i wonder about the possibility of basing rewards on your highest rank over the past 24 hours instead of the rank at a singular time. if they did that, payout time wouldn't matter, and sniping and such wouldn't be an issue.
the answer from the Q&A Dr_Alan_Grant: Is there any thought about having a players highest rank throughout the day count for their payout?
[NR] The answer is no. This sort of system ultimately doesn't reward the play pattern we believe drives competition, which is players should battle for the top spot at a specific payout time. This also likely facilitates collusion behavior that we think is detrimental to the game.
The problem is this happens in all shards already, it's being "denied" as detrimental to the game, yet the current method facilitates just as much collusion right now! I don't get what the difference is?
I also made a post about a PVE option, which, would prevent collusion, because well, it's PVE =p.
They want competition, but with the number of threads and calls for changing the arenas as there are, it doesn't seem like a whole lot of competition.
The current design doesn't discourage collusion, in fact, it encourages it just as much as the "highest in 24 hours". Maybe even more so because you have to "defend" your spot.
Absent changing how the arenas work, there probably isn't a good way to discourage nor prevent collusion.
My PVE idea would at least give people a chance at some better rewards, even if they can't get the "top of the shard" rewards.
But as you said PvE is not PvP. There are probably just as many posts about live PvP as there are about arena changes, so you can't deny that people want to play another person, or at least their team and not face a fancy version of GW or a raid type situation.
After this link is hidden in a comment in a video and was initially supposed an exclusive to some subscriber channel an amazing 270 people have seen it so far. Thanks for exceptional information policy CG!
But as you said PvE is not PvP. There are probably just as many posts about live PvP as there are about arena changes, so you can't deny that people want to play another person, or at least their team and not face a fancy version of GW or a raid type situation.
I agree, there are desires for "live" competition, but I think a lot of people (especially those stuck high in a shard for one reason or another) would also like an alternative.
The arena is not PVP. You can dress it all up you want, but all it is a ranked version of GW (in a sense.)
You're still fighting the game, not the person. It's PVE with a set rank.
Believe me, I'm no advocate for live PVP, I wouldn't care if they added it for the people who are.
As long as there's a method for me to play how I want, which is sans "PVP".
The problem I have with arena is there are a lot of important characters and such that require you to do "decent" in the arena. Seriously, to farm 1 character from 0 to 330 already takes around 60 days if you can only get about 400 arena tokens a day.
If you read my proposal, I don't say to "get rid" of the arena as it is now. Just an alternative method to obtaining rewards in a similar fashion that doesn't hose over other people. You still have to do the battles, you still have to "try", it's still "competitive" because you're still fighting the "player" groups.
But as you said PvE is not PvP. There are probably just as many posts about live PvP as there are about arena changes, so you can't deny that people want to play another person, or at least their team and not face a fancy version of GW or a raid type situation.
I agree, there are desires for "live" competition, but I think a lot of people (especially those stuck high in a shard for one reason or another) would also like an alternative.
The arena is not PVP. You can dress it all up you want, but all it is a ranked version of GW (in a sense.)
You're still fighting the game, not the person. It's PVE with a set rank.
Believe me, I'm no advocate for live PVP, I wouldn't care if they added it for the people who are.
As long as there's a method for me to play how I want, which is sans "PVP".
The problem I have with arena is there are a lot of important characters and such that require you to do "decent" in the arena. Seriously, to farm 1 character from 0 to 330 already takes around 60 days if you can only get about 400 arena tokens a day.
If you read my proposal, I don't say to "get rid" of the arena as it is now. Just an alternative method to obtaining rewards in a similar fashion that doesn't hose over other people. You still have to do the battles, you still have to "try", it's still "competitive" because you're still fighting the "player" groups.
I'm just trying to give people opportunity to advance without messing with other people, but still leave some necessary work.
The point of the payout is to incentivize people to want to do better, and if they choose to spend $$ to make it happen. This doesn't mean it can't be done without $$, you just have to be more on point with everything you do.
