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.
I honestly think this is going nowhere at this point, but I will say that the actual game design is pretty nuanced, which is something I've tried to explain. You're attempting to argue for your position by reducing things to binary terms, which may play well with some people, but goes nowhere with the people who have to actually design the game.
To be clear, I'm not making a comment about some special property of the MCOC devs specifically. This is true for all people who have to solve actual practical problems. The Battlegrounds game mode is in fact a game mode. As such it has to fit into the rest of the game in terms of design space, game priorities, and lots of other small but important details. The Brawl is not a game mode, it is an event. It can and does operate under different rules. That's how the developers see it. If you want to understand how the developers see it, that's something I can explain. If you want to argue the way they see it is completely wrong, that's different. I can roughly proxy what they might say, but I don't make the game and convincing me or trying to make a good show of convincing me does nothing.
If you just want to say the game's wrong and the devs are wrong, feel free: it is not like that isn't a commonplace thing here. But if you actually have any sort of remote notion that the devs might listen and you might push the game, however small, in any sort of direction, you need to understand why things are the way they are before you try to advocate options to change it. If you're just going to dismiss all of that entirely, the devs will do the same.
Or to put it another way, this is not a fair match up. The devs win on all ties, they win on all close matches, and they win whenever they decide to win. They are the devs. You win if you understand their requirements, their design philosophy, their perspective, and somehow find an idea they like better than all other other ones they are sitting on. One percent of the time.
And because I'm not feeling particularly generous today, yes, your last point does sound dumb, because a) that in no way represents the reality of the Battlegrounds game mode, and b) progressional content is designed for the vast majority of players to succeed, but competitive content is designed for the strongest players to succeed over the weaker ones. In other words, and this is supposed to be obvious, most players are supposed to beat 9.2. Most players are not supposed to beat Battlegrounds. That's the difference between a participation mode and a competitive mode. That's what people mean when they say BG is a competition, and furthermore most players who complain about BG simply don't understand what competitions even are.
And last thing: I play lower alts. Every time I actually try, I can get them into GC. Those alts are nowhere near top 1% roster accounts. I even made a post a while back where I got a Cav account into GC with a roster that was likely below the fifty percentile of roster strength at the time. I had to beat a lot of players with significantly stronger roster than I did. And I'm not a top tier twitch skill player either. I wasn't even using technique to beat roster. I was using knowledge to beat roster. So when people tell me roster advantage is unbeatable, they are telling me the sky is green and the Sun doesn't rise in the mornings and thinking they can convince me with the right tone of voice.
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.
I honestly think this is going nowhere at this point, but I will say that the actual game design is pretty nuanced, which is something I've tried to explain. You're attempting to argue for your position by reducing things to binary terms, which may play well with some people, but goes nowhere with the people who have to actually design the game.
To be clear, I'm not making a comment about some special property of the MCOC devs specifically. This is true for all people who have to solve actual practical problems. The Battlegrounds game mode is in fact a game mode. As such it has to fit into the rest of the game in terms of design space, game priorities, and lots of other small but important details. The Brawl is not a game mode, it is an event. It can and does operate under different rules. That's how the developers see it. If you want to understand how the developers see it, that's something I can explain. If you want to argue the way they see it is completely wrong, that's different. I can roughly proxy what they might say, but I don't make the game and convincing me or trying to make a good show of convincing me does nothing.
If you just want to say the game's wrong and the devs are wrong, feel free: it is not like that isn't a commonplace thing here. But if you actually have any sort of remote notion that the devs might listen and you might push the game, however small, in any sort of direction, you need to understand why things are the way they are before you try to advocate options to change it. If you're just going to dismiss all of that entirely, the devs will do the same.
Or to put it another way, this is not a fair match up. The devs win on all ties, they win on all close matches, and they win whenever they decide to win. They are the devs. You win if you understand their requirements, their design philosophy, their perspective, and somehow find an idea they like better than all other other ones they are sitting on. One percent of the time.
And because I'm not feeling particularly generous today, yes, your last point does sound dumb, because a) that in no way represents the reality of the Battlegrounds game mode, and b) progressional content is designed for the vast majority of players to succeed, but competitive content is designed for the strongest players to succeed over the weaker ones. In other words, and this is supposed to be obvious, most players are supposed to beat 9.2. Most players are not supposed to beat Battlegrounds. That's the difference between a participation mode and a competitive mode. That's what people mean when they say BG is a competition, and furthermore most players who complain about BG simply don't understand what competitions even are.
And last thing: I play lower alts. Every time I actually try, I can get them into GC. Those alts are nowhere near top 1% roster accounts. I even made a post a while back where I got a Cav account into GC with a roster that was likely below the fifty percentile of roster strength at the time. I had to beat a lot of players with significantly stronger roster than I did. And I'm not a top tier twitch skill player either. I wasn't even using technique to beat roster. I was using knowledge to beat roster. So when people tell me roster advantage is unbeatable, they are telling me the sky is green and the Sun doesn't rise in the mornings and thinking they can convince me with the right tone of voice.
I am not trying to convince you or devs of anything, I am simply arguing the existence of things and how they work in game. Contradiction makes room for awknowledgement, which triggers awareness, which is needed for actual improvement. It's easy to say things work this way because that's how they're meant to work or because that's how devs want them to work. However, are they making the best decisions?
