**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
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.