Did anyone else have problems with the points in arena? I lost an attack battle in which the points were suppose to be only 4 but when i lost, it was -17. That was just yesterday. Today I lost another and the points were 7, but when i lost it was -14. Anyone else notice this?
Against lower ranked opponents (not Player nor Team Power, but Arena Ranking), you gain less points for a win and lose more points for a loss.
Against higher ranked opponents (not Player nor Team Power, but Arena Ranking), you gain more points for a win and lose less points for a loss.
As an addition to the above posting from harleQuinn: the opponents on top of your list are ranked lower than you, the players on the bottom are ranked higher. If you want to get +17 from a victory, just scroll down. Harder to achiece a victory of course if the opponent is ranked higher, I find the bottom of a gold arena list is just full of Hegemons, Warlords and Krisks as sidekicks to the mandatory Arbiter.
Basically, if the points are 10 for a win they are 10 for a loss. That happens when your current points are very close to your opponents. As you move away from 10 it's basically reflexive, i.e. 8/12, 6/14, etc., untill you get to around 4 for a win which will take 17, I believe, instead of 16.
Basically, if the points are 10 for a win they are 10 for a loss. That happens when your current points are very close to your opponents. As you move away from 10 it's basically reflexive, i.e. 8/12, 6/14, etc., untill you get to around 4 for a win which will take 17, I believe, instead of 16.
No wonder it's so hard to get into G5 with it's 600 required points from 2900 - 3500, or any progress to be honest, fewer teams above you that are beatable - arena is awful since the patch, if this is how it's intended to work then I see more and more leavers when they hit the wall
No wonder it's so hard to get into G5 with it's 600 required points from 2900 - 3500, or any progress to be honest, fewer teams above you that are beatable - arena is awful since the patch, if this is how it's intended to work then I see more and more leavers when they hit the wall
This is the feedback I was talking to Plarium about literally 5 minutes ago, so obviously others agree with you if I've reported exactly this before I read your post.
I'll add one more to the list though.
I hope with the feedback we can get some kind of changes at some point with matchmaking.
This is the feedback I was talking to Plarium about literally 5 minutes ago, so obviously others agree with you if I've reported exactly this before I read your post.
I'll add one more to the list though.
I hope with the feedback we can get some kind of changes at some point with matchmaking.
I will pile on 😀
2 things
I do not ever remember being punished so much for choosing a fight assigned to me in my braket,looseing 17 points for looseing to a team and only gain 4 points for beating a team is insane IMO. It is a real disincentive to try fights you might think would be close.
the stealth nerf of being able to view champs is well I can not put the words down or I will get banned.
I would really like to know the thinking behind this nerf, are we really to memorize over 600 champs and what they can do or not do?
I will pile on 😀
2 things
I do not ever remember being punished so much for choosing a fight assigned to me in my braket,looseing 17 points for looseing to a team and only gain 4 points for beating a team is insane IMO. It is a real disincentive to try fights you might think would be close.
the stealth nerf of being able to view champs is well I can not put the words down or I will get banned.
I would really like to know the thinking behind this nerf, are we really to memorize over 600 champs and what they can do or not do?
The "stealth nerf" will be being reverted back, I was told.
And in response to the other part of your comment, my feedback was on this very point of needing 4-5 fights at the easier side of the slate to make up for a single loss. Or needing to win 3 matches to make up for what feels like a fight you took a risk on and lost.
Personally, I think the matchmaking window should be tightened, so that it includes only people closer to you in points then is currently the case. This would reduce the big swings in points.
I really wasn't aware of the 'stealth' issue. As far as the points, this morning was reset, so if you look in your bracket (I'm G4 e.g.) my points are 2900. But my first 3 opponents are at 2600 hundred at the very bottom of G3. I think this kind of helps to understand the logic. The point differential has to do with where you are currently in the standings, how well you are doing relative to the opponent. Not saying this is the best way to assign points but I think it's better than just giving/taking 10 no matter where you are competetively.
The other thing about arena I've noticed is that it has gotten much harder since G5 was introduced. But this week, almost exactly when the special champ training tourny began, it seemed to get insanly that much harder. Not sure if it's just rng or if a lot of people were neglecting arena due to the tournament. I know I negelected almost all other areas of the game this week.
