(Non)Battle Arena

The results of the last battle arena on FB are indicative of what a bore it has become, with high defence players hitting the minimum 100 attacks then sitting the wars out and reaching top 20 rewards every single time.

The stats tell all, with 7 of the top 10 having just 3 kills between them, and 9 of the top 20 with no kills and 3 of the top 20 with just 1.

I understand that it is a legitimate tactic to use high defence stats, but can KANO make the criteria a little more difficult to fulfil? It is a 'battle arena' after all. Maybe a 1 kill minimum or a minimum period of active play, if this is possible.

Maybe a separate arena, where all the high defence players can just sit and not attack each other, and the winner is the one with the longest defence time...

 

Yep. Couldn't agree more. The benchmarks do need to be raised. We need to bring these defensive players back into the game a bit more. Right now they just hang out on the periphery and wait it out then go into defensive mode at the last possible minute. How about forcing them to participate more and making it more of a challenge. Then perhaps they will be forced to go into their defensive mode faster then they wanted but at least they will have participated in the Arena instead of just watching and then stealing the rewards later.

 

Completely agree as well.....I'd like to see something like 1500-2000 attacks and 2-3 kills the last arena .

Here it is in a screen shot

 

Sorry guess it's too hard to read there

 

Well maybe if DEV's increased the achieves for arena, this wouldn't happen. I'm not talking PC only but all games, after get last achieve why not go for a free ride to get free stuff unless wanting levels out of it? The way I see it arenas are for quick levels for those who want to spend. You got your benefits, let others get their own if not wanting to participate. Some hate defense stance, others love it (including myself) but to get a minimum bumped up that high is not not answer IMO.

 

No it would happen I think. You just have people who don't want to fight. They want a free ride. They want to coast into the top ten and they are exploiting a loophole in the Arena to do it. They go big defense to drive up their defensive time (I bet some of these guys are in defensive mode for four and a half hours or more) and then just tap a few people to get in their minimum hits. They don't even go for a kill most of the time because they don't want to draw attention to themselves lest someone drive them into their defensive stance too soon and then they only land in the top twenty. So they probably just hang around as long as they can watching until they start getting hit with some regularity by someone and then they go into defensive mode. Case in point, in the just concluded PC Arena's top ten, spots 4-10 are occupied by players who hid in defensive mode and did the bare minimum in hits. Four of the seven had NO kills and the other three only had one each.

IMO its just not right for players like this who hide out for the most part to land in the top ten while those who participate and fight it out left and right with everyone wind up getting nudged out of the top spots by those barely playing. I think raising the benchmarks would make these people actually have to fight in the Arena and isn't that what's it all about anyway? Force these people to actually participate.

 

The longer you live, the richer the rewards, including Gold, XP and Favor Points, with the final survivor winning a massive grand prize! Enter the Battle Arena and prove your might!
Where does that say fighting?

 

Many will enter, one will emerge!

Battle Arena stages epic free-for-all battles between dozens, hundreds or even thousands of combatants. Eliminate other players by depleting their Health without getting killed yourself.
--------------

How will only one emerge if no one fights? "Epic free-for-all battles" and "depleting their Health"? That sounds like fighting to me. Now don't get me wrong. I think that having a defensive mode is necessary also especially with a lot of the players coordinating with one another, the player on his own almost has to go into defense at one point or another. But before I go I wrack up as many kills as possible so I can build up enough health and stay in long enough to finish in the top twenty. But the pure defensive player bypasses all that, does barely any fighting and just hangs out till he goes into defensive mode. I don't think that's keeping in what the spirit of the Arena is supposed to be about, at least from KANO's preamble on the Arena page. I think if you asked the devs they would say the Arena is supposed to be about one on one battle. And even that's a farce because of all the players that work with each other during the Arena. You want to make it a true free-for-all then everyone should be anonymous so no one could coordinate, then you wouldn't have the same people winning over and over every week. But that's another thread.