There's an important missing component in most of the thought out improvements for BGs which is player's needs because most of the time, they are overshadowed by the game's needs. Yes, I know they are tied to each other however the focus can change, sometimes the best approach is a new approach.
The game's playerbase in its current state is fractionalized in many layers which will only get bigger and bigger throughout the years. If devs want to continue making game design decisions without awknowledging the aforementioned needs, as time goes by, it may be too late. I understand how the game works, I also understand game design has been trying to reduce this playerbase gap by trying to provide new players with tools to both engage and quickly improve their progression levels and rosters.
However there's one thing I believe is not being awknowledged and that is overall player game experience. New players will be able to blast through progressional content at a relatively fast rate, however when they encounter BGs, they will constantly hit their face against the wall because they will be matching other progression based players who simply have much more experience and knowledge than them which is something they can't overcome. When that effect takes place they will associate BGs with frustration and undesire to play the mode at all reducing all of devs "improvements" to meaningless efforts.
Regarding alt accounts, believe me, I know what an experienced player with game knowledge and skill can achieve. New players aren't experienced players with knowledge and skill like you or myself so maybe trying to approach things from their perspective rather than yours makes their needs important ones. This same effect takes place in high tier BGs because you can't outplay opponents with knowledge, they all have knowledge and skill so roster size is an important advantage. If you don't believe me, make a tournament with the top 10 players of this season, have half of them only use 7* r2 champs while facing the other half with 7* r3 champs. I would bet good money players with 7* r3 champs in deck will win 99% of the time.
I respect your comments, you are one of the very few people in forums who actually has some sort of critical thinking. I may not always agree with you but there are times I do. I question everything people say, that makes room for argument and maybe improvement. If it helps the game fine, if it doesn't I won't loose my sleep.
New players with undeveloped rosters are not meant to win unless they match similar and that will only be in the scrub tiers.
I have a paragon alt with some good champs and the rest unlevelled filler.
I win when I win and lose when I match someone who put more effort into what's required in the aforementioned scrub tiers.
Simple as that.
Again, you are not a new player in this game. Having an alt has no relation to what a new player without any game knowledge experiences. I am not talking about the loosing outcome I am talking about the loosing experience which are two different subjects.
From a psychological perspective of behaviorism, reinforcement and punishment shapes behavior.
In Mcoc reinforcement is winning and punishment is loosing. For new players experiencing constant punishment during a learning curve will shape it's behavior and not want to engage into the game mode. Which goes completely against the fact of Kabam trying to engage new players and it's also the reason why Battlegrounds is considered a niche game mode.
So the question here is does Kabam want new players to engage with the mode? If yes, what are they doing to reinforce this behavior?
Actual matchmaking isn't working and winning without actually playing matches does not help reinforce competition.
If you don't believe me, make a tournament with the top 10 players of this season, have half of them only use 7* r2 champs while facing the other half with 7* r3 champs. I would bet good money players with 7* r3 champs in deck will win 99% of the time.
I would take that bet. Stronger champs obviously have an advantage, but I believe you are vastly overstating it. Besides roster strength, matches are influenced by deck construction, bans and drafting, and actual player knowledge and skill. The idea that all of that combined minus roster strength would amount to 1% of the net win rate is something I would bet a lot of cash against.
And that’s separate from the fact that the draft is random. Even if you took two clones and gave one all the champs at R3 and the other all the champs at R2, and they constructed identical decks and used identical knowledge and skill in their matches, random chance would give one player more than a 1% edge over the other in random matches. This random chance would average out over time, but that random factor would average towards 50/50, it would completely obliterate an otherwise 99% advantage if it existed. I don’t think it exists in the first place, but even if it did my money would be safely protected by statistics.
If you had said someone with a universally better roster in every way would win more than 75% of the time, I’d probably go along with that. But I would also say someone with a universally better roster should win at least 75% of the time. Even 90% borders on the ludicrous in terms of the factors that determine a BG match winner.
If you don't believe me, make a tournament with the top 10 players of this season, have half of them only use 7* r2 champs while facing the other half with 7* r3 champs. I would bet good money players with 7* r3 champs in deck will win 99% of the time.
I would take that bet. Stronger champs obviously have an advantage, but I believe you are vastly overstating it. Besides roster strength, matches are influenced by deck construction, bans and drafting, and actual player knowledge and skill. The idea that all of that combined minus roster strength would amount to 1% of the net win rate is something I would bet a lot of cash against.
And that’s separate from the fact that the draft is random. Even if you took two clones and gave one all the champs at R3 and the other all the champs at R2, and they constructed identical decks and used identical knowledge and skill in their matches, random chance would give one player more than a 1% edge over the other in random matches. This random chance would average out over time, but that random factor would average towards 50/50, it would completely obliterate an otherwise 99% advantage if it existed. I don’t think it exists in the first place, but even if it did my money would be safely protected by statistics.
If you had said someone with a universally better roster in every way would win more than 75% of the time, I’d probably go along with that. But I would also say someone with a universally better roster should win at least 75% of the time. Even 90% borders on the ludicrous in terms of the factors that determine a BG match winner.
The problem with roster strength difference is not only the difference on champion's stats, it's how they are heavily tied to the scoring system and how every decision during the match is made in order to successfully protect that advantage.
