Potential Delay to v44.1 Launch
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
Options
The current setup and function of battleground matchmaking and gameplay is completely idiotic !
Hamhamham
Posts: 8 ★
There's absolutely no way you guys ( kabam ) could be so ignorant and foolishly unaware of how stupid and I mean pure stupid It is to play battlegrounds and be matched up All the damn time with people that are 5... 6... 7.... 8k higher rating then the opponent ! I mean it's absolutely ignorant and completely unbeatable it's stupid and annoying as hell to just continually be matched up with impossible matches where you are guaranteed to lose because of this ignorant flaw! I mean it can't be that hard to figure out a way to make a game mode enjoyable for all of the players of the game and this could simply be done by splitting the players into two different categories The higher ranked ones play the higher ranked ones and the lower ranked people play the lower ranked players. The rewards could easily be cut in half of what they currently are if that's the argument people want to complain about I don't even care if they didn't have any rewards honestly I would be more entertained and it would be so much more enjoyable to play fair rated equally matched players. To see who is actually the better player when it is a balanced matchup. I mean come on guys this is foolish ! There's no reason players that do not spend all their time or money on this game making their account 20K rating shouldn't be allowed to play all the game modes enjoyably !
3
Comments
BGs could be improved by Kabam simply increasing the rewards/updating the battlegrounds store and hopefully choosing more fun, less annoying metas.
Diamond 1 is diamond 1. There isn't a diamond 1 subcategory accounts 0 to 2mil rating. It's not how it works at all.
Two full ranks above me for the season, already, is a reasonable match?
Seems to me it is a symptom of a complete lack of desire, on the part of the community, to put themselves through such **** mismatches, and play BGs.
a skill issue.
They later changed it to the system we have now, which is a compromise between allowing newer players *some* ability to compete against comparable players in the early stages of VT, while eventually forcing them to face the actual competition that exists at higher tiers. I actually outlined this problem (among several) when I created a roadmap for addressing many of the post-launch Battlegrounds issues most players were complaining about here. I will note that originally, Kabam agreed with all of my issues as listed, and simply stated they had other ideas on how to fix them. Eventually, however, they implemented almost exactly what I proscribed (with some simplifications).
Moreover, Kabam should not have even tried this in the first place, because they did it once before and was eventually forced to change it. At one time, they experimented with """"fair"""" (I cannot put enough quotes around that word in this context) match ups in alliance war. Alliance war match ups are dictated by war rating, which is based on wins and losses *only*. The Gladiator Circuit in Battlegrounds works on similar mechanics. However, to make alliance match ups more fair, they decided to start matching by alliance "strength" which was judged in different ways, mostly by measuring roster strength. This ended up creating literally horrible circumstances where extremely low strength alliances would be getting to the top of the alliance war leaderboards by simply avoiding having to ever match against stronger alliances. Just like you're saying now, if they actually had to match against the monster alliances out there, they would have no hope of winning, so in the opinion of some this was more "fair."
However, in practice this makes a mockery of what a competition is, which is to find the strongest competitors. It is not to stage the most "fair" matches. You get ahead of other players if you can beat them, and for no other reason. If you can't beat them, you can't pass them. That's a competition. Anything else is a curated exhibition.
Kabam tried to tweak alliance strength matching for over a year before finally giving up and admitting defeat, removing those match mechanics from alliance war, in my opinion because they were ultimately compelled to do so because it was otherwise embarrassing to see what was happening on the leaderboards. In the same way, and at least in a much quicker fashion, Kabam very quickly realized that no amount of fiddling would save strength matching (at least if carried throughout VT), because it created two impossible to resolve problems. One: it lets weaker players overtake stronger players without having to face them. Two: it actually penalizes roster growth. In a game whose foundation is collecting and ranking champions, it penalizes players who collect and rank up champions. This was acknowledged by Kabam as an important problem with both strength matching and deck matching.
Battlegrounds mechanics have been discussed ever since BG launched. In fact, they were debated long before BG launched during limited betas which I was a part of. There are no simple solutions to the issues many players have with the mode. Some of them only have complex solutions, and some have no solution. The "problem" of weaker players being frustrated by having to face stronger ones is not a problem with a solution, because to be candid we don't want them to avoid facing stronger players eventually. That's not a problem, that's working as intended. In a competitive environment, someone has to lose, and most people don't like to lose. But that doesn't make unhappiness with losing a problem to be solved.
This is actually just one example of a general complaint that comes up a lot, where players believe *everything* in the game is supposed to be for *them* and *right now*. They have no sense of aspiration, they have no patience for anything. Apparently there should be a version of the Abyss that Uncollected players can do, just make it easier and cut the rewards down. There should be a version of the Necropolis that Cavalier players can do, just make it easier and give them rank up materials to become Thronebreakers. Everything is supposed to be for everyone, and no one should have to work towards unlocking anything. Progressional games generally don't work like that. We don't need two, or three, or six different versions of Battlegrounds all tuned to different strength players. There's one mode, and everyone competes in it, and everyone ends up where they belong along the scale. Not only is this fair to high strength players, it is also fair to low strength players. If the game decides to look at every player and place them into one of several different Battleground divisions, there's no chance in the world it will do so perfectly. It will sentence some players who could be competitive in higher tiers into lower tiers with lower rewards, and it will place some players who do not wish to or simply cannot compete at higher tiers into those tiers. With everyone in one single game mode, everyone rises or falls to the level of their ability. That is what is "fair."
Edit* to add to this, I only play BG now and it’s the most burnt out I’ve ever felt. Haven’t taken a break since I started the game in 2017 and I feel like the end is neigh for me if something doesn’t change with matchmaking soon.