U wanna know the funniest part lf this neverending argument?.. The same people have been complaing about UC/Cav issues for MONTHS, probably for all 8 seasons of BGs... 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?
Seatin studied and trained and taught intensively in MCOC for years with whale resources. It'd be like a professional race car driver entering into an amateur go cart race.
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.
Its the 8th season.. people have been complaining since season 1... Roughly 9 months.. I repeat, people are using BGs solely as a rank up and champ acquisition source... That is not the purpose of BGs...
I was specifically replying to the Seatin vs. average player thing.
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spiral of explaining things with detailed "roadmaps": it front loads the hype, locks dev's future into old goals and outdated methods, and sets up a nasty negative scrutiny by players.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.
Let me respond your post/analysis in a very easy way... BG is a competition not the main source of rank up materials and champion acquisition. People who refuse to progress by staying in a single progression level and not take on the hard fights to become TB or Paragon should not be complaining about facing those who did finish those fights. Neither they should complain about a reward gate cause they do not deserve similar rewards. Kabam made a mistake by letting 4 progression levels "compete"... Its the equivalent of taking a brand new honda civic and taking it straight to the race track and upgrading as you go.. its obvious you are going to lose to cars that have been fixed up with your factory stock car... And when i mentioned Seating it was not about skill.. it was about time.. sure his skill allowed him to do content within a month or so.. but the same people complain season after season..and keep on complaining about future seasons, as if their intention was to stay UC/Cav FOREVER
We can say that a UC that places 12580th place gets this reward, but a Paragon that places 8239th place gets that reward.
We cannot, no competition does that.
Perhaps you should actually read my post and not just skim them for opportunities to reply. Because this proves unambiguously that you did exactly that, and didn't actually read and think about my post before replying. You're just looking for opportunities to be contrarian. Anyone who actually goes back and reads the part of my post you quoted and then just one sentence more would know you're not actually trying to have an honest discussion.
The repetitiveness, the fiat declarations, and the almost childish 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.
Apologies for giving that impression. I have no intention to troll, I just have a strong opinion on this topic.
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:
*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 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.
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).
On the contrary the restriction on matchmaking still exists at least until you reach high platinum to Diamond. If the competition were truly an open competition where matchmaking is completely random and open right from bronze 3, I may actually buy your argument. Are you actually proposing that anyone is fair game to be matched against anyone right from the get go(bronze 3) with no protection built in for any class of competitors?
We can say that a UC that places 12580th place gets this reward, but a Paragon that places 8239th place gets that reward.
We cannot, no competition does that.
Perhaps you should actually read my post and not just skim them for opportunities to reply. Because this proves unambiguously that you did exactly that, and didn't actually read and think about my post before replying. You're just looking for opportunities to be contrarian. Anyone who actually goes back and reads the part of my post you quoted and then just one sentence more would know you're not actually trying to have an honest discussion.
The repetitiveness, the fiat declarations, and the almost childish 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.
Apologies for giving that impression. I have no intention to troll, I just have a strong opinion on this topic.
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:
*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 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.
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).
On the contrary the restriction on matchmaking still exists at least until you reach high platinum to Diamond. If the competition were truly an open competition where matchmaking is completely random and open right from bronze 3, I may actually buy your argument. Are you actually proposing that anyone is fair game to be matched against anyone right from the get go(bronze 3) with no protection built in for any class of competitors?
I would (and have since season 2) proposed this. I'm glad to see that finally (after 6 months of allowing it and now increasing entitlement of lower accounts) but it still makes NO sense that it is easier for larger accounts to progress in platinum and diamond then on bronze and silver.
A low to even mid Paragon account will struggle like mad to get out of bronze and silver while lower accounts can still cruise fairly easy to platinum. That makes zero sense to me.
On the contrary the restriction on matchmaking still exists at least until you reach high platinum to Diamond. If the competition were truly an open competition where matchmaking is completely random and open right from bronze 3, I may actually buy your argument. Are you actually proposing that anyone is fair game to be matched against anyone right from the get go(bronze 3) with no protection built in for any class of competitors?
Of course, I've always been fine with matchmaking being open right from the initial levels. That is the way it seems to be moving.
On the contrary the restriction on matchmaking still exists at least until you reach high platinum to Diamond. If the competition were truly an open competition where matchmaking is completely random and open right from bronze 3, I may actually buy your argument. Are you actually proposing that anyone is fair game to be matched against anyone right from the get go(bronze 3) with no protection built in for any class of competitors?
Of course, I've always been fine with matchmaking being open right from the initial levels. That is the way it seems to be moving.
Matchmaking will probably never be truly random. The day it does go fully random right from the start, I will be here along with you advocating for equal rewards for the little guy. Until then progression based store is a happy compromise.
