New Arena Structure Feedback v2.0

Reference

theham said:

Reference said:

theham said:

Reference said:

theham said:

rivet said:

I don’t quite understand people complaining needing more effort to get 1-5% in 6 star basic arena, the cutoff score is around 9M in 6 star basic, which means around 95 rounds if you use your r4 and r5 5 stars, in the previous system, the cutoff is around 24M, using 6 star, you may need 120 rounds or so, so the effort is less. Only loss is you get less units from milestones, but that is the unit distribution between the 3 arenas, which is a different point

I missed the top 5% even after hitting 9m+ in the basic.

And the effort isn't less since summoner trials used to take 60 rounds for 2.15m but now needs 120. I have a whale roster and doing more work for less rewards now. Very discouraging for players who grinded for years building their 6 star rosters.

On one hand I agreed with you that you can't hit top 5% with 9mm+ score in basic arena now, cause many players also think they can and thus many stop at around 10mm, turn out making a cutoff up-shift.

Whilst I disagree about the summoner trials. Under old 4* arena, I normally need to fight 120 rounds in order reach ~2.2mm score for a 4* champs. Now you can have 4mm point with similar rounds, their scoring system adjusted. (note: I didn't break any streak)

You must have used 4* boosts. I ran only r5 4* unboosted and it takes 120 rounds.

No. I used boosts and shorten the rounds to 80 only.
If you divided 4.4mm by 96, you got 45k. It is the normal score with r5 4*. Just depends on how many you have. I almost collected the entire champ roaster in 4* btw.

I'm looking at my score now. Only r5s, no boosts, and 4.4 took 120 rounds. I don't know what you're doing over there, lol.

And then I also don't understand this sentence:
"And the effort isn't less since summoner trials used to take 60 rounds for 2.15m but now needs 120."
I need to fight ~120 rounds under old 4* arena in order to get 2.2mm points before.

winterthur

@Reference said:

@theham said:

Reference said:

theham said:

rivet said:

I don’t quite understand people complaining needing more effort to get 1-5% in 6 star basic arena, the cutoff score is around 9M in 6 star basic, which means around 95 rounds if you use your r4 and r5 5 stars, in the previous system, the cutoff is around 24M, using 6 star, you may need 120 rounds or so, so the effort is less. Only loss is you get less units from milestones, but that is the unit distribution between the 3 arenas, which is a different point

I missed the top 5% even after hitting 9m+ in the basic.

And the effort isn't less since summoner trials used to take 60 rounds for 2.15m but now needs 120. I have a whale roster and doing more work for less rewards now. Very discouraging for players who grinded for years building their 6 star rosters.

On one hand I agreed with you that you can't hit top 5% with 9mm+ score in basic arena now, cause many players also think they can and thus many stop at around 10mm, turn out making a cutoff up-shift.

Whilst I disagree about the summoner trials. Under old 4* arena, I normally need to fight 120 rounds in order reach ~2.2mm score for a 4* champs. Now you can have 4mm point with similar rounds, their scoring system adjusted. (note: I didn't break any streak)

You must have used 4* boosts. I ran only r5 4* unboosted and it takes 120 rounds.

No. I used boosts and shorten the rounds to 80 only.
If you divided 4.4mm by 96, you got 45k. It is the normal score with r5 4*. Just depends on how many you have. I almost collected the entire champ roaster in 4* btw.

How many points can you obtain in the first 12 rounds (cumulative)?

What are the points impact using suicides?

Fit_Fun9329

I am wondering whether this whole arena topic is still under a “feedback consideration”.

Still some stuff from various summoners who are unsatisfied with the changes.

From my end I am happy with the changes except those around 4 millions points in the summoner trails are a bit too much but I understand where it comes from.

Worknprogress

DNA3000 said:

theham said:

DNA3000 said:

Wordunken said:

just let them join. if they can beat, they will try to. ım a tb btw and ı see no harm in this. why dont you want cavalier people(possibly uncollected but it is actually bit absurd and a good way to keep them from spending absolute ton of units) to have at least a try on this.

Because the real question is: do you want Thronebreakers to get Thronebreaker rewards, or Cavalier rewards? Because if Cavalier players are allowed to do it, the rewards will be scaled to be appropriate to Cavalier players, not Thronebreakers. We don't make content for Thronebreakers, design the rewards for Thronebreakers, then say hey, if Cavs can do it more power to them. The question of who's allowed to do it comes first, then the content and rewards comes second. If Uncollected players were allowed to do it, the rewards would be scaled to Uncollected progress.

I guess there are people who think this happens in reverse. First Kabam makes the content, then they decide what rewards would be appropriate for that level of difficulty, then they decide who's allowed to do it. That's completely false. In any discussion about rewards, the first question the game designers ask is "who are these rewards targeting?" not "how hard is the content?" Before you design the fights, before you design the rewards, *first* you decide on the target audience. Then everything is made appropriate to that group.

