I play ritic or Illia
I agree with Alexbrand with the notion that it’s definitely better to split multiplayer into two leagues. (non-subs and subs). The major issue with having them mixed is definitely the unfairness against non-subscribers.
Another concern I have is how arena rankings are all about equipment than skill. If you happen to have worn dragonplate instead of enameled dragonplate it’s likely you’re almost always below players with enameled dragonplate. This also applies to weapons. If you use Kithsteel blade, you’re 100% guaranteed to be defeated by a person with Sword of the Temple Guard. Some form of matchmaking against similar opponents could potentially fix that issue. Someone spamming scattershot against a player with precision rifle and good tactics will still destroy the latter easily. I feel like arenas are way too relied on equipment it’s not really fun unless you reach the end of the game with top-tier gear. It’s evident that only skill is important when you have the best equipment, which means skill is obsolete when using lower-tier equipment.
Overall the only arenas that have “issues” are really those that rely on equipment rather than a mirror-match ladder level like Ace of Coders and Zero Sum. As I stated above, those ladder levels that rely on player equipment and hero setup only require “skill” when you have top-tier equipment, unlike Ace of Coders and Zero Sum which has preset equipment so it’s 100% relied on skill to rank high on the leaderboards. Of course some levels could have some gear reliance, they should have some form of balancing in matchmaking so weak players don’t just get put against end-game players with Ritic and Gift of the Trees or something. However, there’s a few issues that can be addressed for each of these arenas:
Cavern Survival:
Potentially there could be a nerf to Lightning Twig’s range, or not allow projectiles to reach the other side unless you’re really on the other side(via. the door). Cavern Survival is meant to be similar to Kithgard Brawl, however it’s evident that many players use Nalfar and kill the enemy player from the other side, because lightning twig penetrates walls. I think this should apply to all ranged weapons, it’s best to encourage players to break the doors in the middle down for a chance to offensively attack the enemy player.
Dueling Grounds:
There’s not a lot of issues except the “player controlling” and the “outside of boundary” bug with decoys, however to make it more fair in terms of matchmaking only players with the same “hero class”(Warrior, Wizard, and Ranger) should be put against each other for a more fair matchmaking. (Same split leagues will apply).
Harrowland:
This ladder doesn’t have much of an issue except players without Boss Stars are at a severe disadvantage vs players with a Boss Star.
This also mentions the drastic effect Boss Stars have on gameplay in ladders. They are very powerful, especially with Boss Star IV, weak players can’t probably even take down a paladin 1-on-1. That can also be added as a factor when balancing the matchmaking.
That’s it for now, if anyone has anything to add, please do.
1 Like
For me, arenas are mainly for after I finished the other levels. It’s kind of like a new campaign. I think that if people can get to top ten with the best equipment they probably can complete the campaign. In other words, the people that have the skill but not the equipment to get to the top ten in multiplayer levels probably can complete enough levels such that they can buy the best equipment. I think fences are extraordinarily annoying in Dueling Grounds. I’m not really sure what the point of having the fire-traps on the top left and having bear traps on the bottom right-it makes the battle not completely fair, depending on where you spawn.
The idea of separating multiplayer arenas is not mine but @098765432123 and @Grand_Sorcerer)
As for
-I would disagree. Non-subs section would be interesting for newbies and those who like fair equal game “rules” (equipment, non-sub chars, stats etc). Subscribers will have the same opportunity in their sandbox - subscriber vs subscriber, nuff said. And arena for battles non-subscriber vs subscriber could be interesting for skilled non-subscribers who get quite high ranks in non-sub league and want to try dueling with paid heroes. F.e. I’m sure that I would be on 1-3 places in non-subscribers Cavern Survival ladder. So now it’s interesting to me to overcome lots of necromancers or assassins in Cavern Survival. If I can’t beat some of them - it’s OK) Or as we can see it was interesting for people to compete with Nick playing Illia, both subscribed and non-subscribed chars.
1 Like
My suggestion was to allow subscribers to play in the non-subscriber arena IF they use non-subscriber heroes. Likewise, non-subscribers are free to participate in the subscriber tournament, they just know that they are at a disadvantage. If they want to challenge themselves, they can attend the subscriber tournament, but if they are curious how they stand on even ground, they can compete in a non-subscriber tournament. Hope that clears up my(radical) idea 
.
