Every "special" season the same thing,.BGs with its flaws and everything else will not change to fit your roster 🙄. Asking for a game mode to suit a small roster is ridiculous.
As a Valiant who farms the diamond and Vibranium ranks I don’t see your problem . I regularly give up so I don’t accidentally move up a rank and you get a free victory with no effort
Kabam is literally making all sorts of changes to BG because of cowardly rascals such as yourself.... You said it yourself, you're gaming the system in order to keep getting matched up against weaker rosters.
Yeah enough of this small accounts trying to dictate the game, you already got your act 5 upgrade. Leave Valiants alone and start acting like the carrots you are!
Street fighter is the game you should be playing, both players choose from the same pool and your skills matter only other than which character you choose
What is wrong with there being a draft board that we both draft from? So it doesn't matter who has more money or who's been playing longer. So every character we pick from is max 6*s so it's more fair. Hell make it all max 5*s so quake and magik can be in the draft. But there needs to be something cuz with bad match making you can honestly lose every game for a week straight.
Nothing is wrong with that, if that's what you want from your competition. There used to be an auto racing tournament called IROC where teams raced identical cars. The idea was to pit drivers against each other on equal footing. And it was popular among a lot of auto racing fans. So why don't all auto races use that format? Isn't it more fair?
Well yes, if you think auto racing is about who's the best driver. But it isn't. Auto racing is actually a team sport. The driver is just one team member. The pit crew are also on the team. The car designers and tuners are also on the team. It is about who puts the best overall team together, and the car is as much a product of the team as the driver. Having the best car is a legitimate component to winning the race.
So the question is, in MCOC, is roster considered part of player strength? Yes it is. Roster growth is part of the player progression. In fact, it is *literally* necessary to progress in the game. Players have every reason to expect that having a stronger roster would offer advantages in a competitive game mode. It does in AQ leaderboards. It does in AW. It even has an advantage in arena rank rewards. Why *shouldn't* it have an advantage in Battlegrounds?
If you believe Battlegrounds should be some sort of "refuge" from the rest of the game, then sure, you might think it would be better if roster played no role. But if you believe Battlegrounds should be a part of the rest of the game, that it should help you progress and then benefit from that progress, if you believe that performing well in BG should offer rewards that would then help you in BG, then roster should play a role.
There's no such thing as "bad match making." If someone else is stronger than you, whether they are more skillful or more knowledgeable or possesses a stronger roster, or all three, then they should win. That is what a fair competition is. A fair competition is one where the strongest competitiors tend to beat the weaker ones. A competition where every match up is fair is not a fair competition. It is a participation event where the strongest competitors and the weakest ones all have the exact same chance of winning - 50% - and all of them have the same chance at the best results. That's not a competition. That is a mockery of a competition.
In IROC, it was the drivers (and to an extent the pit crews) that were competing against each other, factoring out the cars. This is an explicit intent of the competition. But MCOC is not explicitly a test of how has the fastest thumbs. From day one, it tells players to grow roster and stronger roster will help you out. It tells you stronger roster will help you do content. It will help you progress. It will make you stronger when you have to compete against other players. There has to be a very good reason for Battlegrounds to abandon that entirely, and no one has ever given a good reason for that.
Just curious... based on what I read from this comment, would you consider Battlegrounds Brawl to be a mockery of a competition?
As a Valiant who farms the diamond and Vibranium ranks I don’t see your problem . I regularly give up so I don’t accidentally move up a rank and you get a free victory with no effort
openly admitting to cheating in a public forum does not usually bode well for people. You think that you forfeiting a game here and there helps people of lower level accounts but you are sadly mistaken. There are more people out there like you doing the same which means that you take 3 or 4 games to get back to zero but then you win 2 or three to get your points. That means that when it takes 3 or 4 wins in a row or even more in a certain rank the lower level account has to basically hope for you guys to give them 3 or 4 wins in a row to rank up. @Kabam Vydious is this not a form of cheating?
Nicely put @Double_Helix , i agree with your position here.
I am a "casual" BG player: i play for the 48 hour objectives, and I'm a strong enough player that i usually make it to GC near the end of the season, and sit in that huge uru III bracket.
I see a large number of forfeits on my way up the VT. Some of them are from smaller accounts that probably look at my deck and ragequit. But plenty of them come from people with decks that could easily compete with or beat mine. These people are campers.
Most of the actual fights i get to play are from weaker decks. I play to win, and i usually do. Meaning these competitors are not in this bracket due to high skill compensating for weaker decks.
I theorize that, exactly as @Double_Helix claims, those weaker decks are in those higher brackets because they have been "propelled up" by farmers, as you put it @DNA3000 . But i can't imagine it's fun for the average player to accumulate "wins" by farming-forfeits and lose nearly every match they actually get to play. Even if they're learning something, it's not much fun to lose over and over.
I do think @Kabam Crashed 's post recognizes this issue and is trying to solve it by better aligning reward incentives with the company goal of having all players try to win their bg matches. Time will tell how effectively they accomplish that goal.
I theorize that, exactly as @Double_Helix claims, those weaker decks are in those higher brackets because they have been "propelled up" by farmers, as you put it @DNA3000 . But i can't imagine it's fun for the average player to accumulate "wins" by farming-forfeits and lose nearly every match they actually get to play. Even if they're learning something, it's not much fun to lose over and over.
I am probably an outlier then. I gladly take the “wins” and the rewards.
As a Valiant who farms the diamond and Vibranium ranks I don’t see your problem . I regularly give up so I don’t accidentally move up a rank and you get a free victory with no effort
openly admitting to cheating in a public forum does not usually bode well for people. You think that you forfeiting a game here and there helps people of lower level accounts but you are sadly mistaken. There are more people out there like you doing the same which means that you take 3 or 4 games to get back to zero but then you win 2 or three to get your points. That means that when it takes 3 or 4 wins in a row or even more in a certain rank the lower level account has to basically hope for you guys to give them 3 or 4 wins in a row to rank up. @Kabam Vydious is this not a form of cheating?
It's technically not cheating, though. It's frowned upon, but not actually cheating.
