AftoKrator

That's why the penalty was applied. 😅

 
 
Disagree with the internet issue. 
Normally if you lag , you'd usually lose a turn. If you do end up losing 2 turns , you'd not be playing arena after you know that you are lagging , would you? So the penalty applied to them would not matter much. 
Plus the penalty time isn't something like an hour , it would probably start with 5 minutes and then stack up per afk. 
As for the parental and school problem , i suggest them to focus on their studies during study time. 🙂
 
I can also suggest another idea for those whose internet suck. 
The devs could add something like protection point (limited) per day if the algorithm detects that you lost a match due to lags. 
Also , No pain No gain . Like c'mon , something needs to be sacrificed to gain something. 
Yup , i like your idea. 

Limiting seems a little too stiff. especially when there's only 2 per day. 
for me, i usually quit in battle when i see people trolling. so i quit so i don't need to feel the frustration trying to win an impossible match. for people who farm arena like 8 hours a day, that kind of situation could happen pretty often. 2 quits is definitely not enough. 
*********************************************************************
That bring me to my suggestion. 
Purchasable quits. 
you get 2 free quits per day. does not stack. resets everyday (the same way events do). 
for most people who do not farm arena and only go for 5 wins (to get 5 boxes), 2 free quits should be enough. 
if you want more, 5 tokens each. yes that's 5 tokens each. 
it's not a heavy price considering that warriors back in the ancient days get their heads (or something) chopped if they quit a match. (don't quote me. i didn't take any AP history classes 😅). (if it's not chopping, it's some other kind of horrible punishment. you get the point). 
also, if you buy quits, you go to use them in the day. otherwise they'll reset to 2 (free) quits the next day. 

Limiting seems a little too stiff. especially when there's only 2 per day. 
for me, i usually quit in battle when i see people trolling. so i quit so i don't need to feel the frustration trying to win an impossible match. for people who farm arena like 8 hours a day, that kind of situation could happen pretty often. 2 quits is definitely not enough. 
*********************************************************************
That bring me to my suggestion. 
Purchasable quits. 
you get 2 free quits per day. does not stack. resets everyday (the same way events do). 
for most people who do not farm arena and only go for 5 wins (to get 5 boxes), 2 free quits should be enough. 
if you want more, 5 tokens each. yes that's 5 tokens each. 
it's not a heavy price considering that warriors back in the ancient days get their heads (or something) chopped if they quit a match. (don't quote me. i didn't take any AP history classes 😅). (if it's not chopping, it's some other kind of horrible punishment. you get the point). 
also, if you buy quits, you go to use them in the day. otherwise they'll reset to 2 (free) quits the next day. 

People can just close the app.
You'd end up penalizing people whose internet sucks and/or had to shut off their phone for school or for their parents.

I am referencing ideas from different apps and games for this plan.
How about we limit the number of quits per day? 
Let's say we limit the number of quits per day to 2 
Assuming that the average time taken to complete a pvp match is a minute and 30 seconds. 
Let's also assume that the person smurfing would have to reduce around 15 stars from his/her current rank. 
Time taken = 90 seconds X 13 matches/ stars ( reducing 2 quits from the assumed 15 stars) 
= 19.5 minutes
Note that the time can significantly increase in 2v2/ 3v3 seasons. 
Now after limiting the number of quits per day we also put penalty for anyone that goes afk during the match. Penalty would be an short ban from pvp.
Implementation of this plan would increase the time taken to smurf so much that it would become a pain in the ass for many. 😄
This process can't guarantee you a smurf free arena but this can drastically reduce the number of smurfs.
Lemme know what you think about this idea. 😉
 
 
tldr : limit number of quits per day , penalty for any afk during pvp (2 turns). 
 
 

Got in Rank10 Boxes:

hehe 

Some flexes on Icarus, before known as ZeRo/Solstice

Quite flex worthy i'd say, from todays offer.

Lately I'm liking to make Physical Items mythical and divine.


 
👍

dropping ranks is definitely a little too easy in this game. 
from this other game that i play, ranking up is really hard, but you don't drop rank after each season. that's good for encouraging people to keep going up and to prevent people from quitting because ranking up is too hard. 
i spend a lot of time last week getting from R11 to R7. and now i'm R9 after the reset. getting to R7 took a lot of time for me and also a lot of head-banging-on-table. now i'm even falling off of R9 because i lost to a R10 dude who was R3 last week. 
people who drop from R7 or even R6 to R9 is reasonable for me, but people who drop from R3 or R4 to R9 is not. especially when i'm put with them. —— that is another reason why i brought up max-rank thing up above. 

dropping ranks is definitely a little too easy in this game. 
from this other game that i play, ranking up is really hard, but you don't drop rank after each season. that's good for encouraging people to keep going up and to prevent people from quitting because ranking up is too hard. 
i spend a lot of time last week getting from R11 to R7. and now i'm R9 after the reset. getting to R7 took a lot of time for me and also a lot of head-banging-on-table. now i'm even falling off of R9 because i lost to a R10 dude who was R3 last week. 
people who drop from R7 or even R6 to R9 is reasonable for me, but people who drop from R3 or R4 to R9 is not. especially when i'm put with them. —— that is another reason why i brought up max-rank thing up above. 

