So it seems around 11750 if I take second place in battlegrounds(duos) I only lose rating, about -3 to -5
Like I get it’s a MMR based behind the scenes, but it would be nice to at least make it hard capped at +0 for Second Place, cuz second place is a win right, is that not what it says in Battlegrounds description.
It’s an eye sore honestly, I work hard for those second places. Should be +0 at worst
No. If you want to be 12k+ you should have to have higher skill, not just nolife time commit harder
I hardly think the Skill is what gives some players 15000+rating, when some of them even have 2 name accounts.
My rating is natural, and second place around 11700 is not free by any means
That’s not an argument. You’re saying that things are bad, so let’s make it worse. Even if things are bad, there’s no logic there.
Argument is very clear
It’s not easy to get only first and second places as is, especially around 11000+, especially when I don’t have a season pass.
If I have to consistently beat 2 out 4 players, it’s above 50%
No, the point is that no matter how much skill you have, capping point loss for top half at 0 would make climbing easier and be less skill intensive than the way it is now.
Simply put, you’re trying to make the game easier.
You don’t even know what you talking about.
It only affects like top 70 players, and it looks to me like top half are win trading cuz they are never in public games.
When all the legit players have no reason to play past 11700
Another irrelevant argument.
If you suspect cheating why don’t you collect evidence and report it?
I don’t have to when some of those top players had duplicate name accounts
If you think you can skill your way to 18000 show that done in public matches with randoms
Battlegrounds is one of those incredibly scripted games that would be an ideal candidate to exploit using basic AI techniques, prior to deep learning.
It’s not a very deep game, the choices you make are spectacularly shallow and can be readily optimized by just having a dictionary of all possible choices your opponent can make.
I wouldn’t be shocked if the top performing players turn out to be just one of these rudimentary AIs. They would hands down destroy all human players due to their ability to optimize over all likely combinations of player responses.
Maybe I’m wrong.
But my intuition tells me all you need to do is optimize over all possible or likely cases for each of the opponents, of which there are very many.
This is what makes it inhumanly hard. This is very much distinct from a game that is “deep” in the sense that to play well you have to optimize over many “turns” or iterations of interactions.
All I’m stating is, humans will suck at such a “shallow” but “wide” game just because of the amount of computation needed to optimize, but, because it is a shallow game there is no exponential branching factor which makes even simple games such as constructed difficult even for ungodly amounts of compute power.
I’m just expressing, I don’t find that to be particularly interesting, but I respect others’ having fun with it.
To me I just imagine writing a simple linear program (ie zero sum game) that solves battlegrounds optimally (ie finds the Nash equilibrium) and it just seems rote to me.
I definitely see if you don’t understand this, it may seem like a deep or hard to play game.
There’s no maybe, you’re just ridiculously wrong.
Tell you what, you go get 18k ranking then come back and tell us how shallow it is.
Your ideas about the mode reflect zero understanding of how it works to the point that your take is comically bad.
Battlegrounds to constructed is like checkers to chess, that’s my take, very roughly speaking, although that’s being generous to battlegrounds since from my current perspective, checkers seems deeper.
It’s just my take guys, so ignore it if it’s bad. I play/watched battlegrounds a handful of times, so maybe the game has changed significantly since.
Which is why BG has become more popular than constructed.
There is no way to get 18000 in duos without manipulating who your ally and opponent is, a bunch of them playing both players, and using additional accounts to Q into, I saw duplicate names not even a month ago that had 18000+
You have to get only first places past 12000. The teammate RNG alone would make it impossible to only get first places
It ain’t no skill, I know every legit player cuz I see them play publicly, and I never see anyone with obnoxious rating actually grinding with us in top 75.
It wasn’t that long ago when Hots leaderboards were proven to be full of Q cheaters , you think this is different? Yea right
I’m pretty sure most players with rating have a FRIEND (either online or in actual physical contact friend). That’s not a Hearthstone thing, all team games whatsoever are unplayable with randoms if you care about rating; at the very least you will be trolled; in any case you’re not reaching the top of their ladders.
It’s been in the opening post since I first saw it. Why are you acting like it wasn’t?
Because i didn’t see that part. Sorry i just missed it.
It wasn’t in the title like most duo threads are so it just never registered. Forget i said anything. Sorry Madcat i was coming at this entirely from the perspective of Solo BG’s. I messed up.
Edit. I deleted my responses. Nobody in the BG community takes duos seriously. Its so easy to exploit and has serious issues.
I think I meant that as a rhetorical question, but I’m very glad that you didn’t interpret it that way lol
Yeah. I don’t know if the tippy top of the Duos ladder is cheating, but it seems pretty cheatable