Isn't it time to move the alliance reward to 150?

Unknown
Unknown
edited January 2015 in MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
The individual ranking has changed from top 50 to top 100
It s easier for players individually to catch a top 100
Could it be possible to do the same thing for alliance ranking
Actually, it would give some players (those whose alliance reaches 100-150) a better reward and could make them more motivated to keep playing. According to our alliance, the number of very good rewards is very low (100/25000 alliances) and it could improve the game if the 150 first alliances could win a new character cover.
«1

Comments

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    I think the dropoff from alliance 100 to 101 is huge. I wonder if they could bridge that and give a 3* heroic token (there's a name for those but I can't remember - all I can think of are the courageous tokens from the heroic LRS). Perhaps give those to the next 50 alliances to try and soften the impact of not getting the shiny newness?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Riggy wrote:
    I think the dropoff from alliance 100 to 101 is huge. I wonder if they could bridge that and give a 3* heroic token (there's a name for those but I can't remember - all I can think of are the courageous tokens from the heroic LRS). Perhaps give those to the next 50 alliances to try and soften the impact of not getting the shiny newness?

    Frankly, I'd prefer a token many times over the reward in T100 (Ragnarok is an example, or devil dino as anniversary reward). Giving a token offers way more possibilities than just a 3* cover. You can also a gain 4* by a token. If 101-200 has a chance at a 4*, even the slightest one, that would not be fair enough for T100 people.

    If they do give a token at those ranks, then they will have to give 1-2 tokens as well to the T100 ranks to make it fair to everyone. I don't know if D3 would be into that though. They already said that they like 3* covers to be rare because it keeps their value high and they are desirable (To which I do not agree completely, but then again they don't have enough other mechanics so covers is the most valuable thing they offer at the moment).
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Okin107 wrote:
    Riggy wrote:
    I think the dropoff from alliance 100 to 101 is huge. I wonder if they could bridge that and give a 3* heroic token (there's a name for those but I can't remember - all I can think of are the courageous tokens from the heroic LRS). Perhaps give those to the next 50 alliances to try and soften the impact of not getting the shiny newness?

    Frankly, I'd prefer a token many times over the reward in T100 (Ragnarok is an example, or devil dino as anniversary reward). Giving a token offers way more possibilities than just a 3* cover. You can also a gain 4* by a token. If 101-200 has a chance at a 4*, even the slightest one, that would not be fair enough for T100 people.

    If they do give a token at those ranks, then they will have to give 1-2 tokens as well to the T100 ranks to make it fair to everyone. I don't know if D3 would be into that though. They already said that they like 3* covers to be rare because it keeps their value high and they are desirable (To which I do not agree completely, but then again they don't have enough other mechanics so covers is the most valuable thing they offer at the moment).
    The original LRs had these types of tokens as well - a token with a guaranteed 3* cover but not 4*. They can manipulate pack contents however they want. If all they want is a pack with an equal chance of every 3* available, they can do that with no issues.

    As such, they can give a token with a random character and sometimes you'll get a great 3* you need and sometimes you get 500 ISO. However, people won't aim for these tokens over the actual tourney prizes b/c it would mean fewer season points. There would be no need to give the tokens to the actual cover placement as well.
  • Bloo_Alliance
    Bloo_Alliance Posts: 47
    As the game continues to add users, it only makes sense to increase the alliance reward range since there is no sharding of alliances. There is obviously precedence for this as it used to be 50 and now it is 100. I am not proposing this from a self-serving standpoint as my alliance normally falls in the 60 to 85 range. I just know we have 20 super solid players and sometimes it gets close. You would think there would be some leeway for alliances that might have 1 or 2 weaker members or a couple members that had real life issues during an event.

    To be honest, I don't think this is a suggestion for the future as this was probably overdue even before all alliances were opened to 20. Thanks for listening.
  • san
    san Posts: 421 Mover and Shaker
    This is a really good idea. The game has grown, and the current percentage of alliances that gain rewards is smaller and smaller by the day.
  • Pwuz_
    Pwuz_ Posts: 1,214 Chairperson of the Boards
    Either this or bracket Alliances.
  • Bloo_Alliance
    Bloo_Alliance Posts: 47
    Bracketing would work too as long as each bracket contained top, mid, and bottom tier alliances. I would think that, from a programming standpoint, simply expanding out the rewards would be quicker and easier to implement.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    yes it is a good idea
  • Bloo_Alliance
    Bloo_Alliance Posts: 47
    Thanks StriKenZz and welcome to the forums
  • SnowcaTT
    SnowcaTT Posts: 3,486 Chairperson of the Boards
    Another one I agree with whenever I see it. Well past time, I would think.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Hello
    Up up up icon_e_wink.gif
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    hello

    look at this

    Fri Oct 17, 2014 11:44 am

    viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17854
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    When is there going to be any word on alliance reward expansion? The reward structure has not been changed since there were half as many alliances and you needed hp to expand slots. Maybe an expansion to top 150 instead of top 100 will take some of the pressure off.....
  • JamieMadrox
    JamieMadrox Posts: 1,798 Chairperson of the Boards
    Not a bad idea. top 2 becomes top 3. Top 10 becomes top 15. etc.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    I second this. Ever since alliances are expanded the min requirements have really gone high. You have to hit 600-650 min now in order to secure a place in a top 100 alliance (It was 500 before). It's not that easy for a transition player to get such scores constantly. And not to mention how fast you get sniped if you are at 650 points with a 2* team. Making rewards a bit more reachable would help I think.
  • Bloo_Alliance
    Bloo_Alliance Posts: 47
    Never saw that one sleko. Thanks for sharing. A new one was just started in General Discussion too

    viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20366
  • Bloo_Alliance
    Bloo_Alliance Posts: 47
    +1

    viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20052
  • FaustianDeal
    FaustianDeal Posts: 760 Critical Contributor
    And in PVE it feels like we are going the wrong direction... top50 for Elektra?

    Seems like they would want to give the first card for her away to more people rather than less. People can't buy cards for her until they get the first one after all. (How else can they hook the next generation - the first taste has to be free otherwise how can they get you on the come-back?)
  • Dayv
    Dayv Posts: 4,449 Chairperson of the Boards
    Merged multiple threads on this topic.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    FaustianDeal wrote:
    And in PVE it feels like we are going the wrong direction... top50 for Elektra?

    Seems like they would want to give the first card for her away to more people rather than less. People can't buy cards for her until they get the first one after all. (How else can they hook the next generation - the first taste has to be free otherwise how can they get you on the come-back?)

    At least you could partly explain that by the fact that it is a 4 star.png
    No excuse for normal pvps though

Categories