The part that is PvP is you are playing player made teams picked by the player in that moment, which makes it different than GW.
I have ready your post, (I read alot), the issue is that the progression is supposed to be slow. The lack of dev interference in who you battle is what makes it a good system for both the dev team and the player base.
The game system is designed to take time and offer a way for those who can pay to speed up that time. It is the basic principle of many games. It's not for everyone but, they are not likely to abandon it, especially in the one game mode that is the driving force for development in a "timely manner".
Right, but I never asked for them to abandon, but supplement. By putting restrictions on the maximum value you can earn in the alternative, it still incentives people to play the existing arena to get to the top of the shard.
You state it like it's zero sum, one or the other, which isn't what I'd advocate at all.
But, it also gives people a method to earn "decent" rewards. My alternative doesn't "speed" up people that much. It's still going to take weeks to obtain characters/ships. In fact, it might incentivize people to spend more crystals to get to the top of the ladder for that day if they can't get to the top of their shard.
It's a balance between slow progression and turning off people. If I wasn't a Star Wars fan, I'd probably have dropped this game like a hot potato because the progression is slower than Everquest, and if you never played early EQ days, that progression was horribly slow.
The problem is this happens in all shards already, it's being "denied" as detrimental to the game, yet the current method facilitates just as much collusion right now! I don't get what the difference is?
I also made a post about a PVE option, which, would prevent collusion, because well, it's PVE =p.
They want competition, but with the number of threads and calls for changing the arenas as there are, it doesn't seem like a whole lot of competition.
The current design doesn't discourage collusion, in fact, it encourages it just as much as the "highest in 24 hours". Maybe even more so because you have to "defend" your spot.
Absent changing how the arenas work, there probably isn't a good way to discourage nor prevent collusion.
My PVE idea would at least give people a chance at some better rewards, even if they can't get the "top of the shard" rewards.
exactly. the current system is at least as collusive as what they're afraid alternatives would be. basing rewards on highest rank for the day eliminates a lot of frustration. naturally multiple people would get rank 1 payout, but why is that a problem?
let's say hypothetically (very much so) that i'm rank 1 on my board. someone beats me and takes that spot. i then beat them and take it back. payout time rolls around and i get the higher payout. did i earn that? i didn't do any better than the other guy; we beat each other's squads. essentially we tied, so why shouldn't we get the same reward? the current system becomes less about competition regarding whose squad is superior, but rather about who is more available at payout time. i very much hope that is not the sort of competition they wish to foster.
alternatively we could give people the option of claiming their prize manually any time they wish, once per day. once you've reached the highest rank you think you'll get, go ahead and cash out, as it were. if you'd rather wait and try to place higher, feel free to do so, knowing you risk sliding down in the rankings.
The problem is this happens in all shards already, it's being "denied" as detrimental to the game, yet the current method facilitates just as much collusion right now! I don't get what the difference is?
I also made a post about a PVE option, which, would prevent collusion, because well, it's PVE =p.
They want competition, but with the number of threads and calls for changing the arenas as there are, it doesn't seem like a whole lot of competition.
The current design doesn't discourage collusion, in fact, it encourages it just as much as the "highest in 24 hours". Maybe even more so because you have to "defend" your spot.
Absent changing how the arenas work, there probably isn't a good way to discourage nor prevent collusion.
My PVE idea would at least give people a chance at some better rewards, even if they can't get the "top of the shard" rewards.
exactly. the current system is at least as collusive as what they're afraid alternatives would be. basing rewards on highest rank for the day eliminates a lot of frustration. naturally multiple people would get rank 1 payout, but why is that a problem?
let's say hypothetically (very much so) that i'm rank 1 on my board. someone beats me and takes that spot. i then beat them and take it back. payout time rolls around and i get the higher payout. did i earn that? i didn't do any better than the other guy; we beat each other's squads. essentially we tied, so why shouldn't we get the same reward? the current system becomes less about competition regarding whose squad is superior, but rather about who is more available at payout time. i very much hope that is not the sort of competition they wish to foster.
alternatively we could give people the option of claiming their prize manually any time they wish, once per day. once you've reached the highest rank you think you'll get, go ahead and cash out, as it were. if you'd rather wait and try to place higher, feel free to do so, knowing you risk sliding down in the rankings.
