Player B = 44k total points (Pausing) KO - 0 Attacker HP - 15k Defender remaing HP - 29k Fight duration - 0
Tell me again, how Player B, who paused (the whole fight ?), can get that 29k pts from defender health remaining, when if defender finished fight at full health the player actually gets 0 pts for defender health remaining.
Thus the whole conversation about needing to get more than 15k if you want to beat a Pauser. (which, my extra 5k would go a long way towards helping people being able to break above that 15k mark, even if their attacker did not finish with 50% of their health left.)
Player B = 44k total points (Pausing) KO - 0 Attacker HP - 15k Defender remaing HP - 29k Fight duration - 0
Tell me again, how Player B, who paused (the whole fight ?), can get that 29k pts from defender health remaining, when if defender finished fight at full health the player actually gets 0 pts for defender health remaining.
Thus the whole conversation about needing to get more than 15k if you want to beat a Pauser. (which, my extra 5k would go a long way towards helping people being able to break above that 15k mark, even if their attacker did not finish with 50% of their health left.)
Because you're making an assumption that pausing only happens at the start of the fight. Although this is the case in many lower tier matches, in higher tiers pausing is exploited in order to maximize total obtainable points in a match depending on various factors, so pausing could actually take place right at the end of a match.
Player B = 44k total points (Pausing) KO - 0 Attacker HP - 15k Defender remaing HP - 29k Fight duration - 0
Tell me again, how Player B, who paused (the whole fight ?), can get that 29k pts from defender health remaining, when if defender finished fight at full health the player actually gets 0 pts for defender health remaining.
Thus the whole conversation about needing to get more than 15k if you want to beat a Pauser. (which, my extra 5k would go a long way towards helping people being able to break above that 15k mark, even if their attacker did not finish with 50% of their health left.)
Because you're making an assumption that pausing only happens at the start of the fight. Although this is the case in many lower tier matches, in higher tiers pausing is exploited in order to maximize total obtainable points in a match depending on various factors, so pausing could actually take place right at the end of a match.
You keep making this claim with 0 data. At this point I’ll even take accendotal data. Show me a single fight where a player won because they paused in mysterium or higher.
I have 0 data to back this up, but since we’re just out here stating things with 0 data to back it up, I think the number of fights were a player got a defender down to 1% with >90% health and then decided to pause is less than 1% of all BG fights.
Solution: Add a 30k points towards scoring on a KO (same as defender remaining HP) and disincentivize pausing.
This. Or, reward a KO (if the other player didn't get one of course) with an Instant win. Every other similar game is based on that. All of them. Except from Mcoc.
Solution: Add a 30k points towards scoring on a KO (same as defender remaining HP) and disincentivize pausing.
This. Or, reward a KO (if the other player didn't get one of course) with an Instant win. Every other similar game is based on that. All of them. Except from Mcoc.
BG doesn’t feel like niche content. Masters level AW, feels niche. Most of the carinas challenges feel niche. BG, still feels like it’s played by a fairly big cross section of the game. But if the data says it’s niche, matchmaking is the problem that needs solving.
Matchmaking will always be an issue for lower established accounts when they are in the same competition as more established accounts. We’ll either have the situation where account sizes were kept separate until GC, annoying Paragone/Valiant accounts seeing the minnow accounts getting an easy path to rewards, or the current matchmaking where you can get matched with anyone and minnow accounts feeling roadblocked and stop engaging in the mode. Trying to expedite the higher ranked accounts through victory track to keep them separate doesn’t seem to have solved this.
Almost all areas of the game have multiple different difficulties. AQ, MEQ, Side Quests, Act Content, Incursions and now Raids, you can choose a difficulty Battlegrounds needs to introduce a second, lower tier that has a cut of like incursions does. Maybe lock out Valiant and Paragon accounts. Reduce the rewards for this BG level making it appropriate rewards for the players and probably have no gladiator circuit. I’d still keep the more difficult version of BG open to everyone, but gate off the easier version.
Solution: Add a 30k points towards scoring on a KO (same as defender remaining HP) and disincentivize pausing.
This. Or, reward a KO (if the other player didn't get one of course) with an Instant win. Every other similar game is based on that. All of them. Except from Mcoc.
