Playing team and a bench team for alliances

V1rusHunter

I'm behind on the boards and can't remember if I posted this before (yeah, I know...great help I am), but I think the alliance rewards should be based on the "team" that the alliance submits. So in the case of 20 member alliance, only 5 people are playing for the alliance rank. They would get the full alliance rewards while those on the bench get a nominal reward. This makes it so that people are fully playing the game and not winning because they are on a large alliance. They might even spawn a different alliance because they didn't receive the full rewards which might include a cover.

This makes it fair for smaller sized alliances. If the point is to make more money, which is very fair, make different brackets which depends on how many members are playing. For example, bracket for 5 member teams vs 10 member teams. The 10 would obviously have those 10 people earning the full rewards and any bench people wouldn't. Makes the alliances fight on more equal footing.

Unknown

The problem of doing that now is that growing an alliance gets expensive quickly. So you have teams that have spent many thousands of HPs to get 15-20 slots, and whose actual reward for their expense is suddenly cut.

Either this was done by design, or D3 sure needs to hire someone with a game theory background, because a bigger alliance was the one, natural move we all saw coming. We even did hiring using it: 'If you pay for a slot so that we let you join this alliance, you are investing 1100 to get a guaranteed 3* cover, 100 HP and a few thousand ISO, just from the final Simulator and outlaw rewards. Buying a single 3* cover the regular way is more expensive than that, so any other rewards you get after this are pure profit'

V1rusHunter

Before they expand it beyond 20, they can make the starting team begin with 20 to alleviate already bought spots. Just saying that the current expansion of a team has a real P2W mentality, less skill involved.