PvP broken mechanics

[Shaolin85london]

I think the Iron Maiden mini quiz is genius to decide 1st attacker, just can't be too time consuming and should be able to skip and take the 15% chance of going first. I have got to the point that I don't even attack certain character combinations. I would rather be grinding than watching my team just stand there frozen and stunned. I think I have went against Nicko's team 3 times in 2 weeks and never made a single attack move. I fought someone else with same team. Same exact result. If I had those 2 characters, I would put them on defense as well.

Yeah, sometimes it's better avoid to attack someone, that's part of the strategy. Never been against Nicko time so far, if I ll do, ll be just for fun. I'm shielding my rank with all my energies, luckily we are just on a step to Saturday.

[The Educated fool]

If people really think they need to beat every defensive team out there then what good is PVP?

I think this is a very important question to consider... probably the most important one in this thread, in my opinion. The ability to beat every possible combination of characters with every other possible combination of characters should never be the goal, from a developers standpoint, as it would negate strategy, take away any of the fun of beating strong teams, and really hurt the Arena gameplay as a whole. As has been mentioned, climbing the ranks should involve strategy that includes sometimes avoiding certain character combinations that have favourable advantages that give them a high chance of defeating the team you are able to assemble with the characters at your disposal. In short, pick your battles... you can't and shouldn't expect to win them all!

There will (almost, there will always be those exceptional few that WILL have them all) always be characters that we wish we could have at our disposal that we are simply unable to pull (lord knows I'd love an Angel of Fear, Carriage Rider or a Hell Hound for my own team! ) but the fun of the Arena should come in large part from making the most of the characters that we do have, and experimenting with combinations of characters that lead to a defense from the AI for our defense teams every once in a while, at least. (As someone whose defense team once went over 5 days without a single hold, I speak from experience here).

Yes, the risk of being eliminated when some teams get the first hit can be extremely frustrating, I very well know, but players should be free to choose whether or not taking that risk makes sense for them, in order to score more points by beating a stronger opponent. There is--I very strongly suspect--no current combination of characters that are 100% unbeatable... that fact alone should suffice as the best possible argument against the need for devs to raise a nerf bat to particular characters. Fixing bugs like the talisman over-triggering rate for multiple hitters makes all the sense in the world, but killing off the abilities that make certain characters more desirable is punitive to anyone who has been lucky enough to pull and develop these characters, and would certainly make the thrill of pulling them in the first place obsolete.

In the end, this is still a game--in spite of how complex it may be, and how seriously it can potentially be taken--and devising strategies to defeat overpowered opponents is, in my opinion, the main thing that makes the Arena potentially uniquely fun. Beating the RNG is, and has always been a core mechanic of this game from the beginning... why should playing the odds on the ability to get the first turn when you really need it in the arena be any different? Risk and reward, baby! It's all about finding the balance. As was first said in this forum long ago: "Remember, the game is not supposed to be easy."

My two cents.

[Nicko]

I posted something similar, though much less eloquently, a few days ago

Agree completely

[Sparton_LOTB]

There is--I very strongly suspect--no current combination of characters that are 100% unbeatable... that fact alone should suffice as the best possible argument against the need for devs to raise a nerf bat to particular characters.

Emphasis mine.

That's the key though... there definitely isn't any combination of characters that is 100% unbeatable. But what if there is one that's 95% unbeatable? Or 95% unbeatable if you go second, even if you had every possible character in your possession? That's where we start to get concerned. We want characters to have unique niches and capabilities, but when they polarize the meta and start to make individual choices people make for team comp and choosing skills in battle meaningless, or have little thought or variation from battle to battle... that's the kind of places where we want to make changes.

Also, bug fixing and supporting the team with their fixes has tied me up a bit more than I thought this week, so I'll start discussion threads about specific characters at the start of next week. Keep the comments and suggestions coming.

[Nicko]

Emphasis mine.

That's the key though... there definitely isn't any combination of characters that is 100% unbeatable. But what if there is one that's 95% unbeatable? Or 95% unbeatable if you go second, even if you had every possible character in your possession? That's where we start to get concerned. We want characters to have unique niches and capabilities, but when they polarize the meta and start to make individual choices people make for team comp and choosing skills in battle meaningless, or have little thought or variation from battle to battle... that's the kind of places where we want to make changes.

Also, bug fixing and supporting the team with their fixes has tied me up a bit more than I thought this week, so I'll start discussion threads about specific characters at the start of next week. Keep the comments and suggestions coming.