I really wasn't aware of the 'stealth' issue. As far as the points, this morning was reset, so if you look in your bracket (I'm G4 e.g.) my points are 2900. But my first 3 opponents are at 2600 hundred at the very bottom of G3. I think this kind of helps to understand the logic. The point differential has to do with where you are currently in the standings, how well you are doing relative to the opponent. Not saying this is the best way to assign points but I think it's better than just giving/taking 10 no matter where you are competetively.
The other thing about arena I've noticed is that it has gotten much harder since G5 was introduced. But this week, almost exactly when the special champ training tourny began, it seemed to get insanly that much harder. Not sure if it's just rng or if a lot of people were neglecting arena due to the tournament. I know I negelected almost all other areas of the game this week.
Most of my clan are G4, a few are usually G5 (one or two push plat).. and one or two are normally G1-G3, but 75% of us are G4. We are a mid tier clan in other words.
This reset several have dropped out of G4, one dropped 300 points overnight and dropped down two tiers,. Its quite a dramatic and noticeable effect for our clan at least.
Myself? i am sitting at 3k points right now, but i usually push on reset day and get myself a nice buffer zone, that has been much harder to do this reset.
I really wasn't aware of the 'stealth' issue. As far as the points, this morning was reset, so if you look in your bracket (I'm G4 e.g.) my points are 2900. But my first 3 opponents are at 2600 hundred at the very bottom of G3. I think this kind of helps to understand the logic. The point differential has to do with where you are currently in the standings, how well you are doing relative to the opponent. Not saying this is the best way to assign points but I think it's better than just giving/taking 10 no matter where you are competetively.
The other thing about arena I've noticed is that it has gotten much harder since G5 was introduced. But this week, almost exactly when the special champ training tourny began, it seemed to get insanly that much harder. Not sure if it's just rng or if a lot of people were neglecting arena due to the tournament. I know I negelected almost all other areas of the game this week.
There is no 'logic' you've just put that you're being matched against teams at the bottom of G3 when you're in G4
These are probably players who have fought hard to get into G3, want a fair fight in G3 and they are getting matched against teams that are solid G4, so what - they get more points IF they win , but if they are defending they don't have a choice to fight you or not so generally the G4 attack will win and possibly push these back to G2 - no logic totally unfair!
There is no 'logic' you've just put that you're being matched against teams at the bottom of G3 when you're in G4
These are probably players who have fought hard to get into G3, want a fair fight in G3 and they are getting matched against teams that are solid G4, so what - they get more points IF they win , but if they are defending they don't have a choice to fight you or not so generally the G4 attack will win and possibly push these back to G2 - no logic totally unfair!
They are only losing about 2-3 points for the loss. If that's pushing them back into G2, then they probably shouldn't be in G3 to begin with.
They are only losing about 2-3 points for the loss. If that's pushing them back into G2, then they probably shouldn't be in G3 to begin with.
they got there on merit, same as you got to G4, you have a stronger team
Close to the end of the arena week, I don't find teams from the bottom of a lower tier anymore, but after the reset, everybody in G3 is at the bottom of G3.
There is no 'logic' you've just put that you're being matched against teams at the bottom of G3 when you're in G4
These are probably players who have fought hard to get into G3, want a fair fight in G3 and they are getting matched against teams that are solid G4, so what - they get more points IF they win , but if they are defending they don't have a choice to fight you or not so generally the G4 attack will win and possibly push these back to G2 - no logic totally unfair!
I disagree there is 'no' logic to awarding point differentials based on previous success. How would you do it? What is your alternative? Do you suggest that if you beat a team with 100 more points than you it should count the same as beating a team with 100 less points? Or do you suggest you should only be matched with players with identical arena points as you? Or do you bring some other suggestion?
Merit, versus spending and spending gems, versus one man defenses for easy farm. The position we are in for arena is already based on how our main team fits within the current meta.
Is it merit to spend gems to refresh and fight 1 opponent out of 40? For example, if you hit 1 team every 3 pages, only beating teams at 3000, you can climb to 3500 given enough time and gems. That doesn't mean you deserve to be there, given that you cannot beat any teams above 3100.