On the contrary the restriction on matchmaking still exists at least until you reach high platinum to Diamond. If the competition were truly an open competition where matchmaking is completely random and open right from bronze 3, I may actually buy your argument. Are you actually proposing that anyone is fair game to be matched against anyone right from the get go(bronze 3) with no protection built in for any class of competitors?
Of course, I've always been fine with matchmaking being open right from the initial levels. That is the way it seems to be moving.
Matchmaking will probably never be truly random. The day it does go fully random right from the start, I will be here along with you advocating for equal rewards for the little guy. Until then progression based store is a happy compromise.
Rewards are equal for the little guy. The BGs store is designed with this philosophy. They might not be identical, but they are equal. And let’s never forget BGs rewards aren’t only Trophy tokens. Relic stuff, Elder Marks, Solo and Ally BGs events milestones and ranked rewards are identical for all. So this narrative of different rewards, is completely false and a weak (if not even an idiotic) argument. You can argue that Prestige matchmaking is needed (to an extend) to protect from big range match ups from the start, in order to ensure high participation in BGs. But you can’t argue Prestige matchmaking is needed throughout VT (some were even asking for GC too 😂), because rewards aren’t the same for each progression tier, cause they actually are the same for all 🙂
On the contrary the restriction on matchmaking still exists at least until you reach high platinum to Diamond. If the competition were truly an open competition where matchmaking is completely random and open right from bronze 3, I may actually buy your argument. Are you actually proposing that anyone is fair game to be matched against anyone right from the get go(bronze 3) with no protection built in for any class of competitors?
Of course, I've always been fine with matchmaking being open right from the initial levels. That is the way it seems to be moving.
Matchmaking will probably never be truly random. The day it does go fully random right from the start, I will be here along with you advocating for equal rewards for the little guy. Until then progression based store is a happy compromise.
Rewards are equal for the little guy. The BGs store is designed with this philosophy. They might not be identical, but they are equal. And let’s never forget BGs rewards aren’t only Trophy tokens. Relic stuff, Elder Marks, Solo and Ally BGs events milestones and ranked rewards are identical for all. So this narrative of different rewards, is completely false and a weak (if not even an idiotic) argument. You can argue that Prestige matchmaking is needed (to an extend) to protect from big range match ups from the start, in order to ensure high participation in BGs. But you can’t argue Prestige matchmaking is needed throughout VT (some were even asking for GC too 😂), because rewards aren’t the same for each progression tier, cause they actually are the same for all 🙂
I agree. Everyone arguing for random matchmaking and equal rewards will be back here arguing about unfairness if all protection is taken away from the start. This is a decent compromise for both higher and lower accounts currently. It can potentially be improved by staggered starts/seeding and the likes. But for now, it’s better than last season.
It is not false. The primary goal of the Rewards is the Trophies. The value of said Trophies is tied into what's available in the Store, and at what rate. They're not separate. Yes, the Milestones are the same for everyone. Those Trophies only hold a value of what's available. Not what can be available in the future. What's available now. The argument that people can hoard them until they progress is moot because once they reach the ceiling and become Paragon, the debate nulls itself. You're no longer debating what's available for someone lower.
U wanna know the funniest part lf this neverending argument?.. The same people have been complaing about UC/Cav issues for MONTHS, probably for all 8 seasons of BGs... 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?
Seatin studied and trained and taught intensively in MCOC for years with whale resources. It'd be like a professional race car driver entering into an amateur go cart race.
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.
Its the 8th season.. people have been complaining since season 1... Roughly 9 months.. I repeat, people are using BGs solely as a rank up and champ acquisition source... That is not the purpose of BGs...
I was specifically replying to the Seatin vs. average player thing.
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.
Let me respond your post/analysis in a very easy way... BG is a competition not the main source of rank up materials and champion acquisition. People who refuse to progress by staying in a single progression level and not take on the hard fights to become TB or Paragon should not be complaining about facing those who did finish those fights. Neither they should complain about a reward gate cause they do not deserve similar rewards. Kabam made a mistake by letting 4 progression levels "compete"... Its the equivalent of taking a brand new honda civic and taking it straight to the race track and upgrading as you go.. its obvious you are going to lose to cars that have been fixed up with your factory stock car... And when i mentioned Seating it was not about skill.. it was about time.. sure his skill allowed him to do content within a month or so.. but the same people complain season after season..and keep on complaining about future seasons, as if their intention was to stay UC/Cav FOREVER
I appreciate that you state that the current BG system is correct. And I also appreciate others who state it is not correct. It's all subjective. And it all is also helpful feedback.
Clearly the BG mode could be configured in any number of ways. To address any number of goals.
