That's perfectly understandable to get into the GC, but the entire VT, save for Bronze 3 to Gold 2 is like that. (Gold 1 is one per Win because it's entry into Plat 3.)
Think of a tier with 4 players -A,B,C & D with A>B>C>D in terms of strength. 3 medals to promote.
When everyone is playing competitively and each other. This is typically how the games will play out
Round 1: A v D - A wins; B v C - B wins. A & B have one medal each. Round 2: A v C - A wins; B v D - B wins. A & B have two medals each. Round 3: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. A promotes out of the tier. C & B have one medal each. Round 4: B v C - B wins - B has 2 medals; C has zero. Round 5: C v D - C wins - B has 2 medals; C has one Round 6: B v D - B wins & promotes. Round 7: C v D - C wins Round 8: C v D - C wins & promotes.
11 games - A played 3; B played 5; C played 7 and all promoted.
Consider when A is camping: Round 1: A v D - A wins; B v C - B wins. A & B have one medal each. Round 2: A v C - A forfeits; B v D - B wins. C has one medal. B has 2 medals. Round 3: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. C has 2 medals. A & B have one medal each. Round 4: A v D - A forfeits; B v C - B wins. C has one medal. B has 2 medals. D has one too. Round 5: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. C has 2 medals. A & B have one medal each. Round 6: A v C - A wins; B v D - B wins. C has one medal. A & B have 2 medals. Everyone has played everyone twice now. No one has promoted.
Round 7: A v D - A forfeits; B v C - B wins. A has one medal. B is promoted. C has zero medals.
B took 2 more matches to move up than they would have normally taken. C played 7 matches and would have expected to have moved up by now but on zero medals - needing 3 straight wins with 1 or 2 matches against A. A gave 3 free wins but it did not benefit B, C or D who were playing fair.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
@DNA3000 A scenario where a tanker creates a negative impact for everyone else while handing out free wins. In a pool where everyone plays against everyone.
Vibranium only is not enough of a filter, a string of 10 matches deciding wether you get into GC or not? That really slows down GC people who are seeded at Plat1 making Diamond a worse fish in a barrel situation 🤣
15 Matches.
I though you were done with me. Yeah well 15 matches, got confused since you cross from vibranium 2 into GC. Still 15 matches that require a 60% win rate is not enough, and basically you are admitting that people should reach the Diamond rewards easily A possibility of playing 100 matches and not move is not a FACT. I'm done with you myself, can't really have a discussion with someone who says "You can agree or disagree all you like. It's a suggestion. Not a democracy."
15 Tokens in a row is 15 Tokens in a row. 5 per Tier. Also, I'm not sure how you're getting 60% Win Rate. You win one, you get one. You lose one, you lose one. No matter what you lose, you have to replace it with another Win.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
This situation isn't probable, because it is dependent on two factors that don't exist in actual play: tier depletion and guaranteed matchups. In your example, everyone eventually promotes out of the tier. And the smaller the tier is, the faster weaker players will match against each other, and cause one of them to promote out. And the presence of A as a tanker is placing an effective "cap" on progress, because everyone has to eventually get past him, and he refuses to leave.
If you think about it, in your thought experiment without the tanker eventually everyone promotes, and does so relatively quickly. But in practice, that's not the situation BG is aiming for. Players with high win rates should promote, while players with low win rates should not promote. The people that tanking could help by giving them a 50% win rate don't actually exist in your hypothetical. Absent the tanker, no one is stuck. The assertion is tanking helps those who would otherwise get stuck (which is what a below 50% win rate implies).
More importantly, finding a "B" that is hurt by this isn't invalidating the assertion, because in your example B is not a low progress player. He is, relative to everyone else, a relatively high progress player (we are assuming here that all other things are equal, and the advantage B has comes from roster advantage: this becomes an unnecessarily more complex discussion if we have to segregate roster advantage and skill advantage statistically).
In practice, C and D can match against each other and at least one of them will get a win, but then both of them quickly run into a lot of As and Bs and lose again. And there's almost never a time when all the As and all the Bs are just gone. And even if that were to happen, we would just have the case that all the Ds would win when matched against each other, but then lose as soon as they match against one of the Cs. The lowest D can't win often against the Cs and can't even win often against the Ds. They will have a far lower than 50% win rate, and their promotion speed will be either low or zero. In that environment, every time that low D matches against an A that is still around tanking they have a 50% chance to win, higher than what they would have without the tanker. The Cs are probably mad because if the tanker were not there they would be winning at a higher than 50% rate, which means when they run into the tanker they are going to lose more often than if he just promoted out.
So even in this scenario, the presence of a tanking player A, even if all the other As and all the other Bs promote, is to make life slightly more difficult for the strongest Cs and much better for the weakest Ds. Which means when we talk about "low progress players" in this scenario that's the Ds, relative to everyone else in the tier. Tanker A is helping the Ds, and hurting the Cs. He is helping the low progress players, at the expense of the highe(er) progress players, but still. Which is, in a sense, what your own constructed example demonstrated. You found a player B that was hurt by the presence of the tanker, but he is one of the stronger players, not one of the weaker players. This is consistent with the assertion that the tanking player is helping the lower progress players. That help has to come at the expense of someone. That someone in your example is B.
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.
The free wins are part of the problem. Accounts that have no business being pushed forward are being pushed forward because of it. They then realize they're in a tier where their accounts are outmatched. They then come to forums to express themselves and end up having players telling them they're in X tier be grateful.
