BG poor design
petar11
Member Posts: 14 ★
So let me get this straight Kabam the BG are this amazing content that you said will revolutionize the game, yet you created the system that makes you stuck in a certain league without the possibility of downgrade. In AW when you lose, you fall down a league. Brilliant plan to incite more players in this game mode and make it more relevant.
5
Comments
1 -- No one "pays for progress". You pay for units or deals, but you have to do the fights, finish the quests, complete the challenges. Skill is not invalidated by spending, and it is likely that some of the most highly skilled players in the game spend.
2 -- The people who spend are keeping the game alive and giving it a way to continue developing at its rapid pace. Kabam raises money through deals. Money pays the bills. It's simple, really, and nothing nefarious.
All game modes reward more people with large rosters, or make it easier for them to reach same rewards as lower rosters, that’s the nature of this game since it’s progression based.
If you don’t like it, I would suggest you find a game where there isn’t competitive progress for accounts, like Fortnite.
MCOC will always reward more to higher accounts.
That’s not going to change, because it can’t be changed.
The game is designed that way from it’s inception.
If you lose and drop down 1 or 2 leagues guess what you still gonna end up back to where you were.
You'd be in diamond drop to plat and you'll be back up to diamond. And stuck again the reason we can't go back is becuase it's a safety net used to help players progress and stop others from exploiting the system
Imagine that all that lower accounts beat the **** out of those who play this game for years..
I guess you just please those who complain by giving them just all the rewards Every month without doing anything.
Those who complain are, in my opinion, the same People who cry for compensation for the smallest issue in this game. Not even considering that kabam is a Company, and they work hard just like u and me.
#no1 is perfect
Peace out.
Rewarding players for growing their roster (whether with time or money)? You mean to say in a game where you are supposed to collect and rank characters you actually have a better playing experience for doing so? I never would have guessed....
The Victory track is there to promote participation in BG, and in VT there is no back sliding which is punitive to more casual and less experienced players. Just as the weaker players have to accept that when they promote high enough they start running into stronger players than they are, because that is what happens when the mode shifts towards competitive match making, everyone else as to accept that in the interests of the game as a whole the game mode is going to reward participation to promote activity in a game mode that requires interest and activity.
The participation rewards treat all participation equally. If it treated GC participation much higher than VT participation, then those would no longer be participation rewards, they would be competitive rewards in disguise. Because if GC participation rewarded more milestone points, the amount of points required to get the best rewards would have to rise, because it can't just be a cake walk for GC players**. But then those point requirements would place those rewards outside the ability for most players who don't make it to GC to get.
The players whining about "unfair" match making and the players whining about "unfair" milestone point awards are both making the same mistake, just not understanding what the intent of the game mode features are. And the devs are unlikely to be making major changes to either side of those complaints. The game mode balances, in some fashion, competitive requirements and participatory requirements, and I cannot think of a complaint that would cause the developers to suddenly decide one of those no longer matters.
** It seems highly unlikely to me that the top milestone reward requires exactly the amount of points a player with a 50% win rate would earn expending the inventory cap of Marks.