How to improve PvP
So, PvP kind of sucks in this game.
Prior to introducing PROTECTION, RNG was huge in deciding who could win or lose games. That could be incredibly frustrating. Post PROTECTION, you should be winning 90+% of your battles, as you're given a cushion to soften the blow of inauspicious RNG, and the AI in this game is pretty poor.
It also does not help that you have a finite amount of battles per day before you have to use crystals to refresh your turns. I find that this leads to people feeling like they have to slavishly follow around the meta, and it does not permit people much creative freedom in their squad composition, if they also wish to be successful. It encourages many to just fight very similarly composed teams day-in day-out that they know they can easily beat (for example, around 90% of my battles are against droid teams, as the current meta easily dispatches droid teams, and I'm on the meta like white on rice).
What is really needed is a way of giving you some say over organising your team's 'defense' (i.e. the battles your team fights when you are AFK). What I would propose is greater customisation to your arena squad, whereby you are given a set number of slots into which you can 'drop' that number of characters from the game's roster. The slots will be numbered (say, #1-5), and this will prioritise which characters your squad will attack first when you are attacked. An example:
1) QGJ
2) Rey
...
5) Ugnaught
When you are attacked, if your attacker has QGJ in his squad, then your team will focus on QGJ whenever they can. Then, should they defeat him, they will move on to the next player, Rey, and focus their attacks on her, and so on.
If your attacker does not have QGJ in his/ her attacking team, then your team will choose to focus on Rey first, instead, should your attacker possess this character.
This would add a tactical dimension to the game that is currently missing, and give your team a fighting chance when you logged-off. Furthermore, if the number of slots is kept to around 5, and your attacker does not possess any of the characters in your list, then your team goes back to the AI we all know and love (i.e. garbage). The beauty of this is that it adds a further tactical element to the PvP: if I know that 5-10 players are really strong in the current meta, and they are going to almost definitely be on most players's DPL (Defensive Priority List), then what if I 'break' the meta and play with characters that are not likely to be on someone's list? It may give me an advantage over the defending squad. This might encourage players to farm characters that they WANT to farm, and not those that they feel they need to in order to stay within touching distance of the higher arena rankings (and the better rewards).
----
I would also recommend getting rid of the finite amount of battles that each player is given each day prior to a refresh with crystals. For very many people - maybe most - the reason why they have been farming shards, completing dailies, putting themselves through GW ... for the last several months is so that they can have a kick **** team to fight with in the PvP Arena. For me, it's the best part of the game; paradoxically, it's also the worst.
I think that players should be given as many battles as they wish, but with a CD before they can next fight. They could gain medals for winning battles, and lose medals for defeats, the amount of which can be based upon your opponents power rating, how well you do in the battle, etc. For example, in games such as Clash of Clans and EA's own SW Commander, you get a battle ranking out of 3 stars depending on how you perform, and the amount of stars you gain is reflected in how many of the available medals you win...
... you already have this system in place in this game for PvE:
- 3* win without losing an squad member
- 2* win but lose one squad member
- 1* win but lose two squad members
This could be readily implemented into the PvP. Instead of finishing 3 Arena battles to complete a daily, you could have to gain 10 stars in Arena battles, instead.
----
Finally, I would get rid of the current rankings, as they're somewhat meaningless when your team could decrease massively in rank not by being beaten, but simply by being leapt over. A far better system could be implemented based upon how many medals you have, putting you in various leagues. Being in the MASTER league, or working your way up from the NERF-HERDER league would be so much more awesome than the current, meaningless, ranking system that punishes innovation, and curtails what - for many - should be the best part of the game.
----
My apologies for the length of this post. I hope some of you find these ideas interesting, and feel free to leave your thoughts for improvements, or just to say that it's a terrible idea
Cheers.
Prior to introducing PROTECTION, RNG was huge in deciding who could win or lose games. That could be incredibly frustrating. Post PROTECTION, you should be winning 90+% of your battles, as you're given a cushion to soften the blow of inauspicious RNG, and the AI in this game is pretty poor.
It also does not help that you have a finite amount of battles per day before you have to use crystals to refresh your turns. I find that this leads to people feeling like they have to slavishly follow around the meta, and it does not permit people much creative freedom in their squad composition, if they also wish to be successful. It encourages many to just fight very similarly composed teams day-in day-out that they know they can easily beat (for example, around 90% of my battles are against droid teams, as the current meta easily dispatches droid teams, and I'm on the meta like white on rice).
What is really needed is a way of giving you some say over organising your team's 'defense' (i.e. the battles your team fights when you are AFK). What I would propose is greater customisation to your arena squad, whereby you are given a set number of slots into which you can 'drop' that number of characters from the game's roster. The slots will be numbered (say, #1-5), and this will prioritise which characters your squad will attack first when you are attacked. An example:
1) QGJ
2) Rey
...
5) Ugnaught
When you are attacked, if your attacker has QGJ in his squad, then your team will focus on QGJ whenever they can. Then, should they defeat him, they will move on to the next player, Rey, and focus their attacks on her, and so on.
If your attacker does not have QGJ in his/ her attacking team, then your team will choose to focus on Rey first, instead, should your attacker possess this character.
This would add a tactical dimension to the game that is currently missing, and give your team a fighting chance when you logged-off. Furthermore, if the number of slots is kept to around 5, and your attacker does not possess any of the characters in your list, then your team goes back to the AI we all know and love (i.e. garbage). The beauty of this is that it adds a further tactical element to the PvP: if I know that 5-10 players are really strong in the current meta, and they are going to almost definitely be on most players's DPL (Defensive Priority List), then what if I 'break' the meta and play with characters that are not likely to be on someone's list? It may give me an advantage over the defending squad. This might encourage players to farm characters that they WANT to farm, and not those that they feel they need to in order to stay within touching distance of the higher arena rankings (and the better rewards).
----
I would also recommend getting rid of the finite amount of battles that each player is given each day prior to a refresh with crystals. For very many people - maybe most - the reason why they have been farming shards, completing dailies, putting themselves through GW ... for the last several months is so that they can have a kick **** team to fight with in the PvP Arena. For me, it's the best part of the game; paradoxically, it's also the worst.
I think that players should be given as many battles as they wish, but with a CD before they can next fight. They could gain medals for winning battles, and lose medals for defeats, the amount of which can be based upon your opponents power rating, how well you do in the battle, etc. For example, in games such as Clash of Clans and EA's own SW Commander, you get a battle ranking out of 3 stars depending on how you perform, and the amount of stars you gain is reflected in how many of the available medals you win...
... you already have this system in place in this game for PvE:
- 3* win without losing an squad member
- 2* win but lose one squad member
- 1* win but lose two squad members
This could be readily implemented into the PvP. Instead of finishing 3 Arena battles to complete a daily, you could have to gain 10 stars in Arena battles, instead.
----
Finally, I would get rid of the current rankings, as they're somewhat meaningless when your team could decrease massively in rank not by being beaten, but simply by being leapt over. A far better system could be implemented based upon how many medals you have, putting you in various leagues. Being in the MASTER league, or working your way up from the NERF-HERDER league would be so much more awesome than the current, meaningless, ranking system that punishes innovation, and curtails what - for many - should be the best part of the game.
----
My apologies for the length of this post. I hope some of you find these ideas interesting, and feel free to leave your thoughts for improvements, or just to say that it's a terrible idea
Cheers. 0
Reply to this topic