In the shared public space of community public communication, I expect players will continue to provide feedback and lobby for the changes they feel are correct or otherwise want to happen (or not happen).
I've been playing competitively, helping run tournaments, and been active in community development for fighting games since the 90's. I've also worked as a designer in, networked extensively in, and given guest lectures on video game development. And I have an education and work background in economics, accounting, and project management. Much of game design is about determining what the stakeholder (or other's) goals are, and then creating and tuning content for those goals. Battlegrounds as a mode has a fairly wide range of flexibility on what it could be, on who it could be for, and what the play experience could be. It will be interesting to see how Kabam and others choose (or otherwise impacts) how the mode develops over time.
Lol, yet another thread that devolves into the same people make the same arguments over and over again with no one changing their mind.
The core complaints will always remain: matchmaking feels unfair vs matchmaking is fair in the context of the rewards. No one will ever be mollified as long as BGs = VT + GC + trophies + store.
One thing I'd like to add, is that people also like to compare BGs to AW, but then ignore a significant difference - significant rewards can be obtained every other day and the store refreshes weekly in BGs. Comparatively, the per AW match provides measly rewards with the good stuff only coming at the end of the season. That renders the comparison moot, as the effort/reward structure is different. The supercharged structure of BGs is its own economy in and of itself.
The core complaints will always remain: matchmaking feels unfair vs matchmaking is fair in the context of the rewards. No one will ever be mollified as long as BGs = VT + GC + trophies + store.
Important clarification. I do not believe that matchmaking is fair or unfair strictly in the context of rewards. I believe that competitively fair matching making should match everyone against everyone (within the context of competitive ladders) whether rewards even exist or not. In other words, if BG was a competition just for bragging rights alone, by definition of what a fair match system should be would be no different than what I believe it should be now with the current reward system.
When someone says that the match system should be such and such because rewards and I argue against that, it is not because I believe the opposite. It is because I believe any attempt to justify a particular match making system on the basis of what rewards get handed out is either faulty on its face or improperly attempts to look at the entire system from match to rewards without taking everything properly into account. It is one thing to say that the game mode is reasonable given the rewards, but to state that the rewards *mandate* a particular way of doing things is an extremely steep hill to climb. It is so steep that not even the game designers make any attempt to climb it. That's simply not a conversation that ever comes up. Instead, the game mode is designed and conceptualized as a connected set of pseudo-independent solutions to game design problems that have to work together at their interfaces.
In a fair competition, you design the competitive elements so that the competitors get ranked properly by competitive performance. Once you do, you choose how you decide to reward those ranks however you see fit within the parameters of how you want your rewards to work. We don't say that the Gold medal in the Olympics is worth X and the Silver medal is worth Y and thus we choose to run the competition in a way that will apportion those rewards accordingly. We run the race, find out who finished first, second, and third, and then we hand out medals. We don't ask if second place deserves more than just a Silver medal. Silver medal is what second place gets, period. Similarly in Battlegrounds first place gets this, second place gets that, and so on. We figure out where everyone places first, then we hand out rewards. And since this is a progressional game, the rewards that a lower progress player gets may be constrained by progressional constraints. We don't take that into account when we hand out rewards, because that's taken care of in a completely different economic system.
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?
It should be based on skill, especially when you get that high in progression. Can you imagine football player saying it’s not fair he’s too big? Or basketball player saying it’s not fair he’s taller? Nothings ever going to be completely balanced that’s why you work to build up your roster and if you can’t get your roster high enough, you work on skills. The taller basketball player doesn’t have to be as skilled as the shorter ones, but it doesn’t mean the shorter one can’t win.
It is not false. The primary goal of the Rewards is the Trophies. The value of said Trophies is tied into what's available in the Store, and at what rate. They're not separate. Yes, the Milestones are the same for everyone. Those Trophies only hold a value of what's available. Not what can be available in the future. What's available now. The argument that people can hoard them until they progress is moot because once they reach the ceiling and become Paragon, the debate nulls itself. You're no longer debating what's available for someone lower.
We can say that a UC that places 12580th place gets this reward, but a Paragon that places 8239th place gets that reward.
We cannot, no competition does that.
Perhaps you should actually read my post and not just skim them for opportunities to reply. Because this proves unambiguously that you did exactly that, and didn't actually read and think about my post before replying. You're just looking for opportunities to be contrarian. Anyone who actually goes back and reads the part of my post you quoted and then just one sentence more would know you're not actually trying to have an honest discussion.
The repetitiveness, the fiat declarations, and the almost childish 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.
