I like to see an update back issue that rewards 7 star rank 3s gem but it would have to be very hard to do like The Ordeal or Epoch of pain. They can't be same difficulty as the current one otherwise it would be too easy. BG having the same star level, I'm not down with. What's the use of me upgrading my 7 star champs to never used them expect for quests like Epoch of pain or The ordeal. Most of the other content can be done with 5-6 stars. All my hard work in collecting and upgrading would be down the drain. I said from day one they need to implement a tier system with matching rewards and an open tier for the grand prizes. Boss rush or gauntlet are always welcome. I would love to see how high @willrun4adonut would rank in an incursion run competition. This should be like the BG ranking to see who can complete the most zones in each sector with the maximum required rarity champs.
If there was an incursion run completion with speed, I'm sure I wouldn't even be top 200 (or even 500, maybe 2000). But thanks for the vote of confidence.
People always talk about having a lower star rating bgs but it's a terrible idea. Not only does it counteract the point of the game being to progress your account and upgrade your ever growing roster, it also just means that you'll be playing against variants with full decks of the greatest characters in the game and will still have bs matches because they're just better than you. If you can't handle losing in bgs without calling bs on the mode then you're not going to have a better game fighting people that could probably beat you using 2 stars
@WednesdayLength I’m just saying something like this could work. Cause think of a scenario where your deck at best has all r5 6*s but matchmaking puts you against someone with 7* r3-4, wouldn’t blame the guy for leaving, I’ve matched with cavalier accounts with 6*s with my account that has mostly 7* R3s and a r4, they immediately leave cause if you match up with an opponent with a much more stacked account and a clear advantage, and you have no shot of winning, why stay? So having a sort of playlist, filtering rarities, would make it more skill based. Cause I think it would feel more competitive/ intense matching with the exact same power level as your opponent, and it’s actually down to whoever can play better
The problem is that the same Valiants with 7* r3s that would kick you down in regular bgs are the ones who have the overwhelming resources to invest in a full squad of lower rarities. Your average beginner would be handicapping themselves ranking up a bunch of 6*s (or whatever rarity) in order to be competitive in this rarity-restricted bgs instead of working on growing their account vertically for every other piece of content in the game. In other words, if you’re ranking up a bunch of lower rarities, you’ve sabotaged your account by wasting resources unless you’re at an endgame level where those resources are chump change.
Theoretically you could stymie this problem by making the rarity-locked bgs concurrent with regular bgs such that those valiants are fighting each other rather than going down and beating the lower level players, but that would still fracture the player base and just generally be encouraging poor resource management and roster stagnation.
Then I’d limit the filter up to 3*s or something. My view is mainly to have this option for newer players to experience BGs without getting steamrolled as often
This.
I can't enter BG without getting beaten into a corner everytime to the point where I've not been able to ever win a full match, only rounds and this is at the lowest you can get.
Either throw in bots in early ranks, add more ranks or change stuff up mainly
Idk, again it’s just an idea to streamline BGs, have a way to make matches more fair/ fun
What's your definition of fair?
Again my example, say I turn on the filter and make it to where my deck and my opponents deck will be nothing but 3*s. That makes it to where for the most part, you’re fighting opponents who’s deck is on equal power level, sure there may be times where they may have champions you don’t, but you wouldn’t have to worry about the unfair advantage one may have if say you bought a bunch of 3 stars, but match up with an opponent who has 5 stars, you’d have no shot at winning then. Cause with my deck filled with nothing but 7* R2-3s, and I match with someone with 5-6*s at best, how is that fair?
I'm asking because what you consider fair is essentially just you winning more. Fighting msd or bero man is still gonna result in a loss even if you're both using 3 stars. Let's not also forget that higher level accounts will have more access to masteries, max sig for newer champions etc etc
Yes, you may still match with someone with newer champions, BUT say the average matchup would be the same rarity, cause not every fight is a Bero man or a swedah. And if you’re behind on masteries or lower sigs, it is not that hard to level up your account or get sigs. And there aren’t that many champions that need a high sig, for max sig it’s only around 3 champs.