You didn't tie, that's why you shouldn't get the same reward. I can be first at some point in a marathon, this doesn't mean that I should get the same reward as someone who finished the race 1st when I finished last. It's not about being in 1st at some point it's about being there when it matters.
Increasing the number of PO, devalues the reward, there is less advantage to being 1st, if more people are claiming that prize.
i assert the race analogy doesn't apply; you're not competing at the same time continuously as you would be in a race. you're taking turns competing. and a race ends as soon as one person crosses the finish line, not at an arbitrary time. this is more like saying "whoever is leading the race at 2pm is the winner." if two people beat each other's squads, neither has done better than the other.
and yes more people getting a reward makes it inherently less valuable, but only as a positional good, i.e. as bragging rights. the actual rewards (tokens/crystals) retain just as much value and buy just as much regardless how many people get them.
i assert the race analogy doesn't apply; you're not competing at the same time continuously as you would be in a race. you're taking turns competing. and a race ends as soon as one person crosses the finish line, not at an arbitrary time. this is more like saying "whoever is leading the race at 2pm is the winner." if two people beat each other's squads, neither has done better than the other.
and yes more people getting a reward makes it inherently less valuable, but only as a positional good, i.e. as bragging rights. the actual rewards (tokens/crystals) retain just as much value and buy just as much regardless how many people get them.
I think its fitting. It's not exact, but as stated you have 24 hours to ge to the best position you can from the last day, you are racing the clock.
Also if you think of a race for everyone not in first, the race basically ends when the person in front of you wins. You literally cannot do any better then that, from that point on. If there person finishes an hour ahead of you, you are 3rd no matter what you do, unless you lose to someone else. It's kinda fitting in many ways.
if that were the case, the "race" would end as soon as someone took the top spot. racing the clock means taking a certain position by a certain time, not at a certain time.
ultimately that's all tangential. my contention remains with the equity of the rewards. to reward players with reciprocally beatable squads based on an arbitrary time is to reward based not on the strength of their squads or in their skill at commanding them, but rather their availability at that time. if that is truly CG's intended design, then i can but shake my head in disbelief. if it is not, and if a tie breaker is necessary, then they can come to the conclusion that there are more equitable alternatives to a set time of day.
if that were the case, the "race" would end as soon as someone took the top spot. racing the clock means taking a certain position by a certain time, not at a certain time.
ultimately that's all tangential. my contention remains with the equity of the rewards. to reward players with reciprocally beatable squads based on an arbitrary time is to reward based not on the strength of their squads or in their skill at commanding them, but rather their availability at that time. if that is truly CG's intended design, then i can but shake my head in disbelief. if it is not, and if a tie breaker is necessary, then they can come to the conclusion that there are more equitable alternatives to a set time of day.
if my team is stronger or i have a better mastery of my squad and how it interacts with my opponent then i can beat my opponent faster and more reliably. this allows me to play chicken to the last minute to win my PO, This is strategy both about the game and not. I agree the timing could be better for PO, but its not solely about availability.
certainly, and i'm not against that, which brings us back to the collusion which they ostensibly denounce but ultimately encourage
not necessarily true. many people suggest changes that are either not enough or change the whole game mode. there is no "real" solution that both preserves the game mode and changes the current SOP. I'm sure many would jump on board if you could find that solution but currently that doesn't exist.
certainly, and i'm not against that, which brings us back to the collusion which they ostensibly denounce but ultimately encourage
not necessarily true. many people suggest changes that are either not enough or change the whole game mode. there is no "real" solution that both preserves the game mode and changes the current SOP. I'm sure many would jump on board if you could find that solution but currently that doesn't exist.
I agree with you that it's not necessarily true that they actively encourage it. But, they don't discourage it either. It's more "neutral". Perhaps they would rather not have it, but perhaps they just view it as a "lesser" of a problem than a segment of the playerbase.
