I don't see that perspective. It isn't going to make them get stuck faster. Nor would it prevent them from hitting their plateau.
In a 1-1 system people will remain at the tier when they hit a plateau. Not just because they have a 50% win-rate but everyone around them will also have a 50% win-rate. There is an equilibrium to be achieved, it might take a while for that 50% win rate to be evenly distributed, but you can get there.
In a 2-1 scoring, eventually everyone will progress. One only needs ~40% win rate to progress. If some is winning only 40%, someone else is winning 60% of their matches. There is never a point where that pool of players can be stable, because you cannot have an entire group of players playing each other and arrive at a 40% win-rate. Everyone eventually goes up and the process repeats in the next tier.
The scoring has be close to 1-1 wherever you want most of the players to be. Devs have decided that somewhere around platinum. If you want things to change, you have to make a case for why that threshold should be higher. Eventually, a large part of the player pool will end up in a few tiers. At that level they will all progress slowly (or not at all).
If your opinion is that almost everyone should be in GC (or Diamond or Vibranium), then be clear and say that. Wherever the point is, people will be stuck in terms of their climb. Where should it be?
I've made that case a number of times, among the people trolling me. I'm at the point now where I'm just watching what happens because burning people out in the VT so the GC can keep their spot every month is only going to go so far. I never said everyone belongs in the GC. Not everyone will get into the GC with the suggestion I made. It doesn't change the higher Players that the lower ones will have to come up against. What it does, is curve the cycle of pissing in the wind when you're doing the get-one-lose-one tango. Which, let's be honest, was the argument from higher Players stuck in the first 3 Tiers. No one wants that. Regardless of where they're at in the game. As I said, having the 3 Tiers require one Win per Token to get into the GC is reasonable. Expecting the majority of the VT to be like that is just adding salt. What the hell is the sense of even having the VT if that's the case? Redundant point because I'm sure some people would love that.
So 2 tokens per win till Diamond and only Vibranium III/II/I should be one token per win. Is that it?
There are players with 4 different progression levels in BG. Would 3 tiers be sufficient to create homogenous groups where win-rates stabilise at 50%? If they don't we'll be back to most people being in BG, which devs are clearly against.
That's the suggestion. Considering everyone meets everyone else from around Plat 2 up, and seeding starts everyone around there, yes.
Fine, that's a start. So you want a 2-1 scoring system till Vibranium.
I would say there is zero chance of this being implemented. But more importantly, why is this needed and what does this achieve other than make most of VT grindable?
You need to have an answer to the why. If the idea is to just make it easier to progress through VT, you have to explain why that is needed. Facts, numbers, data or even anecdotes of actual experience, something other than hyperbole or broad statements. Can't just be that 'it's my opinion'. You are asking for someone to put in the work to redesigning BGs, you need to provide a justification for that effort.
This is a Fourm for discussing a game. I don't need hours of research, facts, citing, data, or scientific findings just to suggest something. It's based on experience, sure. Both in BGs, and in other areas of the game. I started Bronze 1 because last Season, I disagreed with the changes to Tokens enough not to bother. This Season, I said I'll give it a go anyway, and it was just as I suspected. It's an absolute slog. Unnecessarily.
My main account is almost certainly much stronger than yours, started in P1, and has taken 31 matches to reach Vibranium 3 with a 74% win percentage.
My cavalier account is almost certainly much weaker than yours, started in Silver 2 this season, and has taken 22 matches to reach Platinum 3 with a 77% win percentage. And this is just the halfway point of the season.
My win percentage in season eight was closer to 40%, so I'm not the world's greatest Battlegrounds player. I might, however, be one of the smarter ones, as the primary thing I changed between season eight and season eleven is not deck (they are both slightly better due to rank ups over time) and not skill (although I'm probably slightly better due to having more practice). It is playing smartly. When I say "if you're losing take a break" I don't just preach that, I practice that. And while you keep saying that's not a "solution" it seems to work for me. It would probably work for most people willing to listen.
Pushing when you're losing is stubborn, as is arguing against slowing down before trying it. Stubborn only works if you're extremely good, extremely focused, or extremely undaunted. For most players, BG is only a slog if they want it to be. For those players, BG is not unnecessarily a slog. It is necessarily a slog, so as to not reward poor play or poor decision making.
I made it from Bronze 1 to Diamond 1 in less than 2 weeks. I mean, well done, but that's really not the point of my issue. Further to that, you and I are more experienced than others. The point is, it's too much of a slog unless you have a much higher success rate from Plat up, and it doesn't need to be.
Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
I don't see that perspective. It isn't going to make them get stuck faster. Nor would it prevent them from hitting their plateau.
In a 1-1 system people will remain at the tier when they hit a plateau. Not just because they have a 50% win-rate but everyone around them will also have a 50% win-rate. There is an equilibrium to be achieved, it might take a while for that 50% win rate to be evenly distributed, but you can get there.
In a 2-1 scoring, eventually everyone will progress. One only needs ~40% win rate to progress. If some is winning only 40%, someone else is winning 60% of their matches. There is never a point where that pool of players can be stable, because you cannot have an entire group of players playing each other and arrive at a 40% win-rate. Everyone eventually goes up and the process repeats in the next tier.
The scoring has be close to 1-1 wherever you want most of the players to be. Devs have decided that somewhere around platinum. If you want things to change, you have to make a case for why that threshold should be higher. Eventually, a large part of the player pool will end up in a few tiers. At that level they will all progress slowly (or not at all).