Worse than that, the Players that pushed them up double back for the easy Wins when they make their GC push.
Yeah they do. Then get their one win in GC and play the mode casually until the season end.
I do not believe you need to win in GC to qualify for ranked rewards. You just need to play one match, win or lose, period.
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.
The free wins are part of the problem. Accounts that have no business being pushed forward are being pushed forward because of it. They then realize they're in a tier where their accounts are outmatched. They then come to forums to express themselves and end up having players telling them they're in X tier be grateful.
Worse than that, the Players that pushed them up double back for the easy Wins when they make their GC push.
Yeah they do. Then get their one win in GC and play the mode casually until the season end.
I do not believe you need to win in GC to qualify for ranked rewards. You just need to play one match, win or lose, period.
The margin for failure in that is lower than 40. That was my point.
*Which I'm not arguing against in Vibranium. When the point is made that it's not enough to keep those that don't belong in the GC from getting in, when they're among all other Players, then I have to disagree.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
This situation isn't probable, because it is dependent on two factors that don't exist in actual play: tier depletion and guaranteed matchups. In your example, everyone eventually promotes out of the tier. And the smaller the tier is, the faster weaker players will match against each other, and cause one of them to promote out. And the presence of A as a tanker is placing an effective "cap" on progress, because everyone has to eventually get past him, and he refuses to leave.
If you think about it, in your thought experiment without the tanker eventually everyone promotes, and does so relatively quickly. But in practice, that's not the situation BG is aiming for. Players with high win rates should promote, while players with low win rates should not promote. The people that tanking could help by giving them a 50% win rate don't actually exist in your hypothetical. Absent the tanker, no one is stuck. The assertion is tanking helps those who would otherwise get stuck (which is what a below 50% win rate implies).
More importantly, finding a "B" that is hurt by this isn't invalidating the assertion, because in your example B is not a low progress player. He is, relative to everyone else, a relatively high progress player (we are assuming here that all other things are equal, and the advantage B has comes from roster advantage: this becomes an unnecessarily more complex discussion if we have to segregate roster advantage and skill advantage statistically).
In practice, C and D can match against each other and at least one of them will get a win, but then both of them quickly run into a lot of As and Bs and lose again. And there's almost never a time when all the As and all the Bs are just gone. And even if that were to happen, we would just have the case that all the Ds would win when matched against each other, but then lose as soon as they match against one of the Cs. The lowest D can't win often against the Cs and can't even win often against the Ds. They will have a far lower than 50% win rate, and their promotion speed will be either low or zero. In that environment, every time that low D matches against an A that is still around tanking they have a 50% chance to win, higher than what they would have without the tanker. The Cs are probably mad because if the tanker were not there they would be winning at a higher than 50% rate, which means when they run into the tanker they are going to lose more often than if he just promoted out.
So even in this scenario, the presence of a tanking player A, even if all the other As and all the other Bs promote, is to make life slightly more difficult for the strongest Cs and much better for the weakest Ds. Which means when we talk about "low progress players" in this scenario that's the Ds, relative to everyone else in the tier. Tanker A is helping the Ds, and hurting the Cs. He is helping the low progress players, at the expense of the highe(er) progress players, but still. Which is, in a sense, what your own constructed example demonstrated. You found a player B that was hurt by the presence of the tanker, but he is one of the stronger players, not one of the weaker players. This is consistent with the assertion that the tanking player is helping the lower progress players. That help has to come at the expense of someone. That someone in your example is B.
In that example no one was better off. B, C & D ended up using more resources to progress at a slower pace or not at all. B was impacted but passed on that to C, everyone suffered, eventually not even D is better off. When people suggest that lower progression players are impacted by stronger players camping, they are not talking about the weakest UC in BG, just that campers ruin game experience for everyone lower than them.
Rewards in BG are for clearing tiers not individual wins. A standalone win offered by a tanker means little. At a certain concentration, tankers can block progress of legitimate players. I don't know if there are that many of them in BG today but it isn't something to be encouraged.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
This situation isn't probable, because it is dependent on two factors that don't exist in actual play: tier depletion and guaranteed matchups. In your example, everyone eventually promotes out of the tier. And the smaller the tier is, the faster weaker players will match against each other, and cause one of them to promote out. And the presence of A as a tanker is placing an effective "cap" on progress, because everyone has to eventually get past him, and he refuses to leave.
If you think about it, in your thought experiment without the tanker eventually everyone promotes, and does so relatively quickly. But in practice, that's not the situation BG is aiming for. Players with high win rates should promote, while players with low win rates should not promote. The people that tanking could help by giving them a 50% win rate don't actually exist in your hypothetical. Absent the tanker, no one is stuck. The assertion is tanking helps those who would otherwise get stuck (which is what a below 50% win rate implies).
More importantly, finding a "B" that is hurt by this isn't invalidating the assertion, because in your example B is not a low progress player. He is, relative to everyone else, a relatively high progress player (we are assuming here that all other things are equal, and the advantage B has comes from roster advantage: this becomes an unnecessarily more complex discussion if we have to segregate roster advantage and skill advantage statistically).
