My idea is this:

We have two arena systems. One that's kit free that has two arenas, and one that's for kits, without the no-kit possibility that has four arenas. This would keep the rarity of players on the no-kit games, and still have players with kits gain income. That's the best tradeoff we currently have.

 

Another idea would be to have 2 new arenas without kits but with the other four still with kits (though I don't think sg4 is too popular, so maybe make that kit-free). My idea for a kit-free arena out of four would be 4, with the first three maybe having some chance (1/3-8) of being no-kit games.

 

Good idea, we could implement this in the new hub

 

Totally forgot about the hub. It would work nicely with it.

 

Having an apartheid of SG arena's is silly IMO.
I don't see why not just increase the probability of no kit games.

 

It's apartheid currently. It's actually helping, because it would still be kitter vs. kitter in the endgame anyway...

 

Which is why we should encourage the non kit games...

 

Even better, a no kit arena!

 

*facepalm* xD

 

I get what you're trying to say, but if you want to encourage non-kit games, we're better off just having non-kit arenas.

 

Then that would defeat the purpose of the non kit games in the first place.
Instead of configuring a new system, just work with the current one to improve the overall SG experience.

 

@knears2000 - From what I understand, that is a new system. Which doesn't correspond to my point :p

 

Well, we need a new system. That's what is being proposed here, and the same with my idea regarding the issue.

 

Ehh, probably. With random no-kit games, non-kitters are scared of going in, whereas kitters are disappointed and are unable to capitalize on the money they paid. However, the battle has more players, more money, and is fair. Still though, a non-kit arena would do the same and not cause some to fork over cash to actually win more than 5% of the time.

 

If they added no kit arenas the profits from winning should be 1/4

 

Still no. The profits should be lowered a little yes, but 1/4? That's communism.

 

If we are drastic enough to go beyond Rose's suggestion and get rid of kits, what would be the payout for the kits? I say 7.5k/$ paid. Money refunds would be painful for phys and the rest of the higher-up staff.