• Time: The sum total difference between a R2 attacker facing a R3 defender (around 15sec) plus a R3 attacker facing a R2 defender (another 15sec) equals 30sec. In scoring that's around 2,400 point difference.
• Health: Assuming both players hardly ever make a mistake but R3 player finishes 90% HP while R2 player finishes 100% HP, in scoring that would be 1,700 point difference rounded up (This not even considering the nature of R2 champs taking more block damage and giving the match on the skill aspect towards the R2 player).
The total point difference in this scenario is still 700 points in favor of the player with R3 roster strength.
This is why roster strength is very important, specially in top tier ranks where players hardly make mistakes. By the end of every season, players decks are for the most part built alike because they've had enough time to test and know which champs are top meta attackers and defenders as well as best counters which overall have an input on draft decision making as well as bans regarding opponents rosters. They all have great knowledge and Skill so besides roster strength the only component that can basically make a difference in this outcome is RNG (draft dependant game mode with even roster decks).
Statistically speaking yes, there are more chances of this outcome being reduced, However players reduce those chances with every decision made during the ban and draft process.
Top players won't see point system as the total sum of possible aquirable points, they will see it as the total substraction of opponents possible points with the head start being time factor regarding roster difference for a total of 2400 points when facing opponents with a rank difference. Perspective is everything, they can play safer and finish close to 100% HP while opponents know they need to risk the match in order to have a chance at overcoming the time disadvantage so they most likely loose more HP anyways.
These are my thoughts regarding this hypothetical scenerio. My game experience tells me otherwise however I may be wrong.
I think this Season is “harder”, as it feels like more Summoners are participating. Could be many got wind of the improvement in rewards, 7-Star shards are now available for each progression in Platinum (yes, there is where I am even with a stronger roster than previous Season).
By stronger roster, I meant I have more champs at 10k PI and above but not necessarily having a diverse roster. I think I am stuck, till I am willing to invest more time into the game.
It will be interesting to have a gauge on roster strength (measuring just PI and number of champs) and where the range in BGs is.
Maybe for last season RNG was in my favour as I certainly saw many points farmers giving me a bye.
I just heard a rumour that Kabam has fixed matching making so that it's progression based only. They are also working on match making based skill level but a few skilled players are sandbagging their skill level to be beat up the lower skill level players. What a rotten bunch of summoners. What can we do, not everyone is going to play along. Now the best part of this fix is it's coming around the same time wish crystals, bases and new masteries. It's just around the big infinite corner.
I just heard a rumour that Kabam has fixed matching making so that it's progression based only. They are also working on match making based skill level but a few skilled players are sandbagging their skill level to be beat up the lower skill level players. What a rotten bunch of summoners. What can we do, not everyone is going to play along. Now the best part of this fix is it's coming around the same time wish crystals, bases and new masteries. It's just around the big infinite corner.
I just heard a rumour that Kabam has fixed matching making so that it's progression based only. They are also working on match making based skill level but a few skilled players are sandbagging their skill level to be beat up the lower skill level players. What a rotten bunch of summoners. What can we do, not everyone is going to play along. Now the best part of this fix is it's coming around the same time wish crystals, bases and new masteries. It's just around the big infinite corner.
What about new relics though?
There's so many things to keep track of. Yes new and improved relics are just around that big infinite corner. Also a bug free game as well. There are so much more to name everything, but it's all coming soon.......
I just heard a rumour that Kabam has fixed matching making so that it's progression based only. They are also working on match making based skill level but a few skilled players are sandbagging their skill level to be beat up the lower skill level players. What a rotten bunch of summoners. What can we do, not everyone is going to play along. Now the best part of this fix is it's coming around the same time wish crystals, bases and new masteries. It's just around the big infinite corner.
What about new relics though?
There's so many things to keep track of. Yes new and improved relics are just around that big infinite corner. Also a bug free game as well. There are so much more to name everything, but it's all coming soon.......
Here's a good trade. Let's keep BG matchmaking as is, compromise with some bugs, and bring everything else to the game.
This is why roster strength is very important, specially in top tier ranks where players hardly make mistakes.
More generally, what you're saying is roster strength matters when everything else is close to equal. But it is supposed to be for obvious reasons.
When people complain about roster strength, it is usually within the general context of "roster advantage beat skill advantages." That would of course be true, when there are no skill advantages.
The BG point farmer still going off about matchmaking? What's the point he still going to throw away matches with energy and try to win with elder marks...
Fine by me. It just means I'm always guaranteed Valiant rewards even if I play blindfolded. Meanwhile the weaker players that complain about tough match ups preventing them from advancing upward? They won't have to worry either, because they will be relegated to the scrub division where no matter what they do, they'll never get those rewards.
This is why roster strength is very important, specially in top tier ranks where players hardly make mistakes.
More generally, what you're saying is roster strength matters when everything else is close to equal. But it is supposed to be for obvious reasons.
When people complain about roster strength, it is usually within the general context of "roster advantage beat skill advantages." That would of course be true, when there are no skill advantages.
I would better define it like this:
Roster strength is a developed game component from competitor strength that can overcome all developed player skill set components within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower developed player skill set opponents. 2. When a player's roster is strongly over developed in comparison to an opponent's roster.
The exception to this outcome is when players who have stronger developed rosters match an opponent who has stronger developed skill sets and their roster is not strongly underdeveloped in comparison.