In practice, C and D can match against each other and at least one of them will get a win, but then both of them quickly run into a lot of As and Bs and lose again. And there's almost never a time when all the As and all the Bs are just gone. And even if that were to happen, we would just have the case that all the Ds would win when matched against each other, but then lose as soon as they match against one of the Cs. The lowest D can't win often against the Cs and can't even win often against the Ds. They will have a far lower than 50% win rate, and their promotion speed will be either low or zero. In that environment, every time that low D matches against an A that is still around tanking they have a 50% chance to win, higher than what they would have without the tanker. The Cs are probably mad because if the tanker were not there they would be winning at a higher than 50% rate, which means when they run into the tanker they are going to lose more often than if he just promoted out.
So even in this scenario, the presence of a tanking player A, even if all the other As and all the other Bs promote, is to make life slightly more difficult for the strongest Cs and much better for the weakest Ds. Which means when we talk about "low progress players" in this scenario that's the Ds, relative to everyone else in the tier. Tanker A is helping the Ds, and hurting the Cs. He is helping the low progress players, at the expense of the highe(er) progress players, but still. Which is, in a sense, what your own constructed example demonstrated. You found a player B that was hurt by the presence of the tanker, but he is one of the stronger players, not one of the weaker players. This is consistent with the assertion that the tanking player is helping the lower progress players. That help has to come at the expense of someone. That someone in your example is B.
In that example no one was better off. B, C & D ended up using more resources to progress at a slower pace or not at all. B was impacted but passed on that to C, everyone suffered, eventually not even D is better off. When people suggest that lower progression players are impacted by stronger players camping, they are not talking about the weakest UC in BG, just that campers ruin game experience for everyone lower than them.
Again: that is not true. By definition the tanking player is giving away wins half the time. Any player who runs into him is only having a worse experience if they themselves have a higher than 50% win rate in that tier. And statistically speaking, the lower progress players in a tier relative to everyone are more likely to have lower than 50% win rates.
In fact, let's toss progress out entirely. In any tier, some players will have a higher than 50% win rate and others will have a lower than 50% win rate, unless the tier reaches equilibrium where everyone is roughly equal in strength, which has never happened in Battlegrounds up to now. If you place a bot into that tier that gives wins and losses at a 50% rate, this is mathematically guaranteed to help those with a lower than 50% win rate and hurt those with a higher than 50% win rate. This is inescapable. If you can construct an example in which everyone does better or everyone does worse, there must be a flaw in the example.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
This situation isn't probable, because it is dependent on two factors that don't exist in actual play: tier depletion and guaranteed matchups. In your example, everyone eventually promotes out of the tier. And the smaller the tier is, the faster weaker players will match against each other, and cause one of them to promote out. And the presence of A as a tanker is placing an effective "cap" on progress, because everyone has to eventually get past him, and he refuses to leave.
If you think about it, in your thought experiment without the tanker eventually everyone promotes, and does so relatively quickly. But in practice, that's not the situation BG is aiming for. Players with high win rates should promote, while players with low win rates should not promote. The people that tanking could help by giving them a 50% win rate don't actually exist in your hypothetical. Absent the tanker, no one is stuck. The assertion is tanking helps those who would otherwise get stuck (which is what a below 50% win rate implies).
More importantly, finding a "B" that is hurt by this isn't invalidating the assertion, because in your example B is not a low progress player. He is, relative to everyone else, a relatively high progress player (we are assuming here that all other things are equal, and the advantage B has comes from roster advantage: this becomes an unnecessarily more complex discussion if we have to segregate roster advantage and skill advantage statistically).
In practice, C and D can match against each other and at least one of them will get a win, but then both of them quickly run into a lot of As and Bs and lose again. And there's almost never a time when all the As and all the Bs are just gone. And even if that were to happen, we would just have the case that all the Ds would win when matched against each other, but then lose as soon as they match against one of the Cs. The lowest D can't win often against the Cs and can't even win often against the Ds. They will have a far lower than 50% win rate, and their promotion speed will be either low or zero. In that environment, every time that low D matches against an A that is still around tanking they have a 50% chance to win, higher than what they would have without the tanker. The Cs are probably mad because if the tanker were not there they would be winning at a higher than 50% rate, which means when they run into the tanker they are going to lose more often than if he just promoted out.
So even in this scenario, the presence of a tanking player A, even if all the other As and all the other Bs promote, is to make life slightly more difficult for the strongest Cs and much better for the weakest Ds. Which means when we talk about "low progress players" in this scenario that's the Ds, relative to everyone else in the tier. Tanker A is helping the Ds, and hurting the Cs. He is helping the low progress players, at the expense of the highe(er) progress players, but still. Which is, in a sense, what your own constructed example demonstrated. You found a player B that was hurt by the presence of the tanker, but he is one of the stronger players, not one of the weaker players. This is consistent with the assertion that the tanking player is helping the lower progress players. That help has to come at the expense of someone. That someone in your example is B.
In that example no one was better off. B, C & D ended up using more resources to progress at a slower pace or not at all. B was impacted but passed on that to C, everyone suffered, eventually not even D is better off. When people suggest that lower progression players are impacted by stronger players camping, they are not talking about the weakest UC in BG, just that campers ruin game experience for everyone lower than them.
Again: that is not true. By definition the tanking player is giving away wins half the time. Any player who runs into him is only having a worse experience if they themselves have a higher than 50% win rate in that tier. And statistically speaking, the lower progress players in a tier relative to everyone are more likely to have lower than 50% win rates.