The reason why you don't see any harm in allowing Cavalier players to run the Thronebreaker objectives is because you think there's any chance at all Cavalier players would be allowed to get those rewards. They wouldn't. If Cavs were allowed to do it, the rewards would be scaled to them. If you want to take rewards away from Thronebreakers to allow Cavs to do the TB objectives, fair enough. Good luck explaining to them why their TB-caliber rewards were reduced to Cav-caliber rewards just because Cavalier players feel they deserve to do everything Thronebreaker players are allowed to do.

To quote @DNA3000 , this is exactly what's happened to the 6* basic arena after 6 stars had their points cut. A complete regression for endgame players as it was originally designed for them to chase 6 stars for the first time.

Then Cavalier level players complained and now players with big rosters like myself are doing more rounds for less rewards than before. I'm perfectly fine with better milestones for them but the point cutting completely goes against basic progression principles.

Actually, it was never intended for end game players to have two separate arenas to use their 6* advantage in at the expense of the players who originally had a place to use their 5* champions optimally in. Having two such arenas, while deleting the original 5* optimized arena (the old 4* featured arena) was an error. It was so obvious of an error it was acknowledged the arena launch was going to be reviewed and possibly updated almost immediately after it was launched.

It was not something the devs originally decided we should have, and then later changed their minds and decided we shouldn't have gotten. It was something they didn't fully appreciate the penalty associated with, and thus changed to better reflect the original intent. I understand the feeling that progress was lost, but this was progress that we were never supposed to have. It would be no different if the arenas originally launched with 6* champions accidentally set to 17,000,000 base points. Yes, it gives us a huge scoring advantage over players with small or no 6* roster, but correcting that would not be a regression of progress. It would be fixing a mistake. Changing the 6* basic arena from its original launch configuration to the current one was also fixing a mistake.

One more thing I should mention. The narrative seems to be that the devs were fine with the launch configuration and a bunch of whiny players messed it up for the end gamers. But that narrative is not really correct. The arena overhaul was a complex undertaking with a lot of moving parts, and there first iteration was the devs first, best effort attempt to implement a compromise between as many of the various factors situationally impacting players as possible. But it wasn't perfect, and the developers knew that given the complexity of the changes there was a chance they would have to make changes based on feedback and data. And the decisive complaint wasn't that 5* rosters were at a disadvantage in the new Basic, it was more that the arena optimized for 5* scoring was taken away with nothing to replace it. Basically, the 5* featured arena was promoted to the 6* featured arena, and the 4* featured arena was taken away completely and replaced with another 6* arena.

So now there were two arenas optimized for 6* scoring, and one optimized for 4* scoring, and none optimized for 5* scoring. When the current state of the game emphasizes 5* champions for the entire mid game. That was seen as highly problematic. It is true that a progression principle is that the higher rarity champs should have an advantage over the lower ones. But a stronger progression principle is that the rarities should form a ladder, with each rarity a step on that ladder. The game is moving towards a place where there's three main phases to the game. The early game where players work their way towards Uncollected status, the mid game where players move from Uncollected to Cavalier and towards Thronebreaker, and the end game where players are focusing on 6* champs (and whatever might come next). It makes sense that in an arena system with three arenas there should be one step on the ladder that optimizes scoring for 4* champs - the Trials - one arena that optimizes for 5* scoring - the Basic - and one arena that optimizes for 6* scoring - the Featured. Having two 6s and one 4 is not good for rarity progress. Having one 4, one 5, and one 6 is much more logical.

So then the question is: why not just remove 6* champs from the Basic entirely? Short answer: remove the 6* champs from the arena, and you remove the 6* prize from the arena, and that would be taking an opportunity to earn a good reward away from players.

Which is exactly what they should have done. Neutering 6* rosters in an arena competing for 6*s is absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

Monk1

Worknprogress said:

DNA3000 said:

theham said:

DNA3000 said:

Wordunken said:

just let them join. if they can beat, they will try to. ım a tb btw and ı see no harm in this. why dont you want cavalier people(possibly uncollected but it is actually bit absurd and a good way to keep them from spending absolute ton of units) to have at least a try on this.

Because the real question is: do you want Thronebreakers to get Thronebreaker rewards, or Cavalier rewards? Because if Cavalier players are allowed to do it, the rewards will be scaled to be appropriate to Cavalier players, not Thronebreakers. We don't make content for Thronebreakers, design the rewards for Thronebreakers, then say hey, if Cavs can do it more power to them. The question of who's allowed to do it comes first, then the content and rewards comes second. If Uncollected players were allowed to do it, the rewards would be scaled to Uncollected progress.

I guess there are people who think this happens in reverse. First Kabam makes the content, then they decide what rewards would be appropriate for that level of difficulty, then they decide who's allowed to do it. That's completely false. In any discussion about rewards, the first question the game designers ask is "who are these rewards targeting?" not "how hard is the content?" Before you design the fights, before you design the rewards, *first* you decide on the target audience. Then everything is made appropriate to that group.

