Coppertouret wrote: Ohboy wrote: Coppertouret wrote: As far as casual coalitions go, there are an abundance that can potentially feed you into the top groups as a sub or permanent spot if desired at a time where you want to experience the true competitive end game. I was told that anyone could easily get a spot on the top coalitions because members weave in and out to take breaks. Your statement seems to affirm it. That doesn't sound like the true competitive end game you're describing. If there's a pool of 300 players that the top 10 coalitions draw from, then that kind of defeats the point of competition doesn't it? Ideally you want to have 15 teams from those 300 fighting to be in top 10. What you're having is people colluding with each other, while talking about competing. I'm aware that the top 10 spots are heavily contested. I'm just raising a simple example to illustrate that the system you've set up actively seeks to reduce competition when there could be more. This could be the status quo on how things used to be done on mpq, but it's kind of alien to me and I'm really surprised it's been condoned for so long. It's a subversion of the advertised system. For anyone who doesn't come across you guys, it becomes an instant shut out. No one experiences the true competitive end game. The ones playing it are playing it on easy mode. It's less competitive than it could be, while making barrier of entry from standard coalitions into top 10 much higher than it would be. If you think that the top coalitions actively work together to maintain everyone's status, you are mistaken. The individual coalitions are very much attempting to dethrone everyone above them. The coalition Alliance is ultimately a place for us to discuss as a whole gameplay and issues. There is no coordinated attempt to block any other coalition's rise to glory. The loyalty remains with the individual coalition. Also, if one member decides not to play, the top 10 placement is easily lost. As the game progresses, the number of people with event wining decks increases, as do the number of coalitions with an active roster in possession of these decks. Nearly every event for the last few weeks, there have been several coalitions that I do not normally recognize in the top spots that are pushing just as hard as the regular top groups. Whether they aren't successful in their attempt due to players giving up toward the end or individual players scheduling conflicts, the pressure is always real in the top 10. Our group had an 80% minimum score requirement every event to maintain ranking and that threshold is barely enough to hold us in place. The minimum will have to rise soon, I'm sure. Eventually the minimum threshold will not be achievable with any losses including the random freeze losses. If winning every match by playing every single refresh at the top of the refresh time to break ties at the end while obtaining every subobjective point possible isn't end game, I'm not sure I understand what you feel like the level of competition is supposed to be like.
Ohboy wrote: Coppertouret wrote: As far as casual coalitions go, there are an abundance that can potentially feed you into the top groups as a sub or permanent spot if desired at a time where you want to experience the true competitive end game. I was told that anyone could easily get a spot on the top coalitions because members weave in and out to take breaks. Your statement seems to affirm it. That doesn't sound like the true competitive end game you're describing. If there's a pool of 300 players that the top 10 coalitions draw from, then that kind of defeats the point of competition doesn't it? Ideally you want to have 15 teams from those 300 fighting to be in top 10. What you're having is people colluding with each other, while talking about competing. I'm aware that the top 10 spots are heavily contested. I'm just raising a simple example to illustrate that the system you've set up actively seeks to reduce competition when there could be more. This could be the status quo on how things used to be done on mpq, but it's kind of alien to me and I'm really surprised it's been condoned for so long. It's a subversion of the advertised system. For anyone who doesn't come across you guys, it becomes an instant shut out. No one experiences the true competitive end game. The ones playing it are playing it on easy mode. It's less competitive than it could be, while making barrier of entry from standard coalitions into top 10 much higher than it would be.
Coppertouret wrote: As far as casual coalitions go, there are an abundance that can potentially feed you into the top groups as a sub or permanent spot if desired at a time where you want to experience the true competitive end game.