This said, lower progressed players in fact are facing wildly uneven matchups because they are outmatched by all components: roster strength, knowledge, skill and strategy components.
The fact that skill set components exist does not grant lower progressed players those components because they still have to develope them. This is the reason why a veteran player with an alt account is not a good comparison to this problem at all.
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
Fine by me. It just means I'm always guaranteed Valiant rewards even if I play blindfolded. Meanwhile the weaker players that complain about tough match ups preventing them from advancing upward? They won't have to worry either, because they will be relegated to the scrub division where no matter what they do, they'll never get those rewards.
I only said that cuz people complain too much I don't care I'm fine with how bgs is rn while I may be frustrated occasionally I don't hate how it is
This is why roster strength is very important, specially in top tier ranks where players hardly make mistakes.
More generally, what you're saying is roster strength matters when everything else is close to equal. But it is supposed to be for obvious reasons.
When people complain about roster strength, it is usually within the general context of "roster advantage beat skill advantages." That would of course be true, when there are no skill advantages.
I would better define it like this:
Roster strength is a developed game component from competitor strength that can overcome all developed player skill set components within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower developed player skill set opponents. 2. When a player's roster is strongly over developed in comparison to an opponent's roster.
This is a weird set of caveats. You're saying roster strength can can overcome "all" player skill provided both players have similar skill. What does that actually mean? How can you say roster strength can overcome all player skill differences provided those differences are sufficiently small?
Let's flip this:
Skill can overcome all player roster advantages within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower rosters. 2. When a player's skill is strongly overdeveloped in comparison to an opponent's skill.
These are truisms. Roster beats all skill differences, provided you only look at the small ones. Skill also beats all roster differences, provided you only look at the small ones. You can replace that word with anything and these statements will always be true. Any advantage can overcome all other advantages, provided those other advantages are sufficiently small.
The question is not whether these advantages exist. No one argues they don't. The question is not whether there exists match ups where these advantages are decisive. No one argues against that either. The question is whether these advantages are fair to allow to exist. And the argument against roster advantage (or rather, one of them) is that it is impossible to overcome. But you cannot prove roster advantage is impossible to overcome by only looking at situations where no other advantage exists. That doesn't prove anything. It is only impossible to overcome when it cannot be overcome even when one competitor has a sizeable skill advantage over the other competitor. If even in those situations roster advantages are impossible to overcome, then at least the argument has some validity. But if sufficient skill can overcome roster advantages, then the argument that it is insurmountable is invalid on its face.
I'm not saying it is the only such argument. I'm specifically focusing on this one, because it is the one relevant to this line of thought. The other ones include things like players can buy roster advantages, which is a completely different discussion (in effect, this says spenders are cheating, but we let them in some parts of the game but refuse to let them in others, which is contrary to the game's principles which is that spending is fair, what you get from spending should be considered indistinguishable from what you get from game play, once you actually get it).
That lets lower players move up, which is adventageous in a rankings / mathematical sense, but it's really bad in terms of things like fun, gameplay, sense of accomplishment, and development as a player. A small account could spend an hour grinding BGs where every match is either (a) a forfeit that lets them move up, or (b) a lopsided match they have no hope of winning. At the end of the hour, they might be higher on the ladder than when they started, but without truly playing a competive match. They won't be better as a player, they won't be having fun, and they're unlikely to stick around long term. It's not about helping them progress on the ladder. Two of the foundations of fun, psychologically speaking, is that a match needs to have an uncertain outcome and the player needs to feel a sense that they can influence that outcome. The present situation is more of an idle game. They cue up, and let nature take its course.
As I posted in my other thread, there needs to be some mechanism that rewards players for playing at their appropriate level, and to get more points for beating higher level opponents and less for winning easy matches. You posted above about different professional racing leagues and teams needing to work together to put the best car and driver on the track... BGs is a bit more like a professional soccer team queuing up into high-school tournaments to pad their stats. If they just need wins, and it doesn't matter who it's against, why play another pro team and risk losing? There's literally only one day of the BG season where it matters what tier you're in or what your GC ranking is. The incentive structure of the scoring system and the 48-hour objectives is to "get wins" regardless of who they are against. It sabatoges the developmental ranks of the game. That's my point.
VT incentives are a completely separate subject from VT match making. The reward structure for VT has been an unstable compromise from the beginning, trying to balance the participation elements of VT from the competitive requirements of VT leading into GC. Much of that tension has been seen through the evolution of VT: look at the changes to (medal) scoring, match making itself, and even the most recent changes to rewards. Many of the pressures placed on Battlegrounds come from conflicting priorities that have to be balanced, because one cannot simply wipe out the other. There's a desire for BG to not become a purely grinding mode like arena. But there's also a desire to encourage significant participation, because match making and VT progression doesn't work unless there are a lot of players playing a lot of matches. Most incentives to participation are going to have some element of also encouraging grinding, which makes these two requirements mutually exclusive to a degree, and balancing between them non-trivial.
We have the same tension between VT and GC. VT is more focused on participation, while GC is more pure competition. VT has rewards for progress, GC has rewards for final rank. But since promoting through VT is the prerequisite for entry to GC, there has to be some transition from participation focus to competitive focus, or it becomes too easy to enter (and then claim rewards from) GC. That too has been tinkered with a lot, so that progress through VT is as smooth as possible for players looking to participate, but still eventually places downward pressure on players so they don't just all enter GC. We see them trying to address that stuff now, with things like more GC ranks (right now there's that ridiculous Uru3 bracket with half the GC players just parked in it), and we've seen that with changes like the S19 changes to tier structure.
