Feedback PvP Arena

[Thunderbummy]

Sorry, whilst I appreciate the introduction of manual battles from next week, I still can't help but feel that, as far as a replacement for the old PvP is concerned, the new competition is a fundamentally flawed concept. The old PvP was not broken and provided a good deal of satisfaction to the fighters amongst us. With around 70ish battle opportunities per day and a regular change of neighborhood, the situation was fair to all. For young game age players, the opportunity to win extra medals was irresistible and a valuable game boost. For later age players, it was all about neighborhood bragging rights - the prize became far less relevant. Within each neighborhood, every player had the same opportunities subject to the number of friends and guild mates in the hood.

FoE is advertised as a strategy based game yet we are seeing an ever increasing reliance on "random chance generators" in so many new features. Some GBG buildings offer a % chance of benefit, many event prizes are purely down to "luck", daily quest chest prizes and even Great Building rewards these days have a "chance" element regarding rewards. Honestly guys, if I wanted to gamble, I would go to a casino or play online bingo - lol.

Aside form the obvious mis-matching in the current release, the new system is now introducing a large chance element into PvP. I repeatedly keep being offered the same player as the hard choice -up 8 out of 12 times per day. This is neither fair on him or me. Why is it necessary for the system to select opponents for me? - only so you can introduce a more controlling element of chance into the equation. To do well in FoE a player has to invest huge amounts of time and effort - to make the outcome ever more reliant on random chance generators is really not acceptable.

Having been here for over 8 years now, I understand only too well how reluctant Inno Games can be to making anything other than token changes to new features. On this occasion I really ask you to think again. Please keep the new competition, sort the current problems and add it to the stable of opportunities that the game offers but also reinstate the neighborhood weekly tournament. It really does not matter what you call them as long as you keep them both.

 

[softly explorer]

I'm in PE. I had to do 2 impossibel battles, the lowest Era players was from Oceanic F, 2 times lost (of course), now back one from ColA as lowest, other 2 are still way above my era !
This way I can NEVER reach a better rank ! It's going up in rank, then back down because of impossible to win battles (even with manual not possible!) ... so being NOT in a high end Era like SAM or SAAB ... I can bury all hope to get a good rank and totally put out of my head to EVER be on the top rank !
(still rank between 1000 & 3000, doing as active battles as possible !)
So, besides introducing manual battles .... the match-mating system NEED a serious re-make / make over !!

 

[kmc11]

I feel like the PvP arena would be a welcome addition if it was not replacing the old PvP towers/system, instead adding a "real" PvP.
Queue up. Wait till matched against another opponent, battle it out in a 2 player LIVE manual battle.
( Wouldn't even need to stall at wait window, could be an overlay on city view )

That would give the game something it is lacking, several other games have.

 

[gaattie]

I don't care what they will change with the PvP arena as long as the old towers will return

 

[Thunderdome]

Thank you for the "manual" option that will be introduced. At least that would make sense when it comes to facing opponents without a view to their army(ies).

Going off the beaten path, I had done some thinking (and after I read so many points from others) and would like to offer something to make it worth it:

Matching should be done through neighborhoods as each week (or couple of weeks) the list updates. There are 80 spots in a hood. In each hood, there are those who are within the same age (yay!) and there those who aged up a bit (1 or 2 were like this when I got froggy with them for the week and never saw them again). This also will weed out the inactive players so we can concentrate on good fights.​

​

I know that many of us had done towers of other ages to maximize the benefit of getting said prizes. So, I am thinking why don't we change the prizes within said ranks to match up what a player would have gotten if they were to compete in the various ages (up to his or her age of course). Say for instance, an LMA player ranking 1 on the old towers from BA to his/her age would get the sum of medals offered from the rank 1 prizes. This way, it won't look like a slap on the face for the effort.​

​

Notice that I used rank 1 as an example when it comes to medals and prize generation. Rank 2 would get a little bit lower than rank 1, rank 3 a little bit lower than rank 2. However, an ideal adjustment would be as follows: Rank 1 - 100% of the prize, Rank 2 - 90% of the prize, Rank 3 - 80% of the prize, Ranks 4 to 20 - 70% of the prize, Ranks 21 to 50 - 60% of the prize, Ranks 51+ - 50% of the prize. Once again, it is from the sum of medals presented from Bronze age to the age bracket a player is in. Other prizes should be adjusted within that neighborhood's age bracket and awarded accordingly. Those who are in an age higher when the list was generated will only get the prize up to the age of the neighborhood. Those who age up will be placed into a new neighborhood for the next week's tourney.​

​

Ranking view should be in that player's neighborhood view only. No need to have a plethora of players in a tourney that is ranked 1, just the neighborhood only.​

​

Points according to rank should be converted to player based points for overall global ranking and to show how well a player is doing and progressing.​