I've literally not spent a trophy token since they announced the store change a few weeks ago. That's proof that it's possible to earn and hold onto the rewards until the store is better. Nothing is stopping a Cav from cruising to Diamond for a few seasons, getting TB or Paragon and then spending their tokens. Don't cry because you choose to spend your tokens in a lower store. that's just bad asset management.
WTF does this even mean and how TF does it apply to this conversation?
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.
Titles are factored into the store, cause the intent is to build your skill set. If a UC player does their push to Cav using a team of 7*r2 champs they acquired through a BG store that was equal for all, then those players don't develop any skills cause they're simply powering through the difficult fights.
Fast forward to when that same player eventually becomes Thronebreaker and does TB MEQ. He's gonna get wrecked, not because of a lack of roster depth, but because of a lack of skill and knowledge of nodes and defenders.
Then that same player will be back on the forums complaining about difficulty again.
That's why the titles are tied to store value.
Bottom line, go progress in story content if you want better rewards in from the BG store.
Facing difficult rosters, and/or losing to players better than me is fine. Happy to participate...currently I'm TB and D2 in season 8. Best I've ever done is D1. Getting snubbed because of BG server lag and latency issues, losing progression potential and spending resources like elders marks just makes me sick. Hard to win an already unfair fight when the makers decrease the chances of success by 100%. Lost another "Latency Issue" fight today against a Paragon on round 3 when I had significant advantage to win. Decided I would come on here and join the bandwagon...just annoyed is all.
As for "They can hoard it until they hit Paragon.", so can Paragons.
WTF does this even mean?
It means nothing is stopping any Player at any progress level from hoarding their Trophies. The limits are the same for everyone. A Paragon can hoard just the same as a Player below. This idea that they're going to gain some kind of unfair advantage by hoarding them (compared to Players that have been Paragon much longer at that) is not logical.
Bottom line, go progress in story content if you want better rewards in from the BG store.
It really is bad game design to gate progression in all your modes through one specific mode. For many reasons. Especially if many of the modes are wildly divergent from the gate mode.
It's like requiring an English major to take Calculus.
Kabam is starting to see the evidence already. I don't know if they understand that evidence.
Bottom line, go progress in story content if you want better rewards in from the BG store.
It really is bad game design to gate progression in all your modes through one specific mode. For many reasons. Especially if many of the modes are wildly divergent from the gate mode.
It's like requiring an English major to take Calculus.
Kabam is starting to see the evidence already. I don't know if they understand that evidence.
Story content is specifically designed to teach players about the other modes. If you can get Paragon, you can compete with Paragon players on the same level of skill and experience. Kabam has employees who's job it is to understand the evidence.
I will use Premier League from UK as an example. In Premier League, there are 20 teams and the top 4 teams when the season finished will eligible to play Champions League which is a continental competition. (=Gladiator Circuit) Even if you lost all matches in Champions League, just the rewards and broadcast fees you got for entering is massive and worth a lot. (get 0 point in Gladiator Circuit means you get URU III rewards and everything from victory track) While team finished 5th and lower can’t participate and they got nothing from Champions League because they keep playing each other. (The 5th and below may enter lower Europe competitions but the rewards are far inferior)
In lower tier than Premier League, there are Championship with 24 teams, league one, league two and etc. They need to finish the top of their league to get promotion to higher league tier next season. They keep playing against teams within their tiers. While, premier league team have higher fan base, stronger team, they pay higher wages to the player, they invest more (=time and money to build rosters in MCOC), teams in lower league of course, have less.
The system in BG allows top teams in Championship, league one and league two or even lower to enter the Champion League (Gladiator Circuit before now thankfully, only allow them to reach Platinum with protection in matchmaking) and got massive rewards by playing with each other within their tiers only. Even if they lose all matches in Champions League (Gladiator Circuit). While teams who finished 5th or lower in Premier League get nothing from Champions League, teams in lower tiers get massive rewards just for participation (and even if they lose all matches) in Champion League.
Do you think this is really fair for higher team? Similarly, you give NBA D-league team the right to play in NBA playoff while they only face other NBA D-league teams but many NBA teams doesn’t have a chance.
If you don’t know why 10k player vs 10k player is different than 17k vs 17k, you are not play end game contents/competitive content enough to realize it from your own experience. They have rosters to counter everything and far more experience. Lower end players just get lucky with some powerful meta champs and the opponents have no counter in all decks is enough for them to dominate the victory track. This can't be said at end game player vs each other. This can also be seen by end game players who play their alternate accounts with lower prestige and cruise to gladiator circuit.
Seem some people think if they got 17-18k roster too, they can beat all other 17k players because they are so good at this game while most 17k players who struck in lower tiers are just not good enough. Maybe in some cases, people with end game accounts are so bad at this game or bad drafts will make you lose no matter what but in most cases I feel quite sure it is not.