If your opinion is that almost everyone should be in GC (or Diamond or Vibranium), then be clear and say that. Wherever the point is, people will be stuck in terms of their climb. Where should it be?
I've made that case a number of times, among the people trolling me. I'm at the point now where I'm just watching what happens because burning people out in the VT so the GC can keep their spot every month is only going to go so far. I never said everyone belongs in the GC. Not everyone will get into the GC with the suggestion I made. It doesn't change the higher Players that the lower ones will have to come up against. What it does, is curve the cycle of pissing in the wind when you're doing the get-one-lose-one tango. Which, let's be honest, was the argument from higher Players stuck in the first 3 Tiers. No one wants that. Regardless of where they're at in the game. As I said, having the 3 Tiers require one Win per Token to get into the GC is reasonable. Expecting the majority of the VT to be like that is just adding salt. What the hell is the sense of even having the VT if that's the case? Redundant point because I'm sure some people would love that.
So 2 tokens per win till Diamond and only Vibranium III/II/I should be one token per win. Is that it?
There are players with 4 different progression levels in BG. Would 3 tiers be sufficient to create homogenous groups where win-rates stabilise at 50%? If they don't we'll be back to most people being in BG, which devs are clearly against.
That's the suggestion. Considering everyone meets everyone else from around Plat 2 up, and seeding starts everyone around there, yes.
Fine, that's a start. So you want a 2-1 scoring system till Vibranium.
I would say there is zero chance of this being implemented. But more importantly, why is this needed and what does this achieve other than make most of VT grindable?
You need to have an answer to the why. If the idea is to just make it easier to progress through VT, you have to explain why that is needed. Facts, numbers, data or even anecdotes of actual experience, something other than hyperbole or broad statements. Can't just be that 'it's my opinion'. You are asking for someone to put in the work to redesigning BGs, you need to provide a justification for that effort.
This is a Fourm for discussing a game. I don't need hours of research, facts, citing, data, or scientific findings just to suggest something. It's based on experience, sure. Both in BGs, and in other areas of the game. I started Bronze 1 because last Season, I disagreed with the changes to Tokens enough not to bother. This Season, I said I'll give it a go anyway, and it was just as I suspected. It's an absolute slog. Unnecessarily.
My main account is almost certainly much stronger than yours, started in P1, and has taken 31 matches to reach Vibranium 3 with a 74% win percentage.
My cavalier account is almost certainly much weaker than yours, started in Silver 2 this season, and has taken 22 matches to reach Platinum 3 with a 77% win percentage. And this is just the halfway point of the season.
My win percentage in season eight was closer to 40%, so I'm not the world's greatest Battlegrounds player. I might, however, be one of the smarter ones, as the primary thing I changed between season eight and season eleven is not deck (they are both slightly better due to rank ups over time) and not skill (although I'm probably slightly better due to having more practice). It is playing smartly. When I say "if you're losing take a break" I don't just preach that, I practice that. And while you keep saying that's not a "solution" it seems to work for me. It would probably work for most people willing to listen.
Pushing when you're losing is stubborn, as is arguing against slowing down before trying it. Stubborn only works if you're extremely good, extremely focused, or extremely undaunted. For most players, BG is only a slog if they want it to be. For those players, BG is not unnecessarily a slog. It is necessarily a slog, so as to not reward poor play or poor decision making.
I made it from Bronze 1 to Diamond 1 in less than 2 weeks. I mean, well done, but that's really not the point of my issue. Further to that, you and I are more experienced than others. The point is, it's too much of a slog unless you have a much higher success rate from Plat up, and it doesn't need to be.
It has to be a slog if you have a low win percentage, because it it wasn't a slog for players with a low win percentage then that means everyone will get to GC quickly. If winning gets you there quickly and losing gets you there quickly, who's not getting into GC? The comatose?
Your stated issue (I have no idea what your actual issues might be at this point) is that BG should not be a slog for *anyone*, that *everyone* should have an equal time progressing without running into roadblocks. But if you don't run into roadblocks, you advance without limit. At least given the way logic works in my universe. Which is not so much a problem as what is supposed to happen if you're not trying to hand out participation trophies to everyone.
I don't see that perspective. It isn't going to make them get stuck faster. Nor would it prevent them from hitting their plateau.
In a 1-1 system people will remain at the tier when they hit a plateau. Not just because they have a 50% win-rate but everyone around them will also have a 50% win-rate. There is an equilibrium to be achieved, it might take a while for that 50% win rate to be evenly distributed, but you can get there.
In a 2-1 scoring, eventually everyone will progress. One only needs ~40% win rate to progress. If some is winning only 40%, someone else is winning 60% of their matches. There is never a point where that pool of players can be stable, because you cannot have an entire group of players playing each other and arrive at a 40% win-rate. Everyone eventually goes up and the process repeats in the next tier.
The scoring has be close to 1-1 wherever you want most of the players to be. Devs have decided that somewhere around platinum. If you want things to change, you have to make a case for why that threshold should be higher. Eventually, a large part of the player pool will end up in a few tiers. At that level they will all progress slowly (or not at all).
If your opinion is that almost everyone should be in GC (or Diamond or Vibranium), then be clear and say that. Wherever the point is, people will be stuck in terms of their climb. Where should it be?