​

Opponents. I knew this will come about. So, here is how it is going to go. Three random opponents in a neighborhood will be given, a player of that same neighborhood will choose 1 to begin the fight. After the fight that list will be updated with 3 new (and random) opponents of the same neighborhood. A block should be in place in the event the same opponent is shown so the player won't attack the same one twice. We're given an opportunity for 12 battles for free in a day (or more if some are vigilant) so we're not going to finish the list with a 2 hour fight timer for each attempt unless we spend diamonds for attempts. Once the game day is complete (or reset), the opponents that were defeated will be available once again and only if they were given when the fight card is randomly generated.​

​

Those have very low defense should be in the EASY block. Those who have moderate defense should be in the MEDIUM block. Those who have high defense should be in the HARD block.​

​

And for God's sake, add a REVENGE button as well as a playback one. No one likes to have their ass handed to them without knowing how it/what happened and that they could not do anything about it. A revenge costs the same attempt as a normal fight and the fight list will update with three new random opponents. If the attacker's name comes up in a refreshed pool, that attacker will have the same blocking protections so they cannot be attacked until the game resets to a new day.​

​

Tell me what anyone thinks about this proposed change/suggestion.

 

[xivarmy]

And for God's sake, add a REVENGE button as well as a playback one. No one likes to have their ass handed to them without knowing how it/what happened and that they could not do anything about it. A revenge costs the same attempt as a normal fight and the fight list will update with three new random opponents. If the attacker's name comes up in a refreshed pool, that attacker will have the same blocking protections so they cannot be attacked until the game resets to a new day.

This might help with the current system as is as well. Although I've not seen a single attack on me in my log yet - so it still needs matchmaking work. At any rate, such a revenge option could be useful when you have no good opponents amongst your 3 as an alternative to throwing a fight.

 

[qaccy]

The thing I'm seeing about the ranking/matching system is that, since it's every (participating) player on a server, it makes sense that the strongest/highest age players are going to be at the top. Wouldn't make sense for a Colonial Age player to be #1 on the server, would it? Eventually, the lower age players are going to climb enough in the ranks that they're higher than their peers and are going to be facing opponents that they simply can't beat because of the age difference. However, because of the ranking system, that's basically inevitable. These lower-age players are now a higher rank than all of the other lower-age players. All that's left are higher-age players.

That's just how it looks to me. The debate could go on forever about whether or not it's fair that the strongest/best in the server essentially requires being in the highest age.

 

[xivarmy]

The thing I'm seeing about the ranking/matching system is that, since it's every (participating) player on a server, it makes sense that the strongest/highest age players are going to be at the top. Wouldn't make sense for a Colonial Age player to be #1 on the server, would it? Eventually, the lower age players are going to climb enough in the ranks that they're higher than their peers and are going to be facing opponents that they simply can't beat because of the age difference. However, because of the ranking system, that's basically inevitable. These lower-age players are now a higher rank than all of the other lower-age players. All that's left are higher-age players.

That's just how it looks to me. The debate could go on forever about whether or not it's fair that the strongest/best in the server essentially requires being in the highest age.

I don't think it's unfair that this happens necessarily eventually (though one could make the case that your easy +50 match should always be able to be someone reasonable since that should be someone who hasn't climbed as high as you). And I think a staggered start might make that a little more reasonable (i.e. don't put everyone to 6000 regardless of age - as there will always be low effort high age players amongst that group at 6000. put lower ages floor to something more reasonable so they're likely to start with a hard matchup no more than an age or two higher and an easy matchup an age or two lower)

One of the issues is there's not much granularity in the rankings. Where last week barely trying i ended up just inside 1000-3000. And this week trying enough that I've stopped seeing viable targets as my easy often i'm around 1800. Which is the exact same prize as last week's 2800. So my reward for trying is simply more lost troops, not even finishing ranked 500-1000 as I surmised might be possible with a lot of effort (for 7 medals extra lol).

So *if* it's to be all one big ranking then to see some tangible progress there has to be many many more grouping. say every 100 changes in rank results in a better prize. Preferably often something more than 7 medals in the difference (though sometimes it could be 7 medals if there were many such divisions). If the 1st on an entire server prize got much bigger it might assist in taking away from those winnings slowly.

While a low age player does not necessarily need to be eligible for 1st, they do need to be able to feel their effort was worth something.

Sample Prize Structure:
1st:
Commemorative Deco (no real functional value, just for bragging rights - maybe a high amount of ranking points or something similar to the gold awards we got for our performance in the old ranking system)
10000 diamonds, 1500 FP, 1500 goods, 100 units, 1 random item chest
2nd:
5000 diamonds, 1500 FP, 1500 goods, 100 units, 1 random item chest
3rd:
2500 diamonds, 1500 FP, 1500 goods, 100 units, 1 random item chest
4th:
1000 diamonds, 1500 FP, 1500 goods, 100 units, 1 random item chest
5th:
500 diamonds, 1500 FP, 1500 goods, 100 units, 1 random item chest
6th-10th:
400 diamonds, 800 FP, 800 goods, 80 units, 1 random item chest
11th-20th:
300 diamonds, 400 FP, 400 goods, 60 units, 1 random item chest
21st-50th:
200 diamonds, 200 FP, 200 goods, 40 units, 1 random item chest
51st-100th:
100 diamonds, 100 FP, 100 goods, 20 units, 1 random item chest

From here on down a new division every for every 100 rankings that only decreases one of the 4 prizes by 5 diamonds, 5 FP, 5 goods, or 1 unit. This gives them room for tangible reward increases stretching all the way down to rank 8000ish (which should cover any actually active player on the server). The random item chest should remain for all active players as a carrot to at least do something.

