Simulator Basics part 2: Electric Boogaloo (Mar 21-30)

Unknown

Kolence wrote:

Riggy wrote:

Personally, I feel cheated by this event. The cover of the event clearly shows Devil Dino and yet there are no nodes that feature the green team-killing machine.

And to be fair, neither Hulk nor Moonstone is featured in a node either, but who cares about them compared to our favorite dinosaur?

Don't say that, people care . Anyway, Moonstone is already there with Storm and the gangster boss in the solo mission next to the ISO lump.
Hopefully (?) there are still more rounds for the other two to show up yet.

Yeah, I posted that after completing the easy mode and didn't notice her until hard mode. I stand corrected.

Kelbris

ihearthawthats wrote:

Only need top 50? I guess I can relax.

Depending on the buff %, Bullseye shouldn't be slept on.

Looks like +40 levels

I'm starting to consider dumping ISO into him (5/5 31) to team him with Patch and doing some crazy Berserker stuff, since I'll own the purps

Maybe even Bullseye AND Spidey just for **** and giggles

Bowgentle

First highly trained token: blue Baglady. That'll come in handy down the line... if I had the iso, I could almost start using her now with 3/2/5. Still need three more blues, but 5 bubbles... tasty.

Of course the second token was a yellow Ares, which I have maxed since... forever.
Could've been Bullseye though, so I'm not complaining.

15.000 ISO from those two subs. Got my lazy Thor to his soft cap of 51.

I like this event, especially since I don't need them Daredevils (who does?).

Looking forward to megabuffed Doom.

Unknown

Is there a phat ISO reward in Sim 5 like there was last time?

Unknown

How long until de sub-bracket ends?

Unknown

bahukma wrote:

Is there a phat ISO reward in Sim 5 like there was last time?

yeah, 2500.

Unknown

bughunt wrote:

bahukma wrote:

Is there a phat ISO reward in Sim 5 like there was last time?

yeah, 2500.

Sweet. Thanks, dude.

Unknown

KaioShinDE wrote:

There are only prizes for the Top100 alliances in sub events. But we are currently ranked 300-something. So... no brackets but actually just next to no prices except for the top alliances. Ugh... Unless the system is bugged and there is a mistake somewhere.

Top 100 of 1000 per bracket. Anyone knows how many alliances exist?

Unknown

bahukma wrote:

bughunt wrote:

bahukma wrote:

Is there a phat ISO reward in Sim 5 like there was last time?

yeah, 2500.

Sweet. Thanks, dude.

I recall last time it was 5000 in the first run and 1000 in all the rest. Hopefully it stays 2500 throughout.

Spoit

I want to start it, but without a daredevil, I dunno if I can get top 50 in these brackets of death

Spider-man 6234

Spoit wrote:

I want to start it, but without a daredevil, I dunno if I can get top 50 in these brackets of death

Its a daredevil team up. So they provide one if you don't have one. Plus if you have a psylocke and the two star characters then you should do fine in this round

Unknown

They should really start bracketing alliances according to general size. Either that, or make alliance spots free and capped out. As the way alliance system stands now, it's simply pay a bit of money and not have to score many points for your alliance to collectively be in the lead by a wide margin.

At least with bracketing according to general size, you will have some kind of meaningful competition amongst alliances. With players who only group with a small group of friends and makes an alliance private, it completely defeats the purpose of having fun with said small group, since there is no other point to alliances outside of being an extension of competition, albeit with a group of people you really want to play with.

Short version: Unbracketed alliance leaderboard makes top spots essentially pay to win.

Unknown

Skyedyne wrote:

They should really start bracketing alliances according to general size. Either that, or make alliance spots free and capped out. As the way alliance system stands now, it's simply pay a bit of money and not have to score many points for your alliance to collectively be in the lead by a wide margin.

At least with bracketing according to general size, you will have some kind of meaningful competition amongst alliances. With players who only group with a small group of friends and makes an alliance private, it completely defeats the purpose of having fun with said small group, since there is no other point to alliances outside of being an extension of competition, albeit with a group of people you really want to play with.

Short version: Unbracketed alliance leaderboard makes top spots essentially pay to win.

So your alternative is to punish people who support the game the most? You can see why that doesn't really fly all that well right?

If you don't find a big alliance to group with, you are still competitive for the primary award (the blue Cap cover) but you're right, you're locked out of the HP rewards. Why should an alliance that spends a fraction of the HP of another be entitled to the same HP reward? You're not asking for an equal playing field, you're asking to piggyback off the whales who support the game.

Also, there are plenty of large alliances where you can just join in. The game has a lot of people willing to spend money to partner up with people and to support the game. If you're on the forum you're ahead of a lot of others who play.

Unknown

Am I the only happy bullseye is getting buffed? I've always tried to use him and now I can with added reasons. I like his gimmic though situational depending on the board state. Here's to ISO hoarding.

RemoDestroyer

Is it worth dumping iso into Bullseye, Ares or m. Hawkeye for this? I've been reluctant to level Ares since I still use 2* Thor.

Kolence

I would level Ares. He is a beast when boosted, and afterwards, if your roster is still mostly 2*, you are probably going to keep using him when you have tried him. Unless your roster space is very limited and you wish to pick one between Ares and Thor they both deserve to be leveled high, imo.