Kabam has even hinted at downstream changes designed to address things like lopsided match making early in the season and lack of participation until the end of the season with things like ratings decay (so players play more continuously) and experiments in different ways to seed players. These are all things designed to indirectly affect who gets matched against who by having VT better represent relative player strength in VT tiers. But it doesn't change a fundamental fact that at some point, players MUST run into stronger competition if they wish to rise to higher tiers of BG (VT or GC). And at some point if a player wants to promote but doesn't want to face stronger competition to promote, there's nothing we can do for those players. It can be made smoother, with less abrupt changes in match strength. It can be made less disruptive between seasons. But the one thing it cannot be, no matter how "unfun" it is, is something that protects players from stronger competition. However it happens, it has to happen eventually.
To put it another way, not everyone is supposed to reach GC. Even Kabam has stated this directly. Any system where all the players think all they have to do is XYZ and they'll make it is a broken system by definition. Now, just that, on its face, without even specifying the specifics, is "unfun" to a lot of players. BG is not meant for them.
It really shouldn’t be that hard to implement a bit of matchmaking whereas lower ranks match you with players that have rosters/decks/prestige within a certain range of yours, with the range growing larger as you climb the ranks, perhaps going back to completely open by Vibranium.
Because getting a TB player matched with a Valiant all the way down in Silver just because the latter waited till later in the season to push for GC is a bit silly.
Is there a particular reason why this can’t be implemented for VT while GC is left to be a free-for-all? The structure of VT relative to GC implies that VT is supposed to be a climbable track for anyone, while GC is where rank-based rewards become a thing and so more open matchmaking is required. Sort of like the difference between a solo event and ranked rewards.
And it’s not like such a system would disadvantage bigger players either- the closer you are to the peak of roster strength, the less variably stronger your opponents’ rosters would be (naturally), so the prestige-range based matchmaking would give them players not too far off from them.
Completely open VT just leads to players getting hopelessly stomped based on when they decided to climb, rather than how skilled they are relative to their progression, or how well though out their roster is. There either needs to be some matchmaking, or a MUCH bigger incentive for bigger players to push out of VT ASAP.
I don’t understand what you see in the structure of VT that indicates it should “be climbable for anyone.”
Yes, the 2 medals vs 1 medal structure makes it easier to move up, but I don’t think VT is meant to be vanquished by anyone / everyone. What is it about BG that makes everyone think that GC should be a guaranteed achievement provided that someone simply puts forth some effort?
This is why roster strength is very important, specially in top tier ranks where players hardly make mistakes.
More generally, what you're saying is roster strength matters when everything else is close to equal. But it is supposed to be for obvious reasons.
When people complain about roster strength, it is usually within the general context of "roster advantage beat skill advantages." That would of course be true, when there are no skill advantages.
I would better define it like this:
Roster strength is a developed game component from competitor strength that can overcome all developed player skill set components within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower developed player skill set opponents. 2. When a player's roster is strongly over developed in comparison to an opponent's roster.
This is a weird set of caveats. You're saying roster strength can can overcome "all" player skill provided both players have similar skill. What does that actually mean? How can you say roster strength can overcome all player skill differences provided those differences are sufficiently small?
Let's flip this:
Skill can overcome all player roster advantages within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower rosters. 2. When a player's skill is strongly overdeveloped in comparison to an opponent's skill.
These are truisms. Roster beats all skill differences, provided you only look at the small ones. Skill also beats all roster differences, provided you only look at the small ones. You can replace that word with anything and these statements will always be true. Any advantage can overcome all other advantages, provided those other advantages are sufficiently small.
The question is not whether these advantages exist. No one argues they don't. The question is not whether there exists match ups where these advantages are decisive. No one argues against that either. The question is whether these advantages are fair to allow to exist. And the argument against roster advantage (or rather, one of them) is that it is impossible to overcome. But you cannot prove roster advantage is impossible to overcome by only looking at situations where no other advantage exists. That doesn't prove anything. It is only impossible to overcome when it cannot be overcome even when one competitor has a sizeable skill advantage over the other competitor. If even in those situations roster advantages are impossible to overcome, then at least the argument has some validity. But if sufficient skill can overcome roster advantages, then the argument that it is insurmountable is invalid on its face.
I'm not saying it is the only such argument. I'm specifically focusing on this one, because it is the one relevant to this line of thought. The other ones include things like players can buy roster advantages, which is a completely different discussion (in effect, this says spenders are cheating, but we let them in some parts of the game but refuse to let them in others, which is contrary to the game's principles which is that spending is fair, what you get from spending should be considered indistinguishable from what you get from game play, once you actually get it).
This flipped example you just brought up is actually false because in fact, skill can not overcome roster strength on certain thresholds even if it's MSD playing the match. Specifically point 2.
1. One rank difference in roster strength is already hard to overcome with knowledge, skill and strategy but it is possible. 2. Two rank difference in roster strength is on the boarder line of impossible unless a player has extremely good knowledge, skill, strategy and the opponent doesn't (MSD). 3. Any threshold equal or above three rank difference in roster strength is *impossible* to overcome simply because Time and HP are scoring factors which are strictly tied to champ's rank stat benefits.
