Potential Delay to v44.1 Launch
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
Options
Comments
The whole debate has been that lower progression players are on the same level as everyone else when it comes to matches. There is no restriction on who plays whom, based on story progress. So why is there a restriction on who gets rewards based on progression in story? No competition works that way. Winners of tennis competitions are not paid on the basis of how tall they are, prize money for chess competitions are not determined by the shirt size of the winner, formula one winners are not rewarded based on how much champagne they can drink, you get the idea.
There is a cap on tokens. So it isn't feasible to just keep accumulating them.
It is honestly funny how many Paragons were clamouring to face Cav and below accounts but are loathe to have those same accounts access equal rewards despite the change.
BGs store is by design doing this.
They can also can have identical rewards if they choose to.
They can simply become Paragon.
No one is prohibiting them from doing so, and it is really easier than ever.
But I guess it was easier for them beating other Cavs at BGs, for op rewards in previous seasons, rather than considering doing story content.
Easy op rewards period at BGs for lower accounts has ended, and it has ended for good.
It’s not coming back.
It was expected that this game flaw would be fixed at some point.
Anyone who wants identical rewards to higher tiers, they’d better play the game and achieve that higher tier, rather than waste their time complaining 🙂
But players at different progression tiers don't value things the same way. This is not a complex argument. A 6* crystal is a fantastic reward for an Uncollected player. It is a mediocre at best reward for a Paragon player. If you give that same identical reward to two different players at two different progression tiers you are not rewarding them equally. *If* the Battleground store had the same prices for every player regardless of progression tier, Paragon players would be getting far less actual value relative to their progression.
You seem to be literally the only player of this game who doesn't understand this.
A person who is making $100 a month values $1000 a lot more than a person making $10,000/month. We don't determine prizes for competition based on that, you win a competition you get the prize money (which gets you access to the same things irrespective of what you earn outside the competition). In an open competition, non competition related elements cannot determine who gets what rewards. It is an equal perversion of the competition as roster based match making was.
It is just dumb to ask UC players to face Paragons and then award them a pittance of what Paragons get. That is not a competition. That is a handout to Paragons.
Drafting 1st is a major disadvantage in the Battlegrounds.
I just tracked my last 19 matches. I was made to draft 1st 16 times. The odds of that happening randomly are 0.0022 or 1/455. That's 4 times worse than getting a 7-Star Champion in a Paragon Crystal.
At the same time you constantly duck examples where the larger and smaller teams have access to the same rewards (in terms of actual usable resources) in those same competitions. It is not the same competition if rewards are gated for reasons outside performance in the competition.
Completely separate from that, we can decide, in a progressional game, how to reward players to accomplish any particular rank. And we can do that in one of two ways. We can try to come up with a single integrated scheme that allocates rewards based on a combination of rank achievement and progression title, because all major rewards in this game are progression based. We can say that a UC that places 12580th place gets this reward, but a Paragon that places 8239th place gets that reward. Except that's crazy. The simpler system is to simply award descending rewards by rank regardless of progression title first, which satisfies the condition that higher ranks should get higher rewards, all other things being equal. And then we can make those rewards primarily currency based, and use a progression based store to allow the players some agency in which rewards they choose to get, from a sett of rewards appropriate to their progression.
Matches are open because that leads to the correct result for a competition, which is that the result of the competition is we have sorted the competitors by strength. Roster matching doesn't do that, so it is disqualified as a reasonable match system. With roster matching you do not know who the strongest and weakest competitors are. Someone matching only within their roster strength could be stronger or weaker than a different player matching in a completely different roster strength range and we would never know which, because they don't match against each other and neither do any of the players they match against. This is technically known as a disconnected competition network.
Reasonable game design breaks up the task of creating a Battlegrounds game mode into segments, each of which has relatively independent requirements. Even if BG had no rewards at all, we could construct a fair competition. Fairness can be judged independently of rewards. So we do, and then we allocate rewards consistent with both the competition requirements and the greater game economy. The competition mandates that higher ranks get higher rewards. The greater game economy requires that lower progression tiers get rewards only appropriate to their progression tier. The solution that simultaneously satisfies both requirements is to give players token currency commensurate with their competitive achievements, and then allow players to spend that currency within the bounds of progression economic limits.