I've made that case a number of times, among the people trolling me. I'm at the point now where I'm just watching what happens because burning people out in the VT so the GC can keep their spot every month is only going to go so far. I never said everyone belongs in the GC. Not everyone will get into the GC with the suggestion I made. It doesn't change the higher Players that the lower ones will have to come up against. What it does, is curve the cycle of pissing in the wind when you're doing the get-one-lose-one tango. Which, let's be honest, was the argument from higher Players stuck in the first 3 Tiers. No one wants that. Regardless of where they're at in the game. As I said, having the 3 Tiers require one Win per Token to get into the GC is reasonable. Expecting the majority of the VT to be like that is just adding salt. What the hell is the sense of even having the VT if that's the case? Redundant point because I'm sure some people would love that.
So 2 tokens per win till Diamond and only Vibranium III/II/I should be one token per win. Is that it?
There are players with 4 different progression levels in BG. Would 3 tiers be sufficient to create homogenous groups where win-rates stabilise at 50%? If they don't we'll be back to most people being in BG, which devs are clearly against.
That's the suggestion. Considering everyone meets everyone else from around Plat 2 up, and seeding starts everyone around there, yes.
Fine, that's a start. So you want a 2-1 scoring system till Vibranium.
I would say there is zero chance of this being implemented. But more importantly, why is this needed and what does this achieve other than make most of VT grindable?
You need to have an answer to the why. If the idea is to just make it easier to progress through VT, you have to explain why that is needed. Facts, numbers, data or even anecdotes of actual experience, something other than hyperbole or broad statements. Can't just be that 'it's my opinion'. You are asking for someone to put in the work to redesigning BGs, you need to provide a justification for that effort.
This is a Fourm for discussing a game. I don't need hours of research, facts, citing, data, or scientific findings just to suggest something. It's based on experience, sure. Both in BGs, and in other areas of the game. I started Bronze 1 because last Season, I disagreed with the changes to Tokens enough not to bother. This Season, I said I'll give it a go anyway, and it was just as I suspected. It's an absolute slog. Unnecessarily.
My main account is almost certainly much stronger than yours, started in P1, and has taken 31 matches to reach Vibranium 3 with a 74% win percentage.
My cavalier account is almost certainly much weaker than yours, started in Silver 2 this season, and has taken 22 matches to reach Platinum 3 with a 77% win percentage. And this is just the halfway point of the season.
My win percentage in season eight was closer to 40%, so I'm not the world's greatest Battlegrounds player. I might, however, be one of the smarter ones, as the primary thing I changed between season eight and season eleven is not deck (they are both slightly better due to rank ups over time) and not skill (although I'm probably slightly better due to having more practice). It is playing smartly. When I say "if you're losing take a break" I don't just preach that, I practice that. And while you keep saying that's not a "solution" it seems to work for me. It would probably work for most people willing to listen.
Pushing when you're losing is stubborn, as is arguing against slowing down before trying it. Stubborn only works if you're extremely good, extremely focused, or extremely undaunted. For most players, BG is only a slog if they want it to be. For those players, BG is not unnecessarily a slog. It is necessarily a slog, so as to not reward poor play or poor decision making.
I made it from Bronze 1 to Diamond 1 in less than 2 weeks. I mean, well done, but that's really not the point of my issue. Further to that, you and I are more experienced than others. The point is, it's too much of a slog unless you have a much higher success rate from Plat up, and it doesn't need to be.
It has to be a slog if you have a low win percentage, because it it wasn't a slog for players with a low win percentage then that means everyone will get to GC quickly. If winning gets you there quickly and losing gets you there quickly, who's not getting into GC? The comatose?
Your stated issue (I have no idea what your actual issues might be at this point) is that BG should not be a slog for *anyone*, that *everyone* should have an equal time progressing without running into roadblocks. But if you don't run into roadblocks, you advance without limit. At least given the way logic works in my universe. Which is not so much a problem as what is supposed to happen if you're not trying to hand out participation trophies to everyone.
A low win percentage is ensured by one of two things. Their skill, and the Rosters they're coming up against. Which is why I keep reiterating that seeding alone was enough because they're thrown among all of the GC at that point. I don't know how you're gathering participation trophies from my comments, but there's a difference between creating roadblocks, and throwing gasoline on a fire.
Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
This is total nonsense. No one, and I mean no one loses anything when another player forfeits a match against them. They aren't getting a monopoly on the system. The great irony here is that you are complaining about something that the entire rest of everyone who complains about it does so for the exact opposite reason, because your reasoning is nonsensical. The people who complain about tanking complain because they are handing out easy wins. Players who should not win, and would not ordinarily win, are winning and advancing beyond what they ordinarily would, skewing the amount of low progress players who aren't getting stopped in their tracks.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
@DNA3000 that’s a very, very, very generous interpretation.
Dr. Zola
i wouldn't call it generous myself. I belong to the school of aim what you want to hit, hit what you aim at. Where I come from, "iterative design" is called "making a lot of mistakes." It just happens to be the main school of thought in game design.
@DNA3000 that’s a very, very, very generous interpretation.
Dr. Zola
i wouldn't call it generous myself. I belong to the school of aim what you want to hit, hit what you aim at. Where I come from, "iterative design" is called "making a lot of mistakes." It just happens to be the main school of thought in game design.
For the statement. Not the design.
And I don’t recall anyone saying “stick with us here—this is a new game mode and we are going to make a lot of mistakes along the way.”
Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
This is total nonsense. No one, and I mean no one loses anything when another player forfeits a match against them. They aren't getting a monopoly on the system. The great irony here is that you are complaining about something that the entire rest of everyone who complains about it does so for the exact opposite reason, because your reasoning is nonsensical. The people who complain about tanking complain because they are handing out easy wins. Players who should not win, and would not ordinarily win, are winning and advancing beyond what they ordinarily would, skewing the amount of low progress players who aren't getting stopped in their tracks.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
You're kidding me with this, right? I expect to hear how Tanking just for Wins is harmless from other people but not from someone who has more forethought. The system is manipulated. Players who don't earn the Win are given a bye, then they become food for the next strong Player, and the ones who get hit on the odd Match that they're trying are ambushed. It skews the results of the entire system that is meant to reflect actual results. I called it a monopoly because that's what it is. They want their final rank, but not before they play the system like a xylophone and mess with everyone else's ranking. It's sure as hell not helping the system. No one is "helped" by being given a pass. You shouldn't even have a system that makes it an option.
I don't see that perspective. It isn't going to make them get stuck faster. Nor would it prevent them from hitting their plateau.
In a 1-1 system people will remain at the tier when they hit a plateau. Not just because they have a 50% win-rate but everyone around them will also have a 50% win-rate. There is an equilibrium to be achieved, it might take a while for that 50% win rate to be evenly distributed, but you can get there.
In a 2-1 scoring, eventually everyone will progress. One only needs ~40% win rate to progress. If some is winning only 40%, someone else is winning 60% of their matches. There is never a point where that pool of players can be stable, because you cannot have an entire group of players playing each other and arrive at a 40% win-rate. Everyone eventually goes up and the process repeats in the next tier.
The scoring has be close to 1-1 wherever you want most of the players to be. Devs have decided that somewhere around platinum. If you want things to change, you have to make a case for why that threshold should be higher. Eventually, a large part of the player pool will end up in a few tiers. At that level they will all progress slowly (or not at all).
If your opinion is that almost everyone should be in GC (or Diamond or Vibranium), then be clear and say that. Wherever the point is, people will be stuck in terms of their climb. Where should it be?
I've made that case a number of times, among the people trolling me. I'm at the point now where I'm just watching what happens because burning people out in the VT so the GC can keep their spot every month is only going to go so far. I never said everyone belongs in the GC. Not everyone will get into the GC with the suggestion I made. It doesn't change the higher Players that the lower ones will have to come up against. What it does, is curve the cycle of pissing in the wind when you're doing the get-one-lose-one tango. Which, let's be honest, was the argument from higher Players stuck in the first 3 Tiers. No one wants that. Regardless of where they're at in the game. As I said, having the 3 Tiers require one Win per Token to get into the GC is reasonable. Expecting the majority of the VT to be like that is just adding salt. What the hell is the sense of even having the VT if that's the case? Redundant point because I'm sure some people would love that.
So 2 tokens per win till Diamond and only Vibranium III/II/I should be one token per win. Is that it?
There are players with 4 different progression levels in BG. Would 3 tiers be sufficient to create homogenous groups where win-rates stabilise at 50%? If they don't we'll be back to most people being in BG, which devs are clearly against.
That's the suggestion. Considering everyone meets everyone else from around Plat 2 up, and seeding starts everyone around there, yes.
Fine, that's a start. So you want a 2-1 scoring system till Vibranium.
I would say there is zero chance of this being implemented. But more importantly, why is this needed and what does this achieve other than make most of VT grindable?
You need to have an answer to the why. If the idea is to just make it easier to progress through VT, you have to explain why that is needed. Facts, numbers, data or even anecdotes of actual experience, something other than hyperbole or broad statements. Can't just be that 'it's my opinion'. You are asking for someone to put in the work to redesigning BGs, you need to provide a justification for that effort.
This is a Fourm for discussing a game. I don't need hours of research, facts, citing, data, or scientific findings just to suggest something. It's based on experience, sure. Both in BGs, and in other areas of the game. I started Bronze 1 because last Season, I disagreed with the changes to Tokens enough not to bother. This Season, I said I'll give it a go anyway, and it was just as I suspected. It's an absolute slog. Unnecessarily.
How do you define unnecessarily. If I recall, you are somewhere between Diamond and Vibranium. It's just first half of the season. You'll most likely get into GC, with a 2-1 scoring you'd probably be there already, maybe in the first 10 days. All the way from Bronze. If you get into GC, you'll start at platinum next season. You'll probably get to GC in the first two weeks. That's pretty decent right? How much easier does it need to be? Your progress doesn't match up to your claim that its a slog.
While you don't need to provide hours of research, you at least need to present a coherent argument beyond feelings. You say you don't want to make it easy for everyone to be in GC but advocate a system which will logically lead to that outcome. Pick a side.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
I think one perspective that I haven't seen you touch upon (unless I missed it) is that, unlike most other competitive games, MCOC has an entry cost per match played. Thus, unless you're willing to burn energy refills/units on tokens, there is a resource restricted upper limit on the number of BG matches a player can play per day, and consequentially, per season.
