Alliance Petition - Redistribute dat #1 reward

Unknown

Puritas wrote:

jozier wrote:

No I don't. First place in single player gets a cover that costs 2500 to purchase. Alliance gets 500 HP and that requires nearly 20 people all doing well. It's hardly as out of scale as 1st place in single player.

That's fair enough I guess
Doesn't change the fact that their "reward system" in alliances has basically resulted in everyone except Intergalactic Space Fleet giving up on even trying for first, and since we always have 1-2 players absent per event it's just free 500 HP for you guys every 3 days.

We had 4-5 people absent. Nothing is stopping another alliance from beating us, we just seem to want it more. The extra 400 HP is nice. But so is getting a 4* cover. That "imbalance" is a natural part of the game.

Like Nemek I'm fine with changing around the rewards in the 2-50 block. But the problem isn't the #1 reward, it's everything below it.

Puritas

Ghast wrote:

I am in favor of limiting the cover reward to top 25 alliances, but I have no interest in giving more rewards. Your alliance wins or it does not. 50th place gets the same as second place because it is worth just as much as places 3 to 49 - nothing.

Actually instead of adding new rewards let's just limit cover reward to top 3 alliances
See how your righteousness goes with that

Unknown

jozier wrote:

Puritas wrote:

jozier wrote:

I assume you have an equal suggestion for removing the 1st overall reward from the single player side of PVP?

?
sngle player has
1
2-5
6-10
11-25

Alliance has
1
2-50

you honestly don't see a difference there?

No I don't. First place in single player gets a cover that costs 2500 to purchase. Alliance gets 500 HP and that requires nearly 20 people all doing well. It's hardly as out of scale as 1st place in single player.

I think the focus of the post was to create more incentive & distinction between the prizes for the #2-50 alliances. The example/suggestion Puritas gave was that the wealth could be redistributed from the 1st place prize. I don't think people would be upset if D3 would instead arbitrarily increase HP rewards for #2-5, 6-10, etc, while leaving the top alliance with 500HP/member

PS
1 extra 4**** cover given to single player = 2500HP difference between 1st & 2nd place
(500HP/member given to top alliance vs 100HP given to #2-50)*20 members = 8000 HP difference
Granted its more difficult to win top alliance than top single player, but the reward is definitely too top heavy given that there is no difference for the next top 49 alliance teams.

Unknown

morgh wrote:

and every single one of those 20 people gets 500 HP to spend on the next tournament... does not bring you ahead of others in the very slightest now does it?

So I assume you had the same complaints about the top finisher in PVP, especially when 3* covers gave HP?

Puritas

jozier wrote:

Puritas wrote:

jozier wrote:

No I don't. First place in single player gets a cover that costs 2500 to purchase. Alliance gets 500 HP and that requires nearly 20 people all doing well. It's hardly as out of scale as 1st place in single player.

That's fair enough I guess
Doesn't change the fact that their "reward system" in alliances has basically resulted in everyone except Intergalactic Space Fleet giving up on even trying for first, and since we always have 1-2 players absent per event it's just free 500 HP for you guys every 3 days.

We had 4-5 people absent. Nothing is stopping another alliance from beating us, we just seem to want it more. The extra 400 HP is nice. But so is getting a 4* cover. That "imbalance" is a natural part of the game.

Like Nemek I'm fine with changing around the rewards in the 2-50 block. But the problem isn't the #1 reward, it's everything below it.

Damn, well played then!

Also you can calm down, nobody's saying your team doesn't deserve first.
I don't even want first place rewards to be decreased, it's nice to have something to shoot for.

Just saying that it's only week 2 of alliance pvp, and everyone else has given up even trying for first already.
If demiurge is balking at changing the 2-50 block because of the hp reward at first, then the game would benefit from a slight redistribution rather than stagnate the way it is
If this isn't the reason, then new tiers severely need adding.

Unknown

WesFaram wrote:

jozier wrote:

Puritas wrote:

jozier wrote:

I assume you have an equal suggestion for removing the 1st overall reward from the single player side of PVP?

?
sngle player has
1
2-5
6-10
11-25

Alliance has
1
2-50

you honestly don't see a difference there?

No I don't. First place in single player gets a cover that costs 2500 to purchase. Alliance gets 500 HP and that requires nearly 20 people all doing well. It's hardly as out of scale as 1st place in single player.