Totally agreed, that's exactly how deciding the winner in a fighting game should work in the first place. My 30k proposal is meant to precisely guarantee the player who KO's the win (if other player doesn't like you mention) regardless other possible scoring outcomes do to the fact of 30k being the highest scoring amount in game. Adding 30k towards scoring on a KO gives 4 possible outcomes with no flaws whatsoever:
1. Both players KO: Winner is decided by the sum combination of other current winning factors.
2. Both players dont KO: Winner is decided by the sum combination of other current winning factors.
3. Player A KOs - Player B doesn't KO: Player A wins the match (like he should).
4. Player A doesn't KO - Player B KOs: Player B wins the match (like he should).
In other words, whether Kabam decides to grant the win instantly or through adding KO as the PRIMARY scoring factor in the match, A player that doesn't KO their opponent should NEVER be able to win the match regardless any other scoring factors EVEN if they don't PAUSE. That is a game design flaw.
This needs to be implemented asap, what ever is the easiest for them to develope... they have options.
It's been a few days now. And I think it is fair to say that the matchmaking in battlegrounds has been still, complete rubbish. My last 5 respective matches were respectively total power 5 million, 5 million, 5 million, 5 million, and 2.5 million. My total power is 1.5 million. And yes, this is a very good indicator of battleground deck power, so please don't try to fight me on it when I say the fights have been less than fair. And I have to say---What is wrong with pre-season matchmaking? It's the only fair system ever implemented in battlegrounds. There are some easy fights, there are hard fights, but nothing that makes a counter not work because your 6r3 is fighting a 7r3. The system is supposed to, and I quote, "promote players to climb to higher ranks". This is quite true. Yet in turn this is pushing lower rank players back to "where they belong", meaning we get a possible net negative increase in rewards. Postulate this: due to the inflating amount of Valiants incentivized to beat the heck out of battlegrounds noobs you are much less likely to win an Elder's Mark match, as well as the fact that you are much less likely to rank up. So you can end up in a lower rank and lower milestones from last season even if this season has both. It is too early to come up with a conclusion, but the very viable possibility that is buffed rewards can become nerfed rewards for a singular population is not good. I know some people will be like, "calm down, it's the first 2 days, everyone's trying to get a higher rank, when they all do you can have fun in lower ranks" but A. battlegrounds is just not fun right now. and B. this causes another malfunctioning system in which people in Victory Track who don't have 15 million power and 10 7 star rank 4s to never touch it until the last week of the competition, which is not even a guaranteed fair battleground because there are still stark power differences and some ratty people will be capitalizing off of the fact that end of season will be easy wins.
Anyhow, the center argument is definitely the reward buff is tied more and more to competition as compared to participation, a key issue addressed clearly by Kabam. And their solution is brilliant because all it does is make it worse. Not saying to unbuff the rewards, please, if I could get to my most common rank I would receive a much better reward patch than just the milestones on a usual season. But again, because competition is now integrated into the role of rewards, your participation is a basic factor that is needed but does not guarantee results. You can play 30 games against full 7r3 decks and never get out of bronze. The only rewards you're ever gonna get for the first weeks as a non-Valiant non grinder is 600 per 2 days and your start of season rewards. Of course, like many of my posts, this is an exaggeration, but in practicality, you're not gonna have a good time or feel the reward buff. I feel like they really don't address that by adding reward buff to rank correlation. They should post the stats of how many people were capable of reaching Gladiator's Circuit last season and let me flame their brains out about their logical absencies in believing that solves participation issue when clearly those who are capable is a minority (if 50%+ of the population is GC and Valiant no one would mind but clearly it isn't; the only reason you're doing this is because Valiants on average spend the most). This is purely an update so that they look sincere in doing so but in reality solves little to no problems and makes the meta much worse to play on. At least I would have full 7r3s surrendering in the old days to maintain rank. Nowadays it's the same people but they're intent on making your life miserable.