The reason why you don't see any harm in allowing Cavalier players to run the Thronebreaker objectives is because you think there's any chance at all Cavalier players would be allowed to get those rewards. They wouldn't. If Cavs were allowed to do it, the rewards would be scaled to them. If you want to take rewards away from Thronebreakers to allow Cavs to do the TB objectives, fair enough. Good luck explaining to them why their TB-caliber rewards were reduced to Cav-caliber rewards just because Cavalier players feel they deserve to do everything Thronebreaker players are allowed to do.

To quote @DNA3000 , this is exactly what's happened to the 6* basic arena after 6 stars had their points cut. A complete regression for endgame players as it was originally designed for them to chase 6 stars for the first time.

Then Cavalier level players complained and now players with big rosters like myself are doing more rounds for less rewards than before. I'm perfectly fine with better milestones for them but the point cutting completely goes against basic progression principles.

Actually, it was never intended for end game players to have two separate arenas to use their 6* advantage in at the expense of the players who originally had a place to use their 5* champions optimally in. Having two such arenas, while deleting the original 5* optimized arena (the old 4* featured arena) was an error. It was so obvious of an error it was acknowledged the arena launch was going to be reviewed and possibly updated almost immediately after it was launched.

It was not something the devs originally decided we should have, and then later changed their minds and decided we shouldn't have gotten. It was something they didn't fully appreciate the penalty associated with, and thus changed to better reflect the original intent. I understand the feeling that progress was lost, but this was progress that we were never supposed to have. It would be no different if the arenas originally launched with 6* champions accidentally set to 17,000,000 base points. Yes, it gives us a huge scoring advantage over players with small or no 6* roster, but correcting that would not be a regression of progress. It would be fixing a mistake. Changing the 6* basic arena from its original launch configuration to the current one was also fixing a mistake.

One more thing I should mention. The narrative seems to be that the devs were fine with the launch configuration and a bunch of whiny players messed it up for the end gamers. But that narrative is not really correct. The arena overhaul was a complex undertaking with a lot of moving parts, and there first iteration was the devs first, best effort attempt to implement a compromise between as many of the various factors situationally impacting players as possible. But it wasn't perfect, and the developers knew that given the complexity of the changes there was a chance they would have to make changes based on feedback and data. And the decisive complaint wasn't that 5* rosters were at a disadvantage in the new Basic, it was more that the arena optimized for 5* scoring was taken away with nothing to replace it. Basically, the 5* featured arena was promoted to the 6* featured arena, and the 4* featured arena was taken away completely and replaced with another 6* arena.

So now there were two arenas optimized for 6* scoring, and one optimized for 4* scoring, and none optimized for 5* scoring. When the current state of the game emphasizes 5* champions for the entire mid game. That was seen as highly problematic. It is true that a progression principle is that the higher rarity champs should have an advantage over the lower ones. But a stronger progression principle is that the rarities should form a ladder, with each rarity a step on that ladder. The game is moving towards a place where there's three main phases to the game. The early game where players work their way towards Uncollected status, the mid game where players move from Uncollected to Cavalier and towards Thronebreaker, and the end game where players are focusing on 6* champs (and whatever might come next). It makes sense that in an arena system with three arenas there should be one step on the ladder that optimizes scoring for 4* champs - the Trials - one arena that optimizes for 5* scoring - the Basic - and one arena that optimizes for 6* scoring - the Featured. Having two 6s and one 4 is not good for rarity progress. Having one 4, one 5, and one 6 is much more logical.

So then the question is: why not just remove 6* champs from the Basic entirely? Short answer: remove the 6* champs from the arena, and you remove the 6* prize from the arena, and that would be taking an opportunity to earn a good reward away from players.

Which is exactly what they should have done. Neutering 6* rosters in an arena competing for 6*s is absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

😂 beyond ridiculous.

The concept of grinding is that each week it gets easier as you get new champ, level up get more points - this now no longer exists in the basic arena as u just would not use 6* in there

Gamer

Monk1 said:

Worknprogress said:

DNA3000 said:

theham said:

DNA3000 said:

Wordunken said:

just let them join. if they can beat, they will try to. ım a tb btw and ı see no harm in this. why dont you want cavalier people(possibly uncollected but it is actually bit absurd and a good way to keep them from spending absolute ton of units) to have at least a try on this.

Because the real question is: do you want Thronebreakers to get Thronebreaker rewards, or Cavalier rewards? Because if Cavalier players are allowed to do it, the rewards will be scaled to be appropriate to Cavalier players, not Thronebreakers. We don't make content for Thronebreakers, design the rewards for Thronebreakers, then say hey, if Cavs can do it more power to them. The question of who's allowed to do it comes first, then the content and rewards comes second. If Uncollected players were allowed to do it, the rewards would be scaled to Uncollected progress.

I guess there are people who think this happens in reverse. First Kabam makes the content, then they decide what rewards would be appropriate for that level of difficulty, then they decide who's allowed to do it. That's completely false. In any discussion about rewards, the first question the game designers ask is "who are these rewards targeting?" not "how hard is the content?" Before you design the fights, before you design the rewards, *first* you decide on the target audience. Then everything is made appropriate to that group.