In fact, let's toss progress out entirely. In any tier, some players will have a higher than 50% win rate and others will have a lower than 50% win rate, unless the tier reaches equilibrium where everyone is roughly equal in strength, which has never happened in Battlegrounds up to now. If you place a bot into that tier that gives wins and losses at a 50% rate, this is mathematically guaranteed to help those with a lower than 50% win rate and hurt those with a higher than 50% win rate. This is inescapable. If you can construct an example in which everyone does better or everyone does worse, there must be a flaw in the example.
You are ignoring the knock-on effects of lowering the win rates for stronger players in the system. Players with >50% win rate get those extra wins from players with <50% win rate. By lowering the win rate for players with >50% win rate, they stay in the tier longer and need to win more to progress, which comes from the rest of the group.
Wins are not same as progression. One needs to win 3/4/5 matches to get out of a tier.
Your point is that someone who is wining/losing 50% of the time doesn't impose any cost on the rest of the group. Consider this, if someone was on a WWW streak to get out of a tier, and lost to a tanker, now they need to go WWLWW. That's one additional loss imposed on the rest of the group vs. before - offset by a win handed by the tanker. The person who went WWLWW is not better off, they had to play 5 matches where 3 would have sufficed. But the rest of the group is not better off either, they are at the same place they were before.
All the matches the tanker plays are extra matches which were otherwise not required. But both players in a match use resources. So there is net cost to the overall group.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
This situation isn't probable, because it is dependent on two factors that don't exist in actual play: tier depletion and guaranteed matchups. In your example, everyone eventually promotes out of the tier. And the smaller the tier is, the faster weaker players will match against each other, and cause one of them to promote out. And the presence of A as a tanker is placing an effective "cap" on progress, because everyone has to eventually get past him, and he refuses to leave.
If you think about it, in your thought experiment without the tanker eventually everyone promotes, and does so relatively quickly. But in practice, that's not the situation BG is aiming for. Players with high win rates should promote, while players with low win rates should not promote. The people that tanking could help by giving them a 50% win rate don't actually exist in your hypothetical. Absent the tanker, no one is stuck. The assertion is tanking helps those who would otherwise get stuck (which is what a below 50% win rate implies).
More importantly, finding a "B" that is hurt by this isn't invalidating the assertion, because in your example B is not a low progress player. He is, relative to everyone else, a relatively high progress player (we are assuming here that all other things are equal, and the advantage B has comes from roster advantage: this becomes an unnecessarily more complex discussion if we have to segregate roster advantage and skill advantage statistically).
In practice, C and D can match against each other and at least one of them will get a win, but then both of them quickly run into a lot of As and Bs and lose again. And there's almost never a time when all the As and all the Bs are just gone. And even if that were to happen, we would just have the case that all the Ds would win when matched against each other, but then lose as soon as they match against one of the Cs. The lowest D can't win often against the Cs and can't even win often against the Ds. They will have a far lower than 50% win rate, and their promotion speed will be either low or zero. In that environment, every time that low D matches against an A that is still around tanking they have a 50% chance to win, higher than what they would have without the tanker. The Cs are probably mad because if the tanker were not there they would be winning at a higher than 50% rate, which means when they run into the tanker they are going to lose more often than if he just promoted out.
So even in this scenario, the presence of a tanking player A, even if all the other As and all the other Bs promote, is to make life slightly more difficult for the strongest Cs and much better for the weakest Ds. Which means when we talk about "low progress players" in this scenario that's the Ds, relative to everyone else in the tier. Tanker A is helping the Ds, and hurting the Cs. He is helping the low progress players, at the expense of the highe(er) progress players, but still. Which is, in a sense, what your own constructed example demonstrated. You found a player B that was hurt by the presence of the tanker, but he is one of the stronger players, not one of the weaker players. This is consistent with the assertion that the tanking player is helping the lower progress players. That help has to come at the expense of someone. That someone in your example is B.
In that example no one was better off. B, C & D ended up using more resources to progress at a slower pace or not at all. B was impacted but passed on that to C, everyone suffered, eventually not even D is better off. When people suggest that lower progression players are impacted by stronger players camping, they are not talking about the weakest UC in BG, just that campers ruin game experience for everyone lower than them.
Again: that is not true. By definition the tanking player is giving away wins half the time. Any player who runs into him is only having a worse experience if they themselves have a higher than 50% win rate in that tier. And statistically speaking, the lower progress players in a tier relative to everyone are more likely to have lower than 50% win rates.
In fact, let's toss progress out entirely. In any tier, some players will have a higher than 50% win rate and others will have a lower than 50% win rate, unless the tier reaches equilibrium where everyone is roughly equal in strength, which has never happened in Battlegrounds up to now. If you place a bot into that tier that gives wins and losses at a 50% rate, this is mathematically guaranteed to help those with a lower than 50% win rate and hurt those with a higher than 50% win rate. This is inescapable. If you can construct an example in which everyone does better or everyone does worse, there must be a flaw in the example.
You are ignoring the knock-on effects of lowering the win rates for stronger players in the system.
Your point is that someone who is wining/losing 50% of the time doesn't impose any cost on the rest of the group. Consider this, if someone was on a WWW streak to get out of a tier, and lost to a tanker, now they need to go WWLWW. That's one additional loss imposed on the rest of the group vs. before - offset by a win handed by the tanker. The person who went WWLWW is not better off, they had to play 5 matches where 3 would have sufficed. But the rest of the group is not better off either, they are at the same place they were before.