Pretty much all competitive players play every node and do every objective anyway. As far as I can tell, ties aren't a problem in coalition matches, so I don't know how that's relevant. My point is that by making your coalition more than 20 members using replacements, it whittles the pool of competing coalitions down. I feel the level of competition at a coalition level should be on the strength of a coalition pit against each other. No swapping in members every other event. I hope that's clear enough. If members in your coalition can't play, you're supposed to lose points. The coalition that can put in a concentrated push together should do better. The term coalition loses all meaning when you're kicking people when they can't perform and putting them back when they can. That's not how teams work. The system was not designed for a reserve bench. It would have one if it were. Basically my beef is that most coalitions of 20 members are having to compete with coalitions of an effectively bigger size. That's not competition. You guys may fight each other for top dog, but you've carved out a nice little kingdom to fight over and built a moat around it to keep casuals out. That's not being competitive. Your competitive coalition should be strong on its own to dominate, not with a panel of behind the scenes support staff. When the response to "how do you compete" is "it's easy to join our circle!", you know you're killing competition.
LeafHyren wrote: Pretty much all competitive players play every node and do every objective anyway. As far as I can tell, ties aren't a problem in coalition matches, so I don't know how that's relevant. My point is that by making your coalition more than 20 members using replacements, it whittles the pool of competing coalitions down. I feel the level of competition at a coalition level should be on the strength of a coalition pit against each other. No swapping in members every other event. I hope that's clear enough. If members in your coalition can't play, you're supposed to lose points. The coalition that can put in a concentrated push together should do better. The term coalition loses all meaning when you're kicking people when they can't perform and putting them back when they can. That's not how teams work. The system was not designed for a reserve bench. It would have one if it were. Basically my beef is that most coalitions of 20 members are having to compete with coalitions of an effectively bigger size. That's not competition. You guys may fight each other for top dog, but you've carved out a nice little kingdom to fight over and built a moat around it to keep casuals out. That's not being competitive. Your competitive coalition should be strong on its own to dominate, not with a panel of behind the scenes support staff. When the response to "how do you compete" is "it's easy to join our circle!", you know you're killing competition. If I were a formula one race car driver, I would make sure I had enough replacement tires. That is kind of how I think about this. It would be a different (and interesting) competition if the formula team had to rely on a singe set of 4 tires to win the race. Locking the roster at the start of events would be a good idea though. If something happens given you though you were set than you are out of luck. But changing tires before the start seems fair enough to me.
Alve wrote: Your main problem is that you don't want to work like we all do, you just want the same rewards. Maybe you should play Minesweeper instead?
Ohboy wrote: Pretty much all competitive players play every node and do every objective anyway. As far as I can tell, ties aren't a problem in coalition matches, so I don't know how that's relevant. My point is that by making your coalition more than 20 members using replacements, it whittles the pool of competing coalitions down. I feel the level of competition at a coalition level should be on the strength of a coalition pit against each other. No swapping in members every other event. I hope that's clear enough.If members in your coalition can't play, you're supposed to lose points. The coalition that can put in a concentrated push together should do better. The term coalition loses all meaning when you're kicking people when they can't perform and putting them back when they can. That's not how teams work. The system was not designed for a reserve bench. It would have one if it were. Basically my beef is that most coalitions of 20 members are having to compete with coalitions of an effectively bigger size. That's not competition. You guys may fight each other for top dog, but you've carved out a nice little kingdom to fight over and built a moat around it to keep casuals out. That's not being competitive. Your competitive coalition should be strong on its own to dominate, not with a panel of behind the scenes support staff. When the response to "how do you compete" is "it's easy to join our circle!", you know you're killing competition.
LeafHyren wrote: But Minesweeper is an awesome game just for the record hehe
Alve wrote: Come on! In sports, if one of your players breaks a leg, you just drop out of the tournament. Isn't that how sports work irl? I've never been too... sporty.
jackvett wrote: Everyone in this thread is acting like this game is terribly deep, and you need tons of heads together to figure out the best strategy. Now maybe I'm just dumb and couldn't figure out that Behold the Beyond works really well with just one vampire, but I really don't find this game that hard. You guys saw Olivia and thought she was broken. So did I. Same story for Deploy. I've made all my event decks on my own....it's not hard. In this stupidly P2W game, anyone should be able to drop thirty bucks and have some free wins handed to them that they didn't deserve; they paid for it, didn't they? All in the spirit of fair competition! OFC this is all assuming that your account doesn't get nuked because of a bug that locks you out of the game for up to a week! wooooooooo tl;dr you are all children and reading you take coalitions seriously made my morning brighter