No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
I already made a post about this but more for the performance of the game.....it's unplayable for me right now. Not a coincidence at all that I won 14 matches in a row and then the game literally **** the bed and I'm 2-25 my last 27. I'm not GREAT, but I'm nowhere near 2-25. I have been lagged or reset out of 60+% of my last 30 matches. So THATS AN ISSUE.
Anyone UNDER Paragon who ever complains about this mode can kick rocks though......everyone before you couldn't FATHOM rewards like this 2-3-7 years ago....you can just do the daily objectives and get a six star a week (minimum).....if you disagree you are simply delusional and entitled. 90% of the people you are complaining to about only getting a few 6 stars and maybe 1 7 star per BG season when your on act 5 beat act 5 with 4 and 5 star champs. ......the game is evolving and I'm all for it but complaining that a competitive mode is hard when some players have been here a decade and you've been around a year is hilarious at best.....just my two cents
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant! Sure, a Cav can beat a Throne or even Paragon as well, I did many times before! But matching with a 3 times acc rating and twice prestige is a **** matching system. Just make it short and clear like I said, there are many ways to make BG fun and enjoyable for even low tier account, but it’s gonna hurt Kabam’s pocket, so they don’t want to do it.
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant! Sure, a Cav can beat a Throne or even Paragon as well, I did many times before! But matching with a 3 times acc rating and twice prestige is a **** matching system. Just make it short and clear like I said, there are many ways to make BG fun and enjoyable for even low tier account, but it’s gonna hurt Kabam’s pocket, so they don’t want to do it.
It's ridiculous that you still don't understand how BGs works. It's been explained to you dozens of times and you still don't think you should face harder opponents than your own deck size.
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant! Sure, a Cav can beat a Throne or even Paragon as well, I did many times before! But matching with a 3 times acc rating and twice prestige is a **** matching system. Just make it short and clear like I said, there are many ways to make BG fun and enjoyable for even low tier account, but it’s gonna hurt Kabam’s pocket, so they don’t want to do it.
It's ridiculous that you still don't understand how BGs works. It's been explained to you dozens of times and you still don't think you should face harder opponents than your own deck size.
I don’t want to talk with someone have problem with understanding English. Harder? Fine, but should be reasonable, how the **** you have a chance to win when face a account 3 times bigger than you! That’s how **** this current BG matching system are
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant! Sure, a Cav can beat a Throne or even Paragon as well, I did many times before! But matching with a 3 times acc rating and twice prestige is a **** matching system. Just make it short and clear like I said, there are many ways to make BG fun and enjoyable for even low tier account, but it’s gonna hurt Kabam’s pocket, so they don’t want to do it.
It's ridiculous that you still don't understand how BGs works. It's been explained to you dozens of times and you still don't think you should face harder opponents than your own deck size.
I don’t want to talk with someone have problem with understanding English. Harder? Fine, but should be reasonable, how the **** you have a chance to win when face a account 3 times bigger than you! That’s how **** this current BG matching system are
You don't. BGs has generally always been a 2 track system. VT and GC.
You're currently seeing how GC will be if you ever make it there. GC has ALWAYS been a free for all. Competitions have limits. You're reaching your limit to how far you can go.
Again, you can't wrap your brain around this idea because you think as a cav player, you deserve the same rewards as the number one person in BGs but you don't think you should have to face that person.
I also understand English perfectly. You've stated over and over that you don't think you should face deck sizes larger than your own.
With the new matchmaking system, larger decks will start higher in VT than you and eventually you'll face deck sizes the same as you more and more often. But at some point, if you're able to get high enough, that will stop. Especially if you ever hit GC.
Maybe don't bring a tractor to a drag race. Save up and buy a real drag racing car. Seems like your title describes you actually problem. Tractor aren't meant to be in a drag race scenario . It looks like a cool idea to see someone driving a tractor in a drag race for fun and giggles but if you are serious about winning than you will be very dissapointed. If the drag race car breaks down or hits a wall, then the tractor will win. Otherwise there is no way. A tractor should never beat any drag racing cara for any end of year championship in a Drag race scenario. Just like small accounts playing BG, any summoner can play it and win a few matches against bigger accounts once in awhile but smaller accounts aren't meant to beat the bigger accounts on a regular basis. They aren't meant to be anywhere near the top leader boards. Kabam wants players to grow their rosters by aquiring new champs and upgrading as many as possible to keep the game alive and running. BG has help with this so why would Kabam not reward players for progressing and growing there accounts. These players are helping Kabam turn the lights on. All the smaller accounts that don't want to invest in progession and rank ups don't do much for their bottom line.
