Battle Arena Discussion

i think battle arena was a good thing to add but should handycap anyone over level 3500 a little more then other to give us a chance to win or ben a level 10000 player will all ways win top prize ,how can anyone who is that many level higher be bet when they more health an attack then everyone on the game ,i did not get in it because i knew there was no chance to win any of the top prizes thanks now fix the lag it has made on all the games os we can play them

 

Myspace player....
I think with the lag issue, the refresh button was not as useful as it could have been. When you are attacking others, and your health is dropping rapidly, you should know you are under attack so go look at the feed and refresh if you have to then take measures to remedy it.
This feature was mentioned a long time ago, so anyone not ready for it needs to watch the feeds better.
I had fun and was aggressive like Polish but then had to leave and was killed shortly after. Strategy does play a role in it but part of that is how you assign your skill points. This part of the strategy was not reveled until recently and will be a real challenge for higher level players to change their percent allocation as they may have 90% of the achievements and instead of leveling 10 times a day they get 2 levels a day. For example, a level 1000 has to get to 2000 to double the skill points earned, but a level 4,000 has to get to 8,000 to have the same effect on percentage of skill point distribution. Plus the lower level has, likely, a better chance of earning more achievements during that time which also may add to the skill points earned. On the other hand, I understand this is a great way to "level" the playing field and now knowing this, we will be able to decide if the arena is what our characters are built for, if we can change our character to be better in the arena or to just keep things the way they are and not worry about the arena (as the news about it stated much earlier that the arena will have an entrance fee in the future, so we have to decide if we want to pay the fee to just get killed in there).
Is there anyway to keep the screens updated without the refresh button (some coding you can do to keep it updated without the refresh button)? I am guessing that changing the coding would be cheaper than allocating resources to prevent the lag. While the lag during a battle seemed to get better over time, the refresh lag stayed fairly constant.
How about a health meter with the players so we can see who is "healthy" and who is a better candidate for attack? This could be either just the remaining health amount, a color coded bar or some other indication of remaining health. For example, in regular play, we have the health bar for battles.
Kind of torn on the issue with "lurking" but we are Pirates so it should make sense that the one that grabs the treasure chest get the rewards and not have to share with the others that helped get us there. But, if we aren't going to change this (giving rewards to pirate that has kill shot) then at least can we get a report in our feed that Pirate X killed Pirate Y so then if we have dumped stamina into killing a pirate and did not get the kill, we can go after the "lurker" and maybe kill them?
The defense stance was talked about beforehand, so stop crying about it. If the game started off with everyone in defense mode, who would change that and start attacking? What would be the point of that? The start time was posted and if you can't be on at that time, to at least put your character in defense mode, then don't enter and wait for the next battle arena to come around.
If we limit the attacks on a single player then we limit the players that are aggressive. If the comments previously are true and the players at the top did not have many attacks, then limiting the number of attacks on a player in a period of time just extends out the time it takes for the arena to be decided or worse it lets time run out and then you have a ton of people who are going to be in first place because you are not going to have a difference in the number of kills between the pirates still alive. Again, if you can't be online when the battle arena is going, don't enter (or do enter so I can kill you and get the rewards).
I do think the defensive stance can be changed, maybe have it equal times instead of the different times. This would allow someone to leave to get something to eat or things like that. Maybe a 55 min stance with a 55 min reset timer. This may lengthen the time it takes for a winner, but I do not think it will change by much. It will also only benefit those that are online for the duration of the event. The defense timer should not be more than 1 hour.
I am glad we got battle drops for those battles we participated in. Those that hid did not get those so it was a benefit to the players that were aggressive in battles. I would like to see some notation or a sort function that allows us to see battle drops. When in a battle, it is difficult to look at the drop or even remember what they all were (and looking at them could cost you the kill or you could be killed while looking for them in the inventory). It seems that the battle drops are the same for both arena and regular battle, but maybe not. If they are different, I would like the ability to see all battle drops or a notation so that I can tell the item was a battle drop. The reason for this is so that when we are trying to get the best equipment for our characters, we can determine how to go about getting that equipment. If an item is a battle drop then we need to do more battles, etc. We do have a drop item filter feature, but it includes adventures, blacksmith and battle drops. Can we designate these more specifically? (this is more of a general suggestion, so got off topic a little, sorry).
Still a little confused how I can do 2 mil damage to someone and then the next attack loose the battle. I know you have a random generator feature with the attacks, but I think it needs to be a little more stable. Since the stats combine both attack and defense battles (or so it appears), it is hard to tell how many losses I had compared to wins but the losses were more than I expected when I was defeating a pirate. The regular game does not seem to have the same difference as I am sure it does not have the random generator in the battle structure. I think with the amount of stamina needed to kill a pirate and the fact the stats do not transfer to the regular game, there does not need to be such a high amount of battle losses (when attacking or wins when defending). It really does not seem to play to any strategy or benefit any player. I would rather see a higher emphasis on attack and defense stats for the determination of the battle. The random generator could still be thrown in, but maybe as a different category and as a smaller percentage of determining factor for outcome of battle (for instance, we use clan size, equipped items, loadout, attack and defense stat, boosts so maybe we can use random generator number as a category in battle arena but an emphasis on the build of the character instead of the random generator). Or maybe the randomness needs to be tweaked so that it more relates to the stats so we do not have to use as much stamina in battles. I can only imagine what it was like on the Facebook side of it with as high levels as they have. For me, it would usually take around 400 stamina to kill a pirate start to finish.
With the issue of achievements or leaderboard, this does not allow a player to "hide" if they want to. Unless each time there is a new board and from one arena to the next it does not carry forward. It would be a nice feature to have achievements for reaching certain things in the arena, but only if we can remain secretive over the achievements. So if I take first place in a battle arena and my character shows the first place tropy/achievement/whatever then all know that I was playing as that nickname. Judging by the past arena, not many want others to know who they are in the arena, in other words we are Pirates and will stab ye in the back if we can get ahead. So if we can have the rewards, etc without a compromise on the secrecy then I agree with it. That may also contribute to more of an all out war instead of some sitting in the bleachers waiting for things to happen around them.
I did like the search feature, but you had to be exact. Can we instead have an expanded search so that we can search for partial names? Or maybe a wildcard for searching like the * or ? The current search was also case sensitive which made some troubles for me finding people that I had attacked in the past or that attacked me hours before and too difficult to search through the feed with the lag. Maybe also including the option to search by the name in the regular game and if the privacy setting is set to allow the "known" then we can find the character in battle arena. Example would be pirate Smith has joined the arena with the nickname of Jones and has allowed his identity to be revealed. We search for Smith in the arena and it would show Jones.
How about limiting the level you can obtain if you do not attack at least 100 times? On our board #4 went to a player that had 0 attacks. It sounds like FB had several that did not attack and reached the top. The name itself implies we are supposed to battle. You didn't name it Hide Arena. The other idea is to show players who are not attacking on the battle list so they get killed off faster than those that are actively battling.
I previously commented on a current indicator showing the rewards for the level you were at currently in the arena or just keeping the rewards section during the arena event so we can tell how close we are to the next level and what it will earn us.

