Battle Grounds

[MrFancyPants]

There are a number of different solutions that I've heard of, that could be somewhat feasible.

1) Applying a BR/Strength rating bracket. People are ranked in the order of their strength/BR ( kind of similar to arena ), and only people closest in 'brackets' can fight each other (battle grounds would be 'populated' by use of this ranking). Such that a person who is in a 1-10 'Diamond' (top) ranking, cannot fight someone in the lower 500 'Iron' ranking. However instead of the ranking being reset every week (like in arena), it's either not reset at all, or resets at much less infrequent interval. Obvious upside of fighting people similar to your strength. A major downside of fighting a large variety of people, as availability will be somewhat sporadic, and contingent on player participation and online activity.

2) Applying an auto-dryad system. That is, If person A has more BR than person B, person B automatically receives a % bonus to stats, to approximate their strength/BR to person A. This has the upsides of making battles more about skill/technique, and the obvious downside of making level one(1) players, technically able to compete with level 80 KH mega-casher-players.

3) Applying a more detailed bracketing system. This idea has been proposed by.... almost everyone. Allow people whom are within 5-15 levels of each other to only fight those of the same level, unless they are particularly low or high in their BR/(strength), in which case they would be ranked in the a lower or higher bracket, respectively. Obvious upside of much more fair and balanced/competitive fights, with a major downside of R2 having to host ~10-30X more servers/battle grounds than they already do (which makes this idea extremely improbable). Also a major downside of having some small battlegrounds, since players of similar level/strength may not have much availability.

These are the feasible ones? BR brackets are such a non-starter of an idea. I understand the appeal, making fights more fair, but it directly penalizes the biggest spenders to benefit the free players. How can anyone think a game like this will ever make that choice? And that's aside from the practical failings of how do you reliably measure BR when players are incentivized to artificially lower it?
A preemptive dryad makes no sense at all. Give massive boosts after a loss, sure, but from the start? Same spender/free problem as the BR brackets. It could be a fun idea if dryad's gave you a bonus equal to the percent of your opponent's stats, though.

It is the weaker player that I am considering having fun, being killed by the same strong player over And over and over and over again, it Is not fun he may just stop playing the game altogether. Is there not to be considered.
As a weak player just getting out of the gate it is hard I have to watch to see if that big player it is in combat to get by him and that's not fun. Then I have to watch out for more than one.
And for the potential of having bugs, is small, we're the number of lines of code required For what I show maybe lesson hundred lines of code, if that many.
I do not see tower attacks being a problem. Or is it you see a weak player sitting on a tower, a tower attack can bypass this check.

I totally agree about new, weak players getting the short end of the stick, constantly, in so many ways. We do need much better enticements to get new players to keep playing.

I think you're greatly underestimating the complexity of the change you proposed. The opponent checklist is simple, true, but preventing attacks based on it is a whole new feature, and not all that simple. There currently is an attack immunity, but it's universal after you end a fight. Expanding that to be conditional on the identity of the other player could be quite easy to screw up. It would be a lot easier to cut off rewards after the fight than prevent it in the first place.

[Alsatia01]

These are the feasible ones? BR brackets are such a non-starter of an idea. I understand the appeal, making fights more fair, but it directly penalizes the biggest spenders to benefit the free players. How can anyone think a game like this will ever make that choice? And that's aside from the practical failings of how do you reliably measure BR when players are incentivized to artificially lower it?
A preemptive dryad makes no sense at all. Give massive boosts after a loss, sure, but from the start? Same spender/free problem as the BR brackets. It could be a fun idea if dryad's gave you a bonus equal to the percent of your opponent's stats, though.

Oh I wasn't necessarily advocating for any of these, except perhaps the third; since it is probably one of the best solutions that I've seen.

Some people do advocate for a 100% equal playing field in terms of BR ( I saw one example where everyone would be given the exact same BR/stats as the highest BR person in the battleground, and they would just equally fight it out with different slyph types), but like you, it is not something I would be in favor of implementing. I do see some logic/fairness behind the system, it's just not something I happen to be in favor of.

Though I definitely wouldn't advocate for #2, #1 I don't find all that outlandish if implemented properly.