(Non)Battle Arena

As you said like it or no and I don't like it and many FB I players feel the same way , and hope Kano can find a compromise , def mode I have no problem with , load out can make a big difference even with a balanced build, and yes. Turtle builds are some players choice but let's be real here, those builds are not suited for fighting.

 

Well since you see no problem , that is the problem. LoL

 

I've won over 50 battle arenas on kps2 even with all the changes made. Has anyone on fb won that many? And I'm hitting these high defense players making levels like a madman off of them. They are exp city. It's great there's the defense strategy in these arenas. More levels for those that make it through. Anyone highly active gets levels. Those with minimal get 1 maybe 2 at the best. So again, who has the short end of the stick here?

 

This is like debating, polish. For gods sake. I hope for your sake Kano does nothing cause I can see the posts if. The do. Hahaha

 

The problem is players who are not participating winding up with top rankings because they hide in defensive mode and ride out the Arena while everyone else fights. That's a problem. Maybe they can make a separate top ten for those who don't want to fight and they can land there. With substantially less rewards of course. But no, KANO is not going to do that so these non-players then are taking up top ten positions they didn't earn.

 

100 attacks is participating. 0 attacks is participating. It was dead wrong making a minimal attack requirement to begin with. Inactives keep the arena alive. Kill it even more you might as well kill the whole arena.

 

Long as they made the 100 attacks theyve met the requirement according to Kano. Those with this high defense time can still reach the minimal even if its raised. Then what?

 

Look all your doing is repeating yourself and not making any valid arguments for why someone who doesn't fight should be able to ride out and land in the top ten in something called "The Battle Arena." Being cannon fodder for those who fight is not a good enough reason. And these players wind up in the top ten because no one wants to take the time blasting through their defense early on. If it was easier to take these players down they would finish nowhere near the top ten. They know that. That's why they do it. These people are not participating and the bench marks need to be raised to A) bring them into the Arena instead of just hiding out on the periphery and B) not have the top ten or top twenty final rankings a farce filled up with non-playing players.

 

I have an idea. Just change to name to reflect what it actually is, since it isn't really a "battle" arena. Maybe something like "See How Long Your Defensive Stance Holds Out Event"?

 

I'm staying on topic. I'm repeating myself? Looks to me you're repeating yourself. Point is this thread wants changes made to the arena. I'm highly against anymore changes.

 

It really is a battle Arena, for those that fight and they make up the majority, at least on FB. So no need to change game names, just need to up the benchmarks so these people have to fight along with everyone else.

 

Actually, this isn't really anything like debating Polish. At least he actually makes points and doesn't just copy and paste scripts from the games to "make" his points.

 

Point is, the number dropped significantlty when the changge to inactives were made. I watched the number dropped because of this injustice.

 

Not so in all games or on all platforms. Nothing will be improved unless more changes are made. If nothing changes, I don't see how anything will improve. Given the changes that have already been made, which have made it much less competitive, I say leave it the way it is and deal with it.

 

Just deal with it. Thank you Jared.

 

We'll not on FB maybe in your platform

 

No your just repeating yourself. Your filibustering dude. I'm pointing to reasons why the benchmarks need to be raised. I'm pointing to statements on the home page and even the name itself to prove that the original intent of the Battle Arena was to fight it out. I'm pointing to a previous time when the devs made changes (putting in benchmarks to reach) so people had to fight a bit to rank. My argument is that the original change was not enough and it needs to be raised so people have to fight more to rank. Your argument is that things should stay the same so people can hide in defense and then get the top rewards over those who are fighting. If it weren't for those people fighting and eliminating everyone you guys hiding would never be in the top ten anyway so you owe the fighters in the game your final rankings.

 

There you go repeating yourself yet again. My armada ARE the fighters. And we love those inactive defense players. If they just make 100 attacks and ride it in d mode we love killing them in d mode and enjoy the hours waiting. They earned it and deserve to rank where they fall out at, enemy or not

 

Yeah. Maybe with a few hundred people playing in their Arena all they want to do is hide. But for those of us that fight we would like to reap the benefits in the final rankings, not lose out to those who essentially were a no-show.