Dude openly admits to being a coward because he clearly doesn't have any skill in the game, so I find it amusing, honestly. His post may as well say "I have zero skill, so I camp out to beat smaller players who have no chance against my deck because I bought my champs but don't actually have any skill to use them against decks similar to mine."
As a Valiant who farms the diamond and Vibranium ranks I don’t see your problem . I regularly give up so I don’t accidentally move up a rank and you get a free victory with no effort
openly admitting to cheating in a public forum does not usually bode well for people. You think that you forfeiting a game here and there helps people of lower level accounts but you are sadly mistaken. There are more people out there like you doing the same which means that you take 3 or 4 games to get back to zero but then you win 2 or three to get your points. That means that when it takes 3 or 4 wins in a row or even more in a certain rank the lower level account has to basically hope for you guys to give them 3 or 4 wins in a row to rank up. @Kabam Vydious is this not a form of cheating?
It's technically not cheating, though. It's frowned upon, but not actually cheating.
Dude openly admits to being a coward because he clearly doesn't have any skill in the game, so I find it amusing, honestly. His post may as well say "I have zero skill, so I camp out to beat smaller players who have no chance against my deck because I bought my champs but don't actually have any skill to use them against decks similar to mine."
Perfect example of money doesn't buy skill.
Well, I don't know about all that, but it's certainly part of the reason they're looking at Rating erosion. If there's anything I enjoy, it's obligation to play! *sarcasm*
As a Valiant who farms the diamond and Vibranium ranks I don’t see your problem . I regularly give up so I don’t accidentally move up a rank and you get a free victory with no effort
openly admitting to cheating in a public forum does not usually bode well for people. You think that you forfeiting a game here and there helps people of lower level accounts but you are sadly mistaken. There are more people out there like you doing the same which means that you take 3 or 4 games to get back to zero but then you win 2 or three to get your points. That means that when it takes 3 or 4 wins in a row or even more in a certain rank the lower level account has to basically hope for you guys to give them 3 or 4 wins in a row to rank up. @Kabam Vydious is this not a form of cheating?
It's technically not cheating, though. It's frowned upon, but not actually cheating.
Dude openly admits to being a coward because he clearly doesn't have any skill in the game, so I find it amusing, honestly. His post may as well say "I have zero skill, so I camp out to beat smaller players who have no chance against my deck because I bought my champs but don't actually have any skill to use them against decks similar to mine."
Perfect example of money doesn't buy skill.
Well, I don't know about all that, but it's certainly part of the reason they're looking at Rating erosion. If there's anything I enjoy, it's obligation to play! *sarcasm*
Rating erosion if for people that park though, no? Especially the top guys who park for the last x amount of time to secure their spot, at least that's what I thought that was the point of the whole rating erosion thing.
This guy openly admits to losing matches purposely to farm lower accounts. Totally different thing.
I can't wait till they have a different tier BG system and see thousands of complaints from the lower level players that their reward is half of what it could have been. I have suggested from day 1 that Kabam should do a tier BG ranking like Incursions where you can play a certain zone based on your champs, but if you look at top rewards for those zones it's not going to help you progess anytime soon. I really do hope that Kabam does a tier system with matching rewards for all different progressons with a open tier for everyone who wants the best rewards. I want don't want to see any complaints that the rewards are garbage compare to the top tier rewards.
As a Valiant who farms the diamond and Vibranium ranks I don’t see your problem . I regularly give up so I don’t accidentally move up a rank and you get a free victory with no effort
openly admitting to cheating in a public forum does not usually bode well for people. You think that you forfeiting a game here and there helps people of lower level accounts but you are sadly mistaken. There are more people out there like you doing the same which means that you take 3 or 4 games to get back to zero but then you win 2 or three to get your points. That means that when it takes 3 or 4 wins in a row or even more in a certain rank the lower level account has to basically hope for you guys to give them 3 or 4 wins in a row to rank up. @Kabam Vydious is this not a form of cheating?
It's technically not cheating, though. It's frowned upon, but not actually cheating.
Dude openly admits to being a coward because he clearly doesn't have any skill in the game, so I find it amusing, honestly. His post may as well say "I have zero skill, so I camp out to beat smaller players who have no chance against my deck because I bought my champs but don't actually have any skill to use them against decks similar to mine."
Perfect example of money doesn't buy skill.
Well, I don't know about all that, but it's certainly part of the reason they're looking at Rating erosion. If there's anything I enjoy, it's obligation to play! *sarcasm*
Rating erosion if for people that park though, no? Especially the top guys who park for the last x amount of time to secure their spot, at least that's what I thought that was the point of the whole rating erosion thing.
This guy openly admits to losing matches purposely to farm lower accounts. Totally different thing.
It's all under the same umbrella for me, really. I hear what you're saying though. Not specifically.
Matchmaking in all game modes is broke AF....... and nothing will change. It's been like this for years.
Matchmaking confirmed broken in Story mode. Y'all heard it here first
I can't even tell if these inveterate complainers are just trolling now or if they actually don't even play the game to know better... So far this weekend I've read that it's unfair to require BG victories to get the DSE, that matchmaking is unfair in all game modes, and that this season of BG doesn't have buffed rewards....
Kabam is not a non-profit organization man, if they choose the way you suggest, then how the hell people need to rank up their champion, or opening crystals as well!
Matchmaking in all game modes is broke AF....... and nothing will change. It's been like this for years.
I hear you, I always use 7 star rank 3 in lower level storey quest auto match fight so I can get free units. It's not fair for the defenders. In AQ, my alliance runs map 4 and map 6, I'm always assigned to map 6 since I want to do Raids (some free raid tickets), AW I want to match against the top tier alliance to get a feel for what the top tiers are doing but once again I get match according to this ridiculous war rating. It's not fair. Why can't I do what I want and everyone else should just do what I want. I should be able to get number one overal in every game mode but I only fight against players or alliances that has the same deck level, same knowledge of the champs, champs with the same ranks and definitely the same skill level or better yet a lower skill level then me. This life, I mean game is so unfair and broken. I will tell my mom about this and trust me you don't want to get on her bad side. You better watch yourself, Kabam. Now I'm going to have a big glass of milk and cookies.
