Easy Fix for Arena
I've been playing SWGOH since December of last year, and the main issue I have is with Arena. Specifically the mechanics preventing you from attacking another player if you are being attacked, or if t...
Forum Discussion
"Silentbobus;c-1497117" wrote:"leef;c-1497070" wrote:
You've got to realize that locking #1 and #2 is an edge case aswell, so you can't get caught up too much on edge cases when debating the solution for a problem that itself is an edge case.
When I say it is the general case it happens nearly every day. Some days there is a window in the last ten minutes where playing a match against the #1 and #2 is possible, but not usually.
I am very anti-collusion in games. I suppose that is why I see collusion as a problem where the other people on this board don't. The thing that gets me about it is how terrible the teams are in the top two spots, worse than the majority of teams in 3-20. My main worry in climbing the ladder each day is that they'll be a block of good teams in a row that I can't consistently beat and I won't be able to challenge the bad ones in the top 5.
One in particular I can't understand how they stay even in the top 50. Their squad started out as a good Wiggs team that maxed out early on, and it gets worse every time I see it. He recently swapped out Lando (one of his only 2 threats against my team) for Ezra (who is irrelevant) and it's now a team I can auto in under a minute. And I expect everyone would be able to do this, since it's a remarkably slow team (four of my team get turns before the first of his) as well as a soft team. So it appears that having a poor def team is not a problem for staying in the top 2 under the current system.
please explain to me how that's not an edge case, but that other guy talking about multiple players attacking #1 at the same time is? In my humble opinion, the latter will happen more often if they adjust arena like you suggested than the former is happening now. So diismissing it as an edge case is just silly.
Unfortunately ou ignored the main problem i had with your proposed sollution, a problem that had nothing to do with collusion or any of the other stuff you're talking about.
Better def teams won't hold better on defence with your proposed sollution, for that reason alone it's a bad idea. i can continue to poke holes in why it's a bad idea, but with a dealbreaker like that already on the table it's not necessary.
