The minority of the community are people who hate kits.

 

I hate kits, I don't think that it would be bad if a no-kit, no reward SG was implemented. I only play SG for fun, and kits ruin that.

 

Okay so, I'm just going to leave my response to a bunch of the posts here before my general response to the suggestion.

Are your opinions not biased as well? Bias is defined as the following:

Everyone who posts on this thread is going to be biased one way or the other. People who do not care will gain nothing either way, and are unlikely to post.

We have features that give advantages to literally every aspect of gameplay. Flying (building), Enchanted Repairs (mining/farming), mcmmo (anything, primarily PvP in this context), Extcreations/Investigator/UnlimitedLWC (towns), even how the community sees you is affected by features in the form on Nickname or CustomTag. You pay to get an advantage. It may not be Pay-To-Win by design, but there's certainly a pay-to-win aspect in everything.

Why is that sad? He makes his money the way he chooses. It's a game.

Anyone can purchase features should they set their mind to it, with the fact that people are willing to sell features for in game cash. Will it take a while to earn this money? Possibly? Are you incapable of doing so? First glance is telling me no, as any $15 kit retails at $75,000-$90,000 ECD, and your Mayor rank has a pricetag $85,000. I find it hard to imagine why one cannot make in-game cash as that is the main point of ECC, short of not being able to play at all. If you cannot play at all/very little, I cannot see why SG is of your major concern anyway.

Yeah I know I seem biased as I didn't show my critical perspective to those I agree with, but as is life.

I have two opinions on the topic:
One: I, personally, don't think these non-kit arenas would be used frequently enough to have a point. Why? Lets look at arenas 2-4. These arenas tend to host large games with a large variety of players. Players with kits join because they know they have an advantage. New players join because they see that that game is full. This non-kit SG would only attract people who know what they are (non-kit) and are willing to play at the time.

Two: Yes, this would take away some of the point of the current kits. Less players in SG means less profit as the amount you win is partially calculated by people in the game. You simply cannot argue to add a new system to the rotation and maintain that the old will remain unchanged. To try and maintain kit donations, this new non-kit SG would need not only no profits, but I daresay negative profits. Pay to join and low kill rewards perhaps? As well, it should not be advertised to new players, as current kitted SG would need to see an increase of new-player participation to make up for players lost to the no-kit arenas.

I'd like to apologize in advance if I come across harsh, it is not my intention. I intend to call out points I view as incorrect. I am looking for pleasant discourse; if you disagree with any opinions I've presented above, please do feel free to call me out on them.

 

Soz, meant to say majority. If many people goes to play in non kit games then there is no reason for my kits.

 

If many people play in the non-kit arenas, then kits become worthless.
If not enough people play in the non-kit arenas then non-kit arenas will simply wither and die. Because people don't like playing against the same people over and over, if there's even people to play against.

 

Which brings you to my second point. If the arenas aren't popular, then they will simply be empty all the time.

 

That's a bold assumption, you're assuming all players who don't play SG will come forth because they only hated the kits and will play on these new maps. I don't see this happening, there are always the large numbers of users who hate the concept of SG in general, and won't come forth to this either.

 

"A lot"... what sort of statistics do you have to back this up? And even if they say they would, would they actually? You can already avoid kits for the most part in arenas 1 and 6-8, but those seldom see a full arena... I think these would serve as a good representation of the number who would use a separate, non-kit SG.

 

You're basically saying that we'd need popular maps for a non-kit SG, and I'll concede that (granted that's Kuke's point above, which you seemed to be trying to refute). The statistics for my point were given... I'll admit they're not the best example, but they're not bad either.

 

We have hundreds of kitters, but there's only around 40-50 playing during on-peak, and like 20 or less during off-peak.
Not everyone plays all the time, the amount of people playing at the same time compared to the amount of people playing in total is quite low.
The point I'm trying to make is, just because there's 50 people who want this, doesn't mean there's always 50 people playing. In fact, I expect less than 10 people to be playing this at the same time during on-peak. (It will be completely dead during on-peak)
Instead of playing these arenas, people will go for the more popular arenas. This is because of a couple of reasons.

1. Money. The popular arenas have a bigger payout, this attracts people.
2. Bigger arenas are more fun for a lot of people, therefore attracting even more users.

There are too many users who will play the popular arena, leaving the less popular arenas in the dust.
Now this plan may work if we had 4-6 times more people playing sg. But we don't, there's simply not enough players to fill the maps and give it a little bit of popularity.

 

What's wrong with trying it and then seeing what happens? If we don't like it, we can simply get rid of it. Just talking about it with theories that may or may not be true doesn't help.