Don't divide event cover rewards between ranks

Unknown

The cover rewards given out according to rank should never have been divided between alliance and player ranks. This causes many problems, and here is why:

1. Lack of interest in progressing in reward tiers.
When the reward tiers don't have a big increase from one to the next, you stifle the want to try harder, to attain the next tier. Even dangling a 4* is sometimes a wash, because of the general view of 4* characters being horrendous. A relatively small increase of ISO/HP from tier to tier doesn't really incite the want to get a higher rank. This reason in of itself also poses a distinct problem for individual player scaling, or the supposed reason it was implemented. For someone who doesn't try their best to get higher, then the enemy levels never increase to give the appropriate challenge, which defeats the purpose of scaling.

2. New/transitioning players and new/small Alliances get left out to rot
New and transitioning players get the general short stick here. I remember thinking to myself in those stages before alliance rewards came out "Wow, this new character is awesome. I am gonna have to try really hard to get high enough so I can get all the colors." Now, I can only imagine what the thought process might be. Maybe "the new characters nice, but is there really any reason to try if I'm not getting the final color?".

The same with alliances, but the problem extends differently here. Even if a single person gets into the cover ranks in player ranking (for purposes of the point, the two cover tiers), according to alliance sizes and the unbracketed approach being taken, that player could be the best player in the world but would still be **** out of the final character cover. So there goes another point against even attempting to place well.

3. Stifling progression
This partly goes hand in hand with reason two, but it is also really a general problem for any player, newbie to vet alike. There is no viable reason I can think of, or taking away a reward from an individual players performance, and giving it to others who aren't doing so well rankwise in their bracket, since point amount doesn't really matter when it's relative to player brackets. In essence, you are now punishing the individual persons efforts, and rewarding others associated with that player. As stated above, it can be seen that even with a player ranking high enough for partial character covers, there is nothing guaranteeing they will complete the character, causing this to be viewed disdainly as a slap in the face for effort put forth.

I do have a couple solutions that may work, however.

A. Place emphasis back on rewarding individual player effort by putting all cover rewards back into the solo player rewards, and make alliance rewards more as an arbitrary bonus. Like the fat kid getting an extra slice of cake because he is loved, not because he is forced to eat it or else. Alliance ranking can be restricted to only an increasing value of bonus HP/ISO. That way, alliances aren't really losing anything, but also makes it so those that choose to not even participate in alliances (for their own reasons) aren't losing out by playing how they want. Or you can even put in another 3* characters cover altogether. This option, IMO, satisfies many, while causing the least upset, or none.

B. Balance emphasis between player effort and alliance effort
This method still has all character covers placed back into the solo rewards, but the added alliance bonus is that an extra cover of the featured character is rewarded instead. I.e. high ranking player part of a high ranking alliance could end up with a 1/2/1 new character after all is said an done. This method still rewards solo player effort, and also gives a bonus for the high ranking alliances. However, you will probably come across much more backlash with this option as now it will still seem to favor bigger alliances in the unbracketed approach.

The current approach is at the end of the spectrum that puts too much emphasis on alliances, when it shouldn't be, and leads to the following problems as outlined above. I'm sure there are more (and feel free to comment covering a problem not stated), but those are the ones that stick out the most in my mind, and viable solutions.