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant! Sure, a Cav can beat a Throne or even Paragon as well, I did many times before! But matching with a 3 times acc rating and twice prestige is a **** matching system. Just make it short and clear like I said, there are many ways to make BG fun and enjoyable for even low tier account, but it’s gonna hurt Kabam’s pocket, so they don’t want to do it.
It's ridiculous that you still don't understand how BGs works. It's been explained to you dozens of times and you still don't think you should face harder opponents than your own deck size.
I don’t want to talk with someone have problem with understanding English. Harder? Fine, but should be reasonable, how the **** you have a chance to win when face a account 3 times bigger than you! That’s how **** this current BG matching system are
You don't. BGs has generally always been a 2 track system. VT and GC.
You're currently seeing how GC will be if you ever make it there. GC has ALWAYS been a free for all. Competitions have limits. You're reaching your limit to how far you can go.
Again, you can't wrap your brain around this idea because you think as a cav player, you deserve the same rewards as the number one person in BGs but you don't think you should have to face that person.
I also understand English perfectly. You've stated over and over that you don't think you should face deck sizes larger than your own.
With the new matchmaking system, larger decks will start higher in VT than you and eventually you'll face deck sizes the same as you more and more often. But at some point, if you're able to get high enough, that will stop. Especially if you ever hit GC.
Don’t try to bend my word! And focus on answering my question. I NEVER said I should not face bigger account, but everything should be REASONABLE, I don’t want to repeat my comment above how reasonable it should be!
I used to be in Mysterium very frequently even touch Celestial many times before with my main acc, that’s when I face with many low acc on VT and feel bad for them when they just force quite, rather than try because they don’t see any chance! For me personally, I also don’t feel proud when win a match like that!
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant! Sure, a Cav can beat a Throne or even Paragon as well, I did many times before! But matching with a 3 times acc rating and twice prestige is a **** matching system. Just make it short and clear like I said, there are many ways to make BG fun and enjoyable for even low tier account, but it’s gonna hurt Kabam’s pocket, so they don’t want to do it.
It's ridiculous that you still don't understand how BGs works. It's been explained to you dozens of times and you still don't think you should face harder opponents than your own deck size.
I don’t want to talk with someone have problem with understanding English. Harder? Fine, but should be reasonable, how the **** you have a chance to win when face a account 3 times bigger than you! That’s how **** this current BG matching system are
You don't. BGs has generally always been a 2 track system. VT and GC.
You're currently seeing how GC will be if you ever make it there. GC has ALWAYS been a free for all. Competitions have limits. You're reaching your limit to how far you can go.
Again, you can't wrap your brain around this idea because you think as a cav player, you deserve the same rewards as the number one person in BGs but you don't think you should have to face that person.
I also understand English perfectly. You've stated over and over that you don't think you should face deck sizes larger than your own.
With the new matchmaking system, larger decks will start higher in VT than you and eventually you'll face deck sizes the same as you more and more often. But at some point, if you're able to get high enough, that will stop. Especially if you ever hit GC.
Don’t try to bend my word! And focus on answering my question. I NEVER said I should not face bigger account, but everything should be REASONABLE, I don’t want to repeat my comment above how reasonable it should be!
I used to be in Mysterium very frequently even touch Celestial many times before with my main acc, that’s when I face with many low acc on VT and feel bad for them when they just force quite, rather than try because they don’t see any chance! For me personally, I also don’t feel proud when win a match like that!
You benefited from a very broken match making system before. You were able to climb higher many seasons ago because you didn't have to face harder competition. All of that has been fixed. The higher you climb the harder it gets. That's what BGs is supposed to be.
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant! Sure, a Cav can beat a Throne or even Paragon as well, I did many times before! But matching with a 3 times acc rating and twice prestige is a **** matching system. Just make it short and clear like I said, there are many ways to make BG fun and enjoyable for even low tier account, but it’s gonna hurt Kabam’s pocket, so they don’t want to do it.
It's ridiculous that you still don't understand how BGs works. It's been explained to you dozens of times and you still don't think you should face harder opponents than your own deck size.
I don’t want to talk with someone have problem with understanding English. Harder? Fine, but should be reasonable, how the **** you have a chance to win when face a account 3 times bigger than you! That’s how **** this current BG matching system are
You don't. BGs has generally always been a 2 track system. VT and GC.
You're currently seeing how GC will be if you ever make it there. GC has ALWAYS been a free for all. Competitions have limits. You're reaching your limit to how far you can go.
