Grand Arena Megathread

Replies

  • Boring and demotivating because it's a complete mismatch.
  • Dk_rek
    3299 posts Member
    Kameleonic wrote: »
    Boring and demotivating because it's a complete mismatch.

    Boring and devoid of gameplay even if its not a mismatch...

    Then again 05% of the playerbase with nothing going on prob sit at home and spreadsheet the opponents toons and mods and create simulation battles with action figures...
    Now for those fifteen people this mode is probably a hoot
  • Thank you for the grand arena !! This is such a cool mode !! So far the best to me ! This should be active everytime , and I hope it will be !
  • I enjoyed this exhibition. Allowed me to mix and match squads I never would consider in any other game mode. Now if only my opponent would attack me so I can see if my defense is worth anything...
  • DarkISI
    91 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    Wasn't it said, that the game would automatically set defenses, if you don't?
    I have seen quite a few people now who did not set defenses and now won their matches, because their opponent, who actually chose to participate, got sanctioned for it, because he couldn't make any points on offense ...
    @CG_SBCrumb
  • Gorem
    1185 posts Member
    The GP ranges for squads are too excessive.

    Like, My GP range (I have near 1.9mil GP) Means I have to field 5 teams while still somehow having 5 teams to attack with.

    If I put my five best squads down and he puts his five best squads down, both of us 100% of the time will never beat any squads. I have about 6 good squads and 2 okish ones and from there nothing. I know I can take the three area and then just wait for the win after 24hours if he's put anything good in the bottom one... (he put his arena team there and the rest of his G12 in the other slot).

    And then what, I hit the next GP bracket and suddenly need 2 extra well geared squads because I will be at the bottom of the range of the tier, meaning I have a chance to go up against guys who are hundreds of thousands more GP then me who can field more squads easily.

    I feel like it all could be -1 squad in each bracket and it'd be so much better.
  • Gorem
    1185 posts Member
    Einstein wrote: »
    I'm liking it so far, I just have a question:
    So... if you use a 1 man Squad on Offense, and everything goes perfect (you finish with full health and full protection) you get 64 banners, but if you enter with a full squad you get 60?

    Isn't the difference too little to be even worth it?

    Yeah, when I read that there would be bonus banners for using less in your squad I expected it as well to be actually noticeable. But really winning flawlessly is better since you are only missing out on 4 banners, and you don't risk anything.

    Since winning in the first strike is better 100% of the time. Fail once and you are behind and if both sides are wiped out, you've lost, doesn't even matter if you manage to somehow 1v5 the rest of his/her entire side. (the way you gain banners in this event is terrible).
  • Well, so far this "tutorial" looks like total disaster for me. First try was bugged and suddenly ended before I realized what's going on. In the second try my opponent didn't care to set up defenses (or can't for some reason), so I still doesn't have a clue how this really work. So much for tutorial... I only know it's "like TW" but my guild isn't big enough for TW :smile:.

    And yes, matchmaking based on GP looks like very bad idea for a couple of reasons. Unless both participant has full array of 7 star G12+ units, it mostly show who have more focused roster. So, I have (another one :)) suggestion for matchmaking - in the preview phase, allow new player to select teams which he would use for this event, lock this teams and ONLY THEN do matchmaking based on the selected teams (not entire GP). And also add something like global Elo rating to match players with close rating positions instead of GP in the future.
  • I can see the appeal but this mode isn’t for me. I hate pvp in this game
  • I won't be partaking in anymore GA's. Already facing a cheater. This is why I didn't care for Tournaments back in the day.
  • Can I get a Mortal Kombat Fatality when I play GA? Because I was obliterated...
  • Orcsbane13 wrote: »
    I won't be partaking in anymore GA's. Already facing a cheater. This is why I didn't care for Tournaments back in the day.

    How do you know you are facing a cheater?
  • DarkISI wrote: »
    Orcsbane13 wrote: »
    I won't be partaking in anymore GA's. Already facing a cheater. This is why I didn't care for Tournaments back in the day.

    How do you know you are facing a cheater?

    Right.

    Also I love the little animation when a team is defeated. FALL BACK!
  • Orcsbane13 wrote: »
    I won't be partaking in anymore GA's. Already facing a cheater. This is why I didn't care for Tournaments back in the day.

    Screenshot the profile, inventory, etc. Detail why you believe he is a cheater and send the information to @CG_LucifersDaddy

    We all need to work together to remove the cheaters from the game and this GA event will expose even more of them. They are easy to find (for example, they have a 7 star Thrawn with PS squad of g1, lv 1).
  • Feedback -

    When the opponent does not set any defenses, the victor should still receive the currency for a battle win. 300,000 currency might not seem like much, but that's a lot for players < 1 m GP like me.