dropping ranks is definitely a little too easy in this game. 
from this other game that i play, ranking up is really hard, but you don't drop rank after each season. that's good for encouraging people to keep going up and to prevent people from quitting because ranking up is too hard. 
i spend a lot of time last week getting from R11 to R7. and now i'm R9 after the reset. getting to R7 took a lot of time for me and also a lot of head-banging-on-table. now i'm even falling off of R9 because i lost to a R10 dude who was R3 last week. 
people who drop from R7 or even R6 to R9 is reasonable for me, but people who drop from R3 or R4 to R9 is not. especially when i'm put with them. —— that is another reason why i brought up max-rank thing up above. 

So far, when I ran a study on matchmaking, it seems to try to match you with someone who is close to your rank, maybe 1 star above you.  I don't think match making is the problem.
I like your idea though!
I think the dropping ranks thing is the problem.  I proposed a rank 10 limit (sort of like rank 5) so that those who want to smurf would need to wait 1-2 seasons to do so (i.e. if you're rank 5 and you want to smurf, you'd need to fall below 5 at the first season reset, then fall some more and wait at 10 for the next season reset).  Though some people on the former mod team endorsed the idea, others didn't.
I can see what you're saying about a rating system, but that rating system seems, to me, to be based on the clan war defense team you built, not on your actual inventory.
I would say instead (see my other thread I accidentally started) that it should be based on your total inventory.  Most players who have 45 myths or more should be at least rank 10.  Therefore I think if you have 45 myths or more (or a different number, we can decide that later) it shouldn't let you go below rank 10.
That way if you try to smurf, it should be PAINFUL to do so, i.e. you'd have to food myths.
Could people still smurf with 44 (or whatever number we decide, minus 1) myths?  Sure.  But they would be sacrificing their ability to ever get into top ranks, so that should harm them.
Again, the number can be something other than 45, but I'm just saying there are other ways to run this game logic.
It would require, however, code to be added to the game for this.  I don't know if Alex is interested in doing that.

honestly, i think this is a problem in game design. not entirely on the smurfers (how do you spell it?)
the game made it too easy to drop ranks. ranks are supposed to show your placement/percentile in the game. and high rank is well respected (and for toxic P2W), mid rank is for the average play, and lower ranks are for people who are just starting and need help. 
and the origin of all this imo is matchmaking. so far, as far as i can see, matchmaking is based mostly, if not all, on rank. that is only useful when you only go up (losing doesn't lose rank). if losing loses rank, then matchmaking should be just based on rank because you can just drop on purpose. —— which defeats of purpose of actually finding a match. 
you see how clan war works, ... each mech gets a rating based on mech parts and how upgraded they are. that imo is how matchmaking should be done. (not entirely tho). we should also look at max rank because that tells us each player's limits so no matter how low you drop, you can still find an opponent with similar mech builds and ratings. 

anything is good for a swoop build (not energy torsos)
yes of course..... but it's also very heavy. 

honestly, i think this is a problem in game design. not entirely on the smurfers (how do you spell it?)
the game made it too easy to drop ranks. ranks are supposed to show your placement/percentile in the game. and high rank is well respected (and for toxic P2W), mid rank is for the average play, and lower ranks are for people who are just starting and need help. 
and the origin of all this imo is matchmaking. so far, as far as i can see, matchmaking is based mostly, if not all, on rank. that is only useful when you only go up (losing doesn't lose rank). if losing loses rank, then matchmaking should be just based on rank because you can just drop on purpose. —— which defeats of purpose of actually finding a match. 
you see how clan war works, ... each mech gets a rating based on mech parts and how upgraded they are. that imo is how matchmaking should be done. (not entirely tho). we should also look at max rank because that tells us each player's limits so no matter how low you drop, you can still find an opponent with similar mech builds and ratings. 

can i join?

honestly, i think this is a problem in game design. not entirely on the smurfers (how do you spell it?)
the game made it too easy to drop ranks. ranks are supposed to show your placement/percentile in the game. and high rank is well respected (and for toxic P2W), mid rank is for the average play, and lower ranks are for people who are just starting and need help. 
and the origin of all this imo is matchmaking. so far, as far as i can see, matchmaking is based mostly, if not all, on rank. that is only useful when you only go up (losing doesn't lose rank). if losing loses rank, then matchmaking should be just based on rank because you can just drop on purpose. —— which defeats of purpose of actually finding a match. 
you see how clan war works, ... each mech gets a rating based on mech parts and how upgraded they are. that imo is how matchmaking should be done. (not entirely tho). we should also look at max rank because that tells us each player's limits so no matter how low you drop, you can still find an opponent with similar mech builds and ratings. 

can i join?