In terms of diluting of rewards, I'm sure you're aware that the shard chats do exist where people actively take turns "getting #1"? For example, there are 10 people in the top 10. Most of them have different pay out times. They actively let the other people beat them (I don't know by switching squads, removing mods, etc) so they get #1 in their payout.
I've seen shards where 10+ people are getting #1 payout because they help each other out to do so and actively repel advancement of others.
You also cannot deny that these same shard chats have "hit lists" of people to actively attack, not to advance, but for the sole purpose of trolling them. I.e., I'm #12, I _could_ attack #10, but he's a collusionmate, and #11 is on the "hit list", so I attack him just because I can.
That's why some of us are arguing for a change to the system in the least game altering way to address these types of issues. Having best rank obtained by payout still preserves "competition", but doesn't really materially devaluate anything. Those 10 people mentioned above are going to get #1 regardless. The only time this doesn't happen is if multiple people share the same payout. Even then, they collude in the fashion of "I get it 3 times this week, you get it 4. Next week we switch and I get it 4, you get it 3."
All of us proposing ideas know that these ideas may not be the "best", but they foster discussion to get people thinking about solving the problem with being the least detrimental to the "spirit" of what the design was intended.
If there wasn't a problem, people wouldn't be continuously talking about.
This is exactly what is bothering me since I entered squad/fleet arena. The payout times do correlate with the "bring the children to bed" times. I could make it to top 50/10 respectively if I had the 30 to 45 minutes before payout to actually fight some battles.
While we are at this: it would also be awesome if the store/shipments refresh at 1 a.m. would move to 22 p.m. like the refresh for the fleet store. Seriously...who with a job and kids is awake in between 1 a.m. and 7 a.m?
This is exactly what is bothering me since I entered squad/fleet arena. The payout times do correlate with the "bring the children to bed" times. I could make it to top 50/10 respectively if I had the 30 to 45 minutes before payout to actually fight some battles.
While we are at this: it would also be awesome if the store/shipments refresh at 1 a.m. would move to 22 p.m. like the refresh for the fleet store. Seriously...who with a job and kids is awake in between 1 a.m. and 7 a.m?
Some people have to wake up at 6 am to make sure they can get the kids ready and themselves ready to make it to work on time.... the 12 to 6 is rough for me. Right now I hit all 4 refreshes.
The problem is this happens in all shards already, it's being "denied" as detrimental to the game, yet the current method facilitates just as much collusion right now! I don't get what the difference is?
I also made a post about a PVE option, which, would prevent collusion, because well, it's PVE =p.
They want competition, but with the number of threads and calls for changing the arenas as there are, it doesn't seem like a whole lot of competition.
The current design doesn't discourage collusion, in fact, it encourages it just as much as the "highest in 24 hours". Maybe even more so because you have to "defend" your spot.
Absent changing how the arenas work, there probably isn't a good way to discourage nor prevent collusion.
My PVE idea would at least give people a chance at some better rewards, even if they can't get the "top of the shard" rewards.
exactly. the current system is at least as collusive as what they're afraid alternatives would be. basing rewards on highest rank for the day eliminates a lot of frustration. naturally multiple people would get rank 1 payout, but why is that a problem?
let's say hypothetically (very much so) that i'm rank 1 on my board. someone beats me and takes that spot. i then beat them and take it back. payout time rolls around and i get the higher payout. did i earn that? i didn't do any better than the other guy; we beat each other's squads. essentially we tied, so why shouldn't we get the same reward? the current system becomes less about competition regarding whose squad is superior, but rather about who is more available at payout time. i very much hope that is not the sort of competition they wish to foster.
alternatively we could give people the option of claiming their prize manually any time they wish, once per day. once you've reached the highest rank you think you'll get, go ahead and cash out, as it were. if you'd rather wait and try to place higher, feel free to do so, knowing you risk sliding down in the rankings.