@Kabam Crashed .. Thank you for the time and effort for this post. Have a query about this concept of rewards in GC.. it might be too early for answer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reach the Gladiator’s Circuit by the end of week one of a season Reach 100 Rating on the Gladiator’s Circuit by the end of week two of a season Reach 200 Rating on the Gladiator’s Circuit by the end of week three of a season ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the reach a 100/200 ratings concept .. is this to hit that mark at some point before week 2/3 or need to be past that point as that week end? As you know, ratings goes up and down as you win and lose and losing streaks can happen.. having that occur just as the week ends would undo alot of the work but does not reward you for pushing before that. Personally would like to see the system that rewards the summoner for reaching a specific threshold at some point before that weeks end but does not penalize them for losing after hitting a milestone.
8. Experiment with new match formats - The current format will be named “Standard Battlegrounds”, and we intend to create new formats and experiment with them across seasons. Things we will be exploring include dramatically different scoring parameters, different deck sizes, different ban structures and more. Target Timeline: Later this year, after championship qualifiers (should they happen)
9. Seeding review - We would like to be able to seed players on the Victory Track based on their placement the season before in the Gladiator’s Circuit. This will obviously help with the uneven matchmaking problem, and make an early climb to the Gladiator’s Circuit faster for elite players. Unfortunately this requires substantial new tech, so at this point we are still reviewing the requirements before making any firm plans. Target Timeline: TBD, under active exploration
10. Remove the Match Accept flow - The plan to address the match decline problem is to simply make declining a match not an option. Target Timeline: TBD
11. Fix Shuffle Signets - Shuffle Signets will be fixed or restructured to always provide more choice to players. We also are looking into an additional server call that will let an opponent properly see the draft choices the Shuffle user can see. Target Timeline: TBD
Final Thoughts
I said above we didn’t prioritize Battlegrounds last year, so why is it the focus now? I’m confident in our playbook to engage the players we focused on last year. With this playbook and with imminent changes to both the Event Quest and Side Quest coming, I believe it’s time to refocus on our competitive ecosystem.
What about the Alliance Event? For now, we are going to leave that untouched. We want to implement the Solo Event, Victory Track and Gladiator’s Circuit rewards changes and see how that all feels and looks in the data. We do have some ideas for how we could change the Alliance Event if it comes to that. Could the Alliance Event Ranked Rewards be based on the sum of the Gladiator’s Circuit rating for all Alliance members? Maybe, maybe not, we shall see. One thing I can say is at some point in the not-too-distant future we have to reevaluate the Elder’s Mark economy as obviously removing the Solo Event devalues that currency.
What about pausing? That’s the one thing I outlined with no planned solution. We have explored this and will continue to, but our engineers have told us there is no way to keep our app running in the background, so even if we remove the pause button players will still be able to pause the game by switching out of the app. So this is something that remains very explorative at the moment.
Finally, while I mentioned we intend to explore new scoring formats, we hear the community’s feedback that the change we announced for this season was not a positive one. Since we decided to tinker with the Season 27 settings to update the Victory Track rewards, we decided to also revert the change to the scoring for the time being.
At first, when I heard about the boycott I didn't give it importance, I'm a Battlegrounds player, I like the mode, but I'm not passionate about it, because I spend more time with the arenas, the rewards for both Battlegrounds and other missions can improve, but yesterday there is something I did not understand, due to the update of the Act 5 prizes that I saw, several players from Latin America are happy, I passed my act in January, but I did not see any update of prizes or message ... to which I come to the conclusion that I want to see them in action with the improvements for the game, while I will talk to several friends to pause the use and purchases in the game, their new action seems to me that it is not fair and disappoints
So the team originally didn't have time to update the rewards, but they did have time to update the scoring back to the beta scoring, which nobody liked during the beta. I feel if they listened to the player base more, that time spent on a ridiculous change to BGs never would have even happened and instead resources could have been spent more productively. Now that change is, rightfully so, being reverted back.
I do appreciate the work that went into writing this, I hope that Kabam realizes there is a lot of passion behind this game and most of us want to see this running for at least another 10 years.
And now im facing people 5k+ rating me with multiple r4s. Kabam is such as a dam fraudulent company!
Its important for everyone to awknowledge this metaphor in order to fullfillfully understand the current state of the game so it can be addressed properly. There's often a misconception of what the problem is (disease) with what in reality are just the consequences (symptoms) of the real problem.
I will use Battlegrounds as an example in order to describe this situation.
Symptoms/ Consequences Are associations of feelings or experiences that indicate a condition.
