KaioShinDE wrote: To the surprise of absolutely no one, the top 10 are 8 teams with 20 players, the remaining too have 13 and 15 players. I wouldn't give a damn if they hadn't stolen the alliance rewards from the solo rewards. But they did...
Psykopathic wrote: KaioShinDE wrote: To the surprise of absolutely no one, the top 10 are 8 teams with 20 players, the remaining too have 13 and 15 players. I wouldn't give a damn if they hadn't stolen the alliance rewards from the solo rewards. But they did... Your data is off somewhere because 5deadlyvenoms has been at #2 with 16/17 players all day.
Phantron wrote: Psykopathic wrote: KaioShinDE wrote: To the surprise of absolutely no one, the top 10 are 8 teams with 20 players, the remaining too have 13 and 15 players. I wouldn't give a damn if they hadn't stolen the alliance rewards from the solo rewards. But they did... Your data is off somewhere because 5deadlyvenoms has been at #2 with 16/17 players all day. Just means some team have less freeloaders than others.
Mizake wrote: Remember though, the only real place to be won is first place. The difference between #1 and #2 is huge, the rest is not. The reward for being in the #50 alliance is exactly the same as being the #2 alliance. Also, the difference between the #100 alliance and the #2 alliance is only 50 HP. The real question is....what does the #100 alliance look like? If the #100 alliance is just a 5-man alliance, then, unless you are ultra-competitive, you aren't missing out on anything except HP. You will still get your blue BP cover, the only difference is you are getting 50 HP instead of 100 or 500 HP.
Mizake wrote: The real question is....what does the #100 alliance look like? If the #100 alliance is just a 5-man alliance, then, unless you are ultra-competitive, you aren't missing out on anything except HP.
Toxicadam wrote: I wish I could find the quote, but I recall one of the devs doubting that people would rush out and max their alliances due to the prohibitive costs.
Phantron wrote: Toxicadam wrote: I wish I could find the quote, but I recall one of the devs doubting that people would rush out and max their alliances due to the prohibitive costs. I'm pretty sure they'll be totally surprised to all the 20 member alliance teams that showed up overnight to be competitive.
Moral wrote: Probably late to the party, but ready to jump into this event. Would be nice to find an alliance with space available.
ihearthawthats wrote: Moral wrote: Probably late to the party, but ready to jump into this event. Would be nice to find an alliance with space available. Afaik, alliance points are not retroactive. So it might be a good idea to join an alliance before you start doing matches.
windfallstar wrote: Let's use 100k players as a baseline since that was about the number that participated in the Hulk event and is also a nice round number. So with 500 player brackets, the previous rewards would give the top 5 of each bracket a Blue BP cover. So under the old rewards structure: 100k players divided by 500 players/bracket = 200 brackets 200 brackets multiplied by 5 blue BP covers per bracket = 1000 blue BP covers. Now we have the blue BP covers given to the top 100 alliances. So to equal the same amount of covers given out, there must be an average of 10 players for the top 100 alliances. Since we can't look at the entire ladder, there's really no way for us to check how many players there are in each of the top 100 alliances. I would venture to guess that if alliance scoring isn't changed, then within a few events people will pony up the money to buy more slots to make their alliances competitive. So in the long run, this has the potential to give out more covers than before.
Kelbris wrote: Bacon Pants, are you shielding soon? I don't like hitting forumgoers twice. Going to make a push to 850. I've got like 6 team comps, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.