Another thing that might help would be a chance at some sort of random prize for each fight similar to GBG.

 

[delfire1]

It is not even realistic battle in the new arena if i attack asteroid belt army with virtually no boost I loose and when the results come up i could have beat the opposition manually with my eyes closed ! if we are going to keep this hopeless new feature at least make it realistic pls.

 

[Thunderdome]

The debate could go on forever about whether or not it's fair that the strongest/best in the server essentially requires being in the highest age.

Hence why we are always on and about. Many of us have good ideas on how to improve a farce of an insult to all players (er, PVP arena), and each of us would just voice our opinions on the idea. As I had said, I just threw the latest around after looking the plethora of posts to see if it's something that players can really go forth on and something to throw at the developers to salvage something that shouldn't been placed in the first place.

I don't say my idea is the best (unless many would say so but I am just a player) but it might be something for others to look at and build around/on it to make it better. Like @xivarmy idea when it comes to structuring sans the neighborhood/same age approach.

 

[DeletedUser10382]

The rewards for the PvP towers ARE an improvement. For many players who have been here for a bit & have had a level 80 Arc for a bit, the medals have become irrelevant. The new rewards aren't great but at least they aren't entirely useless once you've maxed out on medals

On the other hand, the pairing is ridiculous. Inno needs to create a fix so that you pair with an opponent who is at least close in age.

I'm glad that manual fighting will be added

 

[DeletedUser8711]

this is not fair .......i am future , i have to attack mars or asteroide with 1500 or 2000 def ....to go forward ...this is not impossible !!

 

[Aether7]

Glad to see manual battles are being added as a small step in the right direction. I will try the Arena again after matching system is fixed. Players should only be paired against same age and is not fair any other way. Difficult battles can be fought against high attack and defense opponents including players (from same age) that have advanced age units.

Also need to bring back the Towers! Both arena and towers can exist along side each other:
- Towers are a weekly neighborhood competition. All fights in GE, GBG, GvG, neighborhood, and now Arena should be counted.
- Arena is an ongoing global competition (with weekly rewards) and should measure everyone's fighting ability against players from their same age (small advantage for diamond spenders).

 

[Nessie]

The so-called PvP-Arena urgently needs to be given another name, it has absolutely nothing to do with PvP, it was mentioned here many times.

It's all AI that we're fighting against - might it be auto or manual. There is no PvP in this game, all is AI ! In case the devs do not know: PvP means player versus player. After everything that is commited with this game, I have to assume that the relevant people at InnoGames know very little, for example they don't know exactly what PvP is or the difference between PvP and AI.

So stop call it PvP wherever (GvG, GE, GBG, Arena and so on) and name it correctly!

 

[thelegend88]

Separate players by neighborhoods, not all players in one basket!

 

[planetofthehumans2]

this is not fair .......i am future , i have to attack mars or asteroide with 1500 or 2000 def ....to go forward ...this is not impossible !!

Lucky you, you can use hoovers. I'm in LMA with the same SAA, SAM, VR, OF people in all three slots.

 

[Dessire]

Cosmetics would be a better option as rewards. frames for your portraits, unic portraits per season. cosmetics for the terrain surrounding your city, cosmetics for great buildings or for the townhall or new design for the townhall/great buildings. or a different design for the whole terrain that you see when you are not in a colony but in your city.

 

[LastWarrior]

and when the new open atk is introduced bang goes the point of having any defensive armies again, thats pathetic

 

[Lady Kaye]

Having bought some attempts in the beginning of this feature is now my bad! These additional attempts lifted me first up to the ranking below #500 and now I´m getting competitors far above my age. I´m in EMA (Early Middle Age) and I´m getting SAAB, OF, and CA competitors? That´s a joke!
I won´t spend a single Diamond or waste my troups on this feature anymore until I´m getting a fair chance to make it to the very top in ranking!

 

[lekond]

View attachment 5831

Having bought some attempts in the beginning of this feature is now my bad! These additional attempts lifted me first up to the ranking below #500 and now I´m getting competitors far above my age. I´m in EMA (Early Middle Age) and I´m getting SAAB, OF, and CA competitors? That´s a joke!
I won´t spend a single Diamond or waste my troups on this feature anymore until I´m getting a fair chance to make it to the very top in ranking!

I'm EarlyMiddle Age too...