I think the focus of the post was to create more incentive & distinction between the prizes for the #2-50 alliances. The example/suggestion Puritas gave was that the wealth could be redistributed from the 1st place prize. I don't think people would be upset if D3 would instead arbitrarily increase HP rewards for #2-5, 6-10, etc, while leaving the top alliance with 500HP/member

PS
1 extra 4**** cover given to single player = 2500HP difference between 1st & 2nd place
(500HP/member given to top alliance vs 100HP given to #2-50)*20 members = 8000 HP difference
Granted its more difficult to win top alliance than top single player, but the reward is definitely too top heavy given that there is no difference for the next top 49 alliance teams.

The math is a little bit more complicated than that, given that the alliance side is unbracketed while the single side is bracketed. If 10 members of the 2nd place alliance finish 1st in their brackets, but all 20 members of the 1st place alliance finish 2nd in theirs, that's: 25,000 HP versus the 2000 HP (plus the extra HP from the PVP rewards).

Which is often the case, many of us in SHIELD did not shoot for first place once we were comfortable with our lead in alliance, giving other players a chance to finish first overall.

Unknown

jozier wrote:

Which is often the case, many of us in SHIELD did not shoot for first place once we were comfortable with our lead in alliance, giving other players a chance to finish first overall.

I'm glad to hear you guys are so noble

Kelbris

Ghast wrote:

First place is the "winner." You are asking to get extra prizes for losing. Please forgive my insensitivity to the rights of losers.

Unknown

Puritas wrote:

Ghast wrote:

I am in favor of limiting the cover reward to top 25 alliances, but I have no interest in giving more rewards. Your alliance wins or it does not. 50th place gets the same as second place because it is worth just as much as places 3 to 49 - nothing.

Actually instead of adding new rewards let's just limit cover reward to top 3 alliances
See how your righteousness goes with that

I understand that my first post rubbed you the wrong way, but honestly, we are two people over the age of 10 on the Internet. Let us reset the discussion to an adult level.

You are advocating extra reward slots the way they are handled in the individual bracket. I do not think that will provide extra incentive because alliance rankings are unbracketed. My experience with Lightning Rounds suggests to me that adding a handful of different reward brackets will not change anything. The fight for lower tier rewards will remain, but the fight for the top five spots unbracketed - forget it. If you want to change award structure, I suggest pushing to change the alliance reward system in a different way.

And yes, I would be fine with limiting cover awards to top 3 or top 5.

Unknown

Whiners as far as the eye can see.

Nemek

4-5 people absent might be an exaggeration, but there were at least 2 that definitely weren't playing.

I don't think another alliance getting 1st is out of the question, either. FittedKitchens were around 300 points off, which is only like half a person or less. It just takes one event for an alliance to field 2ish more members than S.H.I.E.L.D, and things would switch up. I actually think the main reason we win these now is that many of the other alliances "give up", except for the occasional exception.

I do think that almost all rewards in this game are very top heavy, though. 1st place in PvP is way better than 2nd, since the 4* cover is "worth" 2500 HP. Top 3 in Elite Tourneys are WAY better than any other rank. I'd argue in both of those cases that it's actually a more significant leap than in the alliance rewards. So, I don't think the alliance rewards are outside of the normal distribution. However, I wouldn't mind seeing things change, anyway.

Unknown

I don't really understand where all the negativity, posturing and accusations of whining come from. It's pretty childish. Sure, there are probably 5 to 7 alliances that could reliably shoot for the top spot, and among those, Shield is the compelling leader. But because there may be some level of competition between 5 entities, does that mean that every other level of competition is valueless? Wouldn't it be fun for alliances that generally will fall in the middle of some massive prize block to be able to compete for something substantial?

I honestly believe that Django could get a #1 PvP finish someday not too distant from today, but I don't plan on jealously guarding the potential prize until that day. A tier structure as widely gapped at the top seems silly. The PvE structure makes much more sense to me, and I don't believe the payouts are radically different, merely more segregated to give mid-tier alliances something worth competing for.

Twysta

I really enjoy the fight and close finishes and firmly believe that we won't win every tournament.

That's just how it goes, there has to be some time where people won't be available for some reason or other and other teams will have more people available or maybe just want it that little bit more.

2-50 being the same is a bit strange and I'm surprised it's not broken down a bit more.

Unknown

dlaw008 wrote:

I don't really understand where all the negativity, posturing and accusations of whining come from. It's pretty childish. Sure, there are probably 5 to 7 alliances that could reliably shoot for the top spot, and among those, Shield is the compelling leader. But because there may be some level of competition between 5 entities, does that mean that every other level of competition is valueless? Wouldn't it be fun for alliances that generally will fall in the middle of some massive prize block to be able to compete for something substantial?