Again, you can't wrap your brain around this idea because you think as a cav player, you deserve the same rewards as the number one person in BGs but you don't think you should have to face that person.
I also understand English perfectly. You've stated over and over that you don't think you should face deck sizes larger than your own.
With the new matchmaking system, larger decks will start higher in VT than you and eventually you'll face deck sizes the same as you more and more often. But at some point, if you're able to get high enough, that will stop. Especially if you ever hit GC.
Don’t try to bend my word! And focus on answering my question. I NEVER said I should not face bigger account, but everything should be REASONABLE, I don’t want to repeat my comment above how reasonable it should be!
I used to be in Mysterium very frequently even touch Celestial many times before with my main acc, that’s when I face with many low acc on VT and feel bad for them when they just force quite, rather than try because they don’t see any chance! For me personally, I also don’t feel proud when win a match like that!
You benefited from a very broken match making system before. You were able to climb higher many seasons ago because you didn't have to face harder competition. All of that has been fixed. The higher you climb the harder it gets. That's what BGs is supposed to be.
You'll never understand this though.
Lol you always try avoid and don’t answer my question because you don’t have any better solution and just stand for Kabam any mean. Again there is nothing BG suppose to be, just MONEY is priority lol. That’s it, no need to argue
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant!
Many of the players complaining don't want it, but that's because we haven't taken it away yet. Try and take that opportunity away, by say implementing any of a number of ghetto-izing suggestions placing them in their own competition pools with their own (much lower) rewards, and the complaint ratio would shift dramatically in the opposite direction.
And while they want fair matches as they see it, the devs want a fair competition, and any suggestion that allows lower progress players to overtake higher progress players without having to face similar competition is unacceptable. We know it is unacceptable because first the devs removed such matching from higher tier VT for what they explicitly stated was that reason, and then even that was not enough and they subsequently removed such matching from lower VT for the same reason. They did it knowing players would complain about it, but as those complaints run counter to the entire purpose of a competition, they were not convincing.
I don't claim to speak for other players, including specifically for lower progress players in BG. When I say those players exist and deserve the opportunity to face the full range of competition for the full range of rewards, I'm not saying I represent them when I say that. I say they exist, and good game design will emphasize their needs in a competitive game mode over the feelings of the players less inclined to accept the realities of a competitive ladder based game mode.
I was actually perfectly happy with the compromise implement when they restricted roster matching to the lower half of VT. It was a simplified version of what I myself suggested several seasons ago. However, the developers clearly felt even that compromise was too much punishment for higher progress players when they looked at the data and saw the relative promotion rates of differing roster strength players. To the extent that I say roster matching is too punishing to higher strength players to be considered reasonable across VT, the devs feel even more strongly about it than I do.
Some stuff is up for debate, and some stuff is not up for debate. The nature of the competition in BG is not up for debate, at least not with the devs. That's a design decision that the devs know will be unpopular among some players when they make it, which means they've already made the decision to do it regardless of how many players complain about it. And since despite claims here on the forums that the mode is dying and players are giving up on it, the mode seems to have a very healthy amount of players across all allowed progressions, a dozen complaints on the forums gets outvoted by a hundred thousand lower progress players playing the game mode.
The developers read complaints, but they care about participation and engagement. As long as two hundred complain but two hundred thousand play, they're going to think the mode is fine.
Also for someone whop keeps getting told their pronouncements about Battlegrounds are ridiculous, it sure seems to me like the mode keeps getting closer and closer to what I suggested it move towards a year and a half ago.
No match is hopeless. Not even when a Cav player runs into a Paragon player in Platinum with over twice the rating and more than 2k more prestige. Not even when you lose the first match and have to take two in a row to win. Never give up. Always make them prove their roster advantage.
Even more satisfying to see that VS in there...
That VS so low in VT suggests to me that player is not a high skill player, but a somewhat casual player. Perhaps they spend more than they play, and that;’s why they have a stronger roster and progression, but less skill.
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
It’s ridiculous that you always try to speak on behalf of those Cav or Throne players lol. But the fact that they including the OP here don’t want that “opportunity” you said, they want a fair match, not Cav match with a Valiant! Sure, a Cav can beat a Throne or even Paragon as well, I did many times before! But matching with a 3 times acc rating and twice prestige is a **** matching system. Just make it short and clear like I said, there are many ways to make BG fun and enjoyable for even low tier account, but it’s gonna hurt Kabam’s pocket, so they don’t want to do it.
It's ridiculous that you still don't understand how BGs works. It's been explained to you dozens of times and you still don't think you should face harder opponents than your own deck size.
