-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
Feedback PvP Arena
- Thread starter Dudettas
- Start date
shad2389
Viceroy
that or class players like i said so you don't fight against opponents to hard for you this would depend on the highest troops you have in your troops so ppl could test their att bonus against troops a few ages above their era
softly explorer
Baronet
Just read in a new announcement message that manual battles will come next week, soooo happy !! 
shad2389
Viceroy
i am to
was mad but this brang me back happy now eaven if i'd still like a few minor changes this is great step for INNO's new PVP
pat-lerebelle
Farmer
Thank you to the people who make up our remarks but, for me, that the fights are "automatic" or "manual" will not change anything if my adversaries are 1 time out of 2 of 6 or 7 ages above mine because in manual or in automatically an opponent of my age will always be beaten, but 6 or 7 ages above is impossible.
I think that this problem of balancing the forces of the adversaries is more important than the choice "automatic" or "manual" and should be fixed as a priority.
I think that this problem of balancing the forces of the adversaries is more important than the choice "automatic" or "manual" and should be fixed as a priority.
Staffan Upsaliensis
Merchant
Manual fighting is a step in the right direction, but I won't return to the arena until I know I will meet opponents that I actually have a realistic chance to beat.
Bella
Inhouse Community Manager
They really are great!
shad2389
Viceroy
i know you might not get thx often enough and sometimes it might be difficult cause our language can be harsh sometimes so when our feedback leads to something we realy want you deserve some thanks , 1 of the reasons i did'nt want job of mod is cause i know you need to read a lot of negative feedback sometimes and frankly i prefer just reading what i read and help other forum members when i can rather then having to read all of it and having to delleat posts or ban players from forum is not something i'd like to do so realy a big thx to FoE mod team
sometimes we do feel like we are not heard but this time you realy came through for us in the pvp thing thx for the manual fights
Last edited:
DeletedUser10315
Guest
I couldnt fully read your message, would you mind using a bigger brighter font?
shad2389
Viceroy
that better ?
Fenix
Viceroy
@Dudettas
It's a baby step in the good direction. But the main thing is the matching. Even with manual battles I can not win a match with a player 5 eras above mine, and that is the player that I have to face in the "easy" position (see the picture). I am colonial, I refuse my self to do this fight, and lose more points just because...
It's a baby step in the good direction. But the main thing is the matching. Even with manual battles I can not win a match with a player 5 eras above mine, and that is the player that I have to face in the "easy" position (see the picture). I am colonial, I refuse my self to do this fight, and lose more points just because...
Yang10
Marquis
I honestly think the Arena should test players' ability to fight, rather than players' ability to invest in GB's and to predict the outcome of a badly-programmed battle simulation. I understand the apparent necessity of allowing players to use their boosts (AT & DF) to rank them in a way and to deliver prizes in a more organized way, but I think that all this does is make matters more unfair to everyone.
A good way to rank players difficulty-wise I think would be to develop an in-game program that can predict the outcome of a fight based on your attacking army vs another's Defending Army for the Arena, deliver players that have, let's say, 20%, 50% and 75% of being beaten within some range of eras and so one would have the choice of who to fight. After all, we have a lot of random chance generators (think of the one in the Soccer Event with the player-cards), I think Inno could invest in a way to actually put that in the game. As for the ages available for one to battle against, I honestly think they should be restricted to one's own top-era unit in the Arena Defending Army, so you always fight people with the same top-era units as you have (of course players could choose to put lower-era units), and also so you can choose in which era you fight. For an example, let's say you just reached the Progressive Era and you have a few independent units from the age you've won from Story Quests, not a lot, but you're full of Industrial Age military buildings and units, that way you can select 8 Industrial Age units as your Defensive Army for the Arena and so you'll always be matched against Industrial Age players, playing yourself with Industrial Age (or lower) units. Once you've got yourself a lot of Progressive Era units you can upgrade and change the army, so you face Progressive Era players now, and so on.
Having this system would imply having different rankings for different ages, like we have with the PvP Towers actually.
With that in place, a good way to battle would be now to give the player the option to battle oneself or to choose the automatic battle, that way everyone can do their very best in the Arena instead of depending of an algorithm that is very bad. Also, as I said, having the players have no Att/Def bonus would level the playing field and really test players ability to PvP instead of testing players ability to invest in FP's producing buildings and super-levelling their GB's, it's called a "PvP Arena" after all, not a "FP Micromanaging Simulator".
About the prizes I think they should be ranked as to amount of battles won, the one with the most battles won within an era gets the best prize. Of course, this system could be abusable if a very good PvP player has also a lot of money to but lots of coins to fight, they would climb up, ergo making this a test of richness more than anything else, so a fix would be to have no way to purchase these coins, you read right Inno, no purchasing of coins would be the best way to make this fair game, but of course that will not happen with corporate greed getting in the way.
All the things laid out here I think would make the PvP Arena a very well balanced test of strength and ability to command an army to victory, which, when I hear "PvP Arena" is the thing I think the feature is about.
