Forum Discussion

SilentBobUS's avatar
7 years ago

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 the player you want to attack is being attacked. I try to time the majority of my PvPs to an hour before 6 PM and as early as a half an hour before 6 PM I find myself constantly blocked. I believe that the top 5 are simply attacking each other, and waiting the full 5 minutes.

So I thought of a simple solution. Allow any player to attack at any time, regardless of who is currently in battle. If you lose, you stay where you are, if you win you take their spot, but rather than swapping, you push them and everyone below them down one place, until they fill in the gap where you used to be. And the push is done at the point you beat them, so if the #1 and #2 can't keep their spots just by attacking each other.

No more collusion, no more locked spots.

  • "Silentbobus;c-1497899" wrote:
    "Waqui;c-1497771" wrote:
    "Silentbobus;c-1497541" wrote:
    "leef;c-1497216" wrote:

    Right, so how would that work in the sytem you proposed?


    Getting first place under the system I proposed would take strategy, tactics, intuition and would make it exceptionally difficult (although not impossible) for players to collude.


    It would also take a great deal of luck. As someone already pointed out earlier:
    With your system, you rank 5th, fight for 1st place, win, and then still be ranked 5th afterwards. This type of randomness is a spoiler in arenas. In the current system this kind of randomness doesn't exist.



    The system I am proposing has no randomness in it, it is completely deterministic. If you are saying that what other people do has an impact on the outcome of the match, then yes, you are correct it does. But what other players do already has a far greater impact in the current system in the sense it currently prevents matches from being played at all.


    While the system may be deterministic, a player will never be able to predict his resulting rank after winning a match. He may actually win a match but still end up in a lower rank than before he played the match. With the current system, you can always predict your resulting rank depending on wether you win or loose your battle. Your system would be a source of constant frustration every day of the week. No thanx!

  • "Silentbobus;c-1497899" wrote:

    But at this point I think I'm tired of advocating for this system, I'd just like to advocate moving away from the current system. I've played a lot of PvP RPGs and card games and this is the first one where players could prevent you from challenging them.


    I have never played a PvP RPG where while you were already battling a team, some other team could be battling you without you noticing it. SWGOH may not be live PvP, but at least it's live enough for you to only be able to figt one battle at a time.

    "Silentbobus;c-1497899" wrote:
    Thinking back, all of the others used Elo so I would imagine that is the easiest to implement. You beat someone, you get a higher Elo rating, lose and you lose Elo, highest Elo rating at the end of the day is the highest rank.


    So, the player, who fights more battles and does more refreshes will always rank first? Even if he always fights the weakest team in his range? And instead of a 1 hour stress a day you will have a 24h stress if you want to be competitive? No thanx. And no, it would definately NOT work out as what you originaly proposed.
  • "Silentbobus;c-1497899" wrote:
    "Waqui;c-1497771" wrote:
    "Silentbobus;c-1497541" wrote:
    "leef;c-1497216" wrote:

    Right, so how would that work in the sytem you proposed?


    Getting first place under the system I proposed would take strategy, tactics, intuition and would make it exceptionally difficult (although not impossible) for players to collude.


    It would also take a great deal of luck. As someone already pointed out earlier:
    With your system, you rank 5th, fight for 1st place, win, and then still be ranked 5th afterwards. This type of randomness is a spoiler in arenas. In the current system this kind of randomness doesn't exist.



    Thinking back, all of the others used Elo so I would imagine that is the easiest to implement. You beat someone, you get a higher Elo rating, lose and you lose Elo, highest Elo rating at the end of the day is the highest rank. In practice it would work out much the same to what I was originally proposing because beating someone who got knocked down while you were beating them would net you less points, but the effect wouldn't be as dramatic.


    Elo, if I'm not mistaken, is a skill based ranking system. As has been pointed out several times there is no skill involved in arena. It would either need to be made true (live) PvP or, at the very least, have a vastly improved defensive AI to use Elo. Otherwise it'll just be whoever battles must (spends the most crystals on refreshes).
  • "Silentbobus;c-1497541" wrote:
    "leef;c-1497216" wrote:
    "Silentbobus;c-1497197" wrote:
    Who are these teams holding on defense that you speak of? :smile:

    There are teams that I can't beat in the top 20 of my arena, but it's because they are 3 levels ahead of me, have only 7 star characters and are clearly whales. I'm lucky the majority of them aren't in my time bracket or I wouldn't be able to finish in the top 5 as I do now. I'm sure any one of them would be able to beat any of the non-whales on both offense and defense because they have objectively good teams. Yet they don't stay in 1st place indefinitely because every phone / tablet game is tipped towards offense or people wouldn't play them. There's really no way to hold position if people pick you as their target. The best you can do is play a team that looks like it could win on defense and hope that deters people from picking you.


    Right, so how would that work in the sytem you proposed?


    Getting first place under the system I proposed would take strategy, tactics, intuition and would make it exceptionally difficult (although not impossible) for players to collude. To do well you'd want to build a team that could defeat the other top teams in your time slot quickly, but couldn't be beaten by any of them. Your goal each night would be to defeat the team that was in first place (at the point you beat them) with not enough time on the clock for any other team to beat you. What makes it more interesting is that someone could already be battling you at the point you started your battle and the person you battle could end up getting beaten by someone else if you take too long to take them down. So it would also come down to correctly predicting who to battle and when to complete your win.