  • Grand Arena is working fine for me at the moment. Thanks for fixing the bugs dev's! love this new content
  • Here's the real issue with GA....no TW?
  • Wagg_Dohana
    46 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    Edit; after having posted this I went and did some investigating. Anyone facing an opponent who has no defensive deployments automatically receives the banners from defeated territories which circumvents any potential losses to an opponent who went offense only. My account is 2.1mGP, so 5 squads to deploy. 5x90=450 banners. 390 banners received from what the game determines as 'defeated territories' making a total of 840 banners to yourself.
    Maximum of 64 banners per victory X5 is 320 banners, then add the 390 from destroyed territories totals 710 banners for the opponent.


    This second time around, at least 5 of us from our main guild had opponents who didn't set any defences (even though we were assured that defences would be auto deployed should anyone not deploy in time) and about the same amount of people in our training guild have opponents who have also not set defences.
    This means that we cannot gain any more points than what we received from setting defences. By clearing the two territories alone (for my bracket, I'm at 2.1m GP) that is almost the amount of banners received from a full deployments. Take into account full health, full protection, surviving units, using less than a full squad etc, that gives the opponent the opportunity to surpass the initial defensive banner count without allowing you to gain any further banners from the attack phase. This loophole is unfair gameplay and can be very easily manipulated.
    Either stick to the initial promise of auto-deploying defences for those who don't deploy, or convert these situations into automatic victories for those who took the time to set their defences.
    Post edited by Wagg_Dohana on
  • My GP and opponent's GP are both just above 3.9M

    He's got 40 zetas to my 30

    He's got 52 g12 to my 40.

    Not complaining at all - quite happy to test myself against him.
  • Have to say...personally, I find the whole GA affair boring, same as with TW, but it's also pretty much compulsory if you don't want to risk falling ever further behind.
  • Has anyone sen this:

    Player A sets full defense.
    Player B sets no defense.
    Player B, clears all of Player A's Defense.
    Player A has no one to attack.

    Does Player A get the points for clearing but no bonus points?
    Does Player B get enough points to overcome no defense points and win?
  • DonnieAndFrank
    332 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    ViciousG1 wrote: »
    Has anyone sen this:

    Player A sets full defense.
    Player B sets no defense.
    Player B, clears all of Player A's Defense.
    Player A has no one to attack.

    Does Player A get the points for clearing but no bonus points?
    Does Player B get enough points to overcome no defense points and win?

    max. points for attack < point setting defense, iirc.

    Edit: and I think yes, player A get points for clear territory.
    >:)So what? I want Krell!
  • Matchmaking observation:
    It seems only to only looks at GP when finding match ups. That is - as many others have stated a horrible system to base the match ups on exclusively. It does not factor meta teams in. At all. People with no Revan should never battle people with him.That said, I think there is an even bigger problem, and one that has way less $$$ at stake (meaning it is way more likely to get solved).
    You cannot get a fair fight between a day 1 player and a player that started way later - if their GP is the same. The later will have a way more tight, optimized and "modern" roster. I think this is the biggest issue with the match makings, and also the most unfair as noone can affect it (I could "just" buy Revan, I cannot change when I began playing). Fortunately it is data GC have and it could be fairly easy to take into account.
    Let try to illustrate this with an example:
    Assign each day that separate the players with a GP value, like '1000 GP'. So if player A have a GP of 4,000,000 and stated playing on day 1, he would be matched with player c from the pool below. The values are arbitrary and just illustrates my point:

    Player B Started playing on day 1. Her GP is 3,950,000. The corrected GP is: 3,950,000 (0 days x 1,000GP + 3,950,000)
    Player C Started playing on day 50. Her GP is 3,950,000. The corrected GP is: 4,000,000 (50 days x 1,000GP + 3,950,000)
    Player D Started playing on day 100. Her GP is 3,950,000. The corrected GP is: 4,050,000 ((100 days x 1,000GP + 3,950,000))
  • @CG_SBCrumb
    I have a suggestion for the Grand Arena (GA). Make the phases 12 hours like Territory Wars was originally intended. The GA is individual PvP so the amount of time needed to strategize and set defenses should be much less that of TW. The game mode seems fun so far but 24 hours seems like overkill.

    Problem is time zones. Your opponent could be anywhere in the world. 12 hours just means they've got a window within that time.

    Whether the setup window is 12 hours or 24 hours isn't going to give us more or fewer Grand Arena events, so just use all the time to make things convenient and stress-free for everyone.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • DarkISI wrote: »
    Wasn't it said, that the game would automatically set defenses, if you don't?
    Either stick to the initial promise of auto-deploying defences for those who don't deploy, or convert these situations into automatic victories for those who took the time to set their defences.
    Sorry, but what the announcement said is:
    "To help players that forgot to set defensive squads during one of the setup phases, the squads/fleets set on a territory in a previous round will auto-deploy if no squad/fleets were deployed that round and squads/fleets had been deployed in a previous round." (Bold emphasis added)

    Auto-deployment only happens in rounds after the first round in a multi-round Grand Arena. This is the first and only round of this Grand Arena. Had you put defenses down and then we advanced to the next stage, in those subsequent stages you could ignore deployment.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • The first 2 rounds of GA had terrible match making in my instance, while the opponent had the same GP he had way less G12s, no Traya, no RJT, no imperial troopers. Didn't even beat a single team from my defense. I feel sorry for the dude.