Does such a defense exist? Cause I know I haven't faced one yet I couldn't beat repeatedly...and seems like I'm always going second

[Nicko]

And I will say some I'd never tackle without a Prisoner. But that's what EF is saying - it's all part of the strategy - knowing who to attack/revenge and who to avoid based on the strengths/weaknesses of your current team

Talismans that freeze you with a perfect hit almost every time cause there's three or four hits to trigger the effect? Yes - fix those - but otherwise, I haven't seen anything that is anything other than challenging (and I mean challenging in a good way). Obviously you guys want what is best for all, but dang - I hope you're very selective with that nerf bat

[The Educated fool]

That's the key though... there definitely isn't any combination of characters that is 100% unbeatable. But what if there is one that's 95% unbeatable? Or 95% unbeatable if you go second, even if you had every possible character in your possession?

I would respectfully counter with this question, noble Sparton: Has not a person who has put in the time to invest in characters and test specific combinations of characters in an effort to earn a very high win percentage (bug-exploiters aside, and luck notwithstanding) earned the right to reap the benefits of such efforts? Personally, I would see this as a just and fitting reward for such an individual. In light of this, further, it would seem to me punitive to then nerf the characters that lead to that advantage, and worse, it would seem specifically to counter the feeling of having been lucky enough to have pulled the characters that have lead to the possibility of achieving that advantage in the first place... a feeling, I feel I must add, given its lottery nature, that is a big part of the earning potential of this game. To speak simply: someone has to come in first in the Arena rankings (as I imagine this hypothetical player might achieve)... would not someone meeting this criteria of considered and strategic play seem like a fine potential ideal for a first place finisher?

To the point of my emphasis in your question: given the current (or even projected) roster limitations in place, is it actually even possible to collect every character in the game in the first place? And, as such, do (or should) these limitations render such questions of acceptable win percentage moot?

Please understand that I in no way intend this question, or any of my other questions or comments offered here, to be contentious or in any way disrespectful (I qualify such, as tone is easy to lose in text). Merely, again, my two cents. (That's 4, so far! )

[Sag7272]

As far as I know, every defense can fall first turn or not if the attack team is built the right way for who you fight, the chances won't be and should never be 100% either way and it's perfect that way...
Picking your fight is 90% of it, been attacked repeatedly by the kind players who whine game being rigged and prisoner too strong who average in the 25-40 rank without a single maxed tallisman on their whole team, I can understand they want a chance but how low the bar have to be dropped, obviously a toon with hardly 12k health and wrong tallisman setup will be dead going 2nd turn against any top 10 players Prisoner or not, I think it's normal losses cost so much I can't imagine how costly it would be point wise to let the AI fight with a handicap and even more disadvantages...
Once the multiple hits "bug" sorted everything should be business as usual, but that's my 2cents...

To those who may feel offended,
2 weeks ago I finished top 10 burning 150 ironites fighting repeatedly killhouse and Niko I got my prisoner and my marauder out of my prise, I know I'm lucky but go fight burn ironite and you may get wath you want instead of trying to nerf everything up to the mummy saying to not spend ironite since it's a beta and other infamous things I've red here I'm not targeting anyone in particular but in life there's no trophy for participating, you have to prove yourself better that's it...

[Nicko]

C'mon Sag - every kid gets a trophy!

Without mincing words, the difference here is the Prisoner/Desert Maurader combo. But there have been some epic battles tonight between Sag and myself - all day actually - and our Prisoners are neutralizing each other

We've both lost some battles but the majority of the time we've won as attackers - and I've gone second a ton of times - and I'm sure he has as well

The Prisoner can be beaten. Consistently. Please fix the broken Talismans but leave the characters alone. And if you're afraid of the Prisoner/Maurader combo cause you have no Prisoner? Attack someone else! It's not rocket science! Plenty of other teams to attack. A combination of hard work and a lot of hours, luck, and some money spent on the game has given players like me and Sag solid teams. Everyone has that option. Very few have the Prisoner/Maurader combo - why change the game around a statistically irrelevant minority? Prisoners have been popping up like weeds anyway since the Christmas event. And of course I have a vested interest. But many others like Shaolin85london and The Educated Fool have piped in recently with the same sentiments - because where does it end?

[Sag7272]

We've both lost some battles but the majority of the time we've won as attackers - and I've gone second a ton of times - and I'm sure he has as well

Why change the game around a statistically irrelevant minority? - because where does it end?

Of course a won a couple starting second ,yes because I had a prisoner but when I attack those guys with CG the prisoner is useless I need my hellhound so he's next on list since the CG crowd have a disadvantage facing me with it?
Or my troll should have a random ally shield because glass canons can't stand facing it?

To me it's opening a can of worms because some lack judgement in theirs attack choices...