1. Matchmaking 2. Niche game mode 3. The need to prioritize specific playerbase 4. Player retention 5. Lack of incentivation 6. Frustration, Anger, Boredom, Stress 7. Game is too big 9. Gaming the system 10. Outdated rewards 11. Meta system design isn't working
All these points are examples of consequences that are originated by a problem. Focusing on solving these consequences will only reduce the bad experience to some extent but will not take care of the problems that cause these issues to occure in the first place.
Disease/ Problem Is a disorder of structure or function that has a known cause and has a distinctive group of symptoms.
1. Overall bad design structure regarding all type of player's needs . 2. Poorly implemented monetization strategy according to the nature of the game mode.
Battlegrounds is a competitive focused game mode which consists of players matching each other in order to climb ranks by awarding the winner match points.
It's natural for higher progressed players with bigger accounts that have more game experience and a competitive focus to engage with this game mode because in a way, the game mode was designed for their needs, consciously or unconsciously.
However, the games playerbase has different progression levels, different roster sizes, different levels of experience and different focus. Not every player is an end gamer, has a big account, has played the game for 5+ years or likes to play competitively.
Due to the game modes's design structure, these type of players suffer a series of negative consequences like matching disproportionate sized accounts which gives feelings of frustration, anger, boredom, stress and therefore lack of incentivation to play the mode at all.
I think this clearly answers why Battlegrounds is a niche game mode, why Kabam sometimes has to prioritize other specific playerbases and why they have to develope retention strategies... Because their game modes aren't designed for everyone.
Real Problem: Battlegrounds has an overall bad design structure regarding all type of players needs.
If Battlegrounds design structure is focused primarily on end game players with a competitive focus, why are they also unsatisfied with the game mode?
Striving to be one of the best players requires time, effort, knowledge and skill. When those aspects are not properly rewarded, it gives the feeling of not progressing and therefore not worth the investment. Rewards in Battlegrounds have been outdated for a very long time now, but that is only a consequence of a greater issue.
Devs constantly work in a way that minimize the amount of possible earned rewards for maximum time investment. They do this because of the reward budget; there's a limit on the amounts of resources they can spare in order to keep a balanced in-game economy. This event takes place because the game is too big, as the game gets bigger so does the reward avenues and they believe it's necessary for the longevity of the game.
From a company's perspective, the game needs to make profit in order to keep the game running. Monetizing the game is not a bad decision it's an instrinsical need that helps players enjoy the game while maintaining all employees jobs. The monetization strategy involving battlegrounds was implemented with the game modes store alongside a new currency: Elder Marks. They are the game mode's spending currency which allows players to gain more points per match won towards solo and alliance ranks.
However the system design isn't working. Players are farming in order to maximize their points per used Elder Marks, they stay in lower ranked tiers in order to have easier matchups which will grant them success. This not only causes matchmaking issues for smaller accounts, but also incentivizes players to game the system. Why? Because players that invest money (or units) will always want to have a better value for their spent resources. What gives players better value while using Elder Marks? Winning matches, it's that simple. Therefore summoners are not playing with the intention of winning at all times, they sometimes forfeit with energy in order to keep themselves in lower ranked brackets which will allow them to match easier accounts providing them with a better chance at getting the best value out of used Elder Marks.
Real Problem: Monetization strategy, Elder Marks, were poorly introduced into the game mode causing summoners to farm, which causes matchmaking issues for lower tierd players, which causes an overall bad experience, which causes players to game the system, etc. Elder Marks incentivize the opposite of what a competitive game design structure needs.
Conclusion You can't cure a disease by removing the symptoms but you can remove the symptoms by curing the disease.
Can things get better by fixing some of the consequences? Sure but the problem will continue to exist.
For example removing solo event doesn't end farming because alliance event and elder marks exist. Adding solo event rewards towards VT does not incentivize summoners to play because there are still matchmaking issues.
So my question is this: Why are the thought out improvements worked around the consequences and not the actual problems?
Note: Remember battlegrounds is only an example, this happens in other areas of the game.