What is wrong with there being a draft board that we both draft from? So it doesn't matter who has more money or who's been playing longer. So every character we pick from is max 6*s so it's more fair. Hell make it all max 5*s so quake and magik can be in the draft. But there needs to be something cuz with bad match making you can honestly lose every game for a week straight.
Nothing is wrong with that, if that's what you want from your competition. There used to be an auto racing tournament called IROC where teams raced identical cars. The idea was to pit drivers against each other on equal footing. And it was popular among a lot of auto racing fans. So why don't all auto races use that format? Isn't it more fair?
Well yes, if you think auto racing is about who's the best driver. But it isn't. Auto racing is actually a team sport. The driver is just one team member. The pit crew are also on the team. The car designers and tuners are also on the team. It is about who puts the best overall team together, and the car is as much a product of the team as the driver. Having the best car is a legitimate component to winning the race.
So the question is, in MCOC, is roster considered part of player strength? Yes it is. Roster growth is part of the player progression. In fact, it is *literally* necessary to progress in the game. Players have every reason to expect that having a stronger roster would offer advantages in a competitive game mode. It does in AQ leaderboards. It does in AW. It even has an advantage in arena rank rewards. Why *shouldn't* it have an advantage in Battlegrounds?
If you believe Battlegrounds should be some sort of "refuge" from the rest of the game, then sure, you might think it would be better if roster played no role. But if you believe Battlegrounds should be a part of the rest of the game, that it should help you progress and then benefit from that progress, if you believe that performing well in BG should offer rewards that would then help you in BG, then roster should play a role.
There's no such thing as "bad match making." If someone else is stronger than you, whether they are more skillful or more knowledgeable or possesses a stronger roster, or all three, then they should win. That is what a fair competition is. A fair competition is one where the strongest competitiors tend to beat the weaker ones. A competition where every match up is fair is not a fair competition. It is a participation event where the strongest competitors and the weakest ones all have the exact same chance of winning - 50% - and all of them have the same chance at the best results. That's not a competition. That is a mockery of a competition.
In IROC, it was the drivers (and to an extent the pit crews) that were competing against each other, factoring out the cars. This is an explicit intent of the competition. But MCOC is not explicitly a test of how has the fastest thumbs. From day one, it tells players to grow roster and stronger roster will help you out. It tells you stronger roster will help you do content. It will help you progress. It will make you stronger when you have to compete against other players. There has to be a very good reason for Battlegrounds to abandon that entirely, and no one has ever given a good reason for that.
Just curious... based on what I read from this comment, would you consider Battlegrounds Brawl to be a mockery of a competition?
Battlegrounds Brawl is a very special case. The rules of competition are different, but it is also not really open to everyone. The goal of Battlegrounds Brawl is to see which player has the highest skill. It is not a test of roster.
It is not like the NFL is fair because it has a salary cap and MLB is unfair because it doesn’t. Each competition has a specific set of goals and a specific set of rules to accomplish those goals. If you want BG to be a game mode that factors out roster strength, you just decide to do that. But in MCOC, a game that is foundationally based on growing and ranking roster, the devs have decided BG should not be disconnected from that foundation. Before you decide to make BG “more fair” by eliminating roster advantages, you have to convince them to disconnect BG from the rest of the game.
That was easy with the Brawl. It was a highly encapsulated event, intended to be as much a spectator event as a competition. The rules were designed accordingly. The reason the shot clock exists in the NBA, the reason the pass interference rule exists in the NFL, is not to make the sports more “fair.” They were just as fair before those rules were enacted. They were just excruciatingly awful to watch on TV. The Brawl existed to promote the game. Battlegrounds exists to engage the playerbase in competitive gameplay. The structure of those two things will be different, because their goals are completely different.
What is wrong with there being a draft board that we both draft from? So it doesn't matter who has more money or who's been playing longer. So every character we pick from is max 6*s so it's more fair. Hell make it all max 5*s so quake and magik can be in the draft. But there needs to be something cuz with bad match making you can honestly lose every game for a week straight.
Nothing is wrong with that, if that's what you want from your competition. There used to be an auto racing tournament called IROC where teams raced identical cars. The idea was to pit drivers against each other on equal footing. And it was popular among a lot of auto racing fans. So why don't all auto races use that format? Isn't it more fair?
Well yes, if you think auto racing is about who's the best driver. But it isn't. Auto racing is actually a team sport. The driver is just one team member. The pit crew are also on the team. The car designers and tuners are also on the team. It is about who puts the best overall team together, and the car is as much a product of the team as the driver. Having the best car is a legitimate component to winning the race.
So the question is, in MCOC, is roster considered part of player strength? Yes it is. Roster growth is part of the player progression. In fact, it is *literally* necessary to progress in the game. Players have every reason to expect that having a stronger roster would offer advantages in a competitive game mode. It does in AQ leaderboards. It does in AW. It even has an advantage in arena rank rewards. Why *shouldn't* it have an advantage in Battlegrounds?
If you believe Battlegrounds should be some sort of "refuge" from the rest of the game, then sure, you might think it would be better if roster played no role. But if you believe Battlegrounds should be a part of the rest of the game, that it should help you progress and then benefit from that progress, if you believe that performing well in BG should offer rewards that would then help you in BG, then roster should play a role.
There's no such thing as "bad match making." If someone else is stronger than you, whether they are more skillful or more knowledgeable or possesses a stronger roster, or all three, then they should win. That is what a fair competition is. A fair competition is one where the strongest competitiors tend to beat the weaker ones. A competition where every match up is fair is not a fair competition. It is a participation event where the strongest competitors and the weakest ones all have the exact same chance of winning - 50% - and all of them have the same chance at the best results. That's not a competition. That is a mockery of a competition.
In IROC, it was the drivers (and to an extent the pit crews) that were competing against each other, factoring out the cars. This is an explicit intent of the competition. But MCOC is not explicitly a test of how has the fastest thumbs. From day one, it tells players to grow roster and stronger roster will help you out. It tells you stronger roster will help you do content. It will help you progress. It will make you stronger when you have to compete against other players. There has to be a very good reason for Battlegrounds to abandon that entirely, and no one has ever given a good reason for that.
