Are alliance scores cumulative or averages?

TheHueyFreeman
TheHueyFreeman Posts: 472 Mover and Shaker
edited March 2014 in MPQ General Discussion
It seems to be cumulative but I would like to know for sure as it will effect my strategies going forward.
«1

Comments

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Cumulative from what I can see. If the rewards are duplicated for each member, not split, it makes it rather unfair... huge groups win more easily, and get more rewards between them than a smaller group that struggles more to place highly.
  • Twysta
    Twysta Posts: 1,597 Chairperson of the Boards
    Oh god, I dread to think of what the scores are going to be like for PvE alliance based rewards!
  • TheHueyFreeman
    TheHueyFreeman Posts: 472 Mover and Shaker
    Either way it could be considered unfair.

    If its cumulative, the prizes go to the largest groups (10+ members). Its basically a case of pay to win where there's nothing a group of 5 can do to win.

    If its averages, your team can be penalized easily by some guy you never met if he doesn't pitch in.

    I'd rather it be averages because then you can police your own team and everyone still has a chance.
  • NighteyesGrisu
    NighteyesGrisu Posts: 563 Critical Contributor
    TheHueyFreeman wrote:
    Either way it could be considered unfair.

    If its cumulative, the prizes go to the largest groups (10+ members). Its basically a case of pay to win where there's nothing a group of 5 can do to win.

    If its averages, your team can be penalized easily by some guy you never met if he doesn't pitch in.

    I'd rather it be averages because then you can police your own team and everyone still has a chance.

    can commanders see who in the alliance contributed how many points? otherwise the last option would be a bit hard...

    maybe it would be possible to only have the top5 of an alliance count? that way larger alliances get a bit of an advantage, but not a too big one, right?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    yes either extreme is unfair. why not meet in the middle.

    Yes I do think larger alliances that shelled out hp to bring more people in should have an advantage, a small one.

    Maybe something like take the alliance's top performer and add 3% of each additional members points to it

    This would give a 20 person alliance a 45% advantage over a 5 person alliance assuming all players reach the same score. And a 5 person group a 12% advantage over a single player.

    You want to shell out the ISO to form your own loner alliance great you can still compete with the normal smaller groups at only a slight disadvantage but the really competitive ones will have the edge on you
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    The problem I am seeing with this, is say you have a 4 man Aliance, ok so you are prob not going to get the top, no prob. but what about those members that did not even contribute, or those that are not even playing any longer?

    Currently without a messaging system the Alliance system is simply a method for people to ride coat tails.
  • IceIX
    IceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 4,322 Site Admin
    dragma wrote:
    The problem I am seeing with this, is say you have a 4 man Aliance, ok so you are prob not going to get the top, no prob. but what about those members that did not even contribute, or those that are not even playing any longer?

    Currently without a messaging system the Alliance system is simply a method for people to ride coat tails.
    A messaging system is coming relatively soon. Naturally, that requires a client update.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    dragma wrote:
    Currently without a messaging system the Alliance system is simply a method for people to ride coat tails.

    PM's via the forum are pretty serviceable for the time being.
  • Moral
    Moral Posts: 512
    An exponential diminishing returns system would be great.

    Full value top player.
    Half points 2nd player.
    1/4 for 3rd
    1/8 for 4th
    1/16 for 5th


    Large alliances have a larger pool for different MMR and brackets to score, but the 6th person down the chain is contributing only 3% to the team score so smaller alliances won't always get blown out by those with 10+ members
  • jojeda654
    jojeda654 Posts: 1,162 Chairperson of the Boards
    Jachdo wrote:
    dragma wrote:
    Currently without a messaging system the Alliance system is simply a method for people to ride coat tails.

    PM's via the forum are pretty serviceable for the time being.

    Except when they go down icon_lol.gif
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    TheHueyFreeman wrote:
    Either way it could be considered unfair.

    If its cumulative, the prizes go to the largest groups (10+ members). Its basically a case of pay to win where there's nothing a group of 5 can do to win.

    If its averages, your team can be penalized easily by some guy you never met if he doesn't pitch in.

    I'd rather it be averages because then you can police your own team and everyone still has a chance.

    there is a very simple, very fair 3rd option.