I used to make multiple posts about how ridiculous of BG matching making and how to solve it and now you guys Kabam see the consequences of player retention! This make many Thrones or new Valiant players gave up when their rating just over 2 mil but match with 7mil or way higher! For those low tier players, they don’t care about the reward most like you guys thought, they just want a few fair matches each day, but you greedy guys want to put all together because you think by this way you can push them to spend more time and money to grow their account asap! Nope, sorry now is 2025 and people have to work full-time and touch some grass on the weekend. I’m sad with the current state of this great game but kind of satisfied with what you’re suffering now! Your post even clearly stated that you consider us just like some hamster in your lab to test our reaction with your experiments with data lol, which is ridiculous and disrespectful
Every post that seems to say matchmaking isn't fair is getting downvoted. I'm curious, why? Because it benefits most of the population base active on this forum? Oh, I see now.
Every post that seems to say matchmaking isn't fair is getting downvoted. I'm curious, why? Because it benefits most of the population base active on this forum? Oh, I see now.
It's actually getting down voted because it's a terrible idea that has been outlined, explained, dissected, and then restarted again since the posts keep popping up.
Every post that seems to say matchmaking isn't fair is getting downvoted. I'm curious, why? Because it benefits most of the population base active on this forum? Oh, I see now.
It's actually getting down voted because it's a terrible idea that has been outlined, explained, dissected, and then restarted again since the posts keep popping up.
Great! What a clarification! In a non-ironical way I do want some evidence of this dissection and an explanation as to why pre-season matchmaking is much more consistent, defining that it is possible to fight against people your own rank, when all I see are people wearing the Ares profile pic and 2 7 star rank 4s with 28 rank 3s. To address the actual issue in your speech, the inconsistency of which it has been "explained, dissected " doesn't constitute a solution or a result in any form, hence you state in your own argument that it restarts again. So I don't get it, why? Why can't it be pre-season matchmaking? Why can't everything be the Gladiator's Circuit instead of rank-based matchmaking? I get that this is going to be addressed in the new update, hopefully, but the words "dynamic matchmaking" is not necessarily equivalent to "fair".
Just let players pick from a draft board instead of our own decks. That way people without 30 r3s might actually be able to win a damn fight.
Then the problem is the monetization doesn't exist, so does the incentivization to grind. I do like the idea of an entirely equal mode, where all you get is like 4 stars or something, that way I can play with my friends who are either higher or lower than my placement. But I don't think it should be the main way of playing, but they did say they would offer much more variants to bgs than just the original so I hope there is at least something semi-equivalent to that of a fair game.
Every post that seems to say matchmaking isn't fair is getting downvoted. I'm curious, why? Because it benefits most of the population base active on this forum? Oh, I see now.
It's actually getting down voted because it's a terrible idea that has been outlined, explained, dissected, and then restarted again since the posts keep popping up.
Great! What a clarification! In a non-ironical way I do want some evidence of this dissection and an explanation as to why pre-season matchmaking is much more consistent, defining that it is possible to fight against people your own rank, when all I see are people wearing the Ares profile pic and 2 7 star rank 4s with 28 rank 3s. To address the actual issue in your speech, the inconsistency of which it has been "explained, dissected " doesn't constitute a solution or a result in any form, hence you state in your own argument that it restarts again. So I don't get it, why? Why can't it be pre-season matchmaking? Why can't everything be the Gladiator's Circuit instead of rank-based matchmaking? I get that this is going to be addressed in the new update, hopefully, but the words "dynamic matchmaking" is not necessarily equivalent to "fair".
Every post that seems to say matchmaking isn't fair is getting downvoted. I'm curious, why? Because it benefits most of the population base active on this forum? Oh, I see now.
It's actually getting down voted because it's a terrible idea that has been outlined, explained, dissected, and then restarted again since the posts keep popping up.
Great! What a clarification! In a non-ironical way I do want some evidence of this dissection and an explanation as to why pre-season matchmaking is much more consistent, defining that it is possible to fight against people your own rank, when all I see are people wearing the Ares profile pic and 2 7 star rank 4s with 28 rank 3s. To address the actual issue in your speech, the inconsistency of which it has been "explained, dissected " doesn't constitute a solution or a result in any form, hence you state in your own argument that it restarts again. So I don't get it, why? Why can't it be pre-season matchmaking? Why can't everything be the Gladiator's Circuit instead of rank-based matchmaking? I get that this is going to be addressed in the new update, hopefully, but the words "dynamic matchmaking" is not necessarily equivalent to "fair".