You didn't tie, that's why you shouldn't get the same reward. I can be first at some point in a marathon, this doesn't mean that I should get the same reward as someone who finished the race 1st when I finished last. It's not about being in 1st at some point it's about being there when it matters.
Increasing the number of PO, devalues the reward, there is less advantage to being 1st, if more people are claiming that prize.
There is no merit in finish ahead of the person you are competing against for highest payout. Everyone can win against everyone on offence. What kind of achievement can you get from that? It just comes down to how active, how protected (chat) or how much of a nuisance you want to be (refreshes).
I would love to change my arena payout as it does interfere with my personal life home/dinner/family time (we know this isnt going to happen). If i may make a suggestion. How about eliminating the refresh clock so i can do my arena battles back to back to back without having to refresh? I could finish them in 20 minutes as opposed to spending an hour waiting for refreshes.
I would love to change my arena payout as it does interfere with my personal life home/dinner/family time (we know this isnt going to happen). If i may make a suggestion. How about eliminating the refresh clock so i can do my arena battles back to back to back without having to refresh? I could finish them in 20 minutes as opposed to spending an hour waiting for refreshes.
I believe the refreshes are meant to keep you from doing just that.
If you do all of them at once, you can drop ranks quickly, but if there are refreshes, you can stay around the same ran or higher. Forcing refreshes also will goad players into spending crystals to battle again and perhaps even spending money.
I make character kits! Ask me and I will try my best to make one for fun.
i'm going to flog the dead horse here again because i don't want it forgotten. this arena payout system is a constant frustration. i hate arena anyway, and if it were a mode of the game i could simply ignore, i would be doing just that.
it's easy to say "if you don't like it, then don't do it" but that specious logic always bugs me. if giving up a mode of the game you dislike (in a game you mostly like overall) meant sacrificing hundreds of crystals per day, would you do it? the arenas are (arbitrarily i might add) far too valuable to avoid, no matter how bad they are.
therefore if they're going to make arena an essentially essential part of the game, they could at least make it less of a chore. your reward should have nothing to do with when you do your battles, and you shouldn't have to have 2 hours of your day taken over by the 2 arenas in order to get decent rewards from them.
It’s turned from minced meat into purée into atoms by now thanks to you.
What’s smaller than atoms?
Quarks.
Theoretically...
Another idea would be to split each payout into quarters. XX:00 XX:15 XX:30 XX:45 then allow people to change their payout and we can enjoy playing when we want to with far more payout windows, allow more people to feel special and get to the top.
I have a young son, I hate to say it but my Arena/Fleet Arena payout times really mess with my time with him at the end of the day. I am in my shard chat, I have recently gone from being top 50 to top 5 including splitting top spot with 2 fellow shard mates. We collude, we keep people from top spot when our friends are on payout, but the ability to change my payout so I can put my son to bed without a level of frustration would be amazing and we would collude and we would still take top spots when we want. The game promotes divisive game play, we just follow their lead. ***cough*** ***cough*** TB Platoons ***Cough*** ***Cough***
Replies
But as you said PvE is not PvP. There are probably just as many posts about live PvP as there are about arena changes, so you can't deny that people want to play another person, or at least their team and not face a fancy version of GW or a raid type situation.
After this link is hidden in a comment in a video and was initially supposed an exclusive to some subscriber channel an amazing 270 people have seen it so far. Thanks for exceptional information policy CG!
tl:dr: devs say "maybe"
I agree, there are desires for "live" competition, but I think a lot of people (especially those stuck high in a shard for one reason or another) would also like an alternative.
The arena is not PVP. You can dress it all up you want, but all it is a ranked version of GW (in a sense.)
You're still fighting the game, not the person. It's PVE with a set rank.
Believe me, I'm no advocate for live PVP, I wouldn't care if they added it for the people who are.
As long as there's a method for me to play how I want, which is sans "PVP".
The problem I have with arena is there are a lot of important characters and such that require you to do "decent" in the arena. Seriously, to farm 1 character from 0 to 330 already takes around 60 days if you can only get about 400 arena tokens a day.