Unknown

jozier wrote:

Skyedyne wrote:

They should really start bracketing alliances according to general size. Either that, or make alliance spots free and capped out. As the way alliance system stands now, it's simply pay a bit of money and not have to score many points for your alliance to collectively be in the lead by a wide margin.

At least with bracketing according to general size, you will have some kind of meaningful competition amongst alliances. With players who only group with a small group of friends and makes an alliance private, it completely defeats the purpose of having fun with said small group, since there is no other point to alliances outside of being an extension of competition, albeit with a group of people you really want to play with.

Short version: Unbracketed alliance leaderboard makes top spots essentially pay to win.

So your alternative is to punish people who support the game the most? You can see why that doesn't really fly all that well right?

If you don't find a big alliance to group with, you are still competitive for the primary award (the blue Cap cover) but you're right, you're locked out of the HP rewards. Why should an alliance that spends a fraction of the HP of another be entitled to the same HP reward? You're not asking for an equal playing field, you're asking to piggyback off the whales who support the game.

Also, there are plenty of large alliances where you can just join in. The game has a lot of people willing to spend money to partner up with people and to support the game. If you're on the forum you're ahead of a lot of others who play.

On the contrary, I'm not asking to piggyback off whales (considering I am one myself). However, I shouldn't be forced to group with persons I only know through online interactions to be a shoo in for top prizes. I am in an Alliance with my small group of real life friends, but with only being at 5, there is no realistic chance of competing against those that have 17+ members. In other words, those who choose to remain a small group should instead be in brackets with similar sized alliances. The same could be said for those in the higher member quantities being grouped together in their own bracket.

Being unbracketed makes it rather unequal in terms of placement for alliances. What takes a 5 member team to achieve 20000 points (4000 each member if averaged) takes a 17-20 only about 1200-1000, respectively.

So what point is there in making alliance leaderboard unbracketed, when the majority of alliances are only 5? All it does is essentially give out the prizes to those who are "forced" to join an alliance (that they may not want to) just to have an exponentially easier time of achieving a top spot. In essence, this is encouraging the piggybacking on whales more than bracketing according to size.

Unknown

I'm startting to like this buffed Buffed Bulleye when he is working for me

Unknown

Skyedyne wrote:

jozier wrote:

Skyedyne wrote:

They should really start bracketing alliances according to general size. Either that, or make alliance spots free and capped out. As the way alliance system stands now, it's simply pay a bit of money and not have to score many points for your alliance to collectively be in the lead by a wide margin.

At least with bracketing according to general size, you will have some kind of meaningful competition amongst alliances. With players who only group with a small group of friends and makes an alliance private, it completely defeats the purpose of having fun with said small group, since there is no other point to alliances outside of being an extension of competition, albeit with a group of people you really want to play with.

Short version: Unbracketed alliance leaderboard makes top spots essentially pay to win.

So your alternative is to punish people who support the game the most? You can see why that doesn't really fly all that well right?

If you don't find a big alliance to group with, you are still competitive for the primary award (the blue Cap cover) but you're right, you're locked out of the HP rewards. Why should an alliance that spends a fraction of the HP of another be entitled to the same HP reward? You're not asking for an equal playing field, you're asking to piggyback off the whales who support the game.

Also, there are plenty of large alliances where you can just join in. The game has a lot of people willing to spend money to partner up with people and to support the game. If you're on the forum you're ahead of a lot of others who play.

On the contrary, I'm not asking to piggyback off whales (considering I am one myself). However, I shouldn't be forced to group with persons I only know through online interactions to be a shoo in for top prizes. I am in an Alliance with my small group of real life friends, but with only being at 5, there is no realistic chance of competing against those that have 17+ members. In other words, those who choose to remain a small group should instead be in brackets with similar sized alliances. The same could be said for those in the higher member quantities being grouped together in their own bracket.

Being unbracketed makes it rather unequal in terms of placement for alliances. What takes a 5 member team to achieve 20000 points (4000 each member if averaged) takes a 17-20 only about 1200-1000, respectively.

So what point is there in making alliance leaderboard unbracketed, when the majority of alliances are only 5? All it does is essentially give out the prizes to those who are "forced" to join an alliance (that they may not want to) just to have an exponentially easier time of achieving a top spot. In essence, this is encouraging the piggybacking on whales more than bracketing according to size.

Again, 5 man alliances have a really easy opportunity to get the cover. They just don't have a great opportunity to get scads of HP. Which is fair because they aren't spending any HP on their alliance. I'm not seeing a significant problem here.

To repeat again, if you're asking that the same awards are repeated except with brackets for size, you'd be penalizing 20 man alliances and rewarding 5 man alliances. Why should a 5 man alliance get to compete for 500 HP when they've spent none on their alliance versus a 20 man alliance? And if you suggest that the rewards for the 20 man bracket be better than the 5 man bracket well...that's already the case. They rank higher and get the better rewards, the 5 man alliances rank lower and get the lower rewards.

Unknown

Do 5 man alliances have a chance at the cover? I am not trying to be snarky I honestly don't know how many 10-20 member alliances there are or how high any 5 man teams managed to place in the last event.

The hulk event gave out Lazy Thor covers to the top 6666 in unbracketed play. I know this is not a direct comparison because solo scores are running chances for covers as well but if only the top 250 Alliances get a cover that is at MAXIMUM 5000 people. True they are throwing a lot of HP around also, and I admit that would be nice but I can take it or leave it, all that would matter to me is if I am shut out of cover range or not.