To be completely fair I don't think I misunderstood. No one's offering a solution. Everyone's just getting ratioed on every comment they post. The ones I do see basically state to progress further in games to avoid facing such problems. But to use their terminology, that is like attending your first ever F1 race and facing Max Verstappen and Louis Hamilton. First tennis match against Djokovic. The list can go on. There is no inherent logical flaw in the establishment of division systems to avoid things from such to happen. And as always, people like to say, "get better". Again, the same metaphor goes for that the game of which if any beginner is pitted against someone top of their league they are much less likely to pursue such much further. Yes, I still don't understand. Why? Why is there no well established baselines for divisions or possibility of better matchmaking? If one of the concerns is the possibility that people would get comfortable not progressing, why are the rewards quite obviously exponentiated for each title of progression? Finally, I would ask for some of your thoughts. I assert the establishment of a well regulated division system based on PI/total power/Act progression is healthy for battlegrounds and to the game Marvel Contest of Champions itself. And I don't really think I care if I still get ratioed, most people don't try to offer an explanation.
Between molders and pausers this season is the worst yet. All these cheaters are killing the game for me. What happed to honest people in this world.
They have to implement anti cheat in epoch and ordeal... That's the only way to stop a lot of those. I see small accounts with epoch explored in numbers that they can't be all legit.
Comments
Thus the whole conversation about needing to get more than 15k if you want to beat a Pauser.
(which, my extra 5k would go a long way towards helping people being able to break above that 15k mark, even if their attacker did not finish with 50% of their health left.)
I have 0 data to back this up, but since we’re just out here stating things with 0 data to back it up, I think the number of fights were a player got a defender down to 1% with >90% health and then decided to pause is less than 1% of all BG fights.
Matchmaking will always be an issue for lower established accounts when they are in the same competition as more established accounts. We’ll either have the situation where account sizes were kept separate until GC, annoying Paragone/Valiant accounts seeing the minnow accounts getting an easy path to rewards, or the current matchmaking where you can get matched with anyone and minnow accounts feeling roadblocked and stop engaging in the mode. Trying to expedite the higher ranked accounts through victory track to keep them separate doesn’t seem to have solved this.
Almost all areas of the game have multiple different difficulties. AQ, MEQ, Side Quests, Act Content, Incursions and now Raids, you can choose a difficulty Battlegrounds needs to introduce a second, lower tier that has a cut of like incursions does. Maybe lock out Valiant and Paragon accounts. Reduce the rewards for this BG level making it appropriate rewards for the players and probably have no gladiator circuit. I’d still keep the more difficult version of BG open to everyone, but gate off the easier version.
1. Both players KO: Winner is decided by the sum combination of other current winning factors.
2. Both players dont KO: Winner is decided by the sum combination of other current winning factors.
3. Player A KOs - Player B doesn't KO: Player A wins the match (like he should).
4. Player A doesn't KO - Player B KOs: Player B wins the match (like he should).
In other words, whether Kabam decides to grant the win instantly or through adding KO as the PRIMARY scoring factor in the match,
A player that doesn't KO their opponent should NEVER be able to win the match regardless any other scoring factors EVEN if they don't PAUSE. That is a game design flaw.
This needs to be implemented asap, what ever is the easiest for them to develope... they have options.
Have a query about this concept of rewards in GC.. it might be too early for answer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach the Gladiator’s Circuit by the end of week one of a season
Reach 100 Rating on the Gladiator’s Circuit by the end of week two of a season
Reach 200 Rating on the Gladiator’s Circuit by the end of week three of a season
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reach a 100/200 ratings concept .. is this to hit that mark at some point before week 2/3 or need to be past that point as that week end? As you know, ratings goes up and down as you win and lose and losing streaks can happen.. having that occur just as the week ends would undo alot of the work but does not reward you for pushing before that.
Personally would like to see the system that rewards the summoner for reaching a specific threshold at some point before that weeks end but does not penalize them for losing after hitting a milestone.
Thanks
Its important for everyone to awknowledge this metaphor in order to fullfillfully understand the current state of the game so it can be addressed properly.
There's often a misconception of what the problem is (disease) with what in reality are just the consequences (symptoms) of the real problem.