I really want Kabam to make the BG with just 2* just 3* or just 4* or make everyone can borrow any max champs to build rosters so that everyone has the same roster strength and see how the BG go. This type of BG can prove how this is a false perception.
Regarding the argument that rewards are not the same. You can open paragon shop for all players but in that case let remove all protections in matchmaking too. You also got same relics and elder marks from rewards (which help you get more rewards from solo and alliance BG events) You think relics are useless because you don't use them? They are not. If you think it is not for you then it supports the idea that same rewards are not worth the same for different accounts. If tokens are money you got from getting the right to play in Champions League, the teams in Championship, League one and lower can't buy superstars like Haaland or Mbappe even if they have money unless maybe you massively overpay their wages and they may still not interest to play in lower leagues at all (same with having money=having tokens but you can buy only buy 5 stars shards or buy 6* star shards with higher price than Paragon).
Also using Paragon as a point for argument is not suitable. People can be Paragon with something like 10-14k prestige (I'm unsure) while there are no highest ceiling for Paragon. The highest is around 19k now I think. Low prestige paragon can use tokens at paragon price too but then they never face real end game players til the Gladiator Circuit (now til platinum) Also, matchmaking are not base on title of your progression anyway (Paragon vs Paragon or UC vs UC) but it may presumably base on roster strengths (not just within the deck).
at least Kabam remove protection from platinum now.
Bottom line, go progress in story content if you want better rewards in from the BG store.
It really is bad game design to gate progression in all your modes through one specific mode. For many reasons. Especially if many of the modes are wildly divergent from the gate mode.
It's like requiring an English major to take Calculus.
Kabam is starting to see the evidence already. I don't know if they understand that evidence.
Story content is specifically designed to teach players about the other modes. If you can get Paragon, you can compete with Paragon players on the same level of skill and experience. Kabam has employees who's job it is to understand the evidence.
Early progression was training wheels. Middle progression was building blocks. But later progression is just pointless excursions into obscurity.
Later progression doesn't teach anything substantive and it doesn't tie into the other modes. It creates roadblocks to learning through grind walls, it focuses on exotic one-off matches that don't develop lasting value because they don't show up again in play, and it rewards mismatch strategy and brute force and cram memorize tactics and spam player crutch aids to get past content and never return.
It's like studying for a test that you'll never need to know the content afterwards for school or life. You just cram and memorize, then forget.
It's like a winding sidewalk that people have worn a straight line dirt path through the middle of it. To bypass the sidewalk's intended meandering, and instead just get a faster route.
As a designer, I figured they made it this way on purpose, to create a brain confusion state, so players wouldn't get too good too fast at the game. Like early arcade fighting games that didn't list any instructions for moves. Especially low spend MCOC players, who waste hours grinding trivial content and really diluting their play session learning experience or reinforcing bad muscle memory habits.
I've learned so much more in the Pain series and in Battlegrounds. Modes that can reinforce learning through direct access, repetition, motivated focus, clear showcase of player weaknesses and motivation to research and study solutions, putting player communities into the same box together at the same time, and defined goals.
I've done work for decades in the area of helping community development of fighting games. Frame data, hit boxes, FAQs, vetted video archives, matchup tier charts, etc. MCOC just doesn't have that kind of sophisticated tools to offer.
I wrote some other stuff, but I had to cut it out. Cause I have zero desire to shoot myself in the foot. MCOC just isn't the kind of game where you can recklessly share all your thoughts with devs and the community. It's a zero sum game. And that means it's often features adversarial: factions will fight to knock out each others advantages over time. Which is actually very cool in itself, as another form of interesting competition.
As for "They can hoard it until they hit Paragon.", so can Paragons.
WTF does this even mean?
It means nothing is stopping any Player at any progress level from hoarding their Trophies. The limits are the same for everyone. A Paragon can hoard just the same as a Player below. This idea that they're going to gain some kind of unfair advantage by hoarding them (compared to Players that have been Paragon much longer at that) is not logical.
Do you really not understand the hoarding argument? We've been talking about it for like 6 months now and you still don't get it?
As for "They can hoard it until they hit Paragon.", so can Paragons.
WTF does this even mean?
It means nothing is stopping any Player at any progress level from hoarding their Trophies. The limits are the same for everyone. A Paragon can hoard just the same as a Player below. This idea that they're going to gain some kind of unfair advantage by hoarding them (compared to Players that have been Paragon much longer at that) is not logical.
Do you really not understand the hoarding argument? We've been talking about it for like 6 months now and you still don't get it?
I understand the argument. I disagree with it. Anyone can hoard their Trophies. In any system. It's a weak argument at best.