Just curious... based on what I read from this comment, would you consider Battlegrounds Brawl to be a mockery of a competition?
Battlegrounds Brawl is a very special case. The rules of competition are different, but it is also not really open to everyone. The goal of Battlegrounds Brawl is to see which player has the highest skill. It is not a test of roster.
It is not like the NFL is fair because it has a salary cap and MLB is unfair because it doesn’t. Each competition has a specific set of goals and a specific set of rules to accomplish those goals. If you want BG to be a game mode that factors out roster strength, you just decide to do that. But in MCOC, a game that is foundationally based on growing and ranking roster, the devs have decided BG should not be disconnected from that foundation. Before you decide to make BG “more fair” by eliminating roster advantages, you have to convince them to disconnect BG from the rest of the game.
That was easy with the Brawl. It was a highly encapsulated event, intended to be as much a spectator event as a competition. The rules were designed accordingly. The reason the shot clock exists in the NBA, the reason the pass interference rule exists in the NFL, is not to make the sports more “fair.” They were just as fair before those rules were enacted. They were just excruciatingly awful to watch on TV. The Brawl existed to promote the game. Battlegrounds exists to engage the playerbase in competitive gameplay. The structure of those two things will be different, because their goals are completely different.
I can understand the structure of two things being different because their goals are different, however in order for the structure to make sense, they need to accomplish their goals.
You state that Battlegrounds exists to engage players in competitive gameplay yet it has been demonstrated they don't accomplish that goal because Kabam themselves say it's a Niche game mode and therefore have the need to prioritize the larger playerbase.
1. The reason most lower progression based players aren't engaging in competitive gameplay is do to a bad design competitive structure which could be solved by progression based matchmaking. 2. The reason higher progression based players are farming has also to do with bad design competitive structure because they're able to face lower progression accounts which could also be solved by progression based matchmaking.
Saying that Brawl exists to promote the game is fair enough however, I believe Kabam is forgetting about an easier way to promote the game which is by player recommendation (that's how I started playing Mcoc btw). If these players aren't having fun and not engaging with the game, they won't recommend it and are also most likely to quit. This also has other side effects like the need for player retention strategies which overall means more work do to a bad competitive design structure.
Saying Brawl was made to test players skills while Battlegrounds to test roster goes completely against Battlegrounds goal which is to engage competitive gameplay by your own definition. I don't think 'roster testing' is needed to understand roster size gives players an advantage.
"A competition where every match up is fair is not a fair competition. It is a participation event where the strongest competitors and the weakest ones all have the exact same chance of winning - 50% - and all of them have the same chance at the best results. That's not a competition. That is a mockery of a competition".
Lastly by these words, you're indirectly saying Brawl is a mockery of a competition. I would say completely the opposite. Brawl is a real competitive event that's fair and where player's skills determine the winner while Battlegrounds is a mockery of a competition thats unfair and where roster size may determine the winner.
Fairness means being impartial without favoritism. In Battlegrounds case, favoritism is being applied by giving unfair preferential treatment to spenders rosters in a competition which gives them an advantage.
Whether spending funds the game or devs having the decision to disconnect Bgs from the rest of the game or not is another story. These are examples of justifying the need for unfair game modes, they do not describe fairness.
"A competition where every match up is fair is not a fair competition. It is a participation event where the strongest competitors and the weakest ones all have the exact same chance of winning - 50% - and all of them have the same chance at the best results. That's not a competition. That is a mockery of a competition".
Lastly by these words, you're indirectly saying Brawl is a mockery of a competition. I would say completely the opposite. Brawl is a real competitive event that's fair and where player's skills determine the winner while Battlegrounds is a mockery of a competition thats unfair and where roster size may determine the winner.
The Battlegrounds Brawl was not designed to make the match ups fair. They removed roster differences from the competition, but roster is just one component of BG matches. However, among all the competitors there was no attempt made to match the competitors relative to their competitive strength. They were matched randomly.
There are two reasonable motivations for removing roster strength from Battlegrounds seasons themselves. One: to eliminate roster strength from being a component of competitor strength, even though it is such everywhere else in the game. Two: because it disincentivizes players from participating when they are competing in wildly uneven match ups. The first one is, as I said, something you would need to justify. There’s no default reason to treat Battlegrounds any differently from any other game mode, including game modes with competitive elements. The second one presumes roster is the only source of wild imbalance, but that’s not even remotely true.
As to spenders gaining an “unfair” advantage, that’s a completely different discussion. In MCOC, spenders do not have unfair advantages by definition. Spending in MCOC is not considered an unfair advantage. It is considered fair game to spend to get resources in precisely the same way it is considered fair game to grind for them. This premise is foundational to the game. If you don’t agree, this is not the game for you. The problem is that in this, and most free to play games, the trade off between spending and free to play crosses a meta boundary. The advantage spenders get is in-game: they get more stuff. The advantage free to players get is out-of-game: they are allowed to play the game at all. Without this fundamental trade off, the non-spenders would be at an even more severe disadvantage in Battlegrounds, given they would have no way to gain champs, do content for rewards, or rank up anything to assemble their decks, because they would not be allowed to log in.
The proper comparison is not between free players who get to play and spenders who get to have more stuff. The free players are only allowed to play because the spenders exist to subsidize their play. In exchange, this game defines spending to be a legitimate form of resource acquisition, no different in a game balance sense than arena grinding. If you think roster advantages are unfair because spending is inherently unfair, your philosophy is incompatible with MCOC. Along with lots of other competitive activists. For example, the aforementioned MLB which does not enforce salary caps. Even Chess is intrinsically unfair, because the only way to gain sufficient rating and standing to compete at the highest levels of the game is to compete in in-person tournaments that require substantial travel and expense. Only the wealthy and those with financial sponsors can realistically compete at the highest levels of Chess, and Chess is considered the most skill-focused competitive activity.
What is wrong with there being a draft board that we both draft from? So it doesn't matter who has more money or who's been playing longer. So every character we pick from is max 6*s so it's more fair. Hell make it all max 5*s so quake and magik can be in the draft. But there needs to be something cuz with bad match making you can honestly lose every game for a week straight.