The reason why you don't see any harm in allowing Cavalier players to run the Thronebreaker objectives is because you think there's any chance at all Cavalier players would be allowed to get those rewards. They wouldn't. If Cavs were allowed to do it, the rewards would be scaled to them. If you want to take rewards away from Thronebreakers to allow Cavs to do the TB objectives, fair enough. Good luck explaining to them why their TB-caliber rewards were reduced to Cav-caliber rewards just because Cavalier players feel they deserve to do everything Thronebreaker players are allowed to do.

To quote @DNA3000 , this is exactly what's happened to the 6* basic arena after 6 stars had their points cut. A complete regression for endgame players as it was originally designed for them to chase 6 stars for the first time.

Then Cavalier level players complained and now players with big rosters like myself are doing more rounds for less rewards than before. I'm perfectly fine with better milestones for them but the point cutting completely goes against basic progression principles.

Actually, it was never intended for end game players to have two separate arenas to use their 6* advantage in at the expense of the players who originally had a place to use their 5* champions optimally in. Having two such arenas, while deleting the original 5* optimized arena (the old 4* featured arena) was an error. It was so obvious of an error it was acknowledged the arena launch was going to be reviewed and possibly updated almost immediately after it was launched.

It was not something the devs originally decided we should have, and then later changed their minds and decided we shouldn't have gotten. It was something they didn't fully appreciate the penalty associated with, and thus changed to better reflect the original intent. I understand the feeling that progress was lost, but this was progress that we were never supposed to have. It would be no different if the arenas originally launched with 6* champions accidentally set to 17,000,000 base points. Yes, it gives us a huge scoring advantage over players with small or no 6* roster, but correcting that would not be a regression of progress. It would be fixing a mistake. Changing the 6* basic arena from its original launch configuration to the current one was also fixing a mistake.

One more thing I should mention. The narrative seems to be that the devs were fine with the launch configuration and a bunch of whiny players messed it up for the end gamers. But that narrative is not really correct. The arena overhaul was a complex undertaking with a lot of moving parts, and there first iteration was the devs first, best effort attempt to implement a compromise between as many of the various factors situationally impacting players as possible. But it wasn't perfect, and the developers knew that given the complexity of the changes there was a chance they would have to make changes based on feedback and data. And the decisive complaint wasn't that 5* rosters were at a disadvantage in the new Basic, it was more that the arena optimized for 5* scoring was taken away with nothing to replace it. Basically, the 5* featured arena was promoted to the 6* featured arena, and the 4* featured arena was taken away completely and replaced with another 6* arena.

So now there were two arenas optimized for 6* scoring, and one optimized for 4* scoring, and none optimized for 5* scoring. When the current state of the game emphasizes 5* champions for the entire mid game. That was seen as highly problematic. It is true that a progression principle is that the higher rarity champs should have an advantage over the lower ones. But a stronger progression principle is that the rarities should form a ladder, with each rarity a step on that ladder. The game is moving towards a place where there's three main phases to the game. The early game where players work their way towards Uncollected status, the mid game where players move from Uncollected to Cavalier and towards Thronebreaker, and the end game where players are focusing on 6* champs (and whatever might come next). It makes sense that in an arena system with three arenas there should be one step on the ladder that optimizes scoring for 4* champs - the Trials - one arena that optimizes for 5* scoring - the Basic - and one arena that optimizes for 6* scoring - the Featured. Having two 6s and one 4 is not good for rarity progress. Having one 4, one 5, and one 6 is much more logical.

So then the question is: why not just remove 6* champs from the Basic entirely? Short answer: remove the 6* champs from the arena, and you remove the 6* prize from the arena, and that would be taking an opportunity to earn a good reward away from players.

Which is exactly what they should have done. Neutering 6* rosters in an arena competing for 6*s is absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

😂 beyond ridiculous.

The concept of grinding is that each week it gets easier as you get new champ, level up get more points - this now no longer exists in the basic arena as u just would not use 6* in there

Agerd why can’t just Giv a slight bost for 6 star like 8k basic point so there get a bit more that 5 star and stil make them relevant for basice arena right now I’m don’t use 6 star in there’s

DNA3000

theham said:

Worknprogress said:

DNA3000 said:

theham said:

DNA3000 said:

Wordunken said:

just let them join. if they can beat, they will try to. ım a tb btw and ı see no harm in this. why dont you want cavalier people(possibly uncollected but it is actually bit absurd and a good way to keep them from spending absolute ton of units) to have at least a try on this.

Because the real question is: do you want Thronebreakers to get Thronebreaker rewards, or Cavalier rewards? Because if Cavalier players are allowed to do it, the rewards will be scaled to be appropriate to Cavalier players, not Thronebreakers. We don't make content for Thronebreakers, design the rewards for Thronebreakers, then say hey, if Cavs can do it more power to them. The question of who's allowed to do it comes first, then the content and rewards comes second. If Uncollected players were allowed to do it, the rewards would be scaled to Uncollected progress.

