• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • The Castle System is now open


    Kings and Queens, you now have your very own castle for your city. Learn all about our newest feature here!
  • Forum Contests

    Do you want to win great prizes? Don't forget to check out the current contest here.
  • A New World is here!


    Our newest world is now open! Read all about it here!

PVP Arena Returns Feedback

r21r

Major-General
Incredibly boring, for sure. But not losing much, only a few easily restorable (Traz) units. Winning most battles on auto. Takes maybe 2 minutes or less for 5 battles. Getting league rewards from the chests. So why not do it? Not spending diamonds or medals on extra attempts. Don't care about ranking points.
if it causes even 0.0001% lag to the rest of the game, i'd say, better remove it.

say you'd rate GvG GbG and this Arena, with x/10, what would you put as average to each ?

in my taste, arena comes last with difference.

not that you should dislike it, cause i do, just can't see an actual reason of its existance unless it's testing
 

Forwandert

Brigadier-General
I was going to attempt the full season from Monday just to see if it improved but I didnt even look at it yesterday, When I clicked on it today and it was the same made up player in top spot just gave up and removed my army.

It adds nothing to the game, it's not PvP apart from the rankings page for me or unless I swap to taking lower point positions. Can't even tell what changed from last time apart from reduction in actual players to fight.
 

klods hans

Monarch
I don't really care if it's a real player or a npc, as long as I get a few rewards out of it without too much effort.
I don't even look at the names much or notice if it's the same player over and over. I mostly look at their attack boost. Can I beat the strongest player on auto or do I have to go semi-auto or maybe choose a weaker player?
The competition and ranking mean nothing to me. It's just another reward farm. Though far from as rewarding as GBG and GE, of course.
 
Last edited:

r21r

Major-General
since the day i've joined this forum , about 1.5year ago, i've been reading people saying "game drains too much time", after a while it stopped.
assuming that all those people either left, or found it meaningless to provide feedback, inno camed with this feature, claiming they have a reason to go online with it, from sources they never revealed. we all remember what feedback it took that time.
now, with far less people giving feedback for it, at least here on forum, seems like we will keep the arena, but not because it's entertaining, but because it's usefull to the minority for rewards.
maybe it's wrong way to compare it, but this game was grew and was supported for GvG, couple years later, we have this.
it's getting poorer and poorer impo, and i do not feel the time i spend here giving feedback helps the game.

after all, within the 9 these pages, nobody said about the diamond cost which remains the same, while the medals increase.

let's keep it for the few rewards it gives. dont bother change anything, maybe bring back the SAV vs Iron Age match ups, since this was the only issue with it.. all the rest remind a strategy building game. just because it gives rewards.

won't take it to heart, but since i am not taking them in my pocket, none of my bussiness. it's too late to change route anyway, keep up the good work.
game is supposed to have minimum age, but feels like they are implementing a maximum age instead.
 

Forwandert

Brigadier-General
I didnt really worry about the rewards. wasn't something that worried me last time around, I have pretty much everything I need. At the end of tech, building gbs jsut to use up fps and I already have enough Reno and 1 ups for the next era.

It's just not engaging attacking a NPC. It was actually better and entertaining last time when you could be against possibly anyone and not restricted from guild players etc. This is just a smaller version of gbg with more buttons to press. Of course I want to get as high up the leader board as possible but wasn't going to spend to do that. If I did what I could with my boosts and got as high as possible that's fine but against players.

This below for example I can't even understand why the NPC was in first. It's just not implemented right and there shouldnt be NPCs.

20210603_192936.jpg
 

OrionMnt

Corporal
say you'd rate GvG GbG and this Arena, with x/10, what would you put as average to each ?
GvG - 0/10 - Brainless clicking autobattles, garbage rewards, not supported feature (when was the last age even updated on the map, what is the current highest age... ), you cant play that "feature" from phone (unless they added it in the last 1-2 months, haven't checked) Why GvG is still in the game??
Arena - 4/10 - You have to actually do some fighting here, using brain is good. Some rewards, also good. You don't need to play it 24/7 like GbG. Ranking placements need more work and we just need way way moooore people, if you don't play it, you wont miss much.
GbG - 6/10 - Amazing rewards (actually need a nerf there), amazing idea, but because of the SC/sector swaping abuse, this is the limit, but if you don't play it, you will miss thousands of fps/goods/etc.
 

Jouchka

Private
As long as there is no difference in rewards/points between fighing silly battles in autobattle and hard fights that you have to do in manual mode, there will be always abuse. The only way to counter the abuse is to take into the ratio between own boosts and the boosts of the opponents. And make the (battle) points earned dependent on it. It would have been a great feature if that would finally have played a role in this feature, but INNO turned it again in an autobattle feature, beacuse the top reward NPC is in many cases a silly army with less boosts. Due to some unknown reason INNO refuses to think about this. Probably these cheap fighting causes people to spend money on the game.
 

potatoskunk

Master Corporal
Two words: time zones. Kills your idea in the bud.



You got reply in the first comment there. No interactivity please, it will restrict the feature to a bunch of no lifers who live in the game. There's GBG for that.
Nope, doesn't kill it, although it is something that needs to be factored into the design.

Time zones could be handled by having this on a rotating schedule. Let's pick a random era: say, HMA. Imagine two HMA tournaments 12 hours apart, on two or three days every week. That way it works reasonably well for a wide variety of time zones and work schedules. The tournament schedules would be publicly available so you can plan. You will almost certainly not be able to catch them all, but you can plan to catch some of them - even if you don't live in the game. And if you're in a later era but have units for earlier eras, you'll have even more options for which tournaments you want to join.

And just to boost the numbers, make it a cross-world tournament like GE.
 