You can't possibly say that only 3 champions need max or high sig and expect anyone to take you seriously
For MAX sig? I can think of Namor, Cap IW, DDHK, mainly cause at max sig it makes their ability at 100%, damage reflection on Namor, parry ability on cap, ignore damage back with DD. Most other champs in the game have a sweet spot at around 170-180
If you ignore red guardian, valkyrie, Prowler, crossbones, spidey 2099, Toad, gentle, gladiator, yknow characters that would actually be used in battlegrounds
s99 isn't good in bgs and gladiator dosen't need sig 200
People always talk about having a lower star rating bgs but it's a terrible idea. Not only does it counteract the point of the game being to progress your account and upgrade your ever growing roster, it also just means that you'll be playing against variants with full decks of the greatest characters in the game and will still have bs matches because they're just better than you. If you can't handle losing in bgs without calling bs on the mode then you're not going to have a better game fighting people that could probably beat you using 2 stars
@WednesdayLength I’m just saying something like this could work. Cause think of a scenario where your deck at best has all r5 6*s but matchmaking puts you against someone with 7* r3-4, wouldn’t blame the guy for leaving, I’ve matched with cavalier accounts with 6*s with my account that has mostly 7* R3s and a r4, they immediately leave cause if you match up with an opponent with a much more stacked account and a clear advantage, and you have no shot of winning, why stay? So having a sort of playlist, filtering rarities, would make it more skill based. Cause I think it would feel more competitive/ intense matching with the exact same power level as your opponent, and it’s actually down to whoever can play better
The problem is that the same Valiants with 7* r3s that would kick you down in regular bgs are the ones who have the overwhelming resources to invest in a full squad of lower rarities. Your average beginner would be handicapping themselves ranking up a bunch of 6*s (or whatever rarity) in order to be competitive in this rarity-restricted bgs instead of working on growing their account vertically for every other piece of content in the game. In other words, if you’re ranking up a bunch of lower rarities, you’ve sabotaged your account by wasting resources unless you’re at an endgame level where those resources are chump change.
Theoretically you could stymie this problem by making the rarity-locked bgs concurrent with regular bgs such that those valiants are fighting each other rather than going down and beating the lower level players, but that would still fracture the player base and just generally be encouraging poor resource management and roster stagnation.
Then I’d limit the filter up to 3*s or something. My view is mainly to have this option for newer players to experience BGs without getting steamrolled as often
This.
I can't enter BG without getting beaten into a corner everytime to the point where I've not been able to ever win a full match, only rounds and this is at the lowest you can get.
Either throw in bots in early ranks, add more ranks or change stuff up mainly
Idk, again it’s just an idea to streamline BGs, have a way to make matches more fair/ fun
What's your definition of fair?
Again my example, say I turn on the filter and make it to where my deck and my opponents deck will be nothing but 3*s. That makes it to where for the most part, you’re fighting opponents who’s deck is on equal power level, sure there may be times where they may have champions you don’t, but you wouldn’t have to worry about the unfair advantage one may have if say you bought a bunch of 3 stars, but match up with an opponent who has 5 stars, you’d have no shot at winning then. Cause with my deck filled with nothing but 7* R2-3s, and I match with someone with 5-6*s at best, how is that fair?
I'm asking because what you consider fair is essentially just you winning more. Fighting msd or bero man is still gonna result in a loss even if you're both using 3 stars. Let's not also forget that higher level accounts will have more access to masteries, max sig for newer champions etc etc
Yes, you may still match with someone with newer champions, BUT say the average matchup would be the same rarity, cause not every fight is a Bero man or a swedah. And if you’re behind on masteries or lower sigs, it is not that hard to level up your account or get sigs. And there aren’t that many champions that need a high sig, for max sig it’s only around 3 champs.
You can't possibly say that only 3 champions need max or high sig and expect anyone to take you seriously
For MAX sig? I can think of Namor, Cap IW, DDHK, mainly cause at max sig it makes their ability at 100%, damage reflection on Namor, parry ability on cap, ignore damage back with DD. Most other champs in the game have a sweet spot at around 170-180
If you ignore red guardian, valkyrie, Prowler, crossbones, spidey 2099, Toad, gentle, gladiator, yknow characters that would actually be used in battlegrounds
Those characters are fine below sig 200. No difference if their sig 190 or something
People always talk about having a lower star rating bgs but it's a terrible idea. Not only does it counteract the point of the game being to progress your account and upgrade your ever growing roster, it also just means that you'll be playing against variants with full decks of the greatest characters in the game and will still have bs matches because they're just better than you. If you can't handle losing in bgs without calling bs on the mode then you're not going to have a better game fighting people that could probably beat you using 2 stars
@WednesdayLength I’m just saying something like this could work. Cause think of a scenario where your deck at best has all r5 6*s but matchmaking puts you against someone with 7* r3-4, wouldn’t blame the guy for leaving, I’ve matched with cavalier accounts with 6*s with my account that has mostly 7* R3s and a r4, they immediately leave cause if you match up with an opponent with a much more stacked account and a clear advantage, and you have no shot of winning, why stay? So having a sort of playlist, filtering rarities, would make it more skill based. Cause I think it would feel more competitive/ intense matching with the exact same power level as your opponent, and it’s actually down to whoever can play better
The problem is that the same Valiants with 7* r3s that would kick you down in regular bgs are the ones who have the overwhelming resources to invest in a full squad of lower rarities. Your average beginner would be handicapping themselves ranking up a bunch of 6*s (or whatever rarity) in order to be competitive in this rarity-restricted bgs instead of working on growing their account vertically for every other piece of content in the game. In other words, if you’re ranking up a bunch of lower rarities, you’ve sabotaged your account by wasting resources unless you’re at an endgame level where those resources are chump change.