We don't use "open matching" because it is "fair." We use open matching because it satisfies the requirements of a competition, which is that the competition field is sorted into stronger and weaker players. Roster matching fails to do this. We don't use progression based stores to penalize lower progress tiers. We do that because in this game, rewards are structured to be appropriate to progression tier where ever possible, and it is possible to do here.
EDIT: Thanks for the detailed explanation. I feel it is still unfair, in the current game format there is no reason BG can't be source of progression rather than story alone. To that extent there is no reason to gate BG rewards by story progression.
When you get a promotion at your job, your employer can only give you more currency. It cannot give you more valuable currency usable in better stores, because it has no control over that. Similarly, we don't have one giant track and field competition with everyone in the world competing, but just match the younger competitors against each other and give them prize money they can only spend in kiddie stores, because there's literally no way to do that. The real world runs on different rules, and competitions have to fit within their circumstances.
To put it another way, it is *precisely because* real world competitions cannot hand out prizes that are "progression based" that they cannot have radically different classes of competitors compete in the same competition. We cannot give a high school football team even a *chance* to get NFL-caliber rewards no matter how well they beat their competition. Even if a high school team destroys every single one of their opponents by a hundred points, we still cannot compare that performance to any NFL team, nor can it ever qualify for even the worst NFL rewards. High school teams play in high school competitions and NFL teams compete in completely separate NFL competitions, and the rewards are prescaled to be lower for the high school teams. No high school team gets million dollar rings for going undefeated. No high school team is said to have done just as well as any NFL team just because their competition was "equal."
We can *let* lower progress players play in the same competition as high progress players in MCOC, *because* the progression based stores will take that into account in the end. In the real world there's no such thing, so instead we simply block lower tier competitors from ever being in the same competitive environment as higher tier competitors. That way they are restricted to only competing for prizes appropriate to their tier, no matter what their performance is.
We don't have to force lower progress players to fight higher progress players. We can simply assume they will never actually win against those players, ever, and just place them into a lower tier competition with lower tier rewards prescaled to be low precisely because we are assuming the entire pool of competitors is simply never going to do well enough to deserve higher rewards anyway. And although that would be impractical for many reasons, there are days I wish I could wave a magic wand and sentence every single player who complains about getting unfair match ups into that pool permanently.
Seatin got a F2P account to TB within a month... Haven't updated myself but I am pretty sure he is or almost is Paragon...
And u may argue "Well he is skilled".. Correct very solid argument, but if u don't have the skills to get thru some of it for 8 SEASONS, what makes u think u can compete in BGs and deserve the rewards?
The repetitiveness, the fiat declarations, and the
almostchildish out of context quoting pretty much tells me I've wasted my time here. While I may continue to point out to others you don't really have a leg to stand on, my time trying to see if you're amenable to logic has now come to an end.The same event where they get easier points cause they climb faster, therefore getting more or faster access to elder marks...am I wrong?.. for 7 seasons u had Paragons stuck ingm Gold and Plat... Not being able to get the rewards as they climbed up...
I have a college degree and work experience in economics. Is it really fair to expect students at a community college to keep up with me? No.
I repeat, people are using BGs solely as a rank up and champ acquisition source... That is not the purpose of BGs...
If you want me to address the people complaining about BG thing, I can do that. But keep in mind, the following is just an informal analysis and opinion: it's a more complex issue than the Seatin Ability thing, and I don't have lots of the insider data from the various parties. And I don't want no drama either.
Lots of people continue to be confused about BG.
Kabam formally ended the BG beta and launched BG in Sept 2022. Players played the mode and developed their impressions and expectations of the mode. Players used that version to set their expectations.
Kabam has continued to change BG since launch. Some of those changes were officially communicated. Cool. Other changes can be fairly easily seen while playing. Cool. And other changes were done with dev Ghosting. Cool.
How do people respond to being Ghosted?
Kabam is gonna keep changing BG. They're gonna keep changing all modes. MCOC is a Live Ops game. Live Ops games are supposed to change. And Kabam has already learned the death spiral of explaining things with detailed "roadmaps": it front loads the hype, locks dev's future into old goals and outdated methods, and sets up a nasty negative scrutiny by players. So a lot of the changes Kabam does, especially the testing-stuff-out changes, are gonna be done with some degree of dev Ghosting.
MCOC also sometimes has bugs. So sometimes players may not be sure when a change is a bug or a feature.
