**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Options
Comments
Kabam should really consider this suggestion. They are able to do it in Incursions where you can play within the level of your champions. I believe if the development team really thinks through this they will find a better approach to this mode Battlerosters, este Battlegrounds.
the players who started to play from the very beginning of the game had to do content with 4*s and 5*s and they had to use those champs for a long period of time which ment they had no choice but to rank up those lower rarity champs
this makes them have high total hero rating
I've seen many 4-5 million total hero rating accounts still at paragon progression
now as the game has come this far it's not hard to get higher rarity champs from the get go
there are people with new accounts who can get valiant with just 1 million total hero rating
let's say most are not like that but majority of new valiant players are anywhere between 2-3 million total hero rating they have their roster filled with 6* r5 and 7*s
so the valiants with 4-5 million rating and the paragons who have 4-5 million rating are on a completely different level so that's not fair
also we can't do it based on the 30 champs in the deck as there were a lot of players who exploited this by using 5-6 1* champs to deliberately lower their deck rating in the early days
lastly this is a COMPETITION you have to be prepared to face anyone and everyone if you want to get those juicy rewards
let's take the example of football world cup
let's say your team gets placed in a group with weak teams and you make it out of the group stage as group toppers
you can't expect that in the next stage you will be matched against the same weak teams
sure you might get lucky to get matched against 1 or 2 weak teams but then what? do you expect to go ahead and win the cup without facing any of the strong teams? NO, you'll eventually have to face those as well.
that's how a COMPETITION is you have to be ready to trample on those weaker than you, show skills against someone with similar strength as you and sometimes take the L from someone stronger than you
Then should rewards for them also be weak (nerfed?)
15k 6* shards instead of 7*
And 2.5k 7* shards instead of 10k Titan?
My experience anecdotally is that matches in Silver/etc are much more challenging this season than the past several. Is that because more players are in-game searching for deathless pieces and extra rewards? Maybe. I'm not sure I'd fault the matchmaking process as this is supposed to be a challenge to advance. However, I will say the fun factor is much lower (which makes my motivation to try and grind wins significantly lower).
Over time the cream will rise, as it were, and the lower tiers will get easier.
Think about this. Suppose they did that, and you started matching against nothing but, say, Cavalier players (or whatever you are). But you're also playing the game, right? One day you're presumably going to become Thronebreaker. Or you just rank up a bunch of champs and increase the strength of your roster. You'll then be placed against stronger competition. And the stronger you make your roster, the stronger your competition will become. Does that seem right to you? Moreover, when you fight against stronger rosters, on average those players will also be higher skilled players. Not all of them, but you are far more likely to run into highly skilled players playing strong rosters than weak ones.
That's essentially the problem with roster matching, in reverse. The players with strong rosters only match against other players with strong rosters, and this disproportionately also includes the players with the highest skill and game knowledge. And if any of those players have lower alt accounts and decide to play those, they would see that the competition is far weaker and it is far easier to win. This actually happened. Players who saw this with their own two eyes were actually saying, here on these forums and elsewhere, that players who wanted to participate in Battlegrounds should not rank anything up because rank ups made BG harder.
This is simply absurd, and why they changed it so that this would no longer be true. The whole point of the game is to collect and grow roster. Players are *supposed* to enjoy an advantage if they have a stronger roster, they are not supposed to experience a penalty for doing so. This means if your roster is stronger you will have an advantage, and if it is weaker you will have a disadvantage, and this is *fair* for BG because that advantage is the whole point of the game. Unfair is not letting players have that advantage, unfair is taking it away from players after they earned it.
Kabam doesn't need this suggestion, because not only have they heard it before, they *did* it before. And they learned their lesson. Roster matching subverts the point to the competition, which is to see who is the strongest player. That includes the roster that player has built playing the game in the first place.
Kabam can make CONTENT that scales with the player, because the CONTENT has no rights. We can buff it, we can nerf it, we can do whatever we want with the content because nobody cares about the content. The content is there to serve the players, period. But in a competition, we cannot make things easier for one group of players at the expense of another group without a really good reason. And there is no specific reason to hand weaker players more wins and the expense of handing stronger players more losses, no matter how much those players think that is "fair." It isn't, because in a competition everything you give to one player you are taking away from another player. The average win/loss record in Battlegrounds is zero-zero. For every win, there is a loss. If weaker players want to win more, they have to point at a group of players and say those players deserve fewer wins, and we are going to take them away.
Good luck with that. Kabam did that at one time, and decided that was not fair. The problem was not that they changed it, the problem was that they used roster matching in the first place, and convinced an entire segment of the players that they deserved to win. In a competition, no one deserves to win.
This "only Valiant players should play BG" complaint is honestly borderline insulting. The problem is not that lower players cannot compete. The problem is they eventually run into competition stronger than they are. And I think that most players understand and are fine with that. It is only a small percentage of entitled players who think the game revolves around them that make this complaint. No matter how strong your account is, you're going to have an advantage against some accounts, you're going to be roughly equal roster against a bunch of accounts, and you're going to be at a significant disadvantage to many others. That's how competition works.
Battlegrounds is for players who can accept that. Who can win when they can, lose when they must, and try to get better at it over time. That's Uncollected players, that's Cavs, that's Paragons and even Valiants. If the game is only for you if you win, then BG is not for you. And you're five years old.