Thus, even though the high Paragons farming Plat are overall medal neutral in the system (they give out as many wins as they cause losses), on average if a lower end player faces two of these people in a day, they will likely end up with no net change to their medals, but they still lost two of their entries for the day. I can see this creating two problems:
1) It suppresses the climb rate and climb potential of the players who have to deal with this. An account only has 30ish days to climb, and if you end up being forced to waste X% of the energy/tokens you have available for BG per season to these non-matches, it is entirely possible that you will end up placing lower than your true potential, simply from running out of time/energy before the season end.
2.) This encourage lower end player to simply quit trying to push, because energy is a shared resource in this game, and, unsurprising, people don't like wasting resources and will invest it elsewhere. Keep in mind that this is not the same as a player quitting because they can't progress past their skill/account limit, they're quitting because there is an effective tax on their BG entries created by these farmers, and that is unfun/unfair. Many of these player could have potentially gained higher tier rewards if they weren't discouraged by this situation. In addition, this creates a downwards spiral in the tier. Fewer lower end players in the pool, means more likelihood to run into these farmers, which causes more lower end players to get discouraged and quit.
Now the impact of this on the player base is obviously caveated on what percent of matches in Plat/Diamond are against these farmers. I don't really have the data to take a guess. But it's clearly not zero, so I don't know if I'd say it was completely ludicrous that at least a handful of players every season lost out on the next tier of rewards because they had to waste their energy on these matches with the farmers.
If I hit the win 1/lose 1 streak I normally just wait a couple of days for the tier to clear out a bit and go again or change the time of day I'm playing so I'm seeing a different region more than others but the best way to fix BG's is something I can control easily, that is, improving my deck.
And for those complaining about points farming, I'll listen to your objection and agree with you if you can honestly say you've never ran RTTL for hero use, looked for easy duel targets in low tier EQ or ever took a revive from 3.2.6 after it was completed the first time.
I don't see that perspective. It isn't going to make them get stuck faster. Nor would it prevent them from hitting their plateau.
In a 1-1 system people will remain at the tier when they hit a plateau. Not just because they have a 50% win-rate but everyone around them will also have a 50% win-rate. There is an equilibrium to be achieved, it might take a while for that 50% win rate to be evenly distributed, but you can get there.
In a 2-1 scoring, eventually everyone will progress. One only needs ~40% win rate to progress. If some is winning only 40%, someone else is winning 60% of their matches. There is never a point where that pool of players can be stable, because you cannot have an entire group of players playing each other and arrive at a 40% win-rate. Everyone eventually goes up and the process repeats in the next tier.
The scoring has be close to 1-1 wherever you want most of the players to be. Devs have decided that somewhere around platinum. If you want things to change, you have to make a case for why that threshold should be higher. Eventually, a large part of the player pool will end up in a few tiers. At that level they will all progress slowly (or not at all).
If your opinion is that almost everyone should be in GC (or Diamond or Vibranium), then be clear and say that. Wherever the point is, people will be stuck in terms of their climb. Where should it be?
I've made that case a number of times, among the people trolling me. I'm at the point now where I'm just watching what happens because burning people out in the VT so the GC can keep their spot every month is only going to go so far. I never said everyone belongs in the GC. Not everyone will get into the GC with the suggestion I made. It doesn't change the higher Players that the lower ones will have to come up against. What it does, is curve the cycle of pissing in the wind when you're doing the get-one-lose-one tango. Which, let's be honest, was the argument from higher Players stuck in the first 3 Tiers. No one wants that. Regardless of where they're at in the game. As I said, having the 3 Tiers require one Win per Token to get into the GC is reasonable. Expecting the majority of the VT to be like that is just adding salt. What the hell is the sense of even having the VT if that's the case? Redundant point because I'm sure some people would love that.
So 2 tokens per win till Diamond and only Vibranium III/II/I should be one token per win. Is that it?
There are players with 4 different progression levels in BG. Would 3 tiers be sufficient to create homogenous groups where win-rates stabilise at 50%? If they don't we'll be back to most people being in BG, which devs are clearly against.
That's the suggestion. Considering everyone meets everyone else from around Plat 2 up, and seeding starts everyone around there, yes.
Fine, that's a start. So you want a 2-1 scoring system till Vibranium.
I would say there is zero chance of this being implemented. But more importantly, why is this needed and what does this achieve other than make most of VT grindable?
You need to have an answer to the why. If the idea is to just make it easier to progress through VT, you have to explain why that is needed. Facts, numbers, data or even anecdotes of actual experience, something other than hyperbole or broad statements. Can't just be that 'it's my opinion'. You are asking for someone to put in the work to redesigning BGs, you need to provide a justification for that effort.
This is a Fourm for discussing a game. I don't need hours of research, facts, citing, data, or scientific findings just to suggest something. It's based on experience, sure. Both in BGs, and in other areas of the game. I started Bronze 1 because last Season, I disagreed with the changes to Tokens enough not to bother. This Season, I said I'll give it a go anyway, and it was just as I suspected. It's an absolute slog. Unnecessarily.
So because you chose not to participate in last season, you didn't get seeded in the correct rank. This seems like user error and not actually the system's fault.
Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
This is total nonsense. No one, and I mean no one loses anything when another player forfeits a match against them. They aren't getting a monopoly on the system. The great irony here is that you are complaining about something that the entire rest of everyone who complains about it does so for the exact opposite reason, because your reasoning is nonsensical. The people who complain about tanking complain because they are handing out easy wins. Players who should not win, and would not ordinarily win, are winning and advancing beyond what they ordinarily would, skewing the amount of low progress players who aren't getting stopped in their tracks.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
Using your stable/unstable tiers analogy, I think the reasoning is stronger players camping at a lower level brings stability to a tier sooner than it should otherwise.