If the confused players do decide that Kabam has intended the changes, and they don't like those changes, then they will try to argue the rules, then argue the facts, then yell like heck. Because players know that lobbying can sometimes work. If the players fail in that, then they will just adjust their gameplay to what suits them, and play or not play the mode accordingly.
And if the changes or lack of changes on any issue fail Kabam's goals, Kabam is gonna do more changes. And the whole chain of events starts over again.
Players are progressing relatively fast. From the bottom to the top in basically one season of play. And as they do, the face increasingly strong opponents. We can reduce the rate at which players face stronger opponents by reducing the rate at which they are allowed to progress. Cap the Cavs at Gold, say. Then you would likely rarely face Paragons, and we could in fact bias the match maker so you never do. That would be a fair trade, but I suspect most Cavs won't consider that to be a fair trade. Because they don't want to face stronger opponents, but they do want unlimited progress.
You’re in a competition and must fight people in your tier. Deal with it. Peeps need to stop these posts.
I know you said "Except that's crazy". Then you proceeded to write a paragraph on how to implement the crazy thing with a veneer of reasonability but the same end goal. So, I don't know if "Except that's crazy" meant that it's crazy because it is unfair to undermine a section of the competitors or it's crazy because that's a lot of work to match each players rank and progression level to determine rewards. The rest of the post suggested the later. Honest discussions go both ways, there was a lot more to the post than that the single sentence you picked out.
On your second comment, I'm not quoting it entirely because it's too long. My understanding was these were the key part, but let me know if I got it wrong: and The phrase "radically different classes of competitors" is highly subjective and as much a fiat declaration as anything I have said. Few comment on the whole thing:
1. The diversity in competition in real world competitions is probably higher than that in BG. You can have a 16 year old rookie on the same pitch as a 28 year old professional who's been playing for 8-10 years. The age difference between the youngest and oldest players in a club competition can be 20 years (I'm using age as a proxy for playing experience). Further, there are a multitude of other factors in play there. Despite this, the winners are treated equally.
2. We do block lower tiers from BG. Anyone who's not a UC cannot play BG. In my opinion, the cutoff is not set due to magnanimity but based on critical mass required to make BG viable. If there was a surplus of players at Cav+, then the cutoff would have been set at that level.
3. I'm not arguing for rewards for those who do not make the cut-off for the competition. But once people are in the competition, basing rewards on an external factor unrelated to the performance in the competition to the extent that those who finish lower in the competition get higher rewards than those who perform better appears unethical.
Also, in the interest of honesty, the changes to matchmaking was not driven purely from a the perspective of "fair competition". It was at least partially influenced by the fact that there was a feeling within the player base that ranking up champions hindered progress in BG. Matchmaking is now changed to make rooster the overwhelming factor in player placements.
The BG store was designed with a view that matchmaking was relative and consequently, it represented prizes appropriate for certain competition levels. Now that the restriction on competition has been removed, there is is lesser justification for a tiered store (similar to how AW works).
Again, I get the economy related concerns. However, in an open matchmaking system only a handful of low level accounts are going to make it to the upper tiers of VT or to GC. Those who make it by proving their competitive strength do not need to be penalised. Their competitiveness should be rewarded by allowing them an avenue for faster progress. There is little evidence that any of this is economy breaking (if it were Banquet wouldn't be a thing, there are enough conqueror accounts with multiple 6-stars from that event).
You do not need BG rewards to raise your title. Just do the story content and it takes care of itself. It's not my problem that you choose not to obtain the titles that Kabam has made increasingly easier and easier to get.
Secondly, titles have nothing to do with the competition. So they should have nothing to do with rewards. People who face off against you in a competition should have access to the same things (related to that competition) as you do. Your title gives you advantage in every other game format and gives you a substantial advantage in the competition itself. There is no need to add to it in the rewards section.
And titles show where a player is in the game. If you want better rewards, complete more content. PGA golfers don't get to just show up at the Masters and are allowed to play. They have to work to complete the smaller tournaments to earn their way onto the tour.
1. Complete smaller tournaments.
2. Qualify for Masters
3. Compete in Masters
4. Go back and complete other tournaments to access the prize money from Masters.
How many tournaments does a PGA golfer need to complete to access the full value of their winnings in the Masters. Is there a set order in which they have to win these tournaments?
Once again, I'm really sorry. I didn't know there was a real sporting competition on which the BG rewards system is based. You could have just led with this weeks ago and we didn't need any of the debate.