I don’t want to talk with someone have problem with understanding English. Harder? Fine, but should be reasonable, how the **** you have a chance to win when face a account 3 times bigger than you! That’s how **** this current BG matching system are
You don't. BGs has generally always been a 2 track system. VT and GC.
You're currently seeing how GC will be if you ever make it there. GC has ALWAYS been a free for all. Competitions have limits. You're reaching your limit to how far you can go.
Again, you can't wrap your brain around this idea because you think as a cav player, you deserve the same rewards as the number one person in BGs but you don't think you should have to face that person.
I also understand English perfectly. You've stated over and over that you don't think you should face deck sizes larger than your own.
With the new matchmaking system, larger decks will start higher in VT than you and eventually you'll face deck sizes the same as you more and more often. But at some point, if you're able to get high enough, that will stop. Especially if you ever hit GC.
Don’t try to bend my word! And focus on answering my question. I NEVER said I should not face bigger account, but everything should be REASONABLE, I don’t want to repeat my comment above how reasonable it should be!
I used to be in Mysterium very frequently even touch Celestial many times before with my main acc, that’s when I face with many low acc on VT and feel bad for them when they just force quite, rather than try because they don’t see any chance! For me personally, I also don’t feel proud when win a match like that!
You benefited from a very broken match making system before. You were able to climb higher many seasons ago because you didn't have to face harder competition. All of that has been fixed. The higher you climb the harder it gets. That's what BGs is supposed to be.
You'll never understand this though.
Lol you always try avoid and don’t answer my question because you don’t have any better solution and just stand for Kabam any mean. Again there is nothing BG suppose to be, just MONEY is priority lol. That’s it, no need to argue
You've not posed a single question. Me and others have explained what BGs is. It's a ladder competition where you have to climb your way to the top. This is what it is as said by Kabam themselves.
You WANTING to face weaker competition isn't posing an alternative, it's already been done.its why you got to celestial.
This should have been done and kept from day 1... It created an illusion that lower accounts could climb and get rewards and now its been taken away, when they should have never gotten them. Its a competition, its supposed.to be elitist. Lower account progressions have been babied too much.
This should have been done and kept from day 1... It created an illusion that lower accounts could climb and get rewards and now its been taken away, when they should have never gotten them. Its a competition, its supposed.to be elitist. Lower account progressions have been babied too much.
It has almost certainly exacerbated the situation, but I don’t think it was the cause. We saw this in Alliance War, where players felt they “deserved” for their alliances to only face similar alliances, even if that meant the #3 alliance was a bunch of Uncollected players. They thought that was fair. The idea that “fair” is when you’re given fights you can win rather than having to face whoever is there is deep seated. In MMOs where PvP did not exist at launch and then is retroactively added I saw similar feelings. The feeling that if you’re weaker than the existing competition, the game should curate the competition so you only see the players you can beat, because the one and only point to the game is to give you “reasonable” challenges, is a PvE mentality, and when PvP is introduced, not everyone is capable of letting it go.
In fact, this is attitude exists on a spectrum. There are players who don’t think this only about PvP. There were players who felt that things like Labyrinth and Abyss were unfair because they were biased towards end gamers. They literally stated that for the game to be fair, there should be a lower tier version of the Labyinrth and the Abyss, because some said, and I am not making this up, end game content shouldn’t just be for end game players.
I remember a time long ago where many players said this game had become too elitist, and was only thinking about the whales and the “1%” and was no longer about the average player, and the game would soon die because it only cared about the top players and was squeezing everyone else out. And what were they saying this in response to? Master tier EQ being added to the game.
Master tier difficulty, for those who do not remember or were not here before EQ was refactored, was the tier of difficulty below Uncollected.
Also, I keep thinking if the devs suddenly lost their minds completely and decided to reimplement roster matching, the most fair way to do that would simply be to either allow for deck matching again, or simply restrict everyone to 4* decks. That would completely neutralize roster advantage.
When they had deck matching in BG, my win rate was above 75%. Because when you match by deck strength, newer players cannot escape the veterans. They can’t pull some lucky champ and gain an edge. They aren’t going to know as much as I do about game mechanics or champion interactions. They won’t understand deck construction. They are simply going to lose in the draft, Someone like me will lose to the top tier players in the game because I will never be able to have any sort of roster advantage to assist me, but there are ten times more players that are less knowledgeable than me than there are more knowledgeable than me.