 

It still says "The longer you live, the richer the rewards, including Gold, XP and Favor Points, with the final survivor winning a massive grand prize! Enter the Battle Arena and prove your might!" whether it be attack or defense correct?

 

Like I said in my first post, I appreciate that high defence is a legitimate play style and kudos to those who can sit in the arena for 4 hours+ on defence mode. I have nearly 3 hours defence if I choose, but I like to get into what I believe is the spirit of the arena, before I'm eventually forced into defence (or I have to go to work/bed).

However I personally feel that 100 hits (just hits, not even wins) does not justify making the top 10 rewards again and again.

 

Well this was never a problem before the slider IMO, no clue who's bright idea that was.

 

There is more than one problem with how the arenas work, but everything that has been discussed in this thread is a direct result of this change. It has been brought up several times, and it has not changed. I say work with it the way it is now, like I do.

 

And the part of the message that I pointed too says "epic free-for-all battles" and "Eliminate other players by depleting their health" and you need to fight to be able to do that. You can't deplete someone's health by being in defense mode, correct? I don't see a problem with someone having to fight when they enter something called an Arena.

And here's another example of why I think the devs original intent was that people actually have to fight when they enter this. They have already raised the benchmarks once before to adjust the final rankings because in the first Arena you had players who hadn't fired a shot because they never played after entering winding up in the top twenty. That's the reason why the devs put in the minimum hit requirements in the first place. If they didn't have a problem with players getting the top spots strictly in defensive mode they wouldn't have put in that requirement. So if the game is adjusting the ranks at the end of each Arena to disqualify the players who didn't reach the minimum hits but had somehow finished up in the rankings then I think its safe to say the devs wanted us to fight and with that being the case my argument is that they didn't raise the benchmarks enough and need to do it again.

 

IMO the slider is not an issue or a problem ,the problem is most of the ones who did rank this high are not even fighters in the regular game,and are weaklings , so I agree raise the amount of hits one has to get and or maybe a few kills in addition, I would luv it if everyone was anonymous and there were no teams,we now have teams in the wars so if we went back to the original intent of the arena,with every man or women for themselves,with no one allowing so and so to win this time or next time,that would be a true free for all and a true arena.

 

i agree the minimum amount of attacks should be raised to 500 or 1000. if you read all the rules of the BA it also recommends that you can have other players team up with you to take out the higher (harder ) players. and it has been stated that due to the slider the def. time should be adjusted to compensate for the ability to have more than 1 attack at a time ....IMO

 

Yes it is stated about teaming up,now, but that was added later when Kano saw there was no stopping it ,it was not the original intent for the arena, the original was a" last man standing outcome", not a " well this week, we choose this player on our team to win", that is not a true win, IMO

 

Yeah they did add that recommendation in later when they realized they couldn't stop people from coordinating with each other. The way to do it though is make everyone anonymous. No Arena names. Then no one could coordinate and you would finally have a true Arena.

 

Remove the Search tool, and it will seriously hamper team efforts, IMO. We have Armada Wars. That is the team event. As it is, I can hit any member of a TEAM and get the whole lot on me. It can be very discouraging. Why let anyone search for anyone in a last man standing event? The search tool is a bigger problem than a three stam slider will ever be. Having said that, I agree more minimum attacks and maybe even a kill should be required to rank.

 

I'll go with bumping up the minimum attacks to a reasonable amount along the lines of what Larry posted. If I can't actively participate, I don't join them any more. I don't think it would be fair to require a kill for a ranking. There are too many players working together grabbing kills already, and it would make stealing kills even more rampant than it already is. If kills are required for a ranking, that will only make a worse situation worser.

 

We had six of the top ten in the most recent PC Arena barely do the minimum, one who did a bit more and four of them had no kills. How can it get much worse? It's a farce now. Forcing people to get a few kills to rank would not make things worse it would just force them to participate in something they entered.