a properly sorted competitor order. That's what we generally want in a competition - we want the stronger competitors to finish higher and weaker competitors to finish lower - so that's the more fair match formula. It treats competitors in the proper way commensurate with their actual competitive strength. The match system that only makes "fair" matches ends up sorting the competitors into an order that doesn't represent their actual strength. It unfairly demotes stronger players relative to weaker ones. That's what is meant by matches being fair but the competition as a whole being unfair. If stronger players finish behind weaker players because the match system allowed weaker players to overtake stronger ones, that's intrinsically unfair.
In effect, the purpose to having matches is not to give players fair fights. It is to sort the players into the correct order from strongest to weakest. Any match system that attempts to make the individual matches "fair" but fails to properly sort the competitors is a failure.
Progression-based rewards are intended to have similar value to different progression players in proportion to their current level of progress. Nothing is perfect so someone can always point to situations where in their opinion the Cav reward is better than the UC reward even relative to progress, but that's practical reality. The intent is for them to have similar value, so in the end 1000 tokens has the same relative value for everyone.
Two different players of different progress tiers nevertheless get the same rewards in BG for the same progress, because they get the same amount of stuff. To the extent that stuff has different value because it can buy different things for different progress players, that different absolute value is intended to have the same relative value, puitting us right back to square one: different progress players get the same relative reward for the same level of participation.
You can't arbitrarily pick a point halfway through the economic value chain. In terms of absolute value, it is just the basket of stuff. If you're going to consider the relative progressional value of a basket of rewards, it must be considered relative to the players in those respective progressional tiers. You can't assume reward value is relative, but player perceived value is absolute.