You are only looking at it from a high strength player forfeiting a match against a low strength one. But campers can also deal losses to strong players who would have otherwise progressed through the tier easily. Those losses are eventually passed down the line.
Campers are not gaining any medals to progress but as an overall group they are not contributing to the progress of anyone else either at an aggregate level. They are just stronger than everyone else in the group and are imposing an extra cost (in terms of number of matches) to progression.
If it takes 10 matches for a player of slightly above average strength player to progress in a VT tier, with 20% campers it might take 12 games because the 2 games against high strength campers were pointless. At an individual level it might help some people progress faster and some slower depending on where in their streak they match up against campers. But as an overall, camper impose a burden of extra matches to progress on the rest of the group. Since it costs energy/tokens/units to play BG matches, it is an extra resource burden.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is I think camping is frowned upon.
Taking a break isn't a solution, and it isn't an effective one, considering Players are just camping out in the VT for easy Wins. Came across Tanking in the last couple days, actually. Therein lies the real heart of many arguments. It isn't enough that some Players make it to the top. They want a monopoly on the entire system. It happened on War when we discussed such issues, and it's happening now. I don't care if King Charles and Queen Camilla themselves bestow the divine right, that will never be acceptable in my books.
This is total nonsense. No one, and I mean no one loses anything when another player forfeits a match against them. They aren't getting a monopoly on the system. The great irony here is that you are complaining about something that the entire rest of everyone who complains about it does so for the exact opposite reason, because your reasoning is nonsensical. The people who complain about tanking complain because they are handing out easy wins. Players who should not win, and would not ordinarily win, are winning and advancing beyond what they ordinarily would, skewing the amount of low progress players who aren't getting stopped in their tracks.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
Using your stable/unstable tiers analogy, I think the reasoning is stronger players camping at a lower level brings stability to a tier sooner than it should otherwise.
You are only looking at it from a high strength player forfeiting a match against a low strength one. But campers can also deal losses to strong players who would have otherwise progressed through the tier easily. Those losses are eventually passed down the line.
Campers are not gaining any medals to progress but as an overall group they are not contributing to the progress of anyone else either at an aggregate level. They are just stronger than everyone else in the group and are imposing an extra cost (in terms of number of matches) to progression.
If it takes 10 matches for a player of slightly above average strength player to progress in a VT tier, with 20% campers it might take 12 games because the 2 games against high strength campers were pointless. At an individual level it might help some people progress faster and some slower depending on where in their streak they match up against campers. But as an overall, camper impose a burden of extra matches to progress on the rest of the group. Since it costs energy/tokens/units to play BG matches, it is an extra resource burden.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is I think camping is frowned upon.
but thats not entirely right. the campers are also giving away free wins to others so for every match they cost someone they also gift someone a win. so when you look at both sides whats the net gain? people who would have otherwise not gotten a win get gifted a win, and maybe get pushed up a tier, 2 tiers, 3 tiers, heck a cav may even get pushed all the way to GC.
and yes camping may be frowned upon, but at the same time, its a fault of the design of the system. the fact that the rewards from the solo event are greater than rewards they will get from pushing to GC.
And for those complaining about points farming, I'll listen to your objection and agree with you if you can honestly say you've never ran RTTL for hero use, looked for easy duel targets in low tier EQ or ever took a revive from 3.2.6 after it was completed the first time.
The problem with that perspective is you're not disrupting anything by doing that. You're playing a piece of fixed content to farm Points. That's not the same in this case. There are other Players on the other side of that, in a system where throwing a Match artificially inflates the results of those Players, taking an easy Match manipulates the outcome for the other Player on that side, and progress that is meant to represent actual performance becomes a mishmash of people faking their actual skill level. Not only do the Players who are receiving passes become the next person's easy Match, their actual skills are conflated beyond what they've earned. So in many cases, they're pushed past what they can compete with. Then when the Tanking Players are ready to make their final push, they have a bunch of smaller Accounts to potentially go through. It's like saving meat to eat later. There are Players on the other side of that, not just AI Champs. No manipulation is a good thing in interconnected systems Ike that. It affects the whole system because it disturbs the natural order of progress for everyone.
Let's assume that camping/farming is actually a huge problem.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
I offered a suggestion that would help. The Tokens. Does it eliminate the possibility? Not completely. It would mean it's less advantageous because one Win means 2 Tokens, and you'll advance faster if you're stronger. At least until Vibranium. Which, for all intents and purposes, the best should pass.
Let's assume that camping/farming is actually a huge problem.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
I offered a suggestion that would help. The Tokens. Does it eliminate the possibility? Not completely. It would mean it's less advantageous because one Win means 2 Tokens, and you'll advance faster if you're stronger. At least until Vibranium. Which, for all intents and purposes, the best should pass.
That just means taking more matches and it's already been established that propelling lower players higher quicker isn't a solution.
Let's assume that camping/farming is actually a huge problem.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
I offered a suggestion that would help. The Tokens. Does it eliminate the possibility? Not completely. It would mean it's less advantageous because one Win means 2 Tokens, and you'll advance faster if you're stronger. At least until Vibranium. Which, for all intents and purposes, the best should pass.
