For a while now we have been paired in Battlegrounds with slightly better rules than before. But it can be changed to be so much better. And more interesting.
Here is my suggestion. I would very much like to hear what people think. What rules do you suggest? What improvements to mine can you think of?
To determine what player to pair a player against, check these rules in order.
- Which player has been paired against the fewest times?
- If more than one player has been played the fewest number of times. Which of those has closest to the same amount of points in (win=3, draw=1, lose=0).
2.1. First tiebreaker for points. The percentage of the sum of all points for all you opponents points combined. The logic being that if your opponents have more points you have faced more difficult opponents.
2.2. Second tiebreaker for points. There are several possibilities, but I would suggest the ratio of damage done and damage taken.
2.3. Third tiebreaker would be randomness.
This type of system would make the battleground games more interesting since you will tend to face off against players that are about as good as you. Allowing players with bad starts the chance to catch up.
The system could be tweaked and perfected. For example, the first three rounds are more a game of building up than anything else. So maybe there is a need to take that in to account? I think it is fine, but only testing will tell.
Not sure that would work out quite as you think, simply because I imagine the best strategy just becomes to turbo ramp for every player, knowing that you’re unlikely to die before getting there as you’ll receive favourable match making, due to your poor record. It’s a strategy I use quite a lot now but doesn’t come off that often, just a fun way to play.
1 Like
You won’t get “favorable” match pairings. If you keep winning you will play against others that keep winning.
What it would mean is that you are less likely to be roflstomped because you are unlucky and got a bad start. If you play well and have some luck later, you could start winning.
It also means that being when lucky and getting a great start, it is less likely you snowball out of control because all your opponents are weaker.
what Ixnay was getting at is that this system could be abused.
according to your suggestions, if you do badly at the start of the run, you tend to get opponents who also did badly (as in lost a lot), so losing early isn’t as punishing (cause your opponents tend to not have strong boards, which means that they won’t win big vs you).
that means you can shoot for better boards later on without having to care much about how good your board is currently.
at this point it likely becomes the better strategy to intentionally start with weak boards, that can spiral out of control in the mid-late game. this is opposed to how it is now, where you have to keep updating your board constantly in order to preserve your health.
but even without intentionally profiting from this system, there’d be problems. take AFKay for example. she’s got one of the strongest boards on turn 3, while having one of the lowest ratings due to the two losses in the first turns.
I imagine under your proposed system the correct play EVERY game would be:
1: take token spawning minion
2: ramp
3: sell token ramp
4: sell minion ramp
Currently doing this is risky as you can’t always turn the curve, stabilise and crush you opponent’s by reaching end game minions much faster. Under your system it would be the right thing to do as the fast starts take each other down.
Ahh. Ok. I see. Yeah, good point.
But there has to be something better.
Any ideas?
1 Like
I’m not even sure if the system needs any changes.
but if so, one option would be to decrease the amount of damage dealt after a loss. this would give you more time to catch up if you’ve fallen behind.
in order to not make games take forever the damage could increase to current levels say when you’re at 10 coins. or in steps.
I personally think it’s fine since they added the recent changes, prior to those it was a total shambles. Now it’s not perfectly fair, but it’s close enough where it only really ranges from a little unlucky to a little lucky.
The fairest way is to have it so you can’t face the same opponent from within the last X rounds and you should face an opponent you’ve faced the least (ties random). You want X to be as high as possible but it gets complicated by the fact that players can get eliminated. So rather make it overly complicated, they’ve set the X to 2, which is the minimum it should be, rather than the original 1 it was set at. Could they increase to X to 3 and make it more fair? Yes, but it would also require several bullet points for the exceptions to the rule which gets caused by players getting eliminated.
Ideally they tweak match making a little bit to bring it nearer to everyone faces everyone equally, but the reality is they’ve already made the big necessary fix and a complicated behind the scenes slight improvement is the best you can hope for.