    I guess the more GA we have, the better match making will get as they said they will take in account how many wins you have got in previous GAs.

    So before I make my final judgement on match making, need to do a few more GAs but the start wasn't that great.
  • Matchmaking observation:
    It seems only to only looks at GP when finding match ups. That is - as many others have stated a horrible system to base the match ups on exclusively. It does not factor meta teams in. At all. People with no Revan should never battle people with him.That said, I think there is an even bigger problem, and one that has way less $$$ at stake (meaning it is way more likely to get solved).
    You cannot get a fair fight between a day 1 player and a player that started way later - if their GP is the same. The later will have a way more tight, optimized and "modern" roster. I think this is the biggest issue with the match makings, and also the most unfair as noone can affect it (I could "just" buy Revan, I cannot change when I began playing). Fortunately it is data GC have and it could be fairly easy to take into account.
    Let try to illustrate this with an example:
    Assign each day that separate the players with a GP value, like '1000 GP'. So if player A have a GP of 4,000,000 and stated playing on day 1, he would be matched with player c from the pool below. The values are arbitrary and just illustrates my point:

    Player B Started playing on day 1. Her GP is 3,950,000. The corrected GP is: 3,950,000 (0 days x 1,000GP + 3,950,000)
    Player C Started playing on day 50. Her GP is 3,950,000. The corrected GP is: 4,000,000 (50 days x 1,000GP + 3,950,000)
    Player D Started playing on day 100. Her GP is 3,950,000. The corrected GP is: 4,050,000 ((100 days x 1,000GP + 3,950,000))

    Ok, so I don't think this issue is as big a deal as you make it out to be. There may be a few cases on the margin that could be unfair as you say but they would be the exception not the rule. I would guess most day 1 players would be at around 4 mil gp. I'm ftp and almost to 3 mil so another year of grind and 4 mil is probably pretty close.

    Now, there may be a few crackens with 4 mil gp accounts that are newer players (having played a year or 2). But they are likely rare since that is a lot of money to get there that quickly. Also many of those crackens think they can buy their way to victory and may or may not have a tight roster.

    On the other hand, launch players with extraordinarily low gp is also likely the exception. Other than taking a long break, they would be close to 4 mil. And if you don't play for a year then pick the game back up, it's hard to be competitive in any mode.

    So all in all this gross mismatch of quality of rosters of older vs newer players is likely extremely rare. But I'm sure the 3 examples out of thousands will likely get posted. But if it's 3 out of a 1000, it isn't worth complicating the algorithm and potentially creating as many or more mismatches from doing so.
  • From what I've heard in my guild, there have been several close matches where it was decided by only a handful of banners. So from what we're seeing, matchmaking isn't horrible.

    I have cleared my opponent's defence but they haven't attacked yet. I think I have the stronger roster and have 3 good teams on defense but you never know.
  • LukeDukem8 wrote: »
    echoing the above complaints on matchmaking this round. seems like number of toons at gear
    tier 12 was NOT considered. my opponent has 29 gear tier 12 toons, and i have 8.

    so why haven't you geared more characters to g12? Your opponent managed to do so at the same gp. It's not the devs fault you built a non competitive roster.

    this...if someone with the same GP as another decided to make smarter choices in building their roster, they deserve to win, not be forced to only play against people who made the exact same decisions they did. Not to mention its a tourney of 8, so the stronger teams will eventually play against the stronger teams.

    Unreal how many people are complaining about bad matchups when they made bad decisions.

    Thank you. I thought I was the only one that thinks this way. So many complaints.

    I just wish more people would see things this way.

    Its unfortunate that many players have padded their GP to help their guilds out in TW but that's their call and a shame it disadvantages them in this game mode.

    Its only one part of the game and the rewards are kinda meh, so if it really grinds your gears that much - DON'T USE IT.

    Go and play the parts of the game which you enjoy and you have probably tailored your roster to.

    If someone has a much leaner or focused roster then they will probably win but again that was each players choice which route to take
  • Really, the best thing they can do after this is post some hard data on how the matchmaking turned out. Something like "X% of players were matched up with someone within Y% of their power" etc, because the only posts we're seeing are people who were grossly mismatched, which could be outliers or could be common, we just don't know. Hopefully they're scraping the data.

    I posted how I'd adjust the matchmaking algorithm earlier, but another thing I think I'd do is add a few more tiers with narrower banding so that instead of a 2m player and a 2.99m player being considered equal and in the same grouping (making those numbers up--I can't find the post that gives the actual gp limits per tier) you break that up into two 2m-2.5m tier and 2.51m to 3m tiers.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
Sign In or Register to comment.