This is why I suggested modified ELO matching back in 2023. Roster is not the only advantage in BG and it isn’t even arguably the most important one. Take that away and match randomly, and there are still several other factors that will make all the UCs lose most of the time. It is just that they won’t be here complaining their opponents have stronger rosters. They will be here complaining that they keep getting matched against players scoring 50k while they are scoring 30k and that’s just completely unfair. They’ll start begging for “fair” matches where they only get matched against other players who score lower.
If they are losing a lot, that will be intrinsically unfair to them, and the ones complaining now will come up with a reason why it is unfair, even if they have to invent it.
This should have been done and kept from day 1... It created an illusion that lower accounts could climb and get rewards and now its been taken away, when they should have never gotten them. Its a competition, its supposed.to be elitist. Lower account progressions have been babied too much.
It has almost certainly exacerbated the situation, but I don’t think it was the cause. We saw this in Alliance War, where players felt they “deserved” for their alliances to only face similar alliances, even if that meant the #3 alliance was a bunch of Uncollected players. They thought that was fair. The idea that “fair” is when you’re given fights you can win rather than having to face whoever is there is deep seated. In MMOs where PvP did not exist at launch and then is retroactively added I saw similar feelings. The feeling that if you’re weaker than the existing competition, the game should curate the competition so you only see the players you can beat, because the one and only point to the game is to give you “reasonable” challenges, is a PvE mentality, and when PvP is introduced, not everyone is capable of letting it go.
In fact, this is attitude exists on a spectrum. There are players who don’t think this only about PvP. There were players who felt that things like Labyrinth and Abyss were unfair because they were biased towards end gamers. They literally stated that for the game to be fair, there should be a lower tier version of the Labyinrth and the Abyss, because some said, and I am not making this up, end game content shouldn’t just be for end game players.
I remember a time long ago where many players said this game had become too elitist, and was only thinking about the whales and the “1%” and was no longer about the average player, and the game would soon die because it only cared about the top players and was squeezing everyone else out. And what were they saying this in response to? Master tier EQ being added to the game.
Master tier difficulty, for those who do not remember or were not here before EQ was refactored, was the tier of difficulty below Uncollected.
I know you spend a lot of time into collecting data and proposing a way of changing BGs for Kabam. My point is that BGs was a monster created that not even Kabam had a way of fixing aftet trying to make everyone happy. I doubt it was their intention to have UCs with 6r2s, Cavs with multiple r3s and TBs with 6r4-r5 because of rewards, and even worse use the BG store as a main source of roster advancement. I don't believe it was their intentiom to have lower progeession people become lazy and not do much content and grow rosters. I also blame all this "babying" for forcing BG rewards stay the way they are. Kabam can't buff rewards for top progression without buffing for lower, the backlash would be too much. I keep on repeating this but MCoC was not ready for PvP mode, not because of the game mode itself; but the attifude of players not accepting how behind they are compared to others.
I’m persistent, just look at my win loss rate in BGs. As long as I don’t have the last word here I’ll keep posting.
BGs is not a competitive game mode for everyone. It’s a roll of the dice where some small percentage of the time I get a competitive match.
Battlegrounds is in my opinion the best game mode when facing similar strength rosters. I’m simply asking for Kabam to consider a version of BGs that is in some way bracketed to make it fun. Threat level 1 vs 5, sector 1 vs 6, etc. leave the current BGs as it is and add something new and call it playgrounds for all I care. The only thing the current BGs will lose is all the free wins from non competitive accounts who switch to the fun mode.
I logged into an old alt account to test this out.
It’s mid season and I’m starting in Bronze with a cavalier account.
I played 10 matches, 7 of them I could have won easily if auto play was available in BGs. Sorry to say DNA3000 but those accounts had no chance. I had a 10x advantage on prestige and better options for attackers/defenders. 3 forfeited but they all should have.
2 of the matches I had no chance of winning. I would have forfeited if I was using energy but I used elder marks so I had to waste time and take the beating.
1 match I was slightly outmatched and got out drafted and the other player was very skilled and I lost. It was the only match I’d consider to be fun although I had an input issue that wrecked one of my fights which happens all to often and that was frustrating but I would have lost anyway so not making excuses just saying input issues are frustrating.
That summary may be other people’s idea of competitive but it’s not mine. From my point of view it’s only 10% competitive. The other 90% is either frustrating or boring.
I logged into an old alt account to test this out.
It’s mid season and I’m starting in Bronze with a cavalier account.
I played 10 matches, 7 of them I could have won easily if auto play was available in BGs. Sorry to say DNA3000 but those accounts had no chance. I had a 10x advantage on prestige and better options for attackers/defenders. 3 forfeited but they all should have.
2 of the matches I had no chance of winning. I would have forfeited if I was using energy but I used elder marks so I had to waste time and take the beating.