This literally ignores the win you say the tanker provided to the group literally two sentences prior. Somehow that one loss they handed out is a negative, while the one win they handed out has zero benefit.
In effect, I am honoring the law of conservation of trophies and you're not, which is why your physics doesn't match reality.
The other incredibly strange consequence of this point of view is that if tanking is hurting everyone on average, then stopping the behavior would help everyone on average. But the moment the tanker stops tanking, they will presumably start winning. Which means when the tanker wins every match and everyone who runs across them loses, this should have a net benefit to the rest of the players. And by extension, if I just added enough players who always win, the rest of the players in that group would continue to benefit from this behavior. Even if they promote out, I can just keep adding more, and this will continue to benefit everyone on average.
I'm afraid someone is going to have to do more than create constructed corner case examples to prove this one to me. This is basically a perpetual motion machine. It is unproductive to prove perpetual motion machines don't work.
Perhaps, but the system needs to reflect natural progress to be effective. Meaning Players fall naturally into their placement based on their efforts. What we have now is a number of Players bypassing that to benefit from easier Matches by faking their efforts, through lack of. Consequently, I would be hard-pressed to be convinced that such a manipulation of the system evens itself out. They're matching with Players they would not naturally match with, at the expense of others. That benefit comes with a hidden cost. The distortion of the results of the system doing what it's intended to do. Further to that, from a data perspective, it skews the data. You have Players being artificially shifted to where they didn't earn, others faking their abilities, and the whole thing isn't a true reflection. Players are not just pawns on a board. They're playing the competition to the best of their abilities, and that means the system is responsible for advancing them based on their capabilities. That can't happen when people are taking unfair advantages. That's the problem. It's actually incepid. One way or another they're going to play the system to the detriment of others. Worse off, they feel entitled to do so because the system allows it, because they're playing in the same competition, because the Rewards, the reasons go on and on. Any Player-side manipulation that comes at the expense of other Players (both the weaker Players that come up against them and the ones not earning the Wins from byes) is not innocuous.
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.
Maybe an example will help.
Think of a tier with 4 players -A,B,C & D with A>B>C>D in terms of strength. 3 medals to promote.
When everyone is playing competitively and each other. This is typically how the games will play out
Round 1: A v D - A wins; B v C - B wins. A & B have one medal each. Round 2: A v C - A wins; B v D - B wins. A & B have two medals each. Round 3: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. A promotes out of the tier. C & B have one medal each. Round 4: B v C - B wins - B has 2 medals; C has zero. Round 5: C v D - C wins - B has 2 medals; C has one Round 6: B v D - B wins & promotes. Round 7: C v D - C wins Round 8: C v D - C wins & promotes.
11 games - A played 3; B played 5; C played 7 and all promoted.
Consider when A is camping: Round 1: A v D - A wins; B v C - B wins. A & B have one medal each. Round 2: A v C - A forfeits; B v D - B wins. C has one medal. B has 2 medals. Round 3: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. C has 2 medals. A & B have one medal each. Round 4: A v D - A forfeits; B v C - B wins. C has one medal. B has 2 medals. D has one too. Round 5: A v B - A wins; C v D - C wins. C has 2 medals. A & B have one medal each. Round 6: A v C - A wins; B v D - B wins. C has one medal. A & B have 2 medals. Everyone has played everyone twice now. No one has promoted.
Round 7: A v D - A forfeits; B v C - B wins. A has one medal. B is promoted. C has zero medals.
B took 2 more matches to move up than they would have normally taken. C played 7 matches and would have expected to have moved up by now but on zero medals - needing 3 straight wins with 1 or 2 matches against A. A gave 3 free wins but it did not benefit B, C or D who were playing fair.
This is a slightly extreme example but very probable. Expand this to a very large group with a fair number of campers, there are many scenarios where the cost to the group is pretty high.
you need a lot more data from a lot more people experiences than just making up a random example. i could also make up a random example to show the potential of giving a player a free ride all the way up into GC. all you are doing is making up possible scenarios of which there is a myriad of different possibilities. someone might play legit and lose all. they might play legit and win all. they might camp and give away 1000 wins. or any and everything in between.
kabam will have the data that shows the actual experiences of people. bot the extremes and the averages. but unless you have this data or conduct a survey and collect the data from over 1000 players its all just speculation.
As it is now, it's an unreasonable climb for a number of Players, and it has nothing to do with giving anyone a fast-track to the GC, or any other arrogant view. Bottom line is, there are more Players in the game mode than the top. Yet here we are with the same people who have no issues at all with the VT, trying to dictate the experience others should have. If you don't agree, that's fine. Say that and move on. There are people who do agree, and they're free to discuss their ideas.
It's only "unreasonable" for those who aren't good enough to win enough matches to advance. Guess what GW? That's the damn point! If you'r not good enough to advance, you should not advance.
On a completely related note, those who aren't good enough to get to the GC now would be the exact same ones spamming the forums that the new GC nodes are impossible. I'd love to see them play with the current GC meta for 2 weeks and see how much they like getting propelled above their abilities, lol.
One Post that someone doesn't like the Nodes and you make that assessment? Also, no one questioned the requirement to get into the GC. That doesn't mean the entire VT needs to have that expectation. If the express goal of the VT is to keep lower Players from the GC (which I don't agree that it's the only purpose), then it needs to be something they can actually play as well. Otherwise you have people claiming ownership of the entire system. That's pretty entitled.
