**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
Battlegrounds matchmaking
TheVol
Posts: 37 ★
Im currently at platinum I in battlegrounds and i cannot for the life of me find a single fight that is fair. Im cavalier and keep getting matched up with paragon players or players with less developed rosters. 
How is it possible to even face someone with a legend title and multiple rank 5 6* when you have at max 2 rank 3 6* champs?
How is it possible to even face someone with a legend title and multiple rank 5 6* when you have at max 2 rank 3 6* champs?
9
Comments
Same league = can play everyone.
It's perfectly ok if you want to speed-run to GC on the back of easy wins (much easier than the ones you complain about, since you have a roster advantage as well). That's what the game is now, and tactically you should exploit it to the best of your ability.
I understand why you want to hide behind the "same rewards" defense, without which there won't be much justification for the match-ups. You need the small accounts to keep playing, so that you can get tokens to keep strengthening. But you also need to keep them from strengthening or else you won't have your easy matches anymore, so obviously rewards need to be gated by progression (only rewards though, matches need to be random to preserve the sanctity of competition).
Kabam needs to stop spoonfeeding players and helping them get to where they shouldn’t be.
Kabam have been clear that the latest changes make it easier for people to progress up the Victory track to a point (so lower accounts can at least get some good rewards), however once that point has been reached it looks like the matchmaking is open to anyone in the current bracket.
No one sits around "justifying" these kinds of match ups, because it doesn't occur to most people to have to justify them. In any open competition, I expect to potentially face anyone and everyone else in that same competition. If anyone is judging anyone else to be qualified or not qualified to face me, I presume that we're going to be placed into completely different competitions.
And to be frank, after 35 years plus of studying game design and after playing dozens of online games of all kinds, this is actually the first time I'm having these sort of conversations. The notion that anyone has to "prove" that open competitions are not intrinsically unfair is something that I find completely bizarre. I'm not unaware of that fact that they can, in many circumstances, be frustrating to experience, but actually unfair? That's just crazy.
I disagree with the statement that the rewards are same. Those accounts that are being crushed wouldn't have access to the same rewards even if they won. An open competition using an arbitrary external factor, beyond the performance in the competition, to determine the rewards is unusual. In another thread you had pointed out the difference in budgets between Mets and A's - but if A's win they don't get paid on the basis of their budget. Everyone gets the same rewards for winning in an open competition.
The unfairness arises from the fact that even if the lower progression accounts manage to win their progression is stunted by limiting what resources they can acquire with their tokens. The BG store consistently widens the gap between winning lower progression accounts and losing higher progression accounts - that's hardly an open competition.
You are very selective by applying the open competition rule only for match-ups and then ignoring that the rewards are then filtered again by progression.
You can try to make the argument that they aren't ultimately competing for the same rewards because those rewards ultimately do not have the same spending power, but that's irrelevant. It simply opens the can of worms of trying to determine whether the basket of resources that a lower progression player can buy has the same relative value to a player of that progression as the basket of resources that a higher progression player can buy has to their own progression tier.
This is an unwinnable argument. The devs can simply state by fiat that the progression rewards are designed with that intent, and to the best extent possible they reflect those objectives, and there's no obvious way to prove they don't.
The thing you need to remember is that competition type game modes in any game that require multiple wins in a row can’t also have matchmaking conditions that try to get everyone to a 50% win rate.
VT is a competition ladder. The competition should get stronger the higher you go, and thus it should be harder for players to climb it the higher they go.
As it is, the fact that the devs compromise and allow roster strength matching in lower VT tiers and then relax that requirement in the higher tiers creates so strong of a distortion to what a proper competition ladder should look like that at the moment the competition gets arguably *weaker* at higher tiers, because strong rosters are getting trapped low while strong players are leaving VT for GC, depleting the high tiers of strong rosters or strong skill players.
This kind of competitive inversion is the signal that roster matching is completely broken. It might be an acceptable compromise at lower tiers, but the fact that it distorts competition this incredibly says everything about how "fair" it is to the competitors. In a fair competition the weaker players would be at the bottom and the stronger players would be near the top. Any match system that doesn't generate that result is arbitrarily allowing weaker players to rise higher than would be normal while arbitrarily penalizing stronger players and holding them lower than would be normal. We can actually see with our eyeballs how the two match systems work because we can see them side by side. Its very obvious which one is acting unfairly in terms of how it is sorting players.
In effect, the "easy" matches that Paragon players are getting in the high VT tiers is the payback the system is giving them for suffering through harder than proper matches in the lower tiers. In a perfectly fair match system they would be seeing easier matches in the lower tiers and harder matches in the upper tiers. They aren't getting an easy ride, they are just seeing the reverse.
If the intent is to have an open competition, then have an open store. Anyway the lower strength accounts are not going to win enough to purchase anything material from the store.
The argument can be well Paragon players get 6* shards cheap... For those 16-17k 6* shards are underwhelming.
Also there is another aspect of the the rewards as you climb up.. and that's elder marks as rewards ..
Solo/Alliance rewards are gained by getting points.. if players are stuck they have to buy them or use energy (at 20% point rate)...
We can say that UC/Cav should get less points for elder mark use .. that would make the reward not being the same fair...