That just means taking more matches and it's already been established that propelling lower players higher quicker isn't a solution.
As opposed to Tanking them up, which we're talking about now? Also, the number of Tokens isn't what propels them faster from Plat up. It's the Wins. If a lower Player earns Wins against all of the GC in Plat and up, they've either earned it, or cheated. The idea that a 2:1 Token system is going to propel lower Players is just not accurate. They still have to win the Matches they're given. Eventually they will still plateau like everyone else.
Let's assume that camping/farming is actually a huge problem.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
I offered a suggestion that would help. The Tokens. Does it eliminate the possibility? Not completely. It would mean it's less advantageous because one Win means 2 Tokens, and you'll advance faster if you're stronger. At least until Vibranium. Which, for all intents and purposes, the best should pass.
That just means taking more matches and it's already been established that propelling lower players higher quicker isn't a solution.
As opposed to Tanking them up, which we're talking about now? Also, the number of Tokens isn't what propels them faster from Plat up. It's the Wins. If a lower Player earns Wins against all of the GC in Plat and up, they've either earned it, or cheated. The idea that a 2:1 Token system is going to propel lower Players is just not accurate. They still have to win the Matches they're given. Eventually they will still plateau like everyone else.
Ugh, wins give tokes GW. WTF are you talking about?
And, no, giving lower players an easier time to Vibranium is not a solution and would not mean that they earned the rewards. Stop begging for an easier road to the GC.
Okay, so you're going to default to ignoring what I'm saying. Got it. They only earn said Tokens IF they win. Also, you're acting like people are being handed an easy path when everyone is matched with everyone else, and the Tokens are still the same for everyone else. Wasn't that the argument for a "fair" system? We're talking about the amount of Tokens awarded. If your only priority is keeping others down, then there's not much use in discussing it. Nowhere did I suggest giving people a free street to the GC.
BGs was better in the beta phase before VT, and incentive rewards were exclusively to objectives. The whole VT concept is a convoluted time vacuum of a grind that doesn’t need to exist and there would be less complaints if the VT rewards were redistributed into solo milestones and BG objectives.
What blows my mind is the actual gameplay within the mode remains as unreliable as the beta when it launched.
Let's assume that camping/farming is actually a huge problem.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
I offered a suggestion that would help. The Tokens. Does it eliminate the possibility? Not completely. It would mean it's less advantageous because one Win means 2 Tokens, and you'll advance faster if you're stronger. At least until Vibranium. Which, for all intents and purposes, the best should pass.
That just means taking more matches and it's already been established that propelling lower players higher quicker isn't a solution.
As opposed to Tanking them up, which we're talking about now? Also, the number of Tokens isn't what propels them faster from Plat up. It's the Wins. If a lower Player earns Wins against all of the GC in Plat and up, they've either earned it, or cheated. The idea that a 2:1 Token system is going to propel lower Players is just not accurate. They still have to win the Matches they're given. Eventually they will still plateau like everyone else.
They tested the idea for 2 seasons, they realized it doesn't work, why is that so hard to understand. You talk about frustration climbing up? What about having to earn 200 points to get out of URU because it was overcrowded? Earning 10 points on a win losing 16 on a lose because the GC had so many players that everything was out of whack? You act as if they reverted back as a conspiracy to punish VT players. They tested it 2 seasons they weren't happy with the result. Why is the camping thing still a conversation? It will get fixed season after season because of seeding, unless someone is trying to push the nonsense idea that they are farming milestone points instead of advancing to get trophies. You want to fix the camping and tanking issue, punish losing; but as i said before people would be against being dropped tiers.
I was hoping the one simple change would be me not queueing between 90 and 180 seconds every single fight on my main, yet my alt has 15-20 seconds in the same ranking.
Comments
The point is, it's too much of a slog unless you have a much higher success rate from Plat up, and it doesn't need to be.
Dr. Zola
Your stated issue (I have no idea what your actual issues might be at this point) is that BG should not be a slog for *anyone*, that *everyone* should have an equal time progressing without running into roadblocks. But if you don't run into roadblocks, you advance without limit. At least given the way logic works in my universe. Which is not so much a problem as what is supposed to happen if you're not trying to hand out participation trophies to everyone.
I don't know how you're gathering participation trophies from my comments, but there's a difference between creating roadblocks, and throwing gasoline on a fire.
You're saying that the people doing this are somehow keeping people down or our of higher tiers which is absolutely, completely, ludicrously nonsensical. Giving people easy wins cannot, under any circumstance, prevent players from advancing. I can't believe I have to type these words, but even if they just camp there, beating weaker players, for every weaker player they beat, they are letting another weaker player win a match that, if they were not there camping, would have almost certainly had a non=camping player that would have just destroyed that player instead.
Is there anyone, anywhere, that would like to explain this to me? I mean, there are tons of people out there that don't especially like me. Here's your chance to make me feel like an idiot. Please, take this side and tell me how I'm just completely bonkers here and completely missing the point. Give me some hope that there is a logic to this somewhere, anywhere.
And I don’t recall anyone saying “stick with us here—this is a new game mode and we are going to make a lot of mistakes along the way.”
Dr. Zola
The system is manipulated. Players who don't earn the Win are given a bye, then they become food for the next strong Player, and the ones who get hit on the odd Match that they're trying are ambushed. It skews the results of the entire system that is meant to reflect actual results.