One Post that someone doesn't like the Nodes and you make that assessment? Also, no one questioned the requirement to get into the GC. That doesn't mean the entire VT needs to have that expectation. If the express goal of the VT is to keep lower Players from the GC (which I don't agree that it's the only purpose), then it needs to be something they can actually play as well. Otherwise you have people claiming ownership of the entire system. That's pretty entitled.
No, my personal experience playing the nodes combined with my personal experience of people complaining about hard BG meta led to me make the assessment.
If you can't win with the current VT nodes, you sure as hell wouldn't win with the current GC nodes vs better competition.
I'm sorry but I have no idea where the argument is coming from. I'm talking about the Token requirements in the VT. Not the GC and the people complaining about the Nodes.
Most of the MCoC community is so entitled its sickening. Monopolize a game mode? Rofl the sense of entitlement is worse. People should look at this horrible Cap Commissary event. They see a reward unreachable and start dozens of threads about it. Yes it is a bad event, yes it has a reward, IT DOESNT MEAN YOU SHOULD GET IT. Sometimes you just gotta be ok with what you get, and as a UC/CAV/Smaller Roster/Casual Player, you should be happy with the rewards you get. There will always be a richer, bigger or someone who tried harder getting more accept it
This literally ignores the win you say the tanker provided to the group literally two sentences prior. Somehow that one loss they handed out is a negative, while the one win they handed out has zero benefit.
In effect, I am honoring the law of conservation of trophies and you're not, which is why your physics doesn't match reality.
The other incredibly strange consequence of this point of view is that if tanking is hurting everyone on average, then stopping the behavior would help everyone on average. But the moment the tanker stops tanking, they will presumably start winning. Which means when the tanker wins every match and everyone who runs across them loses, this should have a net benefit to the rest of the players. And by extension, if I just added enough players who always win, the rest of the players in that group would continue to benefit from this behavior. Even if they promote out, I can just keep adding more, and this will continue to benefit everyone on average.
I'm afraid someone is going to have to do more than create constructed corner case examples to prove this one to me. This is basically a perpetual motion machine. It is unproductive to prove perpetual motion machines don't work.
Where did I ignore the win from the bot? There were 3 wins to one player and 3 losses to the group. When the bot came in it added 2 more matches for zero trophies. It reduced the winning player's win % from 100% to 80%, and improved the rest of the groups win % from 0% to 20%. But at the end of 5 matches who exactly was better off?
There are a couple of edge cases where tanking is beneficial or neutral, it is if the tanker gave a loss at the beginning of the player's win streak. Then, they can go LWWW and the rest of the group gets an extra trophy they lose 3 against the player and win one against the bot. Similarly, the bot can offset one of the matches, where the bot can hand a loss to the group and give a win to the player. So player 1 goes WWW, the rest of the group goes LLL but the last win and loss is from the bot. This is neutral to the group. every other case I can think of is trophy neutral but adds to the number of matches. On the balance of probability tanking more often than not adds extra matches.
The reason is that not every sequence of W/L leads to promotion. Every time you introduce a loss, the player receiving a loss now needs to play a minimum of 2 matches to promote. Promotion can only happen in a sequence ending with WW. A win given out by a tanker can only take you one step closer to promotion (or to promotion) but a loss always keeps you at least 2 steps away from promotion.
You are thinking in terms of conservation of trophies. But the cost comes from playing extra matches. If the bot forces the overall group to play more matches, then the bot is a net negative. Matches cost energy (eventually units), that is the negative. The bot cannot play matches in isolation, there is someone at the other end of the match. Tanking is hurting everyone, because it imposes a cost of extra matches on the rest of the group. When the tanker stops tanking, they move out of the tier, no-one has to deal with the matches they would have otherwise required.
You are also ignoring the sequence in which a tanker plays vs. a 50% bot. A tanker can only have sequences of WL or WWLL, anymore and they promote. That sequence needs a mirror image somewhere else, sometimes it can be beneficial but in most cases it isn't.
RE: If tanking hurts everyone on average then adding winners should benefit everyone on average.
Tanking adds to number of matches the overall group has to play. Removing tanking reverts this back to the neutral, it doesn't add any benefits.
The person who is tanking was not meant to be in the tier. So you cannot argue a position where flipping their behaviour is beneficial. Absence of tankers is not presence of winners.
A person tanking is not perpetually tanking, they are farming wins for a particular objective. Eventually they will promote out, when they hit their target. They'll go WLWLWLWLWLWLWL and then WWW, to get 10 wins for e.g. You cannot view the WL sequence in isolation and then conclude that the WWW is beneficial.
If matches had no cost and players could play infinite matches in a season, the WL sequence would be immaterial. But matches do have cost and from the perspective of the rest of the group, that WL sequence did nothing to enable anyone else move up (sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't but on average it did was neutral, no one gained an extra trophy because of that sequence).
EDIT: Run the most trivial example. A tier with just one player and a 50% bot with 2 tokens to promote. The player will promote in 4 games on average. At some point the bot will go LL giving the player 2 wins to promote.
Same tier but the bot replaced by a player farming wins. The second player will never promote. Because the only optimal sequence for the farmer is WLWLWLWLWL....till they are 2 wins away from the target and then go WW.