1 match I was slightly outmatched and got out drafted and the other player was very skilled and I lost. It was the only match I’d consider to be fun although I had an input issue that wrecked one of my fights which happens all to often and that was frustrating but I would have lost anyway so not making excuses just saying input issues are frustrating.
That summary may be other people’s idea of competitive but it’s not mine. From my point of view it’s only 10% competitive. The other 90% is either frustrating or boring.
So you found out you own 2 tractors instead of 1...
I logged into an old alt account to test this out.
It’s mid season and I’m starting in Bronze with a cavalier account.
If you start mid season in Bronze with a Cav account, you're going to be stomping on all of the lower accounts that are in Bronze because all the stronger accounts promoted out. That's just a side effect of the way accounts are sorted in VT by winning. Stronger accounts should promote up, but stronger accounts that don't play will be artificially lower in VT than most similar accounts. The solution to that is exactly what's happening: you're winning quickly and trivially, and thus removing yourself from those lower tiers in just a few matches.
Absent a start-up match system for players who join late, which would be complicated, that's the best that a competitive ladder like this can do.
This exact same issue crops up in Alliance war when a bunch of veterans decide to create a new alliance. Since they start at rating zero, the only way for them to climb to their intrinsic rating is to beat enough lower alliances to get there. The system has no way to set an arbitrary "guess" for what rating an alliance should have when it has no win/loss record to go off of.
I logged into an old alt account to test this out.
It’s mid season and I’m starting in Bronze with a cavalier account.
I played 10 matches, 7 of them I could have won easily if auto play was available in BGs. Sorry to say DNA3000 but those accounts had no chance. I had a 10x advantage on prestige and better options for attackers/defenders. 3 forfeited but they all should have.
2 of the matches I had no chance of winning. I would have forfeited if I was using energy but I used elder marks so I had to waste time and take the beating.
1 match I was slightly outmatched and got out drafted and the other player was very skilled and I lost. It was the only match I’d consider to be fun although I had an input issue that wrecked one of my fights which happens all to often and that was frustrating but I would have lost anyway so not making excuses just saying input issues are frustrating.
That summary may be other people’s idea of competitive but it’s not mine. From my point of view it’s only 10% competitive. The other 90% is either frustrating or boring.
So many words to say you don't understand competitions.
im convinced some of you have no idea what a true ranked or competitive gamemode is. ive never play any other ranked gamemode as bad as this one. and im saying this as a valiant player 95% of the matches i played this season were unwinnable for my opponent. if my champs have 2x the attack and 3x the health as my opponents best champs thats not in the slightest bit competitive thats just me bullying small accounts. im in vibrainium still facing acc i have no business facing
im convinced some of you have no idea what a true ranked or competitive gamemode is. ive never play any other ranked gamemode as bad as this one. and im saying this as a valiant player 95% of the matches i played this season were unwinnable for my opponent. if my champs have 2x the attack and 3x the health as my opponents best champs thats not in the slightest bit competitive thats just me bullying small accounts. im in vibrainium still facing acc i have no business facing
Just walk away bro, they not gonna change anything if the change only benefit players, not their pocket
im convinced some of you have no idea what a true ranked or competitive gamemode is. ive never play any other ranked gamemode as bad as this one. and im saying this as a valiant player 95% of the matches i played this season were unwinnable for my opponent. if my champs have 2x the attack and 3x the health as my opponents best champs thats not in the slightest bit competitive thats just me bullying small accounts. im in vibrainium still facing acc i have no business facing
If only we could play "who understands game design better" with perma death rules.
Comments
I’m not dunking on that player by the way. There’s all kinds of players that play this game. There are super high skilled players ten times better than I will ever be. But there’s also players ten times weaker than I am that will never catch up to me either. That’s perfectly fine, so long as they have reasonable expectations about how far their relative skill level will take them.
But it means there’s huge overlap between progression tiers when it comes to something like BG strength. The Paragons are not all stronger than the Cavs. Uncollected players can do better than just beat up on other UC. That’s in part why we’re all competing in one big BG, and not all segregated into players of the same progression or roster strength. Doing so would penalize the better players with the weaker rosters. There are Cav players beating Paragon players right now, and will by effort or skill or both overtake them in VT. They deserve to have the chance to do so. If we put all the Cavs in their own little fish bowl, those Cavs would be punished by not being given a chance to do better than what the game predicts for them. Once again, in a competition, that’s illogical and unfair.
The average Paragon is going to beat the average Cav most of the time. But in a competition, you don’t assume that. You let it play out and see what happens. You give the Cavs a shot. You give players a chance to exceed expectations. Most won’t. Some will. They deserve the opportunity to try.