 

Ahhhhh, ye olde MS vs FB comparison....its been awhile since thats been brought up. Not sure what this topic has to do with thread, but what the heck...I'll give it a whirl. I play mostly on MS because thats where I started and I personally enjoy the MS format a great deal more.

I think comparing MS and FB top 30 player in any of the games is like comparing apples and oranges, The top 30 in both platforms obviously have a lil more of "what it takes" than the rest of the field, I think if all were thrown together and started over on the same platform with another 10k players you would find that most if not all the top 30 from both MS and FB would once again rise to the top of the field. There is also a substantial gap in most the games on both platform between the very highest levels and the rest of the top 30, once again.....These players have proven they have a little extra something something that drives them .....If all things were equal....once again I believe u would see most if not all rise to the top. Predicting an actual #1 if all things were equal would be difficult to say the least as the environment would be completely different and the number of variable would be off the charts. These games are not just about clicking and whos got the best build VS the next guy/gal.....more importantly I believe its all about ones clan and who ends up being Allies or Rivals and the relationships that come and go in between. I dont think for one second that If I didnt have the relationship with JJ and many others that I would have been #1, I also dont think if I hadnt had many of the same rivals that I have that things would have turned out the same. Its hard to fathom exactly what might have happened had both MS and FB players all played together from the beginning. Players that are top rated rivals in either platform right now may have turned out to be the best of Allies if spurred on by top rated players from another platform or vice versa....Who knows? But it is wild to think about.