A good way to rank players difficulty-wise I think would be to develop an in-game program that can predict the outcome of a fight based on your attacking army vs another's Defending Army for the Arena, deliver players that have, let's say, 20%, 50% and 75% of being beaten within some range of eras and so one would have the choice of who to fight. After all, we have a lot of random chance generators (think of the one in the Soccer Event with the player-cards), I think Inno could invest in a way to actually put that in the game. As for the ages available for one to battle against, I honestly think they should be restricted to one's own top-era unit in the Arena Defending Army, so you always fight people with the same top-era units as you have (of course players could choose to put lower-era units), and also so you can choose in which era you fight. For an example, let's say you just reached the Progressive Era and you have a few independent units from the age you've won from Story Quests, not a lot, but you're full of Industrial Age military buildings and units, that way you can select 8 Industrial Age units as your Defensive Army for the Arena and so you'll always be matched against Industrial Age players, playing yourself with Industrial Age (or lower) units. Once you've got yourself a lot of Progressive Era units you can upgrade and change the army, so you face Progressive Era players now, and so on.
Having this system would imply having different rankings for different ages, like we have with the PvP Towers actually.
With that in place, a good way to battle would be now to give the player the option to battle oneself or to choose the automatic battle, that way everyone can do their very best in the Arena instead of depending of an algorithm that is very bad. Also, as I said, having the players have no Att/Def bonus would level the playing field and really test players ability to PvP instead of testing players ability to invest in FP's producing buildings and super-levelling their GB's, it's called a "PvP Arena" after all, not a "FP Micromanaging Simulator".
About the prizes I think they should be ranked as to amount of battles won, the one with the most battles won within an era gets the best prize. Of course, this system could be abusable if a very good PvP player has also a lot of money to but lots of coins to fight, they would climb up, ergo making this a test of richness more than anything else, so a fix would be to have no way to purchase these coins, you read right Inno, no purchasing of coins would be the best way to make this fair game, but of course that will not happen with corporate greed getting in the way.
All the things laid out here I think would make the PvP Arena a very well balanced test of strength and ability to command an army to victory, which, when I hear "PvP Arena" is the thing I think the feature is about.
DeletedUser8579
Guest
Ok --I'm going to disagree slightly from much of the comments here
I'm presently in TE with a fairly sizeable boost. I fight mostly automatic, much as I do in GBG and GvG. I can generally beat a good player in FE, and a weak player up to OF. As an easy patch--you might try expanding the categories from 3(easy, moderate, hard) to 6 or 7 ---The size of each ranking group --SAM, SAAB for example should match the % of active players in those ages--In other words, if 25% of the active players in the world are in those 2 ages--The group size should reflect that. I also think that group rankings should not take in account individual boosts, ONLY present age.
I'm presently in TE with a fairly sizeable boost. I fight mostly automatic, much as I do in GBG and GvG. I can generally beat a good player in FE, and a weak player up to OF. As an easy patch--you might try expanding the categories from 3(easy, moderate, hard) to 6 or 7 ---The size of each ranking group --SAM, SAAB for example should match the % of active players in those ages--In other words, if 25% of the active players in the world are in those 2 ages--The group size should reflect that. I also think that group rankings should not take in account individual boosts, ONLY present age.
Emberguard
Emperor
I like this idea. As long as there’s a decent amount of current age in the mix.
Sinitar
Regent
really?ahahahhah https://prnt.sc/toa0ng
Cleitomachus
Marquis
Why don't you do a voting, between Towers and Arena? It will be easy to you, to see, how many want the one or the other.
The Towers is a main feature of F.o.E. from it's born. If you disappearing the Towers is the same as deappearing the towers in chess. It will be a whole different game.
The Towers is a main feature of F.o.E. from it's born. If you disappearing the Towers is the same as deappearing the towers in chess. It will be a whole different game.
Praeceptor
Marquis
Good news about manual battles - thanks.
Now just one thing to fix.
In the towers you had to beat 70-80 players to come top. Possible for players of all ages if they were strong enough. In the arena you must beat tens of thousands of players to come top. Only advanced age mega-spenders can do it.
Make the arena a localised competition, like the towers were, eradicating the problem of matching opponents. In my view that would be better than the towers because GvG / GbG battle farming wouldn't count towards the totals. It would probably still be won by diamond spenders, but at least everyone could try for a top 10 finish.
Now just one thing to fix.
In the towers you had to beat 70-80 players to come top. Possible for players of all ages if they were strong enough. In the arena you must beat tens of thousands of players to come top. Only advanced age mega-spenders can do it.
Make the arena a localised competition, like the towers were, eradicating the problem of matching opponents. In my view that would be better than the towers because GvG / GbG battle farming wouldn't count towards the totals. It would probably still be won by diamond spenders, but at least everyone could try for a top 10 finish.
Sinitar
Regent
I win contemporary army only if I used the mg team that I don't want to used in battle automatic, especially if I in industrial age https://prntscr.com/tobmhs