Fearless Defenders Discussion Thread

1…6791112…17

Comments

  • KaioShinDE
    KaioShinDE Posts: 265 Mover and Shaker
    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...
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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.
  • Clintman
    Clintman Posts: 757 Critical Contributor
    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.

    I just means that everyone hasnt started the tournament yet.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    I'm not in an alliance. If you are looking for a daily player, pm me.

    That said, I don't understand why the score has to be either the total the team scores giving an unfair advantage to large teams or an average giving the advantage to small, powerful teams. Its a program. Write an algorithm that mixes the two, giving a small advantage to the large team total (to encourage purchasing more slots) but still making it possible for small teams to rank well and even win if they're dedicated -- that's what a winning alliance should be after all, right? The devs can even mess with the weight if there is unbalance in the winning teams like the scaling that they've been working on. And if they want to get really crafty they can add a weight score for overall strength of the team which could influence opponents scaling and final scores.

    Anyway, like most features, I'm sure this one will improve over time despite its **** initial release.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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...

    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.

    I do agree with you though it's bad that they stuck the blue BP cover on the alliance side only though, after telling us that Alliances would only add to the game, not take anything away from the single player experience, which obviously isn't true now.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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.

    Great points.

    We're an 11-person alliance for now, we are sitting in 50th place, and most of us haven't started the tournament yet. It's not 100th, but it's a decent reference point.
  • vudu3
    vudu3 Posts: 940 Critical Contributor
    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.

    Funny you should ask--I'm in the alliance currently ranked at #101. We have a rating of 1,703. There are 7 of us.

    The alliance is called Team Supreme and I believe they are still recruiting in the Alliance board on this forum (I just joined today).
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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.
    Recent check, only 4 out of the top 10 are 20 member alliances.

    Still early, but...
    Top 30 is 3100.
    Top 100 is 1700.

    I'd guess top 50 is somewhere around 2700?

    A 5-man pulling 700 each is 3500. Sounds like it could possibly pull a top 50.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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. icon_e_biggrin.gif
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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. icon_e_biggrin.gif

    I'm pretty sure they'll be totally surprised to all the 20 member alliance teams that showed up overnight to be competitive.
  • Moral
    Moral Posts: 512
    Probably late to the party, but ready to jump into this event.

    Would be nice to find an alliance with space available. icon_e_wink.gif
  • Nemek
    Nemek Posts: 1,511
    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. icon_e_biggrin.gif

    I'm pretty sure they'll be totally surprised to all the 20 member alliance teams that showed up overnight to be competitive.

    Yeah, when they said that I wondered just how true it would turn out to be...*shrug* oh well...
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Moral wrote:
    Probably late to the party, but ready to jump into this event.

    Would be nice to find an alliance with space available. icon_e_wink.gif
    Afaik, alliance points are not retroactive. So it might be a good idea to join an alliance before you start doing matches.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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. icon_e_wink.gif
    Afaik, alliance points are not retroactive. So it might be a good idea to join an alliance before you start doing matches.

    What if you join the alliance, earn some points, then leave it? I think some experimenting needs to happen...
  • windfallstar
    windfallstar Posts: 268
    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
    Kelbris Posts: 1,051
    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.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    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.

    There was already a quote about how they don't expect people to max out roster slots because of the cost. Of course if this structure stays in for more than a week pretty soon all you'll see is 20 roster alliances, but I doubt it's intended to be like that.
  • Bacon Pants
    Bacon Pants Posts: 1,012
    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.

    I'm shielded now...The funny thing was, I came out of a match to see that you attacked me, AND you were also in my queue. I can't remember if I skipped both or attacked once. That was the first time I've ever seen that though.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Anyone have experience pushing to 1100-1300 recently? The most I've seen since the shield nerf is maybe 1000, just curious how hard it would be.

Categories