Should Arena be a Ladder?

Niza_Squirell

I've always thought Arena should be arranged like a ladder competition.

e.g. if #5 attacks and beats #1, 5->1->2->3->4->5 in a cycle (rather than just switching)

I'm just wondering if there are any unforeseen downsides to this?

sying

You’re saying if I’m sitting at 2 and you beat 1 I would move to 3?

No. Just plain no. If four players at a payout ahead of mine all go for even just the top four spots, and I’m sitting at 8 already, none of them even battle me I will still be pushed back many spots. How would that benefit anyone?

Just because people don’t like being pushed from 1st to 5th doesn’t mean that the 2, 3, and 4 spots need to be punished.

crzydroid

So you're saying everyone just gets bumped down one?

The problem with this is that your arena score could tank a lot, because your rank isn't jjust being lowered by those who battle you, but also by every single battle where a rank above you changes. And as you lower in rank, the number of battles taking place above you increases.

C0LIN_OF_JEDAH

Most guilds and also arena players are on a discord chat..much easier to share the wealth that way.. its far from perfect but with only 5 battles a day it will haveto do

Antares

Somehow, I like that idea. But it's not going to be implemented. Arena will stay as is for a long time.

Asic

Sounds like tournaments. No thanks.

cannon_fodder

How about instead of a single payout time, there's a payout window and your payout is based on the highest rank you achieved within that window, not your rank at that specific payout time. A one hour window seems more than reasonably. Would save a lot of people a lot of time. Of course, it would be a massive crystal give away, but it would really make the player base happy!

Bt_7274

Nope

GreenGoblin96

crzydroid wrote: »

So you're saying everyone just gets bumped down one?

The problem with this is that your arena score could tank a lot, because your rank isn't jjust being lowered by those who battle you, but also by every single battle where a rank above you changes. And as you lower in rank, the number of battles taking place above you increases.

This is not what he means. It would only happen if the attacker is below you and beats someone above you. I still don't like the idea, though

Allenb60

this would be a nice change, gets rid of inactive players

crzydroid

GreenGoblin96 wrote: »

crzydroid wrote: »

So you're saying everyone just gets bumped down one?

The problem with this is that your arena score could tank a lot, because your rank isn't jjust being lowered by those who battle you, but also by every single battle where a rank above you changes. And as you lower in rank, the number of battles taking place above you increases.

This is not what he means. It would only happen if the attacker is below you and beats someone above you. I still don't like the idea, though

Well, yes, but there is still the potential for a leap frogging effect here. If you get bumped down one, then that's one more rank lower that the person above you is visible to.

Niza_Squirell

Taking all your comments into consideration, the main stumbling block is that you would fall even if you weren't participating in the current match.

But given that arena is currently set up so that no team can hold on defence, wouldn't this be a welcome change?

For one, It should reduce the effect of sniping in high arena as you will only fall to second rather than fifth. Which I think everyone would agree is a good thing

Dundadarr

It would eliminate most of the value of a good defensive team as people can just go round you to drop you in rank rather than have to beat you

Gaidal_Cain

This is a terrible idea.

There are many times where I will take top 1-3 in my payout hour and after 20 hours only drop to rank 10-15.

There are at least 30 different people contending for top 5 before and after my payout.

I could get knocked into the 30's or higher and I wouldn't even have to get attacked for that to happen.