Browse forums 
Ankama Trackers

Battlefields, a little satisfaction survey.

By Infoglas#1636 - MEMBER - January 11, 2022, 12:28:32


For me, this is an important part of the game, because it allowed to meet many new people every day and this relates to the concept of the game that the community can influence the internal ecosystem of the game, in this case it is politics. Because each territory included in a nation provides a bonus to both all players and the nation's economy. Yes, before nations revamp, the nation's money could be used to trigger special environmental quests. Now this system is broken and does not work. But that's a different story, let's get back to the battlefields. I do not agree that players will often change nations and join the one with a big bonus. Firstly, there are restrictions on changing the nation, and secondly, I have met many more people who were true to their choices, regardless of how many territories your nation has.
 I noticed that some people focused only on a certain level, for example, pvp is only level 80 and I dare to assume that this is due to the old passive system, where there are few passives and their further opening provides huge advantages, or, on the contrary, some classes had better passives for the very first time than others. This is just an assumption, I will not argue for all people why they choose pvp 80, pvp 110, or only pvp for level 201+. I just want to share my general impression that daily battlefields were of more value to the community for me than battlefields only 2 times per week. The fact that fewer people began to turn to this function should be considered globally, rifts and wild pvp were introduced, which could naturally affect the battlefields. After all, instead of reducing the battlefield, it was possible to make the pvp currency more valuable. Even people who came to the battlefield are not important for battles, because not all battles are fast and when you fight for 40 minutes, those who collect flowers from enemies or make boxes also benefit the team, you should not deny this. The daily battlefields provided excellent progression in terms of exp and supported the economy. People were willing to spend a lot of money to make the most optimal build at low levels. And heroic pvp especially fueled the ego of the part of the community that likes to show their superiority over the rest. Just imagine that it is in your power to deny someone access to the battlefield (reward), that was what heroic pvp with one attempt was about. And for this sensation, many resorted to dishonest battles, 1vs3. Rifts have shown that an identifier can be entered in battle, which takes into account the number of players in the team in order to provide a bonus, or vice versa, some dungeons give you a huge debuff if you came there at a level much exceeding the complexity of the dungeon (applies to dungeons with sublimations). This means that a similar identifier could apply to 1vs3 battles, giving a huge debuff to a team that resorts to dishonest battles.

And now the survey.

  • What is your attitude to the battlefields now?
  • Do you think introducing heroes helps the battlefields?
  •  Do you agree that it is necessary to punish with a debuff those who resort to an unfair battle?
  • What advice would you give to developers to improve the attractiveness of battlefields?
  •  If you did not take part in the battlefields, what would personally motivate you to use this function?

This is my little reflection, I am very sad to see the battlefields now and I do not take part anymore. But I am interested in your opinion,

thanks to everyone who takes the time to share the answers.
4 -3
Respond to this thread