When we say BG is a competition, some people think that’s just a meaningless drone. But it isn’t. Most of the game is PvE. In PvE, we expect most of the players to succeed, not for most of them to fail. If most of the players were failing EQ, the devs would tune it so that more players succeeded. But in a competition, most players fail. For some players to succeed wildly, most have to fail to achieve their goals. Only 10% or so will make it to GC. Only a handful of them will get meaningful rewards significantly higher than baseline GC rewards. That’s by design. We encourage participation with things like milestone rewards and VT tier promotion rewards, but nevertheless, most players will not climb as high as they want or think they should. That’s the difference between PvP and PvE. In PvE, this would be broken,. In PvP, this is working as intended. This is something that games that are predominantly PvE struggle with when they introduce or expand PvP in their games. And it is something that players simply need to accept, because there’s ultimately no other way to have competition in a game, than for most players to lose more than they want to, but still be given the opportunity to try., It is up to the player to make the appropriate choices for themselves, because in PvP no one is going to protect them from themselves.
Anyone UNDER Paragon who ever complains about this mode can kick rocks though......everyone before you couldn't FATHOM rewards like this 2-3-7 years ago....you can just do the daily objectives and get a six star a week (minimum).....if you disagree you are simply delusional and entitled. 90% of the people you are complaining to about only getting a few 6 stars and maybe 1 7 star per BG season when your on act 5 beat act 5 with 4 and 5 star champs. ......the game is evolving and I'm all for it but complaining that a competitive mode is hard when some players have been here a decade and you've been around a year is hilarious at best.....just my two cents
You're currently seeing how GC will be if you ever make it there. GC has ALWAYS been a free for all. Competitions have limits. You're reaching your limit to how far you can go.
Again, you can't wrap your brain around this idea because you think as a cav player, you deserve the same rewards as the number one person in BGs but you don't think you should have to face that person.
I also understand English perfectly. You've stated over and over that you don't think you should face deck sizes larger than your own.
With the new matchmaking system, larger decks will start higher in VT than you and eventually you'll face deck sizes the same as you more and more often. But at some point, if you're able to get high enough, that will stop. Especially if you ever hit GC.
This probably would have been shut down even earlier if Miike/Jax were still here or if it wasn’t the weekend.
I think everyone has made their game-relevant points, no need for personal attacks.
I used to be in Mysterium very frequently even touch Celestial many times before with my main acc, that’s when I face with many low acc on VT and feel bad for them when they just force quite, rather than try because they don’t see any chance! For me personally, I also don’t feel proud when win a match like that!
You'll never understand this though.
Again there is nothing BG suppose to be, just MONEY is priority lol. That’s it, no need to argue
And while they want fair matches as they see it, the devs want a fair competition, and any suggestion that allows lower progress players to overtake higher progress players without having to face similar competition is unacceptable. We know it is unacceptable because first the devs removed such matching from higher tier VT for what they explicitly stated was that reason, and then even that was not enough and they subsequently removed such matching from lower VT for the same reason. They did it knowing players would complain about it, but as those complaints run counter to the entire purpose of a competition, they were not convincing.
I don't claim to speak for other players, including specifically for lower progress players in BG. When I say those players exist and deserve the opportunity to face the full range of competition for the full range of rewards, I'm not saying I represent them when I say that. I say they exist, and good game design will emphasize their needs in a competitive game mode over the feelings of the players less inclined to accept the realities of a competitive ladder based game mode.
I was actually perfectly happy with the compromise implement when they restricted roster matching to the lower half of VT. It was a simplified version of what I myself suggested several seasons ago. However, the developers clearly felt even that compromise was too much punishment for higher progress players when they looked at the data and saw the relative promotion rates of differing roster strength players. To the extent that I say roster matching is too punishing to higher strength players to be considered reasonable across VT, the devs feel even more strongly about it than I do.
Some stuff is up for debate, and some stuff is not up for debate. The nature of the competition in BG is not up for debate, at least not with the devs. That's a design decision that the devs know will be unpopular among some players when they make it, which means they've already made the decision to do it regardless of how many players complain about it. And since despite claims here on the forums that the mode is dying and players are giving up on it, the mode seems to have a very healthy amount of players across all allowed progressions, a dozen complaints on the forums gets outvoted by a hundred thousand lower progress players playing the game mode.
The developers read complaints, but they care about participation and engagement. As long as two hundred complain but two hundred thousand play, they're going to think the mode is fine.
