Skip bonus in PvP

I kinda like this idea; it gives you a small feeling of accomplishment for building a team that nobody wants to fight, and helps (in a very small way) alleviate the Iso crunch.

Although there are days that I'd rather see a +1 score bonus instead.

HoundofShadow said:

I use the skip button when I want to:

1) cycle through the enemy teams and look for the one with the highest point. (80%)

2) skip teams with latest 5* because their match damage is quite ridiculous against a 3* or 4* team. I skip them due to health packs preservation. (15%)

3) Skip enemy teams that are too powerful for me to handle (5%)

You pay 10 iso-8 skip fee under certain condition, if you remember how skip fee works.

I remember how the skip fee works, the point was that it would be nice if the skip fee were given to the person who got skipped. That being said, your reason #1 is a solid point for how this would fail to meet its stated objective (with 2 and 3 being reasons why the other team deserves to be rewarded, because you don't want to fight them).

broll said:

abmoraz said:

Do we really need another incentive for whales that have 550 GamThors?

This.  While it's an interesting idea it would equal in actuality a reverse robin hood where people need ISO the most pay it to people that need it the least.  Exactly the opposite of what would help the game.  I'd rather see every time someone attacks you (win or lose) you get some ISO.  This would encourage people to leave teams that people want to play against and discourage leaving teams people hate/are afraid to play.  

This would also give an incentive to not hide behind a shield most of an event, something that also hurts the PvP landscape...

While I think the exact point of the idea is that we want to reward people for fielding strong teams that nobody wants to play against, you're absolutely right, in the end this would wind up rewarding the people who need it least.

Thank you both for the insight on the subject. While it's an interesting idea, I see now that there's too much potential for it to backfire, at least as currently written. Any other ideas for how we could make it meet the desired outcome?