Most of the MCoC community is so entitled its sickening. Monopolize a game mode? Rofl the sense of entitlement is worse. People should look at this horrible Cap Commissary event. They see a reward unreachable and start dozens of threads about it. Yes it is a bad event, yes it has a reward, IT DOESNT MEAN YOU SHOULD GET IT. Sometimes you just gotta be ok with what you get, and as a UC/CAV/Smaller Roster/Casual Player, you should be happy with the rewards you get. There will always be a richer, bigger or someone who tried harder getting more accept it
You mean entitled as in wanting reign of the GC every Season, and wanting control over the VT as well?
Comments
Yeah well 15 matches, got confused since you cross from vibranium 2 into GC.
Still 15 matches that require a 60% win rate is not enough, and basically you are admitting that people should reach the Diamond rewards easily
A possibility of playing 100 matches and not move is not a FACT.
I'm done with you myself, can't really have a discussion with someone who says "You can agree or disagree all you like. It's a suggestion. Not a democracy."
If you think about it, in your thought experiment without the tanker eventually everyone promotes, and does so relatively quickly. But in practice, that's not the situation BG is aiming for. Players with high win rates should promote, while players with low win rates should not promote. The people that tanking could help by giving them a 50% win rate don't actually exist in your hypothetical. Absent the tanker, no one is stuck. The assertion is tanking helps those who would otherwise get stuck (which is what a below 50% win rate implies).
More importantly, finding a "B" that is hurt by this isn't invalidating the assertion, because in your example B is not a low progress player. He is, relative to everyone else, a relatively high progress player (we are assuming here that all other things are equal, and the advantage B has comes from roster advantage: this becomes an unnecessarily more complex discussion if we have to segregate roster advantage and skill advantage statistically).
In practice, C and D can match against each other and at least one of them will get a win, but then both of them quickly run into a lot of As and Bs and lose again. And there's almost never a time when all the As and all the Bs are just gone. And even if that were to happen, we would just have the case that all the Ds would win when matched against each other, but then lose as soon as they match against one of the Cs. The lowest D can't win often against the Cs and can't even win often against the Ds. They will have a far lower than 50% win rate, and their promotion speed will be either low or zero. In that environment, every time that low D matches against an A that is still around tanking they have a 50% chance to win, higher than what they would have without the tanker. The Cs are probably mad because if the tanker were not there they would be winning at a higher than 50% rate, which means when they run into the tanker they are going to lose more often than if he just promoted out.
So even in this scenario, the presence of a tanking player A, even if all the other As and all the other Bs promote, is to make life slightly more difficult for the strongest Cs and much better for the weakest Ds. Which means when we talk about "low progress players" in this scenario that's the Ds, relative to everyone else in the tier. Tanker A is helping the Ds, and hurting the Cs. He is helping the low progress players, at the expense of the highe(er) progress players, but still. Which is, in a sense, what your own constructed example demonstrated. You found a player B that was hurt by the presence of the tanker, but he is one of the stronger players, not one of the weaker players. This is consistent with the assertion that the tanking player is helping the lower progress players. That help has to come at the expense of someone. That someone in your example is B.
It doesn't take five consecutive wins in a row to promote a single Vibranium tier either. WWLWWWW promotes without a five in a row streak.
Rewards in BG are for clearing tiers not individual wins. A standalone win offered by a tanker means little. At a certain concentration, tankers can block progress of legitimate players. I don't know if there are that many of them in BG today but it isn't something to be encouraged.
In fact, let's toss progress out entirely. In any tier, some players will have a higher than 50% win rate and others will have a lower than 50% win rate, unless the tier reaches equilibrium where everyone is roughly equal in strength, which has never happened in Battlegrounds up to now. If you place a bot into that tier that gives wins and losses at a 50% rate, this is mathematically guaranteed to help those with a lower than 50% win rate and hurt those with a higher than 50% win rate. This is inescapable. If you can construct an example in which everyone does better or everyone does worse, there must be a flaw in the example.
Wins are not same as progression. One needs to win 3/4/5 matches to get out of a tier.
Your point is that someone who is wining/losing 50% of the time doesn't impose any cost on the rest of the group. Consider this, if someone was on a WWW streak to get out of a tier, and lost to a tanker, now they need to go WWLWW. That's one additional loss imposed on the rest of the group vs. before - offset by a win handed by the tanker. The person who went WWLWW is not better off, they had to play 5 matches where 3 would have sufficed. But the rest of the group is not better off either, they are at the same place they were before.
All the matches the tanker plays are extra matches which were otherwise not required. But both players in a match use resources. So there is net cost to the overall group.
In effect, I am honoring the law of conservation of trophies and you're not, which is why your physics doesn't match reality.
The other incredibly strange consequence of this point of view is that if tanking is hurting everyone on average, then stopping the behavior would help everyone on average. But the moment the tanker stops tanking, they will presumably start winning. Which means when the tanker wins every match and everyone who runs across them loses, this should have a net benefit to the rest of the players. And by extension, if I just added enough players who always win, the rest of the players in that group would continue to benefit from this behavior. Even if they promote out, I can just keep adding more, and this will continue to benefit everyone on average.
I'm afraid someone is going to have to do more than create constructed corner case examples to prove this one to me. This is basically a perpetual motion machine. It is unproductive to prove perpetual motion machines don't work.