Nothing is wrong with that, if that's what you want from your competition. There used to be an auto racing tournament called IROC where teams raced identical cars. The idea was to pit drivers against each other on equal footing. And it was popular among a lot of auto racing fans. So why don't all auto races use that format? Isn't it more fair?
Well yes, if you think auto racing is about who's the best driver. But it isn't. Auto racing is actually a team sport. The driver is just one team member. The pit crew are also on the team. The car designers and tuners are also on the team. It is about who puts the best overall team together, and the car is as much a product of the team as the driver. Having the best car is a legitimate component to winning the race.
So the question is, in MCOC, is roster considered part of player strength? Yes it is. Roster growth is part of the player progression. In fact, it is *literally* necessary to progress in the game. Players have every reason to expect that having a stronger roster would offer advantages in a competitive game mode. It does in AQ leaderboards. It does in AW. It even has an advantage in arena rank rewards. Why *shouldn't* it have an advantage in Battlegrounds?
If you believe Battlegrounds should be some sort of "refuge" from the rest of the game, then sure, you might think it would be better if roster played no role. But if you believe Battlegrounds should be a part of the rest of the game, that it should help you progress and then benefit from that progress, if you believe that performing well in BG should offer rewards that would then help you in BG, then roster should play a role.
There's no such thing as "bad match making." If someone else is stronger than you, whether they are more skillful or more knowledgeable or possesses a stronger roster, or all three, then they should win. That is what a fair competition is. A fair competition is one where the strongest competitiors tend to beat the weaker ones. A competition where every match up is fair is not a fair competition. It is a participation event where the strongest competitors and the weakest ones all have the exact same chance of winning - 50% - and all of them have the same chance at the best results. That's not a competition. That is a mockery of a competition.
In IROC, it was the drivers (and to an extent the pit crews) that were competing against each other, factoring out the cars. This is an explicit intent of the competition. But MCOC is not explicitly a test of how has the fastest thumbs. From day one, it tells players to grow roster and stronger roster will help you out. It tells you stronger roster will help you do content. It will help you progress. It will make you stronger when you have to compete against other players. There has to be a very good reason for Battlegrounds to abandon that entirely, and no one has ever given a good reason for that.
Just curious... based on what I read from this comment, would you consider Battlegrounds Brawl to be a mockery of a competition?
Battlegrounds Brawl is a very special case. The rules of competition are different, but it is also not really open to everyone. The goal of Battlegrounds Brawl is to see which player has the highest skill. It is not a test of roster.
It is not like the NFL is fair because it has a salary cap and MLB is unfair because it doesn’t. Each competition has a specific set of goals and a specific set of rules to accomplish those goals. If you want BG to be a game mode that factors out roster strength, you just decide to do that. But in MCOC, a game that is foundationally based on growing and ranking roster, the devs have decided BG should not be disconnected from that foundation. Before you decide to make BG “more fair” by eliminating roster advantages, you have to convince them to disconnect BG from the rest of the game.
That was easy with the Brawl. It was a highly encapsulated event, intended to be as much a spectator event as a competition. The rules were designed accordingly. The reason the shot clock exists in the NBA, the reason the pass interference rule exists in the NFL, is not to make the sports more “fair.” They were just as fair before those rules were enacted. They were just excruciatingly awful to watch on TV. The Brawl existed to promote the game. Battlegrounds exists to engage the playerbase in competitive gameplay. The structure of those two things will be different, because their goals are completely different.
Saying Brawl was made to test players skills while Battlegrounds to test roster goes completely against Battlegrounds goal which is to engage competitive gameplay by your own definition. I don't think 'roster testing' is needed to understand roster size gives players an advantage.
[…]
I would say completely the opposite. Brawl is a real competitive event that's fair and where player's skills determine the winner while Battlegrounds is a mockery of a competition thats unfair and where roster size may determine the winner.
I think there’s a huge piece of brawl you are omitted; in order to qualify for brawl you had to use your own roster and skills. All of the competitors at brawl proved they had the roster, skill, and time invested (it was a real grind to qualify). Additionally at that level, all the competitors have extremely similar rosters so you’re only tweaking things on the edges rather than wholesale changes.
You have to think about it financially, a lot of the reason that the vocal non-spending trend (I won’t use the bad word 🤫) happened/ is happening is because players don’t feel a need to spend. I bet 85% of players have more than 100 champ options that could be used EQ/SQ/story, AQ roster only matters for prestige, AW you need ~10-15 champs (5 of def and a rotating set of champs based on assigned fights). BGs is mode Kabam wants to encourage roster development (not just for top players but for everyone). If you change it so that the “standard” BG mode has a common pool of champs roster development will stagnate.
I am 100% in agreement that Kabam should run tournaments/events that have roster limitations (same pool, only 3*, etc.) which separate rewards but the standard monthly seasons should be using individual rosters.
What is wrong with there being a draft board that we both draft from? So it doesn't matter who has more money or who's been playing longer. So every character we pick from is max 6*s so it's more fair. Hell make it all max 5*s so quake and magik can be in the draft. But there needs to be something cuz with bad match making you can honestly lose every game for a week straight.
What is wrong with players being able to use the rosters they've invested their time (and possibly money) into? What is wrong with being motivated to grow your roster and invest in a wider variety of champs so that you can compete better in the future?
The inherent belief in the hierarchy of power can be respected. But you must also respect the same when you are faced with a similar dilemma, i.e. facing Messi in soccer or Usain Bolt in running. Why don't people understand the establishment of a division system? I could make a similar argument for pitching 3 year olds against college basketball players. What is wrong with parents being able to use their children they've invested their time and money into? What is wrong with being motivated to grow your child into a basketball star? Again, point out all the logical fallacies you like, do all the ratios possible, but the selective properties of real life and the existence of divisions in almost all competitive sports that are well regulated is in itself a counterargument.
"A competition where every match up is fair is not a fair competition. It is a participation event where the strongest competitors and the weakest ones all have the exact same chance of winning - 50% - and all of them have the same chance at the best results. That's not a competition. That is a mockery of a competition".