R1 vs R4 • You don't even have enough time to finish the match. • Any blocked hit takes a chunk out of HP
R4 vs R1 • The fight will take no less than 60 sec and I'm being extremely generous. A sensical amount would be around 30 sec if players knows how to tap and activate special attacks. • Even if the attacker gets hit multiple times the damage output will only tickle.
So yes, this is why even MSD skill, knowledge and strategy CAN'T overcome roster strength on certain thresholds. This is what Uncollected and Cavalier players face vs Valiant players.
This is why roster strength is very important, specially in top tier ranks where players hardly make mistakes.
More generally, what you're saying is roster strength matters when everything else is close to equal. But it is supposed to be for obvious reasons.
When people complain about roster strength, it is usually within the general context of "roster advantage beat skill advantages." That would of course be true, when there are no skill advantages.
I would better define it like this:
Roster strength is a developed game component from competitor strength that can overcome all developed player skill set components within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower developed player skill set opponents. 2. When a player's roster is strongly over developed in comparison to an opponent's roster.
This is a weird set of caveats. You're saying roster strength can can overcome "all" player skill provided both players have similar skill. What does that actually mean? How can you say roster strength can overcome all player skill differences provided those differences are sufficiently small?
Let's flip this:
Skill can overcome all player roster advantages within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower rosters. 2. When a player's skill is strongly overdeveloped in comparison to an opponent's skill.
These are truisms. Roster beats all skill differences, provided you only look at the small ones. Skill also beats all roster differences, provided you only look at the small ones. You can replace that word with anything and these statements will always be true. Any advantage can overcome all other advantages, provided those other advantages are sufficiently small.
The question is not whether these advantages exist. No one argues they don't. The question is not whether there exists match ups where these advantages are decisive. No one argues against that either. The question is whether these advantages are fair to allow to exist. And the argument against roster advantage (or rather, one of them) is that it is impossible to overcome. But you cannot prove roster advantage is impossible to overcome by only looking at situations where no other advantage exists. That doesn't prove anything. It is only impossible to overcome when it cannot be overcome even when one competitor has a sizeable skill advantage over the other competitor. If even in those situations roster advantages are impossible to overcome, then at least the argument has some validity. But if sufficient skill can overcome roster advantages, then the argument that it is insurmountable is invalid on its face.
I'm not saying it is the only such argument. I'm specifically focusing on this one, because it is the one relevant to this line of thought. The other ones include things like players can buy roster advantages, which is a completely different discussion (in effect, this says spenders are cheating, but we let them in some parts of the game but refuse to let them in others, which is contrary to the game's principles which is that spending is fair, what you get from spending should be considered indistinguishable from what you get from game play, once you actually get it).
This flipped example you just brought up is actually false because in fact, skill can not overcome roster strength on certain thresholds even if it's MSD playing the match. Specifically point 2.
1. One rank difference in roster strength is already hard to overcome with knowledge, skill and strategy but it is possible. 2. Two rank difference in roster strength is on the boarder line of impossible unless a player has extremely good knowledge, skill, strategy and the opponent doesn't (MSD). 3. Any threshold equal or above three rank difference in roster strength is *impossible* to overcome simply because Time and HP are scoring factors which are strictly tied to champ's rank stat benefits.
R1 vs R4 • You don't even have enough time to finish the match. • Any blocked hit takes a chunk out of HP
R4 vs R1 • The fight will take no less than 60 sec and I'm being extremely generous. A sensical amount would be around 30 sec if players knows how to tap and activate special attacks. • Even if the attacker gets hit multiple times the damage output will only tickle.
So yes, this is why even MSD skill, knowledge and strategy CAN'T overcome roster strength on certain thresholds. This is what Uncollected and Cavalier players face vs Valiant players.
Um, that is false (may not be false for all seasons). I just lost with my mostly r3 deck to someone who was running 6r4 and 6r5.
Comments
To be clear, I'm not making a comment about some special property of the MCOC devs specifically. This is true for all people who have to solve actual practical problems. The Battlegrounds game mode is in fact a game mode. As such it has to fit into the rest of the game in terms of design space, game priorities, and lots of other small but important details. The Brawl is not a game mode, it is an event. It can and does operate under different rules. That's how the developers see it. If you want to understand how the developers see it, that's something I can explain. If you want to argue the way they see it is completely wrong, that's different. I can roughly proxy what they might say, but I don't make the game and convincing me or trying to make a good show of convincing me does nothing.
If you just want to say the game's wrong and the devs are wrong, feel free: it is not like that isn't a commonplace thing here. But if you actually have any sort of remote notion that the devs might listen and you might push the game, however small, in any sort of direction, you need to understand why things are the way they are before you try to advocate options to change it. If you're just going to dismiss all of that entirely, the devs will do the same.
Or to put it another way, this is not a fair match up. The devs win on all ties, they win on all close matches, and they win whenever they decide to win. They are the devs. You win if you understand their requirements, their design philosophy, their perspective, and somehow find an idea they like better than all other other ones they are sitting on. One percent of the time.