I guess there are people who think this happens in reverse. First Kabam makes the content, then they decide what rewards would be appropriate for that level of difficulty, then they decide who's allowed to do it. That's completely false. In any discussion about rewards, the first question the game designers ask is "who are these rewards targeting?" not "how hard is the content?" Before you design the fights, before you design the rewards, *first* you decide on the target audience. Then everything is made appropriate to that group.

The reason why you don't see any harm in allowing Cavalier players to run the Thronebreaker objectives is because you think there's any chance at all Cavalier players would be allowed to get those rewards. They wouldn't. If Cavs were allowed to do it, the rewards would be scaled to them. If you want to take rewards away from Thronebreakers to allow Cavs to do the TB objectives, fair enough. Good luck explaining to them why their TB-caliber rewards were reduced to Cav-caliber rewards just because Cavalier players feel they deserve to do everything Thronebreaker players are allowed to do.

To quote @DNA3000 , this is exactly what's happened to the 6* basic arena after 6 stars had their points cut. A complete regression for endgame players as it was originally designed for them to chase 6 stars for the first time.

Then Cavalier level players complained and now players with big rosters like myself are doing more rounds for less rewards than before. I'm perfectly fine with better milestones for them but the point cutting completely goes against basic progression principles.

Actually, it was never intended for end game players to have two separate arenas to use their 6* advantage in at the expense of the players who originally had a place to use their 5* champions optimally in. Having two such arenas, while deleting the original 5* optimized arena (the old 4* featured arena) was an error. It was so obvious of an error it was acknowledged the arena launch was going to be reviewed and possibly updated almost immediately after it was launched.

It was not something the devs originally decided we should have, and then later changed their minds and decided we shouldn't have gotten. It was something they didn't fully appreciate the penalty associated with, and thus changed to better reflect the original intent. I understand the feeling that progress was lost, but this was progress that we were never supposed to have. It would be no different if the arenas originally launched with 6* champions accidentally set to 17,000,000 base points. Yes, it gives us a huge scoring advantage over players with small or no 6* roster, but correcting that would not be a regression of progress. It would be fixing a mistake. Changing the 6* basic arena from its original launch configuration to the current one was also fixing a mistake.

One more thing I should mention. The narrative seems to be that the devs were fine with the launch configuration and a bunch of whiny players messed it up for the end gamers. But that narrative is not really correct. The arena overhaul was a complex undertaking with a lot of moving parts, and there first iteration was the devs first, best effort attempt to implement a compromise between as many of the various factors situationally impacting players as possible. But it wasn't perfect, and the developers knew that given the complexity of the changes there was a chance they would have to make changes based on feedback and data. And the decisive complaint wasn't that 5* rosters were at a disadvantage in the new Basic, it was more that the arena optimized for 5* scoring was taken away with nothing to replace it. Basically, the 5* featured arena was promoted to the 6* featured arena, and the 4* featured arena was taken away completely and replaced with another 6* arena.

So now there were two arenas optimized for 6* scoring, and one optimized for 4* scoring, and none optimized for 5* scoring. When the current state of the game emphasizes 5* champions for the entire mid game. That was seen as highly problematic. It is true that a progression principle is that the higher rarity champs should have an advantage over the lower ones. But a stronger progression principle is that the rarities should form a ladder, with each rarity a step on that ladder. The game is moving towards a place where there's three main phases to the game. The early game where players work their way towards Uncollected status, the mid game where players move from Uncollected to Cavalier and towards Thronebreaker, and the end game where players are focusing on 6* champs (and whatever might come next). It makes sense that in an arena system with three arenas there should be one step on the ladder that optimizes scoring for 4* champs - the Trials - one arena that optimizes for 5* scoring - the Basic - and one arena that optimizes for 6* scoring - the Featured. Having two 6s and one 4 is not good for rarity progress. Having one 4, one 5, and one 6 is much more logical.

So then the question is: why not just remove 6* champs from the Basic entirely? Short answer: remove the 6* champs from the arena, and you remove the 6* prize from the arena, and that would be taking an opportunity to earn a good reward away from players.

Which is exactly what they should have done. Neutering 6* rosters in an arena competing for 6*s is absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

This.

It makes zero sense for the highest progression tier to have their points crippled in a contest where the highest rarity is on the line. DNA, you're smarter and more knowledgeable than I am but you know this is nonsense. Restore points to 6* stars or remove the 6* itself.

What I find interesting is that I would have been fine with removing the 6* champions from being used, but preserving the 6* champion in the rewards. The devs have taken essentially a religious stance that 6* rewards require the 6* competitors, while (some of) the players have taken the equally religious stance that 6* champs must never be usable at all unless they have a substantial scoring advantage over all other rarities. I say these are religious stances because they have no basis in any game design principle: they are preferences disguised as design rules.

