Scaling Alliance difficulty for the new event

bpcontra

Using Ultron as an example, a full alliance with active players has a decent chance of maxing out the rewards of the event and beating all the levels. A smaller clan really doesn't have a shot at that given the time restrictions of when nodes unlock, etc.

I think the final progression scores should be based on how many members from your alliance joined the event. For example...right now there is a fixed number of 1,000,0000 (just as an example) points that any alliance needs to hit to beat Ultron...doesn't matter of you have 5 members or 20 members.

I think this puts smaller alliances in an unnecessarily bad position. I believe we could figure out an average score per member that joins that each would need to hit in order to finish the entire mission. As more members join, it would scale up accordingly. This way we are all playing on the same playing field. I shouldn't be punished because my 10 friends created an alliance together and only 4 of us play daily and the others play casually and might miss the event. I don't feel like this is overly difficult to implement

Meander

A noble thought, but what would prevent a whole bunch of single person alliances from popping up. I can usually more than make progression on any PVE, so why would I test fate with an alliance if I could just use a single person scaling to double my rewards for free? Instead of wishing for a change like that, why doesnt your alliance pick up some mercs or merge with another for the event only?

Calnexin

Doesn't that invalidate the entire point of an alliance?

If you want top rewards, you find like-minded players who will contribute similar numbers of points. If you've got members who don't want to play, you merc their position out for the event.

I'm a midcarder at best. But I put up a reasonable number of points. The idea that someone gets a prize for doing nothing is galling to me, particularly if their non-participation locks me out of a better prize.

If 6 friends in your 10 person alliance don't play, merc yourself out for the event.

Linkster79

Firstly and to get it out of the way, I agree. Events like this should be aimed at giving out rewards to as many people as possible. It allows the more experienced players a break from the non stop grind that goes on for the rest of the year and may encourage newer players to stick around.

Now to play devil's advocate and say what the majority of the veteran players will say.

Why should those who are new to the game get the same rewards as those of us who spend/play more? We have struggled and paid our dues and now the newbies should be taking the knocks so we don't have to.

bpcontra

I think you guys are missing the point....in Ultron, it's actually impossible to finish the final tiers with a small alliance.

I could have 5 guys with maxed 5* rosters who can't complete the last big tiers simply because we don't have enough players.

So it's the size of the alliance that is the problem, not the depth of the roster. I think I confused this issue a bit in my OP.

Small alliances with skilled players should have the same opportunity as large alliances.

thanos8587

theres no way for the system to know when youve stopped adding players to your team. you could start with 5 and add 15 on the last day of the event.

the opportunity is there for a small alliance. go recruit people up to 20 for the event only. theres lots of people in small alliances of friends who would like to go for higher awards in these events as well as people in casual pubs who are more hardcore than their alliance mates. do some recruiting or go join another alliance looking for people to fill out.

Calnexin

bpcontra wrote:

Small alliances with skilled players should have the same opportunity as large alliances.

Why?

Maintaining and/or working within large alliances, particularly competitive ones, requires effort and dedication. I fail to see why a team of 4-5 should reap the same rewards as a curated player roster of 20. Why even join an alliance if the rewards scale to membership? If you're a good player you'd just make your own to maximize profit on your own terms without having to rely on other people.

Linkster79

Calnexin wrote:

bpcontra wrote:

Small alliances with skilled players should have the same opportunity as large alliances.

Why?

Maintaining and/or working within large alliances, particularly competitive ones, requires effort and dedication. I fail to see why a team of 4-5 should reap the same rewards as a curated player roster of 20. Why even join an alliance if the rewards scale to membership? If you're a good player you'd just make your own to maximize profit on your own terms without having to rely on other people.

And the rewards for that pay off all year round. What's wrong with 2 possibly 3 events a year that hard working alliances can just steam roll and smaller alliances can work hard to win the same? Large, dedicated alliance = easy rewards. Smaller, casual alliance = harder rewards. Why for once shouldn't everyone be a winner?

slidecage

all they had to do is scale it but they dont want to