Lastly by these words, you're indirectly saying Brawl is a mockery of a competition. I would say completely the opposite. Brawl is a real competitive event that's fair and where player's skills determine the winner while Battlegrounds is a mockery of a competition thats unfair and where roster size may determine the winner.
The Battlegrounds Brawl was not designed to make the match ups fair. They removed roster differences from the competition, but roster is just one component of BG matches. However, among all the competitors there was no attempt made to match the competitors relative to their competitive strength. They were matched randomly.
There are two reasonable motivations for removing roster strength from Battlegrounds seasons themselves. One: to eliminate roster strength from being a component of competitor strength, even though it is such everywhere else in the game. Two: because it disincentivizes players from participating when they are competing in wildly uneven match ups. The first one is, as I said, something you would need to justify. There’s no default reason to treat Battlegrounds any differently from any other game mode, including game modes with competitive elements. The second one presumes roster is the only source of wild imbalance, but that’s not even remotely true.
As to spenders gaining an “unfair” advantage, that’s a completely different discussion. In MCOC, spenders do not have unfair advantages by definition. Spending in MCOC is not considered an unfair advantage. It is considered fair game to spend to get resources in precisely the same way it is considered fair game to grind for them. This premise is foundational to the game. If you don’t agree, this is not the game for you. The problem is that in this, and most free to play games, the trade off between spending and free to play crosses a meta boundary. The advantage spenders get is in-game: they get more stuff. The advantage free to players get is out-of-game: they are allowed to play the game at all. Without this fundamental trade off, the non-spenders would be at an even more severe disadvantage in Battlegrounds, given they would have no way to gain champs, do content for rewards, or rank up anything to assemble their decks, because they would not be allowed to log in.
The proper comparison is not between free players who get to play and spenders who get to have more stuff. The free players are only allowed to play because the spenders exist to subsidize their play. In exchange, this game defines spending to be a legitimate form of resource acquisition, no different in a game balance sense than arena grinding. If you think roster advantages are unfair because spending is inherently unfair, your philosophy is incompatible with MCOC. Along with lots of other competitive activists. For example, the aforementioned MLB which does not enforce salary caps. Even Chess is intrinsically unfair, because the only way to gain sufficient rating and standing to compete at the highest levels of the game is to compete in in-person tournaments that require substantial travel and expense. Only the wealthy and those with financial sponsors can realistically compete at the highest levels of Chess, and Chess is considered the most skill-focused competitive activity.
Having a specific design focus does not mean other non focused components stop playing important roles during game mode experience. A very good example of this is farming. Devs did not design battlegrounds with a design focus of incentivizing farming however it plays a very important role during every BG season. In that same way, Brawl was not designed to make match ups fair however by simply removing roster strength component, the competition becomes fair because participants play under the same circumstances without advantages. If Battlegrounds had that same fair element towards the game mode regardless of it not being the game design focus, the outcome would be more player engagement.
What you are describing in your examples are misconceptualized examples of fairness.
1. MLB games are played against same professional level teams, you do not see professionals playing against amatures where in BGs comparison you see Valiants facing Cavaliers. MLB not having salary caps is equivalent to players in Mcoc not having a spending limit, which they don't. Regardless, in MLB teams face their piers, that is fairness. In Mcoc players don't face their piers, that is unfair.
2. Chess as well is played with cero game advantages, millionaires or not, both competitors play under the same circumstances with the same pieces. Professional chess players don't gain win rating by matching high school students, they have to match other professionals. Your example of Chess being unfair regarding outside game necessities is better compared with players having device or network advantages in Mcoc (Loading times).
I will explain why you are wrong regarding Spending...
There are certain components involving BG matchups which depending how they are developed can become into advantages:
All these points are player related, except one, roster strength which is game related. Roster strength is, at the same time, the only component mentioned which is strictly tied to game design purposes, this purpose being roster growth incentivation and this incentivation is tied to spending. Spending and grinding are both in-game available options in order to achieve roster growth. The difference between spending and grinding is the amount of available and valuable resource acquisition which are, in comparison, miles away from being equal.
Spending itself is not an advantage, having competitive game modes played with uneven roster strength is. Designing competitive game modes with preferential treatment to those who help fund the game is an advantage regardless if it's by Mcoc definition not unfair.
Non spenders are not subsided by spenders, the game is subsided by spenders and Kabam allows non spenders to play the game because they are the backbone of the playerbase and potential spending clients. Spenders do not allow non spenders to play the game, Kabam allows non spenders to play the game because they are a big part of the playerbase which help sustain the games functions such as queuing matches during BG seasons.
There is a HUGE problem when it comes to designing competitive game modes, the competitive aspect is distorted by roster strength. In other words, devs are designing competitive game modes with a misconceptualized idea of fair competition in order to justify spending necessity.
What is wrong with there being a draft board that we both draft from? So it doesn't matter who has more money or who's been playing longer. So every character we pick from is max 6*s so it's more fair. Hell make it all max 5*s so quake and magik can be in the draft. But there needs to be something cuz with bad match making you can honestly lose every game for a week straight.
What is wrong with players being able to use the rosters they've invested their time (and possibly money) into? What is wrong with being motivated to grow your roster and invest in a wider variety of champs so that you can compete better in the future?
The inherent belief in the hierarchy of power can be respected. But you must also respect the same when you are faced with a similar dilemma, i.e. facing Messi in soccer or Usain Bolt in running. Why don't people understand the establishment of a division system? I could make a similar argument for pitching 3 year olds against college basketball players. What is wrong with parents being able to use their children they've invested their time and money into? What is wrong with being motivated to grow your child into a basketball star? Again, point out all the logical fallacies you like, do all the ratios possible, but the selective properties of real life and the existence of divisions in almost all competitive sports that are well regulated is in itself a counterargument.
There is a HUGE problem when it comes to designing competitive game modes, the competitive aspect is distorted by roster strength. In other words, devs are designing competitive game modes with a misconceptualized idea of fair competition in order to justify spending necessity.
I mean roster strength and diversity is a key aspect of the game, it's relevant in every single game mode
There is a HUGE problem when it comes to designing competitive game modes, the competitive aspect is distorted by roster strength. In other words, devs are designing competitive game modes with a misconceptualized idea of fair competition in order to justify spending necessity.