Arena is a combination of money, time, patience, farming, and luck. Merit is all about how much gear you can farm, and if you can put together an effective strategy to STAY in your tier WITHOUT needing to refresh constantly to do it.
I disagree there is 'no' logic to awarding point differentials based on previous success. How would you do it? What is your alternative? Do you suggest that if you beat a team with 100 more points than you it should count the same as beating a team with 100 less points? Or do you suggest you should only be matched with players with identical arena points as you? Or do you bring some other suggestion?
Do you suggest that if you beat a team with 100 more points than you it should count the same as beating a team with 100 less points?
Yes I would suggest this as it is Plarium's crappy matchmaking that give us the oppoents, or at least go back to before they put in G5, at most I think it was a 5 point swing not this 3 to 17 point swings we get now.
As i said earlier it really make it a disincentive to fight anyone other than people you are sure you will crush.
It was the same swing before G5 as it is now. So, what is your suggestion? How should they handle it? I've noticed more than a few players on this forum are experts at saying how it sucks and how it shouldn't be done, but have little of any real suggestions on how to do it.
As far as a disincentive to fight anyone unless you're sure you will crush them... that strikes me as odd. When are you ever sure? When you have overwhelming player power, team power, arena points? Or when you analyze a team? And if you not sure of your absolute and total domination, don't challenge them. And if you are sure, what's the point of playing? I fight teams all the time I'm not sure I can absolutly dominate runover and crush to smitherenes.
I think the crappy system would be to give/take the same points no matter the challenge. That would be crappy. Let me repeat...crappy. Why should you advance to the next tier, for beating a team a tier below you? And if they did, why o why would you ever actually try to learn why the teams that consistently beat you are better? There would be no incentive ... ah, I get it ... you want a system where you can just find the crappiest team you can that you are 100% sure you can totally dominate and crush, and then advance just as fast as if you'd beaten a good team.
It was the same swing before G5 as it is now. So, what is your suggestion? How should they handle it? I've noticed more than a few players on this forum are experts at saying how it sucks and how it shouldn't be done, but have little of any real suggestions on how to do it.
As far as a disincentive to fight anyone unless you're sure you will crush them... that strikes me as odd. When are you ever sure? When you have overwhelming player power, team power, arena points? Or when you analyze a team? And if you not sure of your absolute and total domination, don't challenge them. And if you are sure, what's the point of playing? I fight teams all the time I'm not sure I can absolutly dominate runover and crush to smitherenes.
I think the crappy system would be to give/take the same points no matter the challenge. That would be crappy. Let me repeat...crappy. Why should you advance to the next tier, for beating a team a tier below you? And if they did, why o why would you ever actually try to learn why the teams that consistently beat you are better? There would be no incentive ... ah, I get it ... you want a system where you can just find the crappiest team you can that you are 100% sure you can totally dominate and crush, and then advance just as fast as if you'd beaten a good team.
Why should the points be the same?
Because I am not the one matching up, as for suggestion I GAVE one, go back to how points were done before G5 from my memory the most i lost was 12 and the least I gained was 7 , much better than the 3 -18 range we have no IMO.
It really does not matter as Plarium will do whatever they feel like doing like they did with the not being able to view the champs.
I really just beleive it should not cost me 18 points to lose a fight just because that player is lower rank than me becuause, as has been pointed out on these board a million times it is about gear and synergy not rank 😀
I disagree there is 'no' logic to awarding point differentials based on previous success. How would you do it? What is your alternative? Do you suggest that if you beat a team with 100 more points than you it should count the same as beating a team with 100 less points? Or do you suggest you should only be matched with players with identical arena points as you? Or do you bring some other suggestion?
You play teams from your own tier, simple as that, some will be near the top some near the bottom some in the middle, and yes like any league you get the same points and play only the same division. Thats fair because the better teams will end up at thre top and the not so good at the bottom. All this 'I was in x tier now I can't be' is because of their 'matchmaking'
Do you think it's fair someone with a lot of points who puts up a 1 player defence who might have 300 points more than me gives me 17 points for a win where someone in my tier playing properly gives 3 points because they are lower than me?