If your just taking hard numbers and were to take the top 30 players from MS and FB VC and through them in a room together and let them battle it out right now with the actual hard numbers we all currently have....then I believe you would be right. FB has many more players that are of a substantial higher level. With that said though.....once again its like comparing apples to oranges, FB has way more players to begin with....the more players you have the more one has to pick from and the more opportunity one has. Regardless of what platform one plays...you are limited by whats available, in this case MS has much less available to them in regards to opportunity. A real life examples/comparison of this would be high school football. Depending on the size/population of your school they are classified into diff divisions such as A, AA, AAA or AAAA. Although there have been many exceptions.... odds say that you find more talent at the AAAA school than the A school simply because you have much more to select from. Some of the all time greats have come from tiny little schools in the middle of nowhere. Like I said....there are exceptions, Ive seen for myself small 1A schools put a whoopn on the bigger 4A schools but thats more the exception than the rule.

So once again....If all things were equal....I think u would find most of the top tier of players from both platforms at or near the top again. Trying to compare them in their current respective environments is fun.....but kinda silly

 

Handicap....really? Your missing the whole point of the arena, the whole damn game is handicapped whats the point of ever leveling and getting stronger if your just gonna be handicapped so some lesser player has a better shot? Not sure if u noticed.....but a lot of lower leveled players fared pretty damn well. Everyone has a shot....the bigger and badder you are the better your odds....Thats exactly the way it should be. No one is forced to play, it doesnt cost anything and your main game is not impacted negatively.(except for the lag of course). If anything its already too handicapped. Whats your issue again?

 

Nice observations Bubba...I agree with nearly everything

 

lol once again polish you make things smiple lol for those of us who realy don't care lol i have looked at the top 20 who had almost no attacks lol so i say why not let those that have bots use them lol

 

i dont think the idea was to limit attacks, rather to limit attacks w/out another player responding. i see an issue w/that if a user is online and knows they will lose and just wont attack back.

I would disagree w/this. there is strategy there and it wouldn't benefit you to keep attacking someone who has more health and you lose a lot too.

^^^very very true^^^^ I dont see how it exposes who we are w/being at the top. i think our names give that away or it doesnt.

i think if it's done right, those who are logged off can still get ousted. your suggestion penalizes people for having to work. if the damage is minimal that should tell the attacker to move on. its not some one's fault that they had an obligation and wouldnt be logged on at the time it started. it is some one's fault when they choose to hit a player whos in defense mode, waste their stamina and get killed off sooner. i had plenty of people hitting me once i had my defense off, i hit them back instead of going after the ones in defense mode. simple adjustment we can all make.

people complained that i was logged off cos i was at work and that's why i was able to finish 2nd. ya that had a lot to do w/it but there was 58 or so left when i logged on. i still fought and fought way more than one of the one's who complained that i wasnt logged on enough to attack. i spent 4 hours total in the arena and: Attacks 8,927 what are some of the stats for those that went out early?

 

I agree that the whole no attack thing is a bit peculiar to say the least. But there was also some lower levels mixing it up that fared well. my whole point being is that its a good thing to have an aspect of the games that arent as limiting as most other aspects and that players have the option of whether to participate or not without affecting their main game

 

I'd just really like to be able to play more than an hour, I died pretty quickly and my defensive stance mode was on, so it didn't make a huge difference

 

This is just my opinion on it. When Kano does the next one. All players can be in a defensive stance for 10 mins once the arena has started. After that you get thrown into attack mode unless you click on the defensive button to allow you to go back into defense mode again. I can agree to that since so many players said they were killed literally right off the bat without even getting a chance to play or even try. Anything longer then that at the beginning when it starts should not be allowed unless the actual player clicks that defensive button and the timer countdowns on them. I think what would also be a good idea is if players are alive in the arena on the battle list show a green dot next to there name because i agree with a lot of players i went through the list a couple times and could not find someone to battle and having to wait till it refreshed with new players. And if they do choose the def mode button. Possibly put in small letters next to there name def so players know who is in defensive mode. While it is a tactic and a smart one for the first arena i am like others many players did get through to the top spots by doing this and not hitting one fight themselves. Sad but smart at the same time.