And because I'm not feeling particularly generous today, yes, your last point does sound dumb, because a) that in no way represents the reality of the Battlegrounds game mode, and b) progressional content is designed for the vast majority of players to succeed, but competitive content is designed for the strongest players to succeed over the weaker ones. In other words, and this is supposed to be obvious, most players are supposed to beat 9.2. Most players are not supposed to beat Battlegrounds. That's the difference between a participation mode and a competitive mode. That's what people mean when they say BG is a competition, and furthermore most players who complain about BG simply don't understand what competitions even are.
And last thing: I play lower alts. Every time I actually try, I can get them into GC. Those alts are nowhere near top 1% roster accounts. I even made a post a while back where I got a Cav account into GC with a roster that was likely below the fifty percentile of roster strength at the time. I had to beat a lot of players with significantly stronger roster than I did. And I'm not a top tier twitch skill player either. I wasn't even using technique to beat roster. I was using knowledge to beat roster. So when people tell me roster advantage is unbeatable, they are telling me the sky is green and the Sun doesn't rise in the mornings and thinking they can convince me with the right tone of voice.
There's an important missing component in most of the thought out improvements for BGs which is player's needs because most of the time, they are overshadowed by the game's needs. Yes, I know they are tied to each other however the focus can change,
sometimes the best approach is a new approach.
The game's playerbase in its current state is fractionalized in many layers which will only get bigger and bigger throughout the years.
If devs want to continue making game design decisions without awknowledging the aforementioned needs, as time goes by, it may be too late. I understand how the game works, I also understand game design has been trying to reduce this playerbase gap by trying to provide new players with tools to both engage and quickly improve their progression levels and rosters.
However there's one thing I believe is not being awknowledged and that is overall player game experience. New players will be able to blast through progressional content at a relatively fast rate, however when they encounter BGs, they will constantly hit their face against the wall because they will be matching other progression based players who simply have much more experience and knowledge than them which is something they can't overcome. When that effect takes place they will associate BGs with frustration and undesire to play the mode at all reducing all of devs "improvements" to meaningless efforts.
Regarding alt accounts, believe me, I know what an experienced player with game knowledge and skill can achieve. New players aren't experienced players with knowledge and skill like you or myself so maybe trying to approach things from their perspective rather than yours makes their needs important ones. This same effect takes place in high tier BGs because you can't outplay opponents with knowledge, they all have knowledge and skill so roster size is an important advantage. If you don't believe me, make a tournament with the top 10 players of this season, have half of them only use 7* r2 champs while facing the other half with 7* r3 champs. I would bet good money players with 7* r3 champs in deck will win 99% of the time.
I respect your comments, you are one of the very few people in forums who actually has some sort of critical thinking. I may not always agree with you but there are times I do. I question everything people say, that makes room for argument and maybe improvement. If it helps the game fine, if it doesn't I won't loose my sleep.
Sometimes you get a good champ, most of times, maybe or not
Same for BG matches
I have a paragon alt with some good champs and the rest unlevelled filler.
I win when I win and lose when I match someone who put more effort into what's required in the aforementioned scrub tiers.
Simple as that.
From a psychological perspective of behaviorism, reinforcement and punishment shapes behavior.
In Mcoc reinforcement is winning and punishment is loosing. For new players experiencing constant punishment during a learning curve will shape it's behavior and not want to engage into the game mode. Which goes completely against the fact of Kabam trying to engage new players and it's also the reason why Battlegrounds is considered a niche game mode.
So the question here is does Kabam want new players to engage with the mode? If yes, what are they doing to reinforce this behavior?
Actual matchmaking isn't working and winning without actually playing matches does not help reinforce competition.
And that’s separate from the fact that the draft is random. Even if you took two clones and gave one all the champs at R3 and the other all the champs at R2, and they constructed identical decks and used identical knowledge and skill in their matches, random chance would give one player more than a 1% edge over the other in random matches. This random chance would average out over time, but that random factor would average towards 50/50, it would completely obliterate an otherwise 99% advantage if it existed. I don’t think it exists in the first place, but even if it did my money would be safely protected by statistics.
If you had said someone with a universally better roster in every way would win more than 75% of the time, I’d probably go along with that. But I would also say someone with a universally better roster should win at least 75% of the time. Even 90% borders on the ludicrous in terms of the factors that determine a BG match winner.
• Time: The sum total difference between a R2 attacker facing a R3 defender (around 15sec) plus a R3 attacker facing a R2 defender (another 15sec) equals 30sec. In scoring that's around 2,400 point difference.
• Health: Assuming both players hardly ever make a mistake but R3 player finishes 90% HP while R2 player finishes 100% HP, in scoring that would be 1,700 point difference rounded up (This not even considering the nature of R2 champs taking more block damage and giving the match on the skill aspect towards the R2 player).
The total point difference in this scenario is still 700 points in favor of the player with R3 roster strength.
This is why roster strength is very important, specially in top tier ranks where players hardly make mistakes. By the end of every season, players decks are for the most part built alike because they've had enough time to test and know which champs are top meta attackers and defenders as well as best counters which overall have an input on draft decision making as well as bans regarding opponents rosters. They all have great knowledge and Skill so besides roster strength the only component that can basically make a difference in this outcome is RNG (draft dependant game mode with even roster decks).
Statistically speaking yes, there are more chances of this outcome being reduced, However players reduce those chances with every decision made during the ban and draft process.
