dnd1000 said:

Have meet such never ending battle, when couple of characters with certain skill are gifting 15 minutes or more continuously charging their HP. Such battles to stop myself otherwise it could continue ages. Made print screen. Presume the balance should be improved.

It is not about balance.

And believe me, higher you climb on Arena, the less you will see battles like this.

dnd1000 said:

Don’t agree with you, it is the balance. I should waste coins and energy waiting normal game at higher levels? Funny no? Lousy attitude in general.

What you should do is get a strong enough team that you can kill the opponent faster than he can heal up. Or just change your priorities in battles and kill enemy healers first - if you can afford to. In the Arena, the attacker obviously has the advantage of being able to play manually while the defending team is run by AI; one of the ways to balance that is that in case of a stalemate where neither side can kill the other, the defender wins as the attacker will have to give up and leave the battle. 

dnd1000 said:

Don’t agree with you, it is the balance. I should waste coins and energy waiting normal game at higher levels? Funny no? Lousy attitude in general.

I don't know what you mean by "normal game" and why should waste coins and energy. Isn't it better to just build better team and win your battles?

 On lower tier it is normal to get battles like this, later on you wouldn't have endless battles, you either win or lose in 4 or 5 turns. 

you can inspect the enemy team before you start the fight to see what champions they got and what skills those champions have.

If you choose not to, and just barge into a fight without examining if your setup would be good for the opponents setup, that is on you.

There are plenty of heal denial effects and CC, so just because the setup you fought with doesn't work against a specific setup, don't asume another setup would not counter it.

Maybe i just don't get your idea of balance and since you didn't explain what you mean by "more balanced" i was forced to use my idea of balance in this dispute.

I think the term is not right, it is not unbalanced. But it is in fact a problem of game design.

The point made here is that is someone can get a team good enough in term of defense (def, heals, remove debuff, revive,...), he do not care about doing damage or kill the ennemy team (in a defenser point of view). And since the defenser do not need to be actually playing (when the attacker does), it's a real advantage.

Winning a battle shouldn't be about not die but killing the other team. If both teams cannot kill the other team, it's should be a draw (for instance after 20 rounds, it's a drawn no one gets or loose arena point) or it's should be a mechanic that deblock the situation for instance when 20 rounds starts, incoming damage are increased by 10% and +10% at each new round and so by round 30 the battle should be over and someone actually win.

Well look at this point. When you attack, you have all the advantage of choosing your team that can counter enemy team and you can play the battle on manual and thus get advantage over bad or unoptimized AI.

Failing as attacker may not exactly means you are bad player or your team is bad, but more likely your oponent have better/stronger team. 

It seams to me that he deserve the win if you can't beat him with all the advantage you have. Draw isn't fare outcome here.