Part of the problem is that many players see the two arenas as essentially offering the same prize: a 6* champ. But in this game, regardless of player preferences to the contrary, the 6* featured is a fundamentally more valuable prize intrinsically. It is the *first* shot at a 6* champ. The basic is the *second* shot at the 6* champ, or at least it will be as the arena schedule settles down. That time advantage is intrinsically valued extremely high by the game: earlier access generally costs more or is integrated into the content on the presumption it is worth more. So the idea that the Featured arena and the Basic arena must offer the same top tier scoring advantage is inconsistent with the way the game manages rewards. Players might, on any given week, prefer the basic champ over the featured, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether the game itself should treat the two arenas differently. It chooses to do so, and that's an entire logical choice.

I do not in fact know this is nonsense. The featured and basic arenas, at least in terms of rank rewards, are competitions. And all competitions have to make a compromise between competitive advantages and level competition. All other things being equal, you want all competitions to be fair: for all competitors to be on a level playing field. But on the other hand, you want areas where competitors can seek and leverage advantages over their competition: that's the very nature of competition. So the question of what a "fair advantage" is, besides an apparent oxymoron, lies at the center of every competition. In the case of the Featured arena, the intent is for the top players to be able to leverage their roster advantages to compete for the top prizes. Roster strength is considered a fair advantage in that arena specifically because of this. There's no automatic cosmic rule that says 6* champs must score more points: that's only true if it is consistent with the intent of the competition and for no other reason. It is consistent with the intent of the Featured arena, so 6* champs have a scoring advantage there.

This is *not* the intent of the Basic arena. The intent of the basic arena is for players with mature 5* rosters to compete for similar prizes as the Featured arena, but for a lesser top prizes of the Basic champ, which is time delayed from the Featured. You'd expect, if scoring was identical, that players with large 6* rosters would simply shift their effort from the Featured to the Basic arena if they preferred the Basic champ, but that's not the intent of the arena. They can do so if they wish, but if they do they won't have the scoring advantage their 6* champs provide in that arena, because that's not the intent of that arena. They still have the *option* to compete, but they will do so on a playing field where the highest scoring advantage you can achieve is 5* rosters, not 6* rosters.

You can say this is ridiculous, but it is not. It is a preference. The devs *chose* to implement one arena optimized for 4* scoring, one for 5* scoring, and one for 6* scoring. That's an entirely free choice to make, which is to say it is entirely a question of preference. Separately, they chose to continue to allow the 5* scoring optimized arena to award time delayed 6* champs as the top prize. That's *also* an entirely free choice to make, driven by preference, and entirely consistent with other game decisions that demonstrate earlier access is intrinsically valued higher by the game. There's no logical argument that can "prove" it is the wrong choice, any more than there's a logical argument that can prove it is the right choice. In this case there's just the goal they chose to aim for, and the implementation they chose to realize that goal.

winterthur

Then maybe, change the top prize in basic arena to 5-Star + some 6-Star shards.

Pulyaman

winterthur said:

Then maybe, change the top prize in basic arena to 5-Star + some 6-Star shards.

This was my suggestion all along. Change the 6 star basic to 5 star basic and leave it as it is. Leave the rank rewards and just give 1000 people the 5 star basic champ. Move everyone towards 5 stars and the people with large rosters can still try to get the 6 star featured or the 5 star featured.

Gamer

winterthur said:

Then maybe, change the top prize in basic arena to 5-Star + some 6-Star shards.

No just Giv the 6 star basice point of 8k instead.
It there remove the 6 star in the arena there wil be even more ba slahs

Horror_punk

If it’s possible to shift those 140 units from summoner trials to other 6* arenas then it would be great.
Making 4.4 Million is with 4* is a long chore. Make milestones in basic 6* arenas till 9 million and add 140 units there instead of summoner trials.

Thanks
Dr. Horror_Punk

Fit_Fun9329

Horror_punk said:

If it’s possible to shift those 140 units from summoner trials to other 6* arenas then it would be great.
Making 4.4 Million is with 4* is a long chore. Make milestones in basic 6* arenas till 9 million and add 140 units there instead of summoner trials.

Thanks
Dr. Horror_Punk

I am with you, I agree

rivet

I don't have much problem with the current arena, but I think the following changes could help address some of the concerns: 1. Redistribute the unit distribution to 200 units for ST arena, and 170 units each for the two 6 star arenas, and adjust milestones accordingly. This would essentially shift previous units from 2 star arena to 5 and 6 star arena, consider 2 star are not useful for even new player and newer player is unlikely to be able to grind the whole 4.4M for ST, it make sense to shift units a bit without being too extreme. 2. Remove the 100 6 star reward and make the 6 star basic a 5 star basic arena, make it first 800 get the 5 star champion and 1000 6 star shards and keep the rest of the rank rewards. Shift that 100 spots to 6 star featured to make the first 200 to get the 6 star featured champion. I don't care about the 6 star champion but I think this would make end game player grinding 6 star champs happier as they keep their advantage of large 6 star roaster. 3. Reduce 6 star cooling time in the basic arena same as 5 stars, or remove 6 star all together in the basic arena.