Top players won't see point system as the total sum of possible aquirable points, they will see it as the total substraction of opponents possible points with the head start being time factor regarding roster difference for a total of 2400 points when facing opponents with a rank difference. Perspective is everything, they can play safer and finish close to 100% HP while opponents know they need to risk the match in order to have a chance at overcoming the time disadvantage so they most likely loose more HP anyways.
These are my thoughts regarding this hypothetical scenerio. My game experience tells me otherwise however I may be wrong.
7-Star shards are now available for each progression in Platinum (yes, there is where I am
By stronger roster, I meant I have more champs at 10k PI and above but not necessarily having a diverse roster. I think I am stuck, till I am willing to invest more time into the game.
It will be interesting to have a gauge on roster strength (measuring just PI and number of champs) and where the range in BGs is.
Maybe for last season RNG was in my favour as I certainly saw many points farmers giving me a bye.
Followed by yet another response of 6 paragraphs from Cesar, trying to justify.
Over, and over…
You're correct in your first line from several comments ago.
“I honestly think this is going nowhere at this point.”
When people complain about roster strength, it is usually within the general context of "roster advantage beat skill advantages." That would of course be true, when there are no skill advantages.
Roster strength is a developed game component from competitor strength that can overcome all developed player skill set components within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower developed player skill set opponents.
2. When a player's roster is strongly over developed in comparison to an opponent's roster.
The exception to this outcome is when players who have stronger developed rosters match an opponent who has stronger developed skill sets and their roster is not strongly underdeveloped in comparison.
This said, lower progressed players in fact are facing wildly uneven matchups because they are outmatched by all components: roster strength, knowledge, skill and strategy components.
The fact that skill set components exist does not grant lower progressed players those components because they still have to develope them. This is the reason why a veteran player with an alt account is not a good comparison to this problem at all.
Simple solution
Let's flip this:
Skill can overcome all player roster advantages within certain circumstances:
1. When players face either close to equal or lower rosters.
2. When a player's skill is strongly overdeveloped in comparison to an opponent's skill.
These are truisms. Roster beats all skill differences, provided you only look at the small ones. Skill also beats all roster differences, provided you only look at the small ones. You can replace that word with anything and these statements will always be true. Any advantage can overcome all other advantages, provided those other advantages are sufficiently small.
The question is not whether these advantages exist. No one argues they don't. The question is not whether there exists match ups where these advantages are decisive. No one argues against that either. The question is whether these advantages are fair to allow to exist. And the argument against roster advantage (or rather, one of them) is that it is impossible to overcome. But you cannot prove roster advantage is impossible to overcome by only looking at situations where no other advantage exists. That doesn't prove anything. It is only impossible to overcome when it cannot be overcome even when one competitor has a sizeable skill advantage over the other competitor. If even in those situations roster advantages are impossible to overcome, then at least the argument has some validity. But if sufficient skill can overcome roster advantages, then the argument that it is insurmountable is invalid on its face.
I'm not saying it is the only such argument. I'm specifically focusing on this one, because it is the one relevant to this line of thought. The other ones include things like players can buy roster advantages, which is a completely different discussion (in effect, this says spenders are cheating, but we let them in some parts of the game but refuse to let them in others, which is contrary to the game's principles which is that spending is fair, what you get from spending should be considered indistinguishable from what you get from game play, once you actually get it).
Because getting a TB player matched with a Valiant all the way down in Silver just because the latter waited till later in the season to push for GC is a bit silly.
Is there a particular reason why this can’t be implemented for VT while GC is left to be a free-for-all? The structure of VT relative to GC implies that VT is supposed to be a climbable track for anyone, while GC is where rank-based rewards become a thing and so more open matchmaking is required. Sort of like the difference between a solo event and ranked rewards.
And it’s not like such a system would disadvantage bigger players either- the closer you are to the peak of roster strength, the less variably stronger your opponents’ rosters would be (naturally), so the prestige-range based matchmaking would give them players not too far off from them.
Completely open VT just leads to players getting hopelessly stomped based on when they decided to climb, rather than how skilled they are relative to their progression, or how well though out their roster is. There either needs to be some matchmaking, or a MUCH bigger incentive for bigger players to push out of VT ASAP.
Yes, the 2 medals vs 1 medal structure makes it easier to move up, but I don’t think VT is meant to be vanquished by anyone / everyone. What is it about BG that makes everyone think that GC should be a guaranteed achievement provided that someone simply puts forth some effort?
1. One rank difference in roster strength is already hard to overcome with knowledge, skill and strategy but it is possible.
2. Two rank difference in roster strength is on the boarder line of impossible unless a player has extremely good knowledge, skill, strategy and the opponent doesn't (MSD).
3. Any threshold equal or above three rank difference in roster strength is *impossible* to overcome simply because Time and HP are scoring factors which are strictly tied to champ's rank stat benefits.
R1 vs R4
• You don't even have enough time to finish the match.
• Any blocked hit takes a chunk out of HP
R4 vs R1
• The fight will take no less than 60 sec and I'm being extremely generous. A sensical amount would be around 30 sec if players knows how to tap and activate special attacks.
• Even if the attacker gets hit multiple times the damage output will only tickle.
So yes, this is why even MSD skill, knowledge and strategy CAN'T overcome roster strength on certain thresholds. This is what Uncollected and Cavalier players face vs Valiant players.