I called it a monopoly because that's what it is. They want their final rank, but not before they play the system like a xylophone and mess with everyone else's ranking. It's sure as hell not helping the system.
No one is "helped" by being given a pass. You shouldn't even have a system that makes it an option.
While you don't need to provide hours of research, you at least need to present a coherent argument beyond feelings. You say you don't want to make it easy for everyone to be in GC but advocate a system which will logically lead to that outcome. Pick a side.
Thus, even though the high Paragons farming Plat are overall medal neutral in the system (they give out as many wins as they cause losses), on average if a lower end player faces two of these people in a day, they will likely end up with no net change to their medals, but they still lost two of their entries for the day. I can see this creating two problems:
1) It suppresses the climb rate and climb potential of the players who have to deal with this. An account only has 30ish days to climb, and if you end up being forced to waste X% of the energy/tokens you have available for BG per season to these non-matches, it is entirely possible that you will end up placing lower than your true potential, simply from running out of time/energy before the season end.
2.) This encourage lower end player to simply quit trying to push, because energy is a shared resource in this game, and, unsurprising, people don't like wasting resources and will invest it elsewhere. Keep in mind that this is not the same as a player quitting because they can't progress past their skill/account limit, they're quitting because there is an effective tax on their BG entries created by these farmers, and that is unfun/unfair. Many of these player could have potentially gained higher tier rewards if they weren't discouraged by this situation. In addition, this creates a downwards spiral in the tier. Fewer lower end players in the pool, means more likelihood to run into these farmers, which causes more lower end players to get discouraged and quit.
Now the impact of this on the player base is obviously caveated on what percent of matches in Plat/Diamond are against these farmers. I don't really have the data to take a guess. But it's clearly not zero, so I don't know if I'd say it was completely ludicrous that at least a handful of players every season lost out on the next tier of rewards because they had to waste their energy on these matches with the farmers.
You are only looking at it from a high strength player forfeiting a match against a low strength one. But campers can also deal losses to strong players who would have otherwise progressed through the tier easily. Those losses are eventually passed down the line.
Campers are not gaining any medals to progress but as an overall group they are not contributing to the progress of anyone else either at an aggregate level. They are just stronger than everyone else in the group and are imposing an extra cost (in terms of number of matches) to progression.
If it takes 10 matches for a player of slightly above average strength player to progress in a VT tier, with 20% campers it might take 12 games because the 2 games against high strength campers were pointless. At an individual level it might help some people progress faster and some slower depending on where in their streak they match up against campers. But as an overall, camper impose a burden of extra matches to progress on the rest of the group. Since it costs energy/tokens/units to play BG matches, it is an extra resource burden.
Maybe I'm wrong, but this is I think camping is frowned upon.
What's your solution to fix it that doesn't drastically hurt lower players far more than those who are camping/farming?
the campers are also giving away free wins to others so for every match they cost someone they also gift someone a win.
so when you look at both sides whats the net gain?
people who would have otherwise not gotten a win get gifted a win, and maybe get pushed up a tier, 2 tiers, 3 tiers, heck a cav may even get pushed all the way to GC.
and yes camping may be frowned upon,
but at the same time,
its a fault of the design of the system.
the fact that the rewards from the solo event are greater than rewards they will get from pushing to GC.
That's not the same in this case. There are other Players on the other side of that, in a system where throwing a Match artificially inflates the results of those Players, taking an easy Match manipulates the outcome for the other Player on that side, and progress that is meant to represent actual performance becomes a mishmash of people faking their actual skill level.
Not only do the Players who are receiving passes become the next person's easy Match, their actual skills are conflated beyond what they've earned. So in many cases, they're pushed past what they can compete with. Then when the Tanking Players are ready to make their final push, they have a bunch of smaller Accounts to potentially go through. It's like saving meat to eat later.
There are Players on the other side of that, not just AI Champs. No manipulation is a good thing in interconnected systems Ike that. It affects the whole system because it disturbs the natural order of progress for everyone.
Also, the number of Tokens isn't what propels them faster from Plat up. It's the Wins. If a lower Player earns Wins against all of the GC in Plat and up, they've either earned it, or cheated.
The idea that a 2:1 Token system is going to propel lower Players is just not accurate. They still have to win the Matches they're given. Eventually they will still plateau like everyone else.
And, no, giving lower players an easier time to Vibranium is not a solution and would not mean that they earned the rewards. Stop begging for an easier road to the GC.
They only earn said Tokens IF they win. Also, you're acting like people are being handed an easy path when everyone is matched with everyone else, and the Tokens are still the same for everyone else. Wasn't that the argument for a "fair" system?
We're talking about the amount of Tokens awarded. If your only priority is keeping others down, then there's not much use in discussing it. Nowhere did I suggest giving people a free street to the GC.
What blows my mind is the actual gameplay within the mode remains as unreliable as the beta when it launched.
You talk about frustration climbing up? What about having to earn 200 points to get out of URU because it was overcrowded? Earning 10 points on a win losing 16 on a lose because the GC had so many players that everything was out of whack? You act as if they reverted back as a conspiracy to punish VT players. They tested it 2 seasons they weren't happy with the result.
Why is the camping thing still a conversation? It will get fixed season after season because of seeding, unless someone is trying to push the nonsense idea that they are farming milestone points instead of advancing to get trophies.
You want to fix the camping and tanking issue, punish losing; but as i said before people would be against being dropped tiers.