Also for someone whop keeps getting told their pronouncements about Battlegrounds are ridiculous, it sure seems to me like the mode keeps getting closer and closer to what I suggested it move towards a year and a half ago.
You WANTING to face weaker competition isn't posing an alternative, it's already been done.its why you got to celestial.
It created an illusion that lower accounts could climb and get rewards and now its been taken away, when they should have never gotten them.
Its a competition, its supposed.to be elitist.
Lower account progressions have been babied too much.
In fact, this is attitude exists on a spectrum. There are players who don’t think this only about PvP. There were players who felt that things like Labyrinth and Abyss were unfair because they were biased towards end gamers. They literally stated that for the game to be fair, there should be a lower tier version of the Labyinrth and the Abyss, because some said, and I am not making this up, end game content shouldn’t just be for end game players.
I remember a time long ago where many players said this game had become too elitist, and was only thinking about the whales and the “1%” and was no longer about the average player, and the game would soon die because it only cared about the top players and was squeezing everyone else out. And what were they saying this in response to? Master tier EQ being added to the game.
Master tier difficulty, for those who do not remember or were not here before EQ was refactored, was the tier of difficulty below Uncollected.
When they had deck matching in BG, my win rate was above 75%. Because when you match by deck strength, newer players cannot escape the veterans. They can’t pull some lucky champ and gain an edge. They aren’t going to know as much as I do about game mechanics or champion interactions. They won’t understand deck construction. They are simply going to lose in the draft, Someone like me will lose to the top tier players in the game because I will never be able to have any sort of roster advantage to assist me, but there are ten times more players that are less knowledgeable than me than there are more knowledgeable than me.
This is why I suggested modified ELO matching back in 2023. Roster is not the only advantage in BG and it isn’t even arguably the most important one. Take that away and match randomly, and there are still several other factors that will make all the UCs lose most of the time. It is just that they won’t be here complaining their opponents have stronger rosters. They will be here complaining that they keep getting matched against players scoring 50k while they are scoring 30k and that’s just completely unfair. They’ll start begging for “fair” matches where they only get matched against other players who score lower.
If they are losing a lot, that will be intrinsically unfair to them, and the ones complaining now will come up with a reason why it is unfair, even if they have to invent it.
My point is that BGs was a monster created that not even Kabam had a way of fixing aftet trying to make everyone happy. I doubt it was their intention to have UCs with 6r2s, Cavs with multiple r3s and TBs with 6r4-r5 because of rewards, and even worse use the BG store as a main source of roster advancement. I don't believe it was their intentiom to have lower progeession people become lazy and not do much content and grow rosters.
I also blame all this "babying" for forcing BG rewards stay the way they are. Kabam can't buff rewards for top progression without buffing for lower, the backlash would be too much.
I keep on repeating this but MCoC was not ready for PvP mode, not because of the game mode itself; but the attifude of players not accepting how behind they are compared to others.
BGs is not a competitive game mode for everyone. It’s a roll of the dice where some small percentage of the time I get a competitive match.
Battlegrounds is in my opinion the best game mode when facing similar strength rosters. I’m simply asking for Kabam to consider a version of BGs that is in some way bracketed to make it fun. Threat level 1 vs 5, sector 1 vs 6, etc. leave the current BGs as it is and add something new and call it playgrounds for all I care. The only thing the current BGs will lose is all the free wins from non competitive accounts who switch to the fun mode.
It’s mid season and I’m starting in Bronze with a cavalier account.
I played 10 matches, 7 of them I could have won easily if auto play was available in BGs. Sorry to say DNA3000 but those accounts had no chance. I had a 10x advantage on prestige and better options for attackers/defenders. 3 forfeited but they all should have.
2 of the matches I had no chance of winning. I would have forfeited if I was using energy but I used elder marks so I had to waste time and take the beating.
1 match I was slightly outmatched and got out drafted and the other player was very skilled and I lost. It was the only match I’d consider to be fun although I had an input issue that wrecked one of my fights which happens all to often and that was frustrating but I would have lost anyway so not making excuses just saying input issues are frustrating.
That summary may be other people’s idea of competitive but it’s not mine. From my point of view it’s only 10% competitive. The other 90% is either frustrating or boring.
Absent a start-up match system for players who join late, which would be complicated, that's the best that a competitive ladder like this can do.
This exact same issue crops up in Alliance war when a bunch of veterans decide to create a new alliance. Since they start at rating zero, the only way for them to climb to their intrinsic rating is to beat enough lower alliances to get there. The system has no way to set an arbitrary "guess" for what rating an alliance should have when it has no win/loss record to go off of.