Theoretically you could stymie this problem by making the rarity-locked bgs concurrent with regular bgs such that those valiants are fighting each other rather than going down and beating the lower level players, but that would still fracture the player base and just generally be encouraging poor resource management and roster stagnation.
Then I’d limit the filter up to 3*s or something. My view is mainly to have this option for newer players to experience BGs without getting steamrolled as often
This.
I can't enter BG without getting beaten into a corner everytime to the point where I've not been able to ever win a full match, only rounds and this is at the lowest you can get.
Either throw in bots in early ranks, add more ranks or change stuff up mainly
Idk, again it’s just an idea to streamline BGs, have a way to make matches more fair/ fun
What's your definition of fair?
Again my example, say I turn on the filter and make it to where my deck and my opponents deck will be nothing but 3*s. That makes it to where for the most part, you’re fighting opponents who’s deck is on equal power level, sure there may be times where they may have champions you don’t, but you wouldn’t have to worry about the unfair advantage one may have if say you bought a bunch of 3 stars, but match up with an opponent who has 5 stars, you’d have no shot at winning then. Cause with my deck filled with nothing but 7* R2-3s, and I match with someone with 5-6*s at best, how is that fair?
I'm asking because what you consider fair is essentially just you winning more. Fighting msd or bero man is still gonna result in a loss even if you're both using 3 stars. Let's not also forget that higher level accounts will have more access to masteries, max sig for newer champions etc etc
Yes, you may still match with someone with newer champions, BUT say the average matchup would be the same rarity, cause not every fight is a Bero man or a swedah. And if you’re behind on masteries or lower sigs, it is not that hard to level up your account or get sigs. And there aren’t that many champions that need a high sig, for max sig it’s only around 3 champs.
You can't possibly say that only 3 champions need max or high sig and expect anyone to take you seriously
For MAX sig? I can think of Namor, Cap IW, DDHK, mainly cause at max sig it makes their ability at 100%, damage reflection on Namor, parry ability on cap, ignore damage back with DD. Most other champs in the game have a sweet spot at around 170-180
If you ignore red guardian, valkyrie, Prowler, crossbones, spidey 2099, Toad, gentle, gladiator, yknow characters that would actually be used in battlegrounds
Those characters are fine below sig 200. No difference if their sig 190 or something
Red Guardian needs 200 for 5 durability, 190 gives him 4, the rest are fine at 190
People always talk about having a lower star rating bgs but it's a terrible idea. Not only does it counteract the point of the game being to progress your account and upgrade your ever growing roster, it also just means that you'll be playing against variants with full decks of the greatest characters in the game and will still have bs matches because they're just better than you. If you can't handle losing in bgs without calling bs on the mode then you're not going to have a better game fighting people that could probably beat you using 2 stars
@WednesdayLength I’m just saying something like this could work. Cause think of a scenario where your deck at best has all r5 6*s but matchmaking puts you against someone with 7* r3-4, wouldn’t blame the guy for leaving, I’ve matched with cavalier accounts with 6*s with my account that has mostly 7* R3s and a r4, they immediately leave cause if you match up with an opponent with a much more stacked account and a clear advantage, and you have no shot of winning, why stay? So having a sort of playlist, filtering rarities, would make it more skill based. Cause I think it would feel more competitive/ intense matching with the exact same power level as your opponent, and it’s actually down to whoever can play better
The problem is that the same Valiants with 7* r3s that would kick you down in regular bgs are the ones who have the overwhelming resources to invest in a full squad of lower rarities. Your average beginner would be handicapping themselves ranking up a bunch of 6*s (or whatever rarity) in order to be competitive in this rarity-restricted bgs instead of working on growing their account vertically for every other piece of content in the game. In other words, if you’re ranking up a bunch of lower rarities, you’ve sabotaged your account by wasting resources unless you’re at an endgame level where those resources are chump change.