Avenger_A1

And please sort out (stop) jarring frame rates.

xNig

I think the idea of shifting milestones to the Summoner Trials arena was because of it being an amalgam of the previous 2/3/4* arenas.

Pulyaman

xNig said:

I think the idea of shifting milestones to the Summoner Trials arena was because of it being an amalgam of the previous 2/3/4* arenas.

The math is fine. We had 265 earlier and 270 units now after combining the 2/3/4 star arenas. But the problem is the milestone is really too high. 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a tall ask. Especially when 4 stars are out of the meta for even new players real quick. Kabam have increased the points for 3 stars, but they don't give the same points as a 4 stars. They either need to bring down the milestone to 3 mill or give the same amount of points for both 3 and 4 stars. 1.5 mill for 135 units was for earlier arena, so 3 mill points For 270 units seems reasonable to me.

xNig

Pulyaman said:

xNig said:

I think the idea of shifting milestones to the Summoner Trials arena was because of it being an amalgam of the previous 2/3/4* arenas.

The math is fine. We had 265 earlier and 270 units now after combining the 2/3/4 star arenas. But the problem is the milestone is really too high. 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a tall ask. Especially when 4 stars are out of the meta for even new players real quick. Kabam have increased the points for 3 stars, but they don't give the same points as a 4 stars. They either need to bring down the milestone to 3 mill or give the same amount of points for both 3 and 4 stars. 1.5 mill for 135 units was for earlier arena, so 3 mill points For 270 units seems reasonable to me.

That’s true. But you don’t need to clock all the milestones.

For me, I used to do 1.5m for 4*B, 4.2m for 4*F and 12m for 5*F. Now I do the exact same amount for all, get slightly more units and more 6* shards. If I have more free time, I’ll do a few more milestones for 4*B.

It’s a win/win imo. There’s no loss at all compared to before unless someone has that mentality that they MUST clock all the milestones, for whatever reason.

Pulyaman

xNig said:

Pulyaman said:

xNig said:

I think the idea of shifting milestones to the Summoner Trials arena was because of it being an amalgam of the previous 2/3/4* arenas.

The math is fine. We had 265 earlier and 270 units now after combining the 2/3/4 star arenas. But the problem is the milestone is really too high. 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a tall ask. Especially when 4 stars are out of the meta for even new players real quick. Kabam have increased the points for 3 stars, but they don't give the same points as a 4 stars. They either need to bring down the milestone to 3 mill or give the same amount of points for both 3 and 4 stars. 1.5 mill for 135 units was for earlier arena, so 3 mill points For 270 units seems reasonable to me.

That’s true. But you don’t need to clock all the milestones.

For me, I used to do 1.5m for 4*B, 4.2m for 4*F and 12m for 5*F. Now I do the exact same amount for all, get slightly more units and more 6* shards. If I have more free time, I’ll do a few more milestones for 4*B.

It’s a win/win imo. There’s no loss at all compared to before unless someone has that mentality that they MUST clock all the milestones, for whatever reason.

I used to do the 3 star in addition to all you mentioned. So, I am seeing a loss of 60 odd units now. For people who are starting up, the 2 star and 3 star were also a major source of units. 2 stars are useless in arena now, and 3 star will give less points, so using them is not that good. That is why I am asking for a reduction in milestones or a change in 3 star points.

ItsDamien

xNig said:

Pulyaman said:

xNig said:

I think the idea of shifting milestones to the Summoner Trials arena was because of it being an amalgam of the previous 2/3/4* arenas.

The math is fine. We had 265 earlier and 270 units now after combining the 2/3/4 star arenas. But the problem is the milestone is really too high. 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a tall ask. Especially when 4 stars are out of the meta for even new players real quick. Kabam have increased the points for 3 stars, but they don't give the same points as a 4 stars. They either need to bring down the milestone to 3 mill or give the same amount of points for both 3 and 4 stars. 1.5 mill for 135 units was for earlier arena, so 3 mill points For 270 units seems reasonable to me.

That’s true. But you don’t need to clock all the milestones.

For me, I used to do 1.5m for 4*B, 4.2m for 4*F and 12m for 5*F. Now I do the exact same amount for all, get slightly more units and more 6* shards. If I have more free time, I’ll do a few more milestones for 4*B.

It’s a win/win imo. There’s no loss at all compared to before unless someone has that mentality that they MUST clock all the milestones, for whatever reason.

But how do you win the vidya gaem if you don't do all the things all the time every day?

Pulyaman

ItsDamien said:

xNig said:

Pulyaman said:

xNig said:

I think the idea of shifting milestones to the Summoner Trials arena was because of it being an amalgam of the previous 2/3/4* arenas.

The math is fine. We had 265 earlier and 270 units now after combining the 2/3/4 star arenas. But the problem is the milestone is really too high. 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a tall ask. Especially when 4 stars are out of the meta for even new players real quick. Kabam have increased the points for 3 stars, but they don't give the same points as a 4 stars. They either need to bring down the milestone to 3 mill or give the same amount of points for both 3 and 4 stars. 1.5 mill for 135 units was for earlier arena, so 3 mill points For 270 units seems reasonable to me.