If you read my proposal, I don't say to "get rid" of the arena as it is now. Just an alternative method to obtaining rewards in a similar fashion that doesn't hose over other people. You still have to do the battles, you still have to "try", it's still "competitive" because you're still fighting the "player" groups.
Here's the post:
https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/165262/pve-option-for-squad-ship-arena#latest
I'm just trying to give people opportunity to advance without messing with other people, but still leave some necessary work.
The point of the payout is to incentivize people to want to do better, and if they choose to spend $$ to make it happen. This doesn't mean it can't be done without $$, you just have to be more on point with everything you do.
The part that is PvP is you are playing player made teams picked by the player in that moment, which makes it different than GW.
I have ready your post, (I read alot), the issue is that the progression is supposed to be slow. The lack of dev interference in who you battle is what makes it a good system for both the dev team and the player base.
The game system is designed to take time and offer a way for those who can pay to speed up that time. It is the basic principle of many games. It's not for everyone but, they are not likely to abandon it, especially in the one game mode that is the driving force for development in a "timely manner".
You state it like it's zero sum, one or the other, which isn't what I'd advocate at all.
But, it also gives people a method to earn "decent" rewards. My alternative doesn't "speed" up people that much. It's still going to take weeks to obtain characters/ships. In fact, it might incentivize people to spend more crystals to get to the top of the ladder for that day if they can't get to the top of their shard.
It's a balance between slow progression and turning off people. If I wasn't a Star Wars fan, I'd probably have dropped this game like a hot potato because the progression is slower than Everquest, and if you never played early EQ days, that progression was horribly slow.
exactly. the current system is at least as collusive as what they're afraid alternatives would be. basing rewards on highest rank for the day eliminates a lot of frustration. naturally multiple people would get rank 1 payout, but why is that a problem?
let's say hypothetically (very much so) that i'm rank 1 on my board. someone beats me and takes that spot. i then beat them and take it back. payout time rolls around and i get the higher payout. did i earn that? i didn't do any better than the other guy; we beat each other's squads. essentially we tied, so why shouldn't we get the same reward? the current system becomes less about competition regarding whose squad is superior, but rather about who is more available at payout time. i very much hope that is not the sort of competition they wish to foster.
alternatively we could give people the option of claiming their prize manually any time they wish, once per day. once you've reached the highest rank you think you'll get, go ahead and cash out, as it were. if you'd rather wait and try to place higher, feel free to do so, knowing you risk sliding down in the rankings.
You didn't tie, that's why you shouldn't get the same reward. I can be first at some point in a marathon, this doesn't mean that I should get the same reward as someone who finished the race 1st when I finished last. It's not about being in 1st at some point it's about being there when it matters.
Increasing the number of PO, devalues the reward, there is less advantage to being 1st, if more people are claiming that prize.
and yes more people getting a reward makes it inherently less valuable, but only as a positional good, i.e. as bragging rights. the actual rewards (tokens/crystals) retain just as much value and buy just as much regardless how many people get them.
I think its fitting. It's not exact, but as stated you have 24 hours to ge to the best position you can from the last day, you are racing the clock.
Also if you think of a race for everyone not in first, the race basically ends when the person in front of you wins. You literally cannot do any better then that, from that point on. If there person finishes an hour ahead of you, you are 3rd no matter what you do, unless you lose to someone else. It's kinda fitting in many ways.
ultimately that's all tangential. my contention remains with the equity of the rewards. to reward players with reciprocally beatable squads based on an arbitrary time is to reward based not on the strength of their squads or in their skill at commanding them, but rather their availability at that time. if that is truly CG's intended design, then i can but shake my head in disbelief. if it is not, and if a tie breaker is necessary, then they can come to the conclusion that there are more equitable alternatives to a set time of day.
if my team is stronger or i have a better mastery of my squad and how it interacts with my opponent then i can beat my opponent faster and more reliably. this allows me to play chicken to the last minute to win my PO, This is strategy both about the game and not. I agree the timing could be better for PO, but its not solely about availability.
you do realise thatpreventing snipers are one of the best things shard chats do?
not necessarily true. many people suggest changes that are either not enough or change the whole game mode. there is no "real" solution that both preserves the game mode and changes the current SOP. I'm sure many would jump on board if you could find that solution but currently that doesn't exist.