    #3 fixed alliance sizes across the board. 15 members, 20 members, 30 doesnt matter so long as everyone has the same. then total points works just fine. the problem is trying to monetize this feature applying the same logic as roster slots... which fails.

    d3 still has time to make this change, if they put size to 20 i doubt any alliances have ponied the HP up to get that high already. maybe hand out 10-20 refunds for those that pushed up to 10-15 for HP but that's minor.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    IceIX wrote:
    dragma wrote:
    The problem I am seeing with this, is say you have a 4 man Aliance, ok so you are prob not going to get the top, no prob. but what about those members that did not even contribute, or those that are not even playing any longer?

    Currently without a messaging system the Alliance system is simply a method for people to ride coat tails.
    A messaging system is coming relatively soon. Naturally, that requires a client update.

    Please comment on the actual topic.
  • elusive
    elusive Posts: 261 Mover and Shaker
    If they're cumulative, three random teammates in my alliance are jerks, because I have ~300 points on my own so far, my friend has ~100, and the alliance has ~430 total.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    I seemed to have lucked out. My 5 person alliance has 1170 points.
  • TheHueyFreeman
    TheHueyFreeman Posts: 472 Mover and Shaker
    elusive wrote:
    If they're cumulative, three random teammates in my alliance are jerks, because I have ~300 points on my own so far, my friend has ~100, and the alliance has ~430 total.

    I can't speak for anyone else but I usually wait until day 2 to start a tourney. It makes for an easier pool and there usually is no downside.
  • windfallstar
    windfallstar Posts: 268
    TheHueyFreeman wrote:
    elusive wrote:
    If they're cumulative, three random teammates in my alliance are jerks, because I have ~300 points on my own so far, my friend has ~100, and the alliance has ~430 total.

    I can't speak for anyone else but I usually wait until day 2 to start a tourney. It makes for an easier pool and there usually is no downside.
    Yup, and also the hulk event and the bp pvp are ending today so people are probably also focusing their attention on those for a while. Plus with the way shields work, most players I see make their climb up the ladder at around 8 hours left and 3 hours left so the beginning of the event pvp isn't a good sign of things to come.
  • elusive
    elusive Posts: 261 Mover and Shaker
    TheHueyFreeman wrote:
    elusive wrote:
    If they're cumulative, three random teammates in my alliance are jerks, because I have ~300 points on my own so far, my friend has ~100, and the alliance has ~430 total.

    I can't speak for anyone else but I usually wait until day 2 to start a tourney. It makes for an easier pool and there usually is no downside.

    Interesting tip. I'll have to keep that in mind next time, thanks.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Jachdo wrote:
    dragma wrote:
    Currently without a messaging system the Alliance system is simply a method for people to ride coat tails.

    PM's via the forum are pretty serviceable for the time being.

    Not if you don't know who your Alliance members are.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Moral wrote:
    An exponential diminishing returns system would be great.

    Full value top player.
    Half points 2nd player.
    1/4 for 3rd
    1/8 for 4th
    1/16 for 5th


    Large alliances have a larger pool for different MMR and brackets to score, but the 6th person down the chain is contributing only 3% to the team score so smaller alliances won't always get blown out by those with 10+ members

    I think the easiest system would be the simply just have the top 5 performers in your alliance count to your total score for the event. Larger alliance have the advantage of having a larger pool of players to get the good scores, and wont be handicapped if a player is not able to play/contribute much due to whatever reasons. So Small alliances still have a chance, but each player has to pull there weight in comparison to a larger alliance.
  • Feyda
    Feyda Posts: 105
    Reaver- wrote:
    Moral wrote:
    An exponential diminishing returns system would be great.

    Full value top player.
    Half points 2nd player.
    1/4 for 3rd
    1/8 for 4th
    1/16 for 5th


    Large alliances have a larger pool for different MMR and brackets to score, but the 6th person down the chain is contributing only 3% to the team score so smaller alliances won't always get blown out by those with 10+ members

    I think the easiest system would be the simply just have the top 5 performers in your alliance count to your total score for the event. Larger alliance have the advantage of having a larger pool of players to get the good scores, and wont be handicapped if a player is not able to play/contribute much due to whatever reasons. So Small alliances still have a chance, but each player has to pull there weight in comparison to a larger alliance.

    Agreed

Categories