I mean roster strength and diversity is a key aspect of the game, it's relevant in every single game mode
There is a HUGE problem when it comes to designing competitive game modes, the competitive aspect is distorted by roster strength. In other words, devs are designing competitive game modes with a misconceptualized idea of fair competition in order to justify spending necessity.
I mean roster strength and diversity is a key aspect of the game, it's relevant in every single game mode
There's a difference between something being relevant and needed.
1. Roster strength is relevant in Story Mode, EQ, SQ, Incursions, Arena, Back Issues, Long form, etc. While roster strength can give players an easier encounter experience, it's not indispensable in order to succeed. Skill, knowledge, strategy, etc can overcome the lack of roster strength and players can still explore this type of content. Speed runners are a perfect example of this achievement with limited roster strength.
2. Roster strength in competitive game modes is needed not relevant. Skill, knowledge, strategy, etc can NOT overcome the lack of roster strength on certain thresholds and that is a problem. Regardless of how good of a player you are, you need roster strength in order to succeed. In BGs case, higher rank level champions have a direct advantage on scoring factors: Time and Health which make it nearly impossible to win matches against other skilled players if you have lower ranked champions.
Would players agree on being locked out of highest progression based content unless they use the highest star rarity and rank level of champs? Cause those are precisely the limitations in competitive game modes.
I agree, roster strength and diversity are a key aspect of the game. Let's have highest progression based content like 9.2 locked strictly for r4 7* champions only, that way only top 1% of the playerbase can succeed in those game modes while the rest of the players are encouraged to spend in order to do that type of content.
Sounds Dumb right? So does competitive game mode limitations regarding roster strength.
Comments
You get to vent a little and spew text walls at each other.
End of day, play or don’t and watch a great game fall because of horrible decisions.
Kabam is literally making all sorts of changes to BG because of cowardly rascals such as yourself....
You said it yourself, you're gaming the system in order to keep getting matched up against weaker rosters.
Kebem should seperate low tier and high tier players but also give the seperate low rated rewards.
🤣
If you don't have good deck why you think you deserve good rewards?
Street fighter is the game you should be playing, both players choose from the same pool and your skills matter only other than which character you choose
I am a "casual" BG player: i play for the 48 hour objectives, and I'm a strong enough player that i usually make it to GC near the end of the season, and sit in that huge uru III bracket.
I see a large number of forfeits on my way up the VT. Some of them are from smaller accounts that probably look at my deck and ragequit. But plenty of them come from people with decks that could easily compete with or beat mine. These people are campers.
Most of the actual fights i get to play are from weaker decks. I play to win, and i usually do. Meaning these competitors are not in this bracket due to high skill compensating for weaker decks.
I theorize that, exactly as @Double_Helix claims, those weaker decks are in those higher brackets because they have been "propelled up" by farmers, as you put it @DNA3000 . But i can't imagine it's fun for the average player to accumulate "wins" by farming-forfeits and lose nearly every match they actually get to play. Even if they're learning something, it's not much fun to lose over and over.
I do think @Kabam Crashed 's post recognizes this issue and is trying to solve it by better aligning reward incentives with the company goal of having all players try to win their bg matches. Time will tell how effectively they accomplish that goal.
It's frowned upon, but not actually cheating.
Dude openly admits to being a coward because he clearly doesn't have any skill in the game, so I find it amusing, honestly.
His post may as well say "I have zero skill, so I camp out to beat smaller players who have no chance against my deck because I bought my champs but don't actually have any skill to use them against decks similar to mine."
Perfect example of money doesn't buy skill.
This guy openly admits to losing matches purposely to farm lower accounts. Totally different thing.
So far this weekend I've read that it's unfair to require BG victories to get the DSE, that matchmaking is unfair in all game modes, and that this season of BG doesn't have buffed rewards....
It is not like the NFL is fair because it has a salary cap and MLB is unfair because it doesn’t. Each competition has a specific set of goals and a specific set of rules to accomplish those goals. If you want BG to be a game mode that factors out roster strength, you just decide to do that. But in MCOC, a game that is foundationally based on growing and ranking roster, the devs have decided BG should not be disconnected from that foundation. Before you decide to make BG “more fair” by eliminating roster advantages, you have to convince them to disconnect BG from the rest of the game.
That was easy with the Brawl. It was a highly encapsulated event, intended to be as much a spectator event as a competition. The rules were designed accordingly. The reason the shot clock exists in the NBA, the reason the pass interference rule exists in the NFL, is not to make the sports more “fair.” They were just as fair before those rules were enacted. They were just excruciatingly awful to watch on TV. The Brawl existed to promote the game. Battlegrounds exists to engage the playerbase in competitive gameplay. The structure of those two things will be different, because their goals are completely different.
You state that Battlegrounds exists to engage players in competitive gameplay yet it has been demonstrated they don't accomplish that goal because Kabam themselves say it's a Niche game mode and therefore have the need to prioritize the larger playerbase.
1. The reason most lower progression based players aren't engaging in competitive gameplay is do to a bad design competitive structure which could be solved by progression based matchmaking.
2. The reason higher progression based players are farming has also to do with bad design competitive structure because they're able to face lower progression accounts which could also be solved by progression based matchmaking.
Saying that Brawl exists to promote the game is fair enough however, I believe Kabam is forgetting about an easier way to promote the game which is by player recommendation (that's how I started playing Mcoc btw). If these players aren't having fun and not engaging with the game, they won't recommend it and are also most likely to quit. This also has other side effects like the need for player retention strategies which overall means more work do to a bad competitive design structure.
Saying Brawl was made to test players skills while Battlegrounds to test roster goes completely against Battlegrounds goal which is to engage competitive gameplay by your own definition. I don't think 'roster testing' is needed to understand roster size gives players an advantage.
"A competition where every match up is fair is not a fair competition. It is a participation event where the strongest competitors and the weakest ones all have the exact same chance of winning - 50% - and all of them have the same chance at the best results. That's not a competition. That is a mockery of a competition".
Lastly by these words, you're indirectly saying Brawl is a mockery of a competition.