As for "They can hoard it until they hit Paragon.", so can Paragons.
WTF does this even mean?
It means nothing is stopping any Player at any progress level from hoarding their Trophies. The limits are the same for everyone. A Paragon can hoard just the same as a Player below. This idea that they're going to gain some kind of unfair advantage by hoarding them (compared to Players that have been Paragon much longer at that) is not logical.
Do you really not understand the hoarding argument? We've been talking about it for like 6 months now and you still don't get it?
I understand the argument. I disagree with it. Anyone can hoard their Trophies. In any system. It's a weak argument at best.
I really don't think you do.
If you do understand it, why do you disagree with it?
As for "They can hoard it until they hit Paragon.", so can Paragons.
WTF does this even mean?
It means nothing is stopping any Player at any progress level from hoarding their Trophies. The limits are the same for everyone. A Paragon can hoard just the same as a Player below. This idea that they're going to gain some kind of unfair advantage by hoarding them (compared to Players that have been Paragon much longer at that) is not logical.
Do you really not understand the hoarding argument? We've been talking about it for like 6 months now and you still don't get it?
I understand the argument. I disagree with it. Anyone can hoard their Trophies. In any system. It's a weak argument at best.
I really don't think you do.
If you do understand it, why do you disagree with it?
Because it's not sound. First of all, I don't agree that it's actually that common of a thing. I don't suspect people are just sitting on hoards until they can hit Paragon, but let's say they are. Preventing someone from advancing isn't going to stop them from hoarding their Trophies. Any Player can choose to save them instead of spend them. At any rate of acquisition. Further to that, the value is only limited to what's available to them at that time. When they become Paragon, which is the highest, they're entitled to whatever is in the Store. The argument cancels itself out.
As for "They can hoard it until they hit Paragon.", so can Paragons.
WTF does this even mean?
It means nothing is stopping any Player at any progress level from hoarding their Trophies. The limits are the same for everyone. A Paragon can hoard just the same as a Player below. This idea that they're going to gain some kind of unfair advantage by hoarding them (compared to Players that have been Paragon much longer at that) is not logical.
Do you really not understand the hoarding argument? We've been talking about it for like 6 months now and you still don't get it?
I understand the argument. I disagree with it. Anyone can hoard their Trophies. In any system. It's a weak argument at best.
I really don't think you do.
If you do understand it, why do you disagree with it?
Because it's not sound. First of all, I don't agree that it's actually that common of a thing. I don't suspect people are just sitting on hoards until they can hit Paragon, but let's say they are. Preventing someone from advancing isn't going to stop them from hoarding their Trophies. Any Player can choose to save them instead of spend them. At any rate of acquisition. Further to that, the value is only limited to what's available to them at that time. When they become Paragon, which is the highest, they're entitled to whatever is in the Store. The argument cancels itself out.
lol, so you clearly do not get it. The argument isn't about people are hoarding or trying to stop them from hoarding. It's that they're able to earn a bunch of easy tokens and wait to spend them once they raise their title. The fact that they are impatient isn't my problem and doesn't change the fact that there is no logical "the rewards are different" argument.
Honestly, who TF is arguing against allowing people to hoard???
Comments
BG is a competition not the main source of rank up materials and champion acquisition.
People who refuse to progress by staying in a single progression level and not take on the hard fights to become TB or Paragon should not be complaining about facing those who did finish those fights. Neither they should complain about a reward gate cause they do not deserve similar rewards.
Kabam made a mistake by letting 4 progression levels "compete"...
Its the equivalent of taking a brand new honda civic and taking it straight to the race track and upgrading as you go.. its obvious you are going to lose to cars that have been fixed up with your factory stock car...
And when i mentioned Seating it was not about skill.. it was about time.. sure his skill allowed him to do content within a month or so.. but the same people complain season after season..and keep on complaining about future seasons, as if their intention was to stay UC/Cav FOREVER
Are you actually proposing that anyone is fair game to be matched against anyone right from the get go(bronze 3) with no protection built in for any class of competitors?
A low to even mid Paragon account will struggle like mad to get out of bronze and silver while lower accounts can still cruise fairly easy to platinum. That makes zero sense to me.
The BGs store is designed with this philosophy.
They might not be identical, but they are equal.
And let’s never forget BGs rewards aren’t only Trophy tokens.
Relic stuff, Elder Marks, Solo and Ally BGs events milestones and ranked rewards are identical for all.
So this narrative of different rewards, is completely false and a weak (if not even an idiotic) argument.
You can argue that Prestige matchmaking is needed (to an extend) to protect from big range match ups from the start, in order to ensure high participation in BGs.