That’s true. But you don’t need to clock all the milestones.

For me, I used to do 1.5m for 4*B, 4.2m for 4*F and 12m for 5*F. Now I do the exact same amount for all, get slightly more units and more 6* shards. If I have more free time, I’ll do a few more milestones for 4*B.

It’s a win/win imo. There’s no loss at all compared to before unless someone has that mentality that they MUST clock all the milestones, for whatever reason.

But how do you win the vidya gaem if you don't do all the things all the time every day?

That was not my point. I understand that hitting every milestone every week is a hard task. But kabam seemed to have thought that merging the 2 and 3 star arenas to 4 star required a higher than normal milestone. But, 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a very difficult task and the grind seemed to have increased in both effort and grind.

ItsDamien

Pulyaman said:

ItsDamien said:

xNig said:

Pulyaman said:

xNig said:

I think the idea of shifting milestones to the Summoner Trials arena was because of it being an amalgam of the previous 2/3/4* arenas.

The math is fine. We had 265 earlier and 270 units now after combining the 2/3/4 star arenas. But the problem is the milestone is really too high. 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a tall ask. Especially when 4 stars are out of the meta for even new players real quick. Kabam have increased the points for 3 stars, but they don't give the same points as a 4 stars. They either need to bring down the milestone to 3 mill or give the same amount of points for both 3 and 4 stars. 1.5 mill for 135 units was for earlier arena, so 3 mill points For 270 units seems reasonable to me.

That’s true. But you don’t need to clock all the milestones.

For me, I used to do 1.5m for 4*B, 4.2m for 4*F and 12m for 5*F. Now I do the exact same amount for all, get slightly more units and more 6* shards. If I have more free time, I’ll do a few more milestones for 4*B.

It’s a win/win imo. There’s no loss at all compared to before unless someone has that mentality that they MUST clock all the milestones, for whatever reason.

But how do you win the vidya gaem if you don't do all the things all the time every day?

That was not my point. I understand that hitting every milestone every week is a hard task. But kabam seemed to have thought that merging the 2 and 3 star arenas to 4 star required a higher than normal milestone. But, 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a very difficult task and the grind seemed to have increased in both effort and grind.

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It's just poking a little fun at everyone who feels pressured to do absolutely everything.

4.4m isn't difficult as much as it takes time. I've been managing to hit all milestones in each arena the last few weeks, but it just takes time and planning on how to best utilise your champs and their refresh timers.

Pulyaman

ItsDamien said:

Pulyaman said:

ItsDamien said:

xNig said:

Pulyaman said:

xNig said:

I think the idea of shifting milestones to the Summoner Trials arena was because of it being an amalgam of the previous 2/3/4* arenas.

The math is fine. We had 265 earlier and 270 units now after combining the 2/3/4 star arenas. But the problem is the milestone is really too high. 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a tall ask. Especially when 4 stars are out of the meta for even new players real quick. Kabam have increased the points for 3 stars, but they don't give the same points as a 4 stars. They either need to bring down the milestone to 3 mill or give the same amount of points for both 3 and 4 stars. 1.5 mill for 135 units was for earlier arena, so 3 mill points For 270 units seems reasonable to me.

That’s true. But you don’t need to clock all the milestones.

For me, I used to do 1.5m for 4*B, 4.2m for 4*F and 12m for 5*F. Now I do the exact same amount for all, get slightly more units and more 6* shards. If I have more free time, I’ll do a few more milestones for 4*B.

It’s a win/win imo. There’s no loss at all compared to before unless someone has that mentality that they MUST clock all the milestones, for whatever reason.

But how do you win the vidya gaem if you don't do all the things all the time every day?

That was not my point. I understand that hitting every milestone every week is a hard task. But kabam seemed to have thought that merging the 2 and 3 star arenas to 4 star required a higher than normal milestone. But, 4.4 mill using only 4 stars is a very difficult task and the grind seemed to have increased in both effort and grind.

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It's just poking a little fun at everyone who feels pressured to do absolutely everything.

4.4m isn't difficult as much as it takes time. I've been managing to hit all milestones in each arena the last few weeks, but it just takes time and planning on how to best utilise your champs and their refresh timers.

Ya..I just realised that myself, the pressure to hit everything and just left arenas for a couple of weeks. 4 star arenas are not difficult for a developed roster. Just the time it takes is the problem. Combine that with the decline in the importance of 4 stars, it just a too long.

GroundedWisdom

theham said:

Top 5% basic cutoff went from:

7.4
8.6
9.7
to now 10m

What's next, 11? 12? 14 or 15 few months later?

We stopped ranking 5s because they're not useful and the game moved on a long time ago, except for this annoyingly backwards arena that somehow rewards the rarest in-game prizes to the loudest and relatively most unambitious group of players in the game.

Where did 5*s ever become not useful?