I will use Battlegrounds as an example in order to describe this situation.
Symptoms/ Consequences
Are associations of feelings or experiences that indicate a condition.
1. Matchmaking
2. Niche game mode
3. The need to prioritize specific playerbase
4. Player retention
5. Lack of incentivation
6. Frustration, Anger, Boredom, Stress
7. Game is too big
9. Gaming the system
10. Outdated rewards
11. Meta system design isn't working
All these points are examples of consequences that are originated by a problem. Focusing on solving these consequences will only reduce the bad experience to some extent but will not take care of the problems that cause these issues to occure in the first place.
Disease/ Problem
Is a disorder of structure or function that has a known cause and has a distinctive group of symptoms.
1. Overall bad design structure regarding all type of player's needs .
2. Poorly implemented monetization strategy according to the nature of the game mode.
Battlegrounds is a competitive focused game mode which consists of players matching each other in order to climb ranks by awarding the winner match points.
It's natural for higher progressed players with bigger accounts that have more game experience and a competitive focus to engage with this game mode because in a way, the game mode was designed for their needs, consciously or unconsciously.
However, the games playerbase has different progression levels, different roster sizes, different levels of experience and different focus. Not every player is an end gamer, has a big account, has played the game for 5+ years or likes to play competitively.
Due to the game modes's design structure, these type of players suffer a series of negative consequences like matching disproportionate sized accounts which gives feelings of frustration, anger, boredom, stress and therefore lack of incentivation to play the mode at all.
I think this clearly answers why Battlegrounds is a niche game mode, why Kabam sometimes has to prioritize other specific playerbases and why they have to develope retention strategies... Because their game modes aren't designed for everyone.
Real Problem:
Battlegrounds has an overall bad design structure regarding all type of players needs.
If Battlegrounds design structure is focused primarily on end game players with a competitive focus, why are they also unsatisfied with the game mode?
Striving to be one of the best players requires time, effort, knowledge and skill. When those aspects are not properly rewarded, it gives the feeling of not progressing and therefore not worth the investment. Rewards in Battlegrounds have been outdated for a very long time now, but that is only a consequence of a greater issue.
Devs constantly work in a way that minimize the amount of possible earned rewards for maximum time investment. They do this because of the reward budget; there's a limit on the amounts of resources they can spare in order to keep a balanced in-game economy. This event takes place because the game is too big, as the game gets bigger so does the reward avenues and they believe it's necessary for the longevity of the game.
From a company's perspective, the game needs to make profit in order to keep the game running. Monetizing the game is not a bad decision it's an instrinsical need that helps players enjoy the game while maintaining all employees jobs. The monetization strategy involving battlegrounds was implemented with the game modes store alongside a new currency: Elder Marks. They are the game mode's spending currency which allows players to gain more points per match won towards solo and alliance ranks.
However the system design isn't working. Players are farming in order to maximize their points per used Elder Marks, they stay in lower ranked tiers in order to have easier matchups which will grant them success. This not only causes matchmaking issues for smaller accounts, but also incentivizes players to game the system. Why? Because players that invest money (or units) will always want to have a better value for their spent resources. What gives players better value while using Elder Marks? Winning matches, it's that simple. Therefore summoners are not playing with the intention of winning at all times, they sometimes forfeit with energy in order to keep themselves in lower ranked brackets which will allow them to match easier accounts providing them with a better chance at getting the best value out of used Elder Marks.
Real Problem:
Monetization strategy, Elder Marks, were poorly introduced into the game mode causing summoners to farm, which causes matchmaking issues for lower tierd players, which causes an overall bad experience, which causes players to game the system, etc. Elder Marks incentivize the opposite of what a competitive game design structure needs.
Conclusion
You can't cure a disease by removing the symptoms but you can remove the symptoms by curing the disease.
Can things get better by fixing some of the consequences? Sure but the problem will continue to exist.
For example removing solo event doesn't end farming because alliance event and elder marks exist. Adding solo event rewards towards VT does not incentivize summoners to play because there are still matchmaking issues.
So my question is this: Why are the thought out improvements worked around the consequences and not the actual problems?
Note: Remember battlegrounds is only an example, this happens in other areas of the game.
Good job
I see small accounts with epoch explored in numbers that they can't be all legit.