But you can’t argue Prestige matchmaking is needed throughout VT (some were even asking for GC too 😂), because rewards aren’t the same for each progression tier, cause they actually are the same for all 🙂
The argument that people can hoard them until they progress is moot because once they reach the ceiling and become Paragon, the debate nulls itself. You're no longer debating what's available for someone lower.
Clearly the BG mode could be configured in any number of ways. To address any number of goals.
In the shared public space of community public communication, I expect players will continue to provide feedback and lobby for the changes they feel are correct or otherwise want to happen (or not happen).
I've been playing competitively, helping run tournaments, and been active in community development for fighting games since the 90's. I've also worked as a designer in, networked extensively in, and given guest lectures on video game development. And I have an education and work background in economics, accounting, and project management. Much of game design is about determining what the stakeholder (or other's) goals are, and then creating and tuning content for those goals. Battlegrounds as a mode has a fairly wide range of flexibility on what it could be, on who it could be for, and what the play experience could be. It will be interesting to see how Kabam and others choose (or otherwise impacts) how the mode develops over time.
The core complaints will always remain: matchmaking feels unfair vs matchmaking is fair in the context of the rewards. No one will ever be mollified as long as BGs = VT + GC + trophies + store.
One thing I'd like to add, is that people also like to compare BGs to AW, but then ignore a significant difference - significant rewards can be obtained every other day and the store refreshes weekly in BGs. Comparatively, the per AW match provides measly rewards with the good stuff only coming at the end of the season. That renders the comparison moot, as the effort/reward structure is different. The supercharged structure of BGs is its own economy in and of itself.
When someone says that the match system should be such and such because rewards and I argue against that, it is not because I believe the opposite. It is because I believe any attempt to justify a particular match making system on the basis of what rewards get handed out is either faulty on its face or improperly attempts to look at the entire system from match to rewards without taking everything properly into account. It is one thing to say that the game mode is reasonable given the rewards, but to state that the rewards *mandate* a particular way of doing things is an extremely steep hill to climb. It is so steep that not even the game designers make any attempt to climb it. That's simply not a conversation that ever comes up. Instead, the game mode is designed and conceptualized as a connected set of pseudo-independent solutions to game design problems that have to work together at their interfaces.
In a fair competition, you design the competitive elements so that the competitors get ranked properly by competitive performance. Once you do, you choose how you decide to reward those ranks however you see fit within the parameters of how you want your rewards to work. We don't say that the Gold medal in the Olympics is worth X and the Silver medal is worth Y and thus we choose to run the competition in a way that will apportion those rewards accordingly. We run the race, find out who finished first, second, and third, and then we hand out medals. We don't ask if second place deserves more than just a Silver medal. Silver medal is what second place gets, period. Similarly in Battlegrounds first place gets this, second place gets that, and so on. We figure out where everyone places first, then we hand out rewards. And since this is a progressional game, the rewards that a lower progress player gets may be constrained by progressional constraints. We don't take that into account when we hand out rewards, because that's taken care of in a completely different economic system.
It should be based on skill, especially when you get that high in progression. Can you imagine football player saying it’s not fair he’s too big? Or basketball player saying it’s not fair he’s taller? Nothings ever going to be completely balanced that’s why you work to build up your roster and if you can’t get your roster high enough, you work on skills. The taller basketball player doesn’t have to be as skilled as the shorter ones, but it doesn’t mean the shorter one can’t win.
Fast forward to when that same player eventually becomes Thronebreaker and does TB MEQ. He's gonna get wrecked, not because of a lack of roster depth, but because of a lack of skill and knowledge of nodes and defenders.
Then that same player will be back on the forums complaining about difficulty again.
That's why the titles are tied to store value.
Bottom line, go progress in story content if you want better rewards in from the BG store.
Problem solved.
Getting snubbed because of BG server lag and latency issues, losing progression potential and spending resources like elders marks just makes me sick. Hard to win an already unfair fight when the makers decrease the chances of success by 100%.
Lost another "Latency Issue" fight today against a Paragon on round 3 when I had significant advantage to win. Decided I would come on here and join the bandwagon...just annoyed is all.
It's like requiring an English major to take Calculus.
Kabam is starting to see the evidence already. I don't know if they understand that evidence.
In lower tier than Premier League, there are Championship with 24 teams, league one, league two and etc. They need to finish the top of their league to get promotion to higher league tier next season. They keep playing against teams within their tiers. While, premier league team have higher fan base, stronger team, they pay higher wages to the player, they invest more (=time and money to build rosters in MCOC), teams in lower league of course, have less.
