Fixing Squad Arena

"Kyno;c-1210074" wrote:

"DziNeIT;c-1209773" wrote:

"Kyno;c-1208964" wrote:

"DziNeIT;c-1208876" wrote:

Also, I have laid out a solution which would enable CG to fix the problems without significantly discouraging spending on the game. Neither you nor I can truly say how my solution would impact that, because we don't know. The devs can do research on a wider scale and determine what impacts it would have, and if they find it to be damaging to their revenues that's ok, but there's simply no way to know unless they do some research on it.

There are issues with a solution like this that would need to be fixed, and make this very bad as far as losing the current player base.

• In a shuffle, who get first? people would not like to go from 1st to 100 in a shuffle
  
• how do you shuffle, how do you deal with payout hour stacking? is it fair for someone to go from 3 at payout to 25?
  
• some sort of mechanism would need to be implemented to flag a potential cheater (that ones easy)
  
• in a single or infrequent shuffle this will hurt f2p that started 6 months ago vs 18 months ago. this is why time is used in the current shard sort. start time is the really only fair way to sort IMO
  
• P2P have payed to have an advantage and taking that away by changing their shard would discourage them from paying any more because the value would change at each shuffle.
  

There are other issues, but a shard shuffle creates a lot of issues that could destroy the current player base

Sure, there are issues, but I think they could be worked around. I would opt for fairly frequent shards, with crystal rewards (but not arena currency) scaling with the relative difficulty of the shard as well as with place on the shard to allow those such as P2P players to continue to gain value from paying.

Ranking players upon switches is definitely the biggest issue, but the issue can be mitigated by people switching shards immediately upon receiving rewards on the day of the switch, and by my other suggestion of allowing people to jump more positions per battle. There are, of course, further things to look into. And there are also other possible solutions. I just hope my ideas will start some form of dialogue on the clear issue the game faces.

The larger range of sniping is a horrible idea. Its bad enough going from 1 to 5, never mind 1 to 15.

shuffling shards will cost them P2P so i just dont think anyone will buy into this.

for all the reasons i listed too it becomes a hugely complex system for F2p and p2p and many new players will not get into it.

there is also no way to effectively rate a shard (except by age like it is now).

Agree that larger jumps is just an awful idea, for a variety of reasons.

But, on the other hand, a shard reshuffle is possible even if there would be some inconvenience caused for a few days. You could certainly mitigate that as much as possible with some planning. The bottom line is collusion, in general & not just negative, will be the downfall of this game. It's unavoidable. It needs to be addressed sooner than later because it's only going to get worse as shards age & time equalizes... "good collusion" will quickly become "negative collusion" once there are too many players to make it plausible & worthwhile for everyone. This is already happening on many shards. The same 8 to 10 names in the top 10 virtually all day assures you're in a negative collusion shard. Once someone's payout passes & they continue to sit in those ranks, helped by colluding with the other familiars, they are effectively blocking others payouts. And they're especially discouraging & blocking newer top teams from entering... because if that's allowed then that's even more ppl the pie needs to be split between... this just is not a sustainable system.