Consequently, I would be hard-pressed to be convinced that such a manipulation of the system evens itself out. They're matching with Players they would not naturally match with, at the expense of others.
That benefit comes with a hidden cost. The distortion of the results of the system doing what it's intended to do.
Further to that, from a data perspective, it skews the data. You have Players being artificially shifted to where they didn't earn, others faking their abilities, and the whole thing isn't a true reflection. Players are not just pawns on a board. They're playing the competition to the best of their abilities, and that means the system is responsible for advancing them based on their capabilities. That can't happen when people are taking unfair advantages.
That's the problem. It's actually incepid. One way or another they're going to play the system to the detriment of others. Worse off, they feel entitled to do so because the system allows it, because they're playing in the same competition, because the Rewards, the reasons go on and on.
Any Player-side manipulation that comes at the expense of other Players (both the weaker Players that come up against them and the ones not earning the Wins from byes) is not innocuous.
i could also make up a random example to show the potential of giving a player a free ride all the way up into GC.
all you are doing is making up possible scenarios of which there is a myriad of different possibilities.
someone might play legit and lose all.
they might play legit and win all.
they might camp and give away 1000 wins.
or any and everything in between.
kabam will have the data that shows the actual experiences of people.
bot the extremes and the averages.
but unless you have this data or conduct a survey and collect the data from over 1000 players its all just speculation.
Then cut out the medallions, and rather increase the number of wins needed for promotion.
But then fewer units will be used, so it will never be done. Greed is a path to the dark side…
On a completely related note, those who aren't good enough to get to the GC now would be the exact same ones spamming the forums that the new GC nodes are impossible. I'd love to see them play with the current GC meta for 2 weeks and see how much they like getting propelled above their abilities, lol.
Also, no one questioned the requirement to get into the GC. That doesn't mean the entire VT needs to have that expectation. If the express goal of the VT is to keep lower Players from the GC (which I don't agree that it's the only purpose), then it needs to be something they can actually play as well. Otherwise you have people claiming ownership of the entire system. That's pretty entitled.
If you can't win with the current VT nodes, you sure as hell wouldn't win with the current GC nodes vs better competition.
Monopolize a game mode? Rofl the sense of entitlement is worse.
People should look at this horrible Cap Commissary event. They see a reward unreachable and start dozens of threads about it. Yes it is a bad event, yes it has a reward, IT DOESNT MEAN YOU SHOULD GET IT. Sometimes you just gotta be ok with what you get, and as a UC/CAV/Smaller Roster/Casual Player, you should be happy with the rewards you get. There will always be a richer, bigger or someone who tried harder getting more accept it
There are a couple of edge cases where tanking is beneficial or neutral, it is if the tanker gave a loss at the beginning of the player's win streak. Then, they can go LWWW and the rest of the group gets an extra trophy they lose 3 against the player and win one against the bot. Similarly, the bot can offset one of the matches, where the bot can hand a loss to the group and give a win to the player. So player 1 goes WWW, the rest of the group goes LLL but the last win and loss is from the bot. This is neutral to the group. every other case I can think of is trophy neutral but adds to the number of matches. On the balance of probability tanking more often than not adds extra matches.
The reason is that not every sequence of W/L leads to promotion. Every time you introduce a loss, the player receiving a loss now needs to play a minimum of 2 matches to promote. Promotion can only happen in a sequence ending with WW. A win given out by a tanker can only take you one step closer to promotion (or to promotion) but a loss always keeps you at least 2 steps away from promotion.
You are thinking in terms of conservation of trophies. But the cost comes from playing extra matches. If the bot forces the overall group to play more matches, then the bot is a net negative. Matches cost energy (eventually units), that is the negative. The bot cannot play matches in isolation, there is someone at the other end of the match. Tanking is hurting everyone, because it imposes a cost of extra matches on the rest of the group. When the tanker stops tanking, they move out of the tier, no-one has to deal with the matches they would have otherwise required.
You are also ignoring the sequence in which a tanker plays vs. a 50% bot. A tanker can only have sequences of WL or WWLL, anymore and they promote. That sequence needs a mirror image somewhere else, sometimes it can be beneficial but in most cases it isn't.
Tanking adds to number of matches the overall group has to play. Removing tanking reverts this back to the neutral, it doesn't add any benefits.
The person who is tanking was not meant to be in the tier. So you cannot argue a position where flipping their behaviour is beneficial. Absence of tankers is not presence of winners.
A person tanking is not perpetually tanking, they are farming wins for a particular objective. Eventually they will promote out, when they hit their target. They'll go WLWLWLWLWLWLWL and then WWW, to get 10 wins for e.g. You cannot view the WL sequence in isolation and then conclude that the WWW is beneficial.
If matches had no cost and players could play infinite matches in a season, the WL sequence would be immaterial. But matches do have cost and from the perspective of the rest of the group, that WL sequence did nothing to enable anyone else move up (sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't but on average it did was neutral, no one gained an extra trophy because of that sequence).
EDIT: Run the most trivial example. A tier with just one player and a 50% bot with 2 tokens to promote. The player will promote in 4 games on average. At some point the bot will go LL giving the player 2 wins to promote.
Same tier but the bot replaced by a player farming wins. The second player will never promote. Because the only optimal sequence for the farmer is WLWLWLWLWL....till they are 2 wins away from the target and then go WW.
A farmer/tanker is not same as a 50% win bot.