I honestly believe that Django could get a #1 PvP finish someday not too distant from today, but I don't plan on jealously guarding the potential prize until that day. A tier structure as widely gapped at the top seems silly. The PvE structure makes much more sense to me, and I don't believe the payouts are radically different, merely more segregated to give mid-tier alliances something worth competing for.

I don't have a problem with a tweak to reward mid-tier alliances. The problem is what is that cut off? Alliance #101 is shut out now of an alliance cover but top 2500 still score some hp. Isn't the cover the reward for the mid tier? Breaking ip more HP to top 3 doesn't sound like it would solve much.

Unknown

EvilSonGoku wrote:

dlaw008 wrote:

I don't really understand where all the negativity, posturing and accusations of whining come from. It's pretty childish. Sure, there are probably 5 to 7 alliances that could reliably shoot for the top spot, and among those, Shield is the compelling leader. But because there may be some level of competition between 5 entities, does that mean that every other level of competition is valueless? Wouldn't it be fun for alliances that generally will fall in the middle of some massive prize block to be able to compete for something substantial?

I honestly believe that Django could get a #1 PvP finish someday not too distant from today, but I don't plan on jealously guarding the potential prize until that day. A tier structure as widely gapped at the top seems silly. The PvE structure makes much more sense to me, and I don't believe the payouts are radically different, merely more segregated to give mid-tier alliances something worth competing for.

I don't have a problem with a tweak to reward mid-tier alliances. The problem is what is that cut off? Alliance #101 is shut out now of an alliance cover but top 2500 still score some hp. Isn't the cover the reward for the mid tier? Breaking ip more HP to top 3 doesn't sound like it would solve much.

Yeah, you're spot-on. I got lost after all the everyone after number one are losers stuff.

Puritas

dlaw008 wrote:

I don't really understand where all the negativity, posturing and accusations of whining come from. It's pretty childish. Sure, there are probably 5 to 7 alliances that could reliably shoot for the top spot, and among those, Shield is the compelling leader. But because there may be some level of competition between 5 entities, does that mean that every other level of competition is valueless? Wouldn't it be fun for alliances that generally will fall in the middle of some massive prize block to be able to compete for something substantial?

I honestly believe that Django could get a #1 PvP finish someday not too distant from today, but I don't plan on jealously guarding the potential prize until that day. A tier structure as widely gapped at the top seems silly. The PvE structure makes much more sense to me, and I don't believe the payouts are radically different, merely more segregated to give mid-tier alliances something worth competing for.

I actually feel like mid-tier rewards (it really doesn't take much to get top 50) are really really good
there's such a huge gap between there and top 3 though in terms of effort - almost every kitchens was in first in their bracket, and one guy grabbed the 1100 progression

Unknown

I'd like to see a beefier 2-5 and 6-15 prize tiers for alliances. Would have loved to see FittedKitchens rewarded for the sick charge they made in this one, along with 5DV and the other crews who have given our refresh thumbs a healthy case of RSI. It's that kind of drama that makes alliances fun, and incentivizing it can only be a good thing in my mind.

Unknown

walkyourpath wrote:

I'd like to see a beefier 2-5 and 6-15 prize tiers for alliances. Would have loved to see FittedKitchens rewarded for the sick charge they made in this one, along with 5DV and the other crews who have given our refresh thumbs a healthy case of RSI. It's that kind of drama that makes alliances fun, and incentivizing it can only be a good thing in my mind.

I agree. It's like somebody else said earlier, There is really no point to continue to push if you are in the top 25 because you are probably guaranteed that top 50 but are way out of reach of number 1. If there were more rewards then more of the people in the alliance might keep pushing and who knows, they might just sneek a win out from shield. . I know this is kind of how I feel in the simulator right now, I am pretty much guaranteed top 50 even if i were to skip this last refresh but I am going to grind out some more because I have the possibility of the top 10 or 1 now. If the rewards were set up for 2-50 I would be asleep right now instead of grinding away

Unknown

The whackiest thing about Alliance rewards that I can see is that there doesn't seem to be any kind of minimum contribution required to get the reward. Am I right in thinking that you can score, say 100 points in a PvP tournament and still get the 2-50 reward if your alliance finishes there? That's pretty strange if so, compared to what I used to play at a high end level (Rage of Bahamut) where rewards were only given out if you met certain, usually easy to achieve, points requirements.

Sorry if I'm wrong on this - I'm still fairly new to this forum.

Unknown

I came first in the last PVP but I stopped playing with 8 hours on the clock. No one wanted to go past me I was happy with top 5. I think people have been concentrating on the simulator event grinding away to keep a lead on that extra ISO and HP yet doing the PVP would have yielded better long term gain for alliances. As some posted earlier it's a good strategy to not put all your eggs into one basket.