I agree with you that it's not necessarily true that they actively encourage it. But, they don't discourage it either. It's more "neutral". Perhaps they would rather not have it, but perhaps they just view it as a "lesser" of a problem than a segment of the playerbase.
In terms of diluting of rewards, I'm sure you're aware that the shard chats do exist where people actively take turns "getting #1"? For example, there are 10 people in the top 10. Most of them have different pay out times. They actively let the other people beat them (I don't know by switching squads, removing mods, etc) so they get #1 in their payout.
I've seen shards where 10+ people are getting #1 payout because they help each other out to do so and actively repel advancement of others.
You also cannot deny that these same shard chats have "hit lists" of people to actively attack, not to advance, but for the sole purpose of trolling them. I.e., I'm #12, I _could_ attack #10, but he's a collusionmate, and #11 is on the "hit list", so I attack him just because I can.
That's why some of us are arguing for a change to the system in the least game altering way to address these types of issues. Having best rank obtained by payout still preserves "competition", but doesn't really materially devaluate anything. Those 10 people mentioned above are going to get #1 regardless. The only time this doesn't happen is if multiple people share the same payout. Even then, they collude in the fashion of "I get it 3 times this week, you get it 4. Next week we switch and I get it 4, you get it 3."
All of us proposing ideas know that these ideas may not be the "best", but they foster discussion to get people thinking about solving the problem with being the least detrimental to the "spirit" of what the design was intended.
If there wasn't a problem, people wouldn't be continuously talking about.
While we are at this: it would also be awesome if the store/shipments refresh at 1 a.m. would move to 22 p.m. like the refresh for the fleet store. Seriously...who with a job and kids is awake in between 1 a.m. and 7 a.m?
Some people have to wake up at 6 am to make sure they can get the kids ready and themselves ready to make it to work on time.... the 12 to 6 is rough for me. Right now I hit all 4 refreshes.
There is no merit in finish ahead of the person you are competing against for highest payout. Everyone can win against everyone on offence. What kind of achievement can you get from that? It just comes down to how active, how protected (chat) or how much of a nuisance you want to be (refreshes).
I believe the refreshes are meant to keep you from doing just that.
If you do all of them at once, you can drop ranks quickly, but if there are refreshes, you can stay around the same ran or higher. Forcing refreshes also will goad players into spending crystals to battle again and perhaps even spending money.
it's easy to say "if you don't like it, then don't do it" but that specious logic always bugs me. if giving up a mode of the game you dislike (in a game you mostly like overall) meant sacrificing hundreds of crystals per day, would you do it? the arenas are (arbitrarily i might add) far too valuable to avoid, no matter how bad they are.
therefore if they're going to make arena an essentially essential part of the game, they could at least make it less of a chore. your reward should have nothing to do with when you do your battles, and you shouldn't have to have 2 hours of your day taken over by the 2 arenas in order to get decent rewards from them.
ok dead horse, as you were.
What’s smaller than atoms?
Quarks.
Theoretically...
Another idea would be to split each payout into quarters. XX:00 XX:15 XX:30 XX:45 then allow people to change their payout and we can enjoy playing when we want to with far more payout windows, allow more people to feel special and get to the top.
I have a young son, I hate to say it but my Arena/Fleet Arena payout times really mess with my time with him at the end of the day. I am in my shard chat, I have recently gone from being top 50 to top 5 including splitting top spot with 2 fellow shard mates. We collude, we keep people from top spot when our friends are on payout, but the ability to change my payout so I can put my son to bed without a level of frustration would be amazing and we would collude and we would still take top spots when we want. The game promotes divisive game play, we just follow their lead. ***cough*** ***cough*** TB Platoons ***Cough*** ***Cough***