Theoretically you could stymie this problem by making the rarity-locked bgs concurrent with regular bgs such that those valiants are fighting each other rather than going down and beating the lower level players, but that would still fracture the player base and just generally be encouraging poor resource management and roster stagnation.
Then I’d limit the filter up to 3*s or something. My view is mainly to have this option for newer players to experience BGs without getting steamrolled as often
You're under the impression that this would somehow make it more of a balanced fight just because you use 3 stars. You're just gonna get steamrolled by teams of 3 stars
I think the larger point is that they need to try some new things. If the 3* challenge BG lasts for 3 days and it’s kind of goofy, no harm no foul. The macro problem is that BGs has ossified into just another grindy game mode. Because of its inherently flexible strucutre, they should be messing with it constantly. I love crashed’s description of “standard” BGs vs one-off BG events.
People always talk about having a lower star rating bgs but it's a terrible idea. Not only does it counteract the point of the game being to progress your account and upgrade your ever growing roster, it also just means that you'll be playing against variants with full decks of the greatest characters in the game and will still have bs matches because they're just better than you. If you can't handle losing in bgs without calling bs on the mode then you're not going to have a better game fighting people that could probably beat you using 2 stars
@WednesdayLength I’m just saying something like this could work. Cause think of a scenario where your deck at best has all r5 6*s but matchmaking puts you against someone with 7* r3-4, wouldn’t blame the guy for leaving, I’ve matched with cavalier accounts with 6*s with my account that has mostly 7* R3s and a r4, they immediately leave cause if you match up with an opponent with a much more stacked account and a clear advantage, and you have no shot of winning, why stay? So having a sort of playlist, filtering rarities, would make it more skill based. Cause I think it would feel more competitive/ intense matching with the exact same power level as your opponent, and it’s actually down to whoever can play better
The problem is that the same Valiants with 7* r3s that would kick you down in regular bgs are the ones who have the overwhelming resources to invest in a full squad of lower rarities. Your average beginner would be handicapping themselves ranking up a bunch of 6*s (or whatever rarity) in order to be competitive in this rarity-restricted bgs instead of working on growing their account vertically for every other piece of content in the game. In other words, if you’re ranking up a bunch of lower rarities, you’ve sabotaged your account by wasting resources unless you’re at an endgame level where those resources are chump change.
Theoretically you could stymie this problem by making the rarity-locked bgs concurrent with regular bgs such that those valiants are fighting each other rather than going down and beating the lower level players, but that would still fracture the player base and just generally be encouraging poor resource management and roster stagnation.
Then I’d limit the filter up to 3*s or something. My view is mainly to have this option for newer players to experience BGs without getting steamrolled as often
This.
I can't enter BG without getting beaten into a corner everytime to the point where I've not been able to ever win a full match, only rounds and this is at the lowest you can get.
Either throw in bots in early ranks, add more ranks or change stuff up mainly
Idk, again it’s just an idea to streamline BGs, have a way to make matches more fair/ fun
What's your definition of fair?
Again my example, say I turn on the filter and make it to where my deck and my opponents deck will be nothing but 3*s. That makes it to where for the most part, you’re fighting opponents who’s deck is on equal power level, sure there may be times where they may have champions you don’t, but you wouldn’t have to worry about the unfair advantage one may have if say you bought a bunch of 3 stars, but match up with an opponent who has 5 stars, you’d have no shot at winning then. Cause with my deck filled with nothing but 7* R2-3s, and I match with someone with 5-6*s at best, how is that fair?
I'm asking because what you consider fair is essentially just you winning more. Fighting msd or bero man is still gonna result in a loss even if you're both using 3 stars. Let's not also forget that higher level accounts will have more access to masteries, max sig for newer champions etc etc
Yes, you may still match with someone with newer champions, BUT say the average matchup would be the same rarity, cause not every fight is a Bero man or a swedah. And if you’re behind on masteries or lower sigs, it is not that hard to level up your account or get sigs. And there aren’t that many champions that need a high sig, for max sig it’s only around 3 champs.
You can't possibly say that only 3 champions need max or high sig and expect anyone to take you seriously
For MAX sig? I can think of Namor, Cap IW, DDHK, mainly cause at max sig it makes their ability at 100%, damage reflection on Namor, parry ability on cap, ignore damage back with DD. Most other champs in the game have a sweet spot at around 170-180
If you ignore red guardian, valkyrie, Prowler, crossbones, spidey 2099, Toad, gentle, gladiator, yknow characters that would actually be used in battlegrounds
Those characters are fine below sig 200. No difference if their sig 190 or something
Red Guardian needs 200 for 5 durability, 190 gives him 4, the rest are fine at 190
Comments