The system in BG allows top teams in Championship, league one and league two or even lower to enter the Champion League (Gladiator Circuit before now thankfully, only allow them to reach Platinum with protection in matchmaking) and got massive rewards by playing with each other within their tiers only. Even if they lose all matches in Champions League (Gladiator Circuit). While teams who finished 5th or lower in Premier League get nothing from Champions League, teams in lower tiers get massive rewards just for participation (and even if they lose all matches) in Champion League.
Do you think this is really fair for higher team? Similarly, you give NBA D-league team the right to play in NBA playoff while they only face other NBA D-league teams but many NBA teams doesn’t have a chance.
If you don’t know why 10k player vs 10k player is different than 17k vs 17k, you are not play end game contents/competitive content enough to realize it from your own experience. They have rosters to counter everything and far more experience. Lower end players just get lucky with some powerful meta champs and the opponents have no counter in all decks is enough for them to dominate the victory track. This can't be said at end game player vs each other. This can also be seen by end game players who play their alternate accounts with lower prestige and cruise to gladiator circuit.
Seem some people think if they got 17-18k roster too, they can beat all other 17k players because they are so good at this game while most 17k players who struck in lower tiers are just not good enough. Maybe in some cases, people with end game accounts are so bad at this game or bad drafts will make you lose no matter what but in most cases I feel quite sure it is not.
I really want Kabam to make the BG with just 2* just 3* or just 4* or make everyone can borrow any max champs to build rosters so that everyone has the same roster strength and see how the BG go. This type of BG can prove how this is a false perception.
Regarding the argument that rewards are not the same. You can open paragon shop for all players but in that case let remove all protections in matchmaking too. You also got same relics and elder marks from rewards (which help you get more rewards from solo and alliance BG events) You think relics are useless because you don't use them? They are not. If you think it is not for you then it supports the idea that same rewards are not worth the same for different accounts. If tokens are money you got from getting the right to play in Champions League, the teams in Championship, League one and lower can't buy superstars like Haaland or Mbappe even if they have money unless maybe you massively overpay their wages and they may still not interest to play in lower leagues at all (same with having money=having tokens but you can buy only buy 5 stars shards or buy 6* star shards with higher price than Paragon).
Also using Paragon as a point for argument is not suitable. People can be Paragon with something like 10-14k prestige (I'm unsure) while there are no highest ceiling for Paragon. The highest is around 19k now I think. Low prestige paragon can use tokens at paragon price too but then they never face real end game players til the Gladiator Circuit (now til platinum) Also, matchmaking are not base on title of your progression anyway (Paragon vs Paragon or UC vs UC) but it may presumably base on roster strengths (not just within the deck).
at least Kabam remove protection from platinum now.
Later progression doesn't teach anything substantive and it doesn't tie into the other modes. It creates roadblocks to learning through grind walls, it focuses on exotic one-off matches that don't develop lasting value because they don't show up again in play, and it rewards mismatch strategy and brute force and cram memorize tactics and spam player crutch aids to get past content and never return.
It's like studying for a test that you'll never need to know the content afterwards for school or life. You just cram and memorize, then forget.
It's like a winding sidewalk that people have worn a straight line dirt path through the middle of it. To bypass the sidewalk's intended meandering, and instead just get a faster route.
As a designer, I figured they made it this way on purpose, to create a brain confusion state, so players wouldn't get too good too fast at the game. Like early arcade fighting games that didn't list any instructions for moves. Especially low spend MCOC players, who waste hours grinding trivial content and really diluting their play session learning experience or reinforcing bad muscle memory habits.
I've learned so much more in the Pain series and in Battlegrounds. Modes that can reinforce learning through direct access, repetition, motivated focus, clear showcase of player weaknesses and motivation to research and study solutions, putting player communities into the same box together at the same time, and defined goals.
I've done work for decades in the area of helping community development of fighting games. Frame data, hit boxes, FAQs, vetted video archives, matchup tier charts, etc. MCOC just doesn't have that kind of sophisticated tools to offer.
I wrote some other stuff, but I had to cut it out. Cause I have zero desire to shoot myself in the foot. MCOC just isn't the kind of game where you can recklessly share all your thoughts with devs and the community. It's a zero sum game. And that means it's often features adversarial: factions will fight to knock out each others advantages over time. Which is actually very cool in itself, as another form of interesting competition.
If you do understand it, why do you disagree with it?
First of all, I don't agree that it's actually that common of a thing. I don't suspect people are just sitting on hoards until they can hit Paragon, but let's say they are.
Preventing someone from advancing isn't going to stop them from hoarding their Trophies. Any Player can choose to save them instead of spend them. At any rate of acquisition.
Further to that, the value is only limited to what's available to them at that time. When they become Paragon, which is the highest, they're entitled to whatever is in the Store. The argument cancels itself out.
Honestly, who TF is arguing against allowing people to hoard???