 

with that point i agree an will prob get in the next one just did not have my stamina or fp to refill so i stayed out but my ? is do captians come in to play as will or is it a one on one thing

 

if you mean can you attack anyone, yes, clan means nothing here, it is last player standing, attack your friends enemies, frenemies it is all good

 

i'm certainly not lacking in the stam department thnx,why is it that when a player has a distinct advantage,they don't want the play evened out,so that ALL players have a chance of winning,i thought that was what the devs were aiming for......also with players being able to communicate with each other your not fighting 1 on 1,its clan warfare....so ya buggered if ya not in one.....but as Linda (and many others) would probs say....join a clan, a strong one of course so you too can gang up on individual players/clans,cos battling on your own,on a level playing field is scary.....this has already been proven with the top 4 apparently coming from the same clan..............laters

 

On fb individuals played one on one there was no ganging up on one person it was every man for them selves, and as far as people who lasted alot longer than me they were lower level and not close to my strength, winning this has much more to do with playing smart not being strong, and my point was not directed at you but those that always want to be compensated for not being strong or not playing long or not something or other, we all started with nothing and who ever plays smart in all aspects of the game can be whatever they want, some people always want the game slanted to their weakness instead of working on that weakness, that is not gonna happen



btw I am in an armada of 2 and just for a joke, and we do not recruit, I do not see armada's or guilds as a way to be strong that is all up to each individual player

 

Total clan count comes into play....the more the better obviously, but once again I saw many who fared well without full clan. Alliances are obviously a good thing....but in the end there can be only 1 victor

 

Im sorry bro but u got me both laughing and banging my head so hard i can barely stand it. Are u serious..."why is it that when a player has a distinct advantage,they don't want the play evened out,so that ALL players have a chance of winning,", does this really need an explanation??? How about this.....I worked my ass off to earn an advantage....why on earth should I be handicapped so others who didnt have a better chance? What the point of these games if were all the same and hard work and perseverance earned u nothing more than some slacker?

 

Sorry John...but I totally disagree with ya on this one. It simply wouldnt be fair to those who did show up on time.

I know my pirate is an extreme example because i have nearly no defense what so ever....but my allotment of "defensive stance " was only a lil over 6 minutes, really wouldnt be fair on top of the other reason to give me more than i actually have.


I think Kanos Idea of having different start times for each arena event is the way to go. That way evey one in everytime zone get a fair shake. for example... 1st arena pst time start, 2nd arena mst time start, 3rd est start, etc etc


No matter what is done players are gonna complain, its either gonna be to early, to late, during my dinner time, i cant stay up for 6 hrs or 3 days blah blah blah. The simple fact is that unfortunately everyone cant be completely satisfied.


Some players actually did real well for not even showing up while others were killed off immediately, its just up to the luck of the draw if yor not gonna be there to man the ship. I believe when I signed up there was already a count down timer telling me when it was gonna start......had I thought I couldnt be there for what ever reason....I would not have signed up. But had I and then I wouldnt of shown up and was killed off quick....I certainly wouldnt have anyone to blame but myself and in the end I lost nothing anyways.

 

Polish i am with you on it trust me i do not believe there should be one. But if the developers do add it. I would say it needs to be that strict on entrance. So many players are complaining about it. Even though they had 3 days notice to join and the countdown clock of when it was going to be starting. I don't think there should be. But if they do 10 mins at most in def mode when it starts.

 

I wonder also, players that did sign up, did not play at all for a variety of reasons, and wind up staying the course or even being near the top and getting rewarded for it when others did participate and worked real hard to stay in, get rewarded ,seems a bit uneven, if someone never even attacked once.

betcha alot are gonna either agree or disagree but .......

 

i'm not suggesting any one should be given a better chance,i said an even chance,the devs have already done this to a point,if they hadn't there would be absolutely no point in any one apart from the top 5/10% of players entering for more than obvious reasons......my point is that a player with 5000 stam has a greater chance of winning over a player with 500 stam over a prolonged period of play(battles).....from what i have read there are many players - who perhaps have not reached a high enough level or played for as long as others -to a acquire enough SP to even have that amount of stam even even if they had put every point into it......if we all started with the same amount of stam and received bonus stam as a reward for each battle win(and health too) there would be many advantages to the overall battle field to ALL involved,especially some of the points i have seen brought up by other players.....havin been around this PC and VC since day 1 i know as do you all,the old adage rings true(no matter what you/i or others say and no matter what the devs implement in the future) " You cannot please all the people,all the time" Laters peeps,see you on the battle field