1 Like
I’m not saying it should completely be separate, it should somewhat be a match option for you to toggle. Yes, they can of course choose to fight subscriber heroes, but it shouldn’t be mandatory to do so. Players should get an option to choose whether they want to rank against subscribers or non-subscribers. I understand you’re one of the highly-skilled heroes, but there’s many others that face the issue of being forcibly matched against high-level subscriber heroes – There’s definitely room to make it some toggleable option to rank/play against subscriber heroes/free heroes.
4 Likes
Not so good as I’d like) I just get lucky to read one Nick’s post and evolve it in my code in some manner.
Oh I understand it very well) When I got to Dueling Grounds for the first time and fought Okar (I still remember this nightmare time 
) - I thought “Oh my God! Gosh how on earth can someone simple like Tharin and Anya compete with such players?!”. But when I tried it after 3 (or 4?) years - I knew, how)
Wow, that’s great cool super idea!
2 Likes
see i have a lead going for me so it would be a really cool idea then if more than one person agrees with what i had said before hand. but if it did happen then non subs wouldn’t be fighting heros like Illia and Okar so it would be more fair.
1 Like
Maybe we do leagues, like:
all players
Rangers
Wizards
Warriors
Non-subscribers
1 Like
but for warriors the non subs would have to go against someone like Okar… but in other words good idea.
1 Like
Blue Fox:
Solution A:
It shouldn’t act like a decoy which overrides other actions and forces the “lured” units to attack it, instead, it should be like a normal unit that can only walk around and has 500 HP without overriding player actions. It will still be effective in luring troops, but it doesn’t force units to specifically target it.
Solution B:
Add a cap to the # of units that can be “lured”, or decrease some of it’s stats so it’s a little easier to defeat.
@nick It’s possible to build decoy at (73,10) (or maybe it’s (73,12)) and it goes out of bounds.
1 Like
Started back into multiplayer levels and have to agree that the decoy overload makes writing attack code pointless when none of it actually runs. One decoy and all the strategy put into the code is useless. It even takes away the scattershot ability with the gift of trees and replaces it with basic attack. All the while, when I use a decoy against them, their hero ignores it altogether since they aren’t using an attack strategy with their hero and they can just drop bear traps at my feet the entire session while none of my code works. At least allow my non-attack code to work against them so I can at least move away from them and have some type of defensive strategy. I can’t even get Ritic to blink or phaseshift once the entire battle and the blue fox doesn’t work against this strategy.
And all it will take for us subscribers to start winning again is take that strategy with a better warrior hero and better armor and done. Certainly agree that separate leagues for subscriber vs non-subscriber would be great and limiting the decoy’s control over the enemy would be nice!!
Two points:
- It is easy to kill your peasant to prevent more decoys to be built without you buying another peasant.
- My decoys will still distract your hero in the same way so we are at least balanced.
One extra question, do the decoys your peasants build still cost you to build them?
I would disagree)
- There are some extremely skilled players I can’t beat with decoy strategy. Their kung-fu is cooler than mine) They manage to target attacks of allies to my hero, not to decoys. Maybe by exceptions and conditions, I guess. I can’t win DimaP on Cavern Survival, or jasoneilif on Dueling Grounds, f.e.
- So here we face basic questions: should subscribers win always or should non-subscribers have a chance to win too? And if subscribers should win always, doesn’t it turn multiplayer levels to pay-to-win game, not to “gamificased” learning?
- Separated leagues is a great idea I still think.
I bet yes.
1 Like
yes they do and I just cast invisibility and sacrifice burls and give the health to the peasant
P.S. I forgot to mention that they are subscribers)) As well as I can’t beat @nick’s Usara on Dueling Grounds .
P.P.S. On the other hand for objectivity, hmm3hero (with free duelist and knight) and I compete on Dueling Grounds for top ranking.
My biggest complaint is how decoys override any code and forces an attack from the hero once within the range of the decoy. Thus making any subscription advantage null and useless. Keep in mind that CodeCombat is a business. The whole point of the subscriptions is to support their goal to increase their business objectives. If a non-subscriber can compete at the same level as a subscriber, what’s the point of getting a subscription? And thus, the decline of their business.
I agree, that a non-subscriber with good code can beat a subscriber with better weapons and basic code. But the advantage from the better weapons, armor and pets should definitely give a good coder a leg up in any battle.
In any case, the platform provided by CodeCombat is “gamificased” learning regardless, whether you play the multiplayer levels or not, but a non-subscriber just won’t be able to compete well in the multiplayer battles against subscribers who paid for those perks. Especially now that the subscription isn’t a lifelong one, those perks need to be more beneficial to meet the expense.