5* Arena Are cutoffs getting to high?

Now we all can see leaderboards of top 150 5* arena...

We all know only 150 can make it..

I only see the cutoffs getting higher and higher..

But if 151 people score 71m + someone.. is gonna miss it.

This is the highest cutoff so far for an arena..
here is what rank 151 scored...

Comments

DNA3000

It is a competition. The scores are as high as the competition dictates. Asking if the scores are too high is like asking if the times are getting too short in the 100 meter dash.

Jaded

150 people for top prize was always too small considering the thousands of people that play the game competitively.

The sheer number of top prizes handed out is a clear cash grab mixed with the removal of the old feature 5* crystal.

In my honest opinion even adding a 5* basic arena wouldn’t lower these numbers. The top prize should be a percentage. Even if it was just the top 1% we would see a huge difference in that cutoff number. For a little while anyways 😂.

DNA3000

Jaded wrote: »

150 people for top prize was always too small considering the thousands of people that play the game competitively.

The sheer number of top prizes handed out is a clear cash grab mixed with the removal of the old feature 5* crystal.

In my honest opinion even adding a 5* basic arena wouldn’t lower these numbers. The top prize should be a percentage. Even if it was just the top 1% we would see a huge difference in that cutoff number. For a little while anyways 😂.

Yes, if you allow more people to win, the minimum score required to win will drop. But since lowering the cutoff score doesn't seem to be a goal that has any benefit on its own, I see no reason to pursue it.

As to calling it a "cash grab" that assertion has become completely meaningless. At this point I believe the forums would accuse sunset of being a cash grab by God to force people to buy more lightbulbs.

ẞlооd

DNA3000 wrote: »

Jaded wrote: »

150 people for top prize was always too small considering the thousands of people that play the game competitively.

The sheer number of top prizes handed out is a clear cash grab mixed with the removal of the old feature 5* crystal.

In my honest opinion even adding a 5* basic arena wouldn’t lower these numbers. The top prize should be a percentage. Even if it was just the top 1% we would see a huge difference in that cutoff number. For a little while anyways 😂.

Yes, if you allow more people to win, the minimum score required to win will drop. But since lowering the cutoff score doesn't seem to be a goal that has any benefit on its own, I see no reason to pursue it.

As to calling it a "cash grab" that assertion has become completely meaningless. At this point I believe the forums would accuse sunset of being a cash grab by God to force people to buy more lightbulbs.

That's just straight denial of the truth man. People complain about it too much, I agree, but from when this game was released to now, you can see it's consistently steered more and more towards spending.

Jaded

DNA3000 wrote: »

Jaded wrote: »

150 people for top prize was always too small considering the thousands of people that play the game competitively.

The sheer number of top prizes handed out is a clear cash grab mixed with the removal of the old feature 5* crystal.

In my honest opinion even adding a 5* basic arena wouldn’t lower these numbers. The top prize should be a percentage. Even if it was just the top 1% we would see a huge difference in that cutoff number. For a little while anyways 😂.

Yes, if you allow more people to win, the minimum score required to win will drop. But since lowering the cutoff score doesn't seem to be a goal that has any benefit on its own, I see no reason to pursue it.

As to calling it a "cash grab" that assertion has become completely meaningless. At this point I believe the forums would accuse sunset of being a cash grab by God to force people to buy more lightbulbs.

That’s reasonable. Except I personally don’t see many cash grabs in the game. But this specific change with feature crystals and only having 150 people gain top prize in 5* feature arena is a cash grab. I wouldn’t think that if it was a percentage for the winners. 1% alone or even 1%-10% would be a nice bone thrown our way from kabam.

For my roster I’d have to spend 4-5 odins worth of recharges to reach 70m+. Saving 5* shards for a 1/24 chance at the desired champ or spending on fgmc.

And before anyone says you can farm units and push a feature arena run. I’m not saying it would cost actual money but time is “money” as well...

DNA3000

Jaded wrote: »

For my roster I’d have to spend 4-5 odins worth of recharges to reach 70m+. Saving 5* shards for a 1/24 chance at the desired champ or spending on fgmc.

I'd have to spend way more than that to realistically run in a master level alliance. Is that a cash grab? The only reason you would have to spend that much is because everyone else competing has decided to spend that much (or a comparable amount). All competitive rewards cost what the players competing decide they cost. If the players decide to spend, other competitors also have to spend. But calling that situation a "cash grab" implies that all competitive rewards are cash grabs. It dilutes the term to meaninglessness, because the only way to avoid the label is to always give away so much rewards that no one feels compelled to spend to get them.

*You* might not consider it a cash grab if the 5* featured had a cutoff of 1%. But why should your opinion count more than all the other players who would still call it a cash grab because *they* would still have to spend a lot to reach that new, lower but still pretty high, cutoff? Why is it a cash grab if you have to spend, but not if they have to spend?

Blax4ever

It’s not really a cash grab it’s short sighted IMO. OP is correct 150 is way to small a prize pool.

However this is Kabam’s gaming philosophy and it has been successful for them. They will not stray to far from their philosophy in making changes to the game, so it is up to you as the player to make changes in your approach. Either put more hours in, spend more money or play less and don’t put too much value in the shiny new thing.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

Blax4ever wrote: »

It’s not really a cash grab it’s short sighted IMO. OP is correct 150 is way to small a prize pool.

However this is Kabam’s gaming philosophy and it has been successful for them.

Anyone who tells me that my three years and counting successful plans are flawed because they are short sighted gets literally kicked out of my office. Three years and counting with no end in sight is short sighted if you're building nuclear waste containment, it is practically forever in the games industry.

5* arenas won't look like this forever, especially given that their current state is itself an update to rewards. But there's no particular rush to expand those rewards when the game's development timelines are measured in years not weeks.

Deadbyrd9

This proof that some people just don’t have a life outside the game if they can spend 3 days grinding arena. I can’t even find the time to put up anything other than zero.