    Overall I think the new system would be a lot of fun. Much more active and interesting than the current one. It would reward active players, which I think is good, and would it impossible for a group of players to prevent others from playing the game, which is the main reason I proposed it. Overall I think it would also be a better system than the one in place now, in the sense that the better teams /players would be more likely to end up in the top spots.


    I'm impressed, your dodging skills are amazing.
    There's no difference in how well your team does on defence compared to others, that's the main issue i've got with the system you proposed.
    If lets say 30 players out of the top50 have to avoid my team because they can't consistandly beat it, i'll currently drop less on defence than a team that is no one in the top50 avoids.
    With the system you proposed that is no longer the case, as long as someone can beat a higher ranked team, the team they have to avoid will still drop rank. So there's not difference between a team that no one has to avoid and a team that quite a few players have to avoid as far as holding rank better. That's a dealbreaker imo.




  • "jhbuchholz;c-1498071" wrote:
    "Silentbobus;c-1497899" wrote:
    "Waqui;c-1497771" wrote:
    "Silentbobus;c-1497541" wrote:
    "leef;c-1497216" wrote:

    Right, so how would that work in the sytem you proposed?


    Getting first place under the system I proposed would take strategy, tactics, intuition and would make it exceptionally difficult (although not impossible) for players to collude.


    It would also take a great deal of luck. As someone already pointed out earlier:
    With your system, you rank 5th, fight for 1st place, win, and then still be ranked 5th afterwards. This type of randomness is a spoiler in arenas. In the current system this kind of randomness doesn't exist.



    Thinking back, all of the others used Elo so I would imagine that is the easiest to implement. You beat someone, you get a higher Elo rating, lose and you lose Elo, highest Elo rating at the end of the day is the highest rank. In practice it would work out much the same to what I was originally proposing because beating someone who got knocked down while you were beating them would net you less points, but the effect wouldn't be as dramatic.


    Elo, if I'm not mistaken, is a skill based ranking system. As has been pointed out several times there is no skill involved in arena. It would either need to be made true (live) PvP or, at the very least, have a vastly improved defensive AI to use Elo. Otherwise it'll just be whoever battles must (spends the most crystals on refreshes).


    I had thought most people were familiar with Elo. Here is the wikipedia:
    The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in zero-sum games such as chess. It is named after its creator Arpad Elo, a Hungarian-American physics professor.

    The Elo system was originally invented as an improved chess rating system, but is also used as a rating system for multiplayer competition in a number of video games, association football, American football, basketball, Major League Baseball, Scrabble, board games such as Diplomacy and other games.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

    The games I've played that used it at one point that first come to mind are Starcraft, Clash of Clans, Clash Royale and Magic.

    I haven't played any of those lately, but the one that seems like the best match to SWGOH is Clash of Clans.


  • What's the point of ELO when it's not even Live PVP? To see your "skill" against dumb computer AI?
  • "Silentbobus;c-1498096" wrote:
    "jhbuchholz;c-1498071" wrote:
    "Silentbobus;c-1497899" wrote:
    "Waqui;c-1497771" wrote:
    "Silentbobus;c-1497541" wrote:
    "leef;c-1497216" wrote:

    Right, so how would that work in the sytem you proposed?


    Getting first place under the system I proposed would take strategy, tactics, intuition and would make it exceptionally difficult (although not impossible) for players to collude.


    It would also take a great deal of luck. As someone already pointed out earlier:
    With your system, you rank 5th, fight for 1st place, win, and then still be ranked 5th afterwards. This type of randomness is a spoiler in arenas. In the current system this kind of randomness doesn't exist.



    Thinking back, all of the others used Elo so I would imagine that is the easiest to implement. You beat someone, you get a higher Elo rating, lose and you lose Elo, highest Elo rating at the end of the day is the highest rank. In practice it would work out much the same to what I was originally proposing because beating someone who got knocked down while you were beating them would net you less points, but the effect wouldn't be as dramatic.


    Elo, if I'm not mistaken, is a skill based ranking system. As has been pointed out several times there is no skill involved in arena. It would either need to be made true (live) PvP or, at the very least, have a vastly improved defensive AI to use Elo. Otherwise it'll just be whoever battles must (spends the most crystals on refreshes).


    I had thought most people were familiar with Elo. Here is the wikipedia:
    The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in zero-sum games such as chess. It is named after its creator Arpad Elo, a Hungarian-American physics professor.

    The Elo system was originally invented as an improved chess rating system, but is also used as a rating system for multiplayer competition in a number of video games, association football, American football, basketball, Major League Baseball, Scrabble, board games such as Diplomacy and other games.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

    The games I've played that used it at one point that first come to mind are Starcraft, Clash of Clans, Clash Royale and Magic.

    I haven't played any of those lately, but the one that seems like the best match to SWGOH is Clash of Clans.




    Thanks. It's exactly what I thought it was. My point stands. There is no skill involved in SWGoH Arena. There is no easy fix for arena until skill becomes part of it (i.e. live PvP or vastly improved defensive AI).
  • "Silentbobus;c-1498096" wrote:

    I haven't played any of those lately, but the one that seems like the best match to SWGOH is Clash of Clans.




    clash of clans has a better ranking system than swgoh in your opinion? Granted, it has been a while since i've played, but trophyhunting/cuprunning was only a thing you could do temporarily, otherwise you'd burn out real quick. Time consuming as fudge.
    Also, mucho collusion at the top levels, cheap shielding eachother and what not.