Time to lock event scores for seasons

PeterGibbons316

Replace alliance rewards with overall rewards.

What team play aspect is really added by forcing people to compete in alliances? Team-Ups? Big deal - add a friends list to accomplish the same thing. Game banter in chat? Most people do more talking on the forums or on line or some other chat tool. The gameplay is entirely single-player.....having a group come together to compete individually makes little sense.

I say get rid of competitive alliances and replace them with overall rewards. So if you finish T100 in your bracket you get that cover you wanted, and if you finish T2000 among all brackets you get an additional one. For the most part all the same people get the rewards, but there is no headache over having to find an open alliance or a merc each event/season.

This is what alliance rewards are slowly becoming anyway, so let's just get rid of the headaches caused by mercing.

timbopp

Locking in event scores? 24hr or 48hr merc recruiting lockouts? Getting rid of alliances altogether?... I think everyone is overthinking it. Easy solution would be to up the rewards to top 125. Presumably there are more players now so this would take into account a larger player population. If you can't make top 125 you weren't going to make top 100.

lukewin

My sister alliance was unlucky 101. Seems like scores were really only bunched up for the top 102 alliances. So if the devs wanna be nice, they could award one more team who was less than 200 pts away from a 4* Deadpool red, a 4* Deadpool red, it would be awesome.

Rank - Drop in pts between ranks (away from 100) [pt swing from 100th rank in other direction results in rank _]
100-101 - 171 pts (171 pts) [tie for 100]
101-102 - 2009 pts (2180 pts) [78]
102-103 - 5982 pts (8162 pts) [52]
103-104 - 12959 pts (21121 pts) [32]
104-105 - 9128 pts (30249 pts) [28]

78-100 was tighter than 100-102
52-100 was tighter than 100-103
32-100 was tighter than 100-104
28-100 was tighter than 100-105

ZeroKarma

Thanks to everyone for a good deal of thoughtful responses. I'm not sure if there is an easy answer, or perhaps more to the point of some posts, whether there should be an answer.

At the end of the day, flirting at the edge of T100 throughout the season and not being diligent to manage under performers in a time of inflated scoring is the root of the problem, and it doesn't go away until you get stronger as an alliance to avoid the worry at the end of the season.

When I first started seriously looking for a competitive alliance, the requirement was 600 per PvP and 1500 in Sim. Those days are long gone considering the average score per member now needs to be over 10k for the year to sniff the T100.

To that end , to be competitive you really need everyone through the 3* transition and to the point where everyone is shooting for the 4* every event.

Bowgentle

ZeroKarma wrote:

To that end , to be competitive you really need everyone through the 3* transition and to the point where everyone is shooting for the 4* every event.

Nah, you can carry a few guys if your top end is going for insane scores.

Ebolamonkey84

I don't think my alliance has used a merc to replace a contributing member since we were formed last October. Most commanders would love not to have to get mercs all of the time, but sometimes it is necessary due to real life interfering or people just losing interest in the game.

I think of our alliance as somewhat of a contract between the commanders and the members. Commanders ask their members to score a certain amount, and in return guarantee the placement needed for desired rewards. If a player isn't meeting expectations and is preventing the team from hitting its goal, they deserve to get cut. If all of the players have reached your agreed upon score and the alliance still isn't in line to get what you promised, then you have failed as a commander.

My alliance only has a requirement of 7500 per season, which actually comes out to the 600 per event and 1500 sim you mentioned, yet we have not missed t100 for a season.

Arphaxad

Easy fix: Only count points earned while a member of the alliance.

This would stop people from jumping around alliances and reward alliances that have a group of 20 together the entire event.

Unknown

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

Replace alliance rewards with overall rewards.

What team play aspect is really added by forcing people to compete in alliances? Team-Ups? Big deal - add a friends list to accomplish the same thing. Game banter in chat? Most people do more talking on the forums or on line or some other chat tool. The gameplay is entirely single-player.....having a group come together to compete individually makes little sense.

I say get rid of competitive alliances and replace them with overall rewards. So if you finish T100 in your bracket you get that cover you wanted, and if you finish T2000 among all brackets you get an additional one. For the most part all the same people get the rewards, but there is no headache over having to find an open alliance or a merc each event/season.

This is what alliance rewards are slowly becoming anyway, so let's just get rid of the headaches caused by mercing.

Yeah... no. I like that my alliance finished top 25 for the season with scores that ranged from 21k+ all the way down to around 6k. Yep, our two lowest scores were under 10k, one by a substantial amount. As a group, we made up that difference. I'm happy about that.

I like that with some of our heavier hitters, we've historically been able to carry some players with less mature rosters. Or with real life commitments. That's the alliance part. You're just asking for more individual rewards.

It's not just about you, it's about the people you choose to play with as well.

Unknown

The solution isn't to eliminate the system that has worked for 18 seasons. If you don't want to get a merc, don't get one. If you want to get a merc, or be a merc, great, and good luck.

Bottom line, you need to decide to either (a) get better at the game so you can carry teammates, (b) get in a new alliance with people that can score better, or (c) stay where you are and work to get better as a group.

Every since I joined the forums and looked for a t100 alliance the teams I've been on have all made t100 easily without having to merc at season end even once. So, on the right team and/or playing with the right people you should have zero problems getting t100 season placement.

These are my season scores if you don't believe me.

SEASON 12 (forgot alliance) <not t100>
Final Score: 6,246

SEASON 13. (Skynet 2.0)
Final Score: 10,812

SEASON 14. (Skynet 2.0 // X4)
Final Score: 12,273.

SEASON 15. (X2)
Final Score: 17,643.

SEASON 16. (X1)
Final Score: 17,436.

SEASON 17. (XOne)
Final Score: 18,373.

SEASON 18. (XOne // XTwo)
Final Score: 20,162.

xellessanova

lukewin wrote:

Rank - Drop in pts between ranks (away from 100) [pt swing from 100th rank in other direction results in rank _]
100-101 - 171 pts (171 pts) [tie for 100]
101-102 - 2009 pts (2180 pts) [78]
102-103 - 5982 pts (8162 pts) [52]
103-104 - 12959 pts (21121 pts) [32]
104-105 - 9128 pts (30249 pts) [28]

aesthetocyst wrote:

Finally, I note that the alliance scores dropped like a rock after #103 or so. Interpret that however you will.

My assumption, given how compressed the scoring was between 50-101 and the amount of fluctuation in the last 16 hours, was that the alliances between 102-150 either merced out their highest scorers to whoever would/could take them...or one or two individuals jumped a sinking ship. These teams would have then finished with the remaining members at 19/20 or 13/20 or whatever.

There were also probably a number of individuals with scores between 6k-9k who suddenly found themselves alliance-less in the last few hours, without necessarily finding their way back into the top 250.

If the rewards for top 100 were extended to top 125, there would be more of a spread-out distribution and less of a cliff. There would still be a cliff...just not this big.