I would say completely the opposite. Brawl is a real competitive event that's fair and where player's skills determine the winner while Battlegrounds is a mockery of a competition thats unfair and where roster size may determine the winner.
Fairness means being impartial without favoritism. In Battlegrounds case, favoritism is being applied by giving unfair preferential treatment to spenders rosters in a competition which gives them an advantage.
Whether spending funds the game or devs having the decision to disconnect Bgs from the rest of the game or not is another story. These are examples of justifying the need for unfair game modes, they do not describe fairness.
There are two reasonable motivations for removing roster strength from Battlegrounds seasons themselves. One: to eliminate roster strength from being a component of competitor strength, even though it is such everywhere else in the game. Two: because it disincentivizes players from participating when they are competing in wildly uneven match ups. The first one is, as I said, something you would need to justify. There’s no default reason to treat Battlegrounds any differently from any other game mode, including game modes with competitive elements. The second one presumes roster is the only source of wild imbalance, but that’s not even remotely true.
As to spenders gaining an “unfair” advantage, that’s a completely different discussion. In MCOC, spenders do not have unfair advantages by definition. Spending in MCOC is not considered an unfair advantage. It is considered fair game to spend to get resources in precisely the same way it is considered fair game to grind for them. This premise is foundational to the game. If you don’t agree, this is not the game for you. The problem is that in this, and most free to play games, the trade off between spending and free to play crosses a meta boundary. The advantage spenders get is in-game: they get more stuff. The advantage free to players get is out-of-game: they are allowed to play the game at all. Without this fundamental trade off, the non-spenders would be at an even more severe disadvantage in Battlegrounds, given they would have no way to gain champs, do content for rewards, or rank up anything to assemble their decks, because they would not be allowed to log in.
The proper comparison is not between free players who get to play and spenders who get to have more stuff. The free players are only allowed to play because the spenders exist to subsidize their play. In exchange, this game defines spending to be a legitimate form of resource acquisition, no different in a game balance sense than arena grinding. If you think roster advantages are unfair because spending is inherently unfair, your philosophy is incompatible with MCOC. Along with lots of other competitive activists. For example, the aforementioned MLB which does not enforce salary caps. Even Chess is intrinsically unfair, because the only way to gain sufficient rating and standing to compete at the highest levels of the game is to compete in in-person tournaments that require substantial travel and expense. Only the wealthy and those with financial sponsors can realistically compete at the highest levels of Chess, and Chess is considered the most skill-focused competitive activity.
You have to think about it financially, a lot of the reason that the vocal non-spending trend (I won’t use the bad word 🤫) happened/ is happening is because players don’t feel a need to spend. I bet 85% of players have more than 100 champ options that could be used EQ/SQ/story, AQ roster only matters for prestige, AW you need ~10-15 champs (5 of def and a rotating set of champs based on assigned fights). BGs is mode Kabam wants to encourage roster development (not just for top players but for everyone). If you change it so that the “standard” BG mode has a common pool of champs roster development will stagnate.
I am 100% in agreement that Kabam should run tournaments/events that have roster limitations (same pool, only 3*, etc.) which separate rewards but the standard monthly seasons should be using individual rosters.
What you are describing in your examples are misconceptualized examples of fairness.
1. MLB games are played against same professional level teams, you do not see professionals playing against amatures where in BGs comparison you see Valiants facing Cavaliers. MLB not having salary caps is equivalent to players in Mcoc not having a spending limit, which they don't. Regardless, in MLB teams face their piers, that is fairness. In Mcoc players don't face their piers, that is unfair.
2. Chess as well is played with cero game advantages, millionaires or not, both competitors play under the same circumstances with the same pieces. Professional chess players don't gain win rating by matching high school students, they have to match other professionals. Your example of Chess being unfair regarding outside game necessities is better compared with players having device or network advantages in Mcoc (Loading times).
I will explain why you are wrong regarding Spending...
There are certain components involving BG matchups which depending how they are developed can become into advantages:
1. Experience
2. Knowledge
3. Skill
4. Strategy
5. Reflex
6. Roster Strength
All these points are player related, except one, roster strength which is game related. Roster strength is, at the same time, the only component mentioned which is strictly tied to game design purposes, this purpose being roster growth incentivation and this incentivation is tied to spending. Spending and grinding are both in-game available options in order to achieve roster growth. The difference between spending and grinding is the amount of available and valuable resource acquisition which are, in comparison, miles away from being equal.
Spending itself is not an advantage, having competitive game modes played with uneven roster strength is. Designing competitive game modes with preferential treatment to those who help fund the game is an advantage regardless if it's by Mcoc definition not unfair.
Non spenders are not subsided by spenders, the game is subsided by spenders and Kabam allows non spenders to play the game because they are the backbone of the playerbase and potential spending clients. Spenders do not allow non spenders to play the game, Kabam allows non spenders to play the game because they are a big part of the playerbase which help sustain the games functions such as queuing matches during BG seasons.
1. Roster strength is relevant in Story Mode, EQ, SQ, Incursions, Arena, Back Issues, Long form, etc. While roster strength can give players an easier encounter experience, it's not indispensable in order to succeed. Skill, knowledge, strategy, etc can overcome the lack of roster strength and players can still explore this type of content. Speed runners are a perfect example of this achievement with limited roster strength.
2. Roster strength in competitive game modes is needed not relevant. Skill, knowledge, strategy, etc can NOT overcome the lack of roster strength on certain thresholds and that is a problem. Regardless of how good of a player you are, you need roster strength in order to succeed. In BGs case, higher rank level champions have a direct advantage on scoring factors: Time and Health which make it nearly impossible to win matches against other skilled players if you have lower ranked champions.
Would players agree on being locked out of highest progression based content unless they use the highest star rarity and rank level of champs? Cause those are precisely the limitations in competitive game modes.
I agree, roster strength and diversity are a key aspect of the game. Let's have highest progression based content like 9.2 locked strictly for r4 7* champions only, that way only top 1% of the playerbase can succeed in those game modes while the rest of the players are encouraged to spend in order to do that type of content.
Sounds Dumb right? So does competitive game mode limitations regarding roster strength.