TheGreatFinger

Warrant Officer
So, let me do the math. 5 min per battle, 9 rounds Swiss (yes, I know the drill). 45 minutes per tournament, right? That's the lower bound.
45 minutes of no GvG, no GBG, no chatting, not collecting the city if it happens during that. Not attending space colony, settlements, events.
And you propose doing it 2 times per week? For 19 eras?
No. Please no. Time zones do not kill the idea. They eradicate it so there is nothing left to bury.
 

TheGreatFinger

Warrant Officer
Don't get me wrong, Swiss is a good idea. And while I don't want more interactivity, I can understand that a lot of people might want that.
But, if we set aside the time aspect, there are still 3 problems with fighting in FoE that make manual PvP contests problematic at best.
First, if you want PvP to show who's better at fighting - means you have to discard fighting bonuses, otherwise it's just silly. The guy with higher stats wins, he can just press auto in most cases for most eras. So no need for contest, just get the guys and range them by stats. You can use egypt troops or just remove fighting stats, but the game isn't about that. All the people who invested in their cities, will cry that it was all for nothing. What's the point in St Coward's Cathedral, if it doesn't help at all?
Second, fighting in FoE has very little to do with skill. More than that, it is mindbogglingly boring after a certain point. Yes, you need to know rock-scissors-paper thing, and something about targeting priorities, and terrain, and maybe the fact that railguns can (surprise) hit flying, but in the end it's much more important if AO triggers or not. Or if it's banned, have you got 3 or 5 from this 3-5 range.
Third - severe disbalance in most eras. Lets view SAV vs SAV fighting. It will be 8x EC vs 8x EC, pretty much in every fight. How entertaining can this fight be? The one who goes first, wins. As simple as that. In PvE attacker goes first, that's logical. In PvP you'd have to somehow pick the one who wins.
 

FantasticMrFrizz

Brigadier-General
Cross server PlayervPlayer Defence, a bit like GE, more competition between ages so you dont get the same player repetitively. what would be the point of removing all attack boosts after years and years of building them up.. Players know what they are getting into and can opt out from taking part, participating players can choose two defending armies perhaps to stop the auto battling once you know your enemy set up it becomes easier to beat them so mixing it up like GvG defending could make for more manual battles and more risks of losing auto battles..
 

potatoskunk

Master Corporal
For a live Swiss tourney, I would imagine most manual battles would be over in about 2-3 minutes - remember that people who are losing have an incentive to withdraw to save units for later rounds, so fighting to the death would only happen in very close battles or in the final couple of rounds. The next round can't begin until the slowest is done, though, so probably an average of about 4 minutes would be typical. If we have 9 rounds (7 might actually be sufficient), that's just over half an hour. If we do 7 rounds, less than half an hour. This is still something that you're not going to do every week. Having multiple tournaments per week would not be so that you will participate multiple times per week so much as so that you have multiple opportunities in case some of them do not.

That's a fair point on certain eras getting pretty boring. Some of the early eras - IA, EMA, HMA, etc., have combat that is reasonably balanced and would be interesting. If later eras are poorly balanced, the problem isn't the idea of a live tournament, the problem is the imbalance.

The GB attack bonuses, etc. - I think the only way to make it interesting would be to not count it. Otherwise, lower-era tournaments are dominated by late-era players who build some extra units from that era, or by other players who have been around for a long time. Yeah, the high-level players would complain, but their attack boosts will still have value in GE and GbG.

It's not a perfect design that everyone will love, but I suspect it would be rather more popular than their current implementation.
 

Praeceptor

Lieutenant Colonel
NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight, NPC fight etc.

Explain to me again why this is called Player vs Player ???
 

TheGreatFinger

Warrant Officer
For a live Swiss tourney, I would imagine most manual battles would be over in about 2-3 minutes
Yeah no, in some cases when terrain is involved, my manual battles against AI are longer than 5 minutes. With a human.. there will be waiting moves (who wants to get hover to this forest, right?). 2-3 min is totally unrealistic, especially for the longest battle of the round. Add to that time for turn, game crashes, people who will consciously delay their battles just to annoy everyone else (cause they are special, you know..), etc. etc. 5 min is lower bound, just accept it :)

That's a fair point on certain eras getting pretty boring. Some of the early eras - IA, EMA, HMA, etc., have combat that is reasonably balanced and would be interesting. If later eras are poorly balanced, the problem isn't the idea of a live tournament, the problem is the imbalance.
Unless you gonna give random mix (maybe even predefined random mix) to both players and do 2 rounds (one from each side for each player), the word "balanced" isn't to be used in rock-scissors-paper environment. 2 rounds will work, but that's 10 min for a round already. I have better things to do. Symmetric predefined armies are also an idea, but there's still a question of who goes first.

The GB attack bonuses, etc. - I think the only way to make it interesting would be to not count it. Otherwise, lower-era tournaments are dominated by late-era players who build some extra units from that era, or by other players who have been around for a long time. Yeah, the high-level players would complain, but their attack boosts will still have value in GE and GbG.
Exactly. Pairing a SAV city hosting 1k/1k atk/def vs IA city which can be like what, half of that even theoretically simply because of city size, is a bad idea.
On the other hand, city def is pointless then. It always was, but at least some poor souls found joy in stacking it and terrorizing the neighbourhood cause no one could defeat those defs. Then inno introduced GT and said "hey, sorry about that, but we gonna give you PvNPC where city def might matter" - well, it is still pointless :) And now your version of PvP won't even display the stats :)

It's not a perfect design that everyone will love, but I suspect it would be rather more popular than their current implementation.
That's an easy one, haha. Current implementation is so handicapped that virtually anything is better.