And the rich keep getting richer!

Unknown

This one's for jozier:

First they tell us alliances are optional, then they move all the good rewards to alliance rewards, so that you have to be in a twenty person alliance with at least 19.2 active members to get anything at all! Now they tell us that alliances are going to get more iso to level up their already uber powerful rosters with just because they worked to create or join an alliance and they play regularly! This is totally unfair. The rich just keep getting richer.

People that can't be bothered to seek out an active alliance are going to keep getting left behind! And now people who play more are going to get more rewards! It's a joke. This reward scheme is totally biased towards invested, active players! It screams unfairness and I, for one, am through with it. So rather than utilize this effort to seek out or create an alliance to get in on this gravy train, I decided to rant in the forums.

Call me when you decide to give us random passersby more rewards than the most active players, then maybe I'll come back and continue playing for free. Every couple of days. For five minutes at a time.

Just thought I would get the jump on it, since it is inevitable.

Unknown

dlaw008 wrote:

This one's for jozier:

First they tell us alliances are optional, then they move all the good rewards to alliance rewards, so that you have to be in a twenty person alliance with at least 19.2 active members to get anything at all! Now they tell us that alliances are going to get more iso to level up their already uber powerful rosters with just because they worked to create or join an alliance and they play regularly! This is totally unfair. The rich just keep getting richer.

People that can't be bothered to seek out an active alliance are going to keep getting left behind! And now people who play more are going to get more rewards! It's a joke. This reward scheme is totally biased towards invested, active players! It screams unfairness and I, for one, am through with it. So rather than utilize this effort to seek out or create an alliance to get in on this gravy train, I decided to rant in the forums.

Call me when you decide to give us random passersby more rewards than the most active players, then maybe I'll come back and continue playing for free. Every couple of days. For five minutes at a time.

Just thought I would get the jump on it, since it is inevitable.

You can make 5000+ ISO in a single 90-minute Lightning Round if you have been tanking effectively. Also, only about half of my alliance really competes above the strictly casual level and we still make top 50.

NorthernPolarity

Ghast wrote:

dlaw008 wrote:

This one's for jozier:

First they tell us alliances are optional, then they move all the good rewards to alliance rewards, so that you have to be in a twenty person alliance with at least 19.2 active members to get anything at all! Now they tell us that alliances are going to get more iso to level up their already uber powerful rosters with just because they worked to create or join an alliance and they play regularly! This is totally unfair. The rich just keep getting richer.

People that can't be bothered to seek out an active alliance are going to keep getting left behind! And now people who play more are going to get more rewards! It's a joke. This reward scheme is totally biased towards invested, active players! It screams unfairness and I, for one, am through with it. So rather than utilize this effort to seek out or create an alliance to get in on this gravy train, I decided to rant in the forums.

Call me when you decide to give us random passersby more rewards than the most active players, then maybe I'll come back and continue playing for free. Every couple of days. For five minutes at a time.

Just thought I would get the jump on it, since it is inevitable.

You can make 5000+ ISO in a single 90-minute Lightning Round if you have been tanking effectively. Also, only about half of my alliance really competes above the strictly casual level and we still make top 50.

Psst, i think hes trolling.

Unknown

What's that under the bridge? Why it's a troll of course.

Unknown

This isn't even trolling, it is just satire.

Unknown

Nothing is satire until you get sued over it. Until then, it is just sarcasm.

kidicarus

I know the OP is meant as a subtle troll but some thoughts of mine have been brewing on this matter

"There are no points for second place"

Well, there are, but they are negligible compared to 1st place and for many players, mainly assist in breaking even or allowing for a small profit/loss depending on how well they do in their own brackets after allowing for the use of shields. For me whenever I play and plan my shield usage, I budget for 100HP for single player, 100 HP and alliance and 50 HP progression (at 900). In most cases, whenever I have gone for 1st place, unless I have been lucky with brackets, I seem to average between 225 and 300 HP for shields. Which means either a 25HP profit or a 50 HP loss. A player from SHIELD has an additional 400 HP to play with per tournament in terms of shields. I have no problems with the guys from SHIELD, they got there through hard work, they contribute to the forum community and when going for 1st places they are good sports allowing you the cover (when fully covered) as long as you don't get into the crossfires of an inter alliance race.

However, the feedback loop from the reward structure is heavily anti competitive for everyone else including 5DV who seem to be perennial bridesmaids in this 1 horse race. While they have bad PR, I really believe that they do deserve a bigger share of their pie for bringing some an excitement to the alliance race and it actually mean something.

I run competitions, leagues in particular, and what we try to do is ensure that all teams have an equitable share of the prize pool to ensure that all teams remain competitive. ie ratio of distribution for a 5 team league could be 5:4:3:2:1 What this means is that it ensures that the teams remain competitive at the highest level.

With the new alliance progress rewards, supposing you need 1000 pts on average per alliance member for the top tier awards, this positive feedback loop for 1st place just gives the 1st place team an unfair advantage going forward.

In summary, we need more tiered alliance rewards apart from that 1 big 500HP reward for the 1st place and that negligible 100-50 and below HP for everyone else. Currently, for 2-25 it doesn't really matter where you place apart from e-peen.

Unknown

Yep, I'd like to see something along the lines of 1st=500, 2-5=300, 6-10=200, 11-20=150, and 21-50=100. This would inject more HP into the economy, but not as much as you'd think, because alliances would be more willing to burn shields to compete for better tiered prizes at all levels near the top. Also would inject an interesting economic meta game into final stretch decisions - when to spend wisely as a team to try and jump up a tier vs. when it makes more sense to stay pat and reap more net HP by not burning that extra 3hr.

Unknown

walkyourpath wrote:

Yep, I'd like to see something along the lines of 1st=500, 2-5=300, 6-10=200, 11-20=150, and 21-50=100. ....

very much this ^ right now there isnt a point in the 2-50 to spend on any shields, or be excited about placing 3rd vs placing 40th.

before mpq I was playing an online card battler game and was in a top guild that repeatedly won 1st 7 months in a row. if you lost you could spend premium currency to retry. in simplicity the rewards looked like

1st = 6000g (premium currency)
2nd = 2500g
3rd = 1250g

The big price gap meant that we could just retry at least 2x as much as the 2nd place team and still come out ahead in the end. A very similar feel to the way shielding is rewarded now. 1st can shield 5x 3hr and still get a net gain of 25hp vs 2nd.

It also meant that when new cards were released every month we could buy 2 of every card max evolved. 2nd could get 1 of each card max evolved, 3rd could get 1 of each card half evolved... instantly... on day 1. This will also be felt as a similar effect when a new worthy cover is released where all the extra alliance hp can be funnelled into 1250hp skill purchases getting to 5 of the desired color on day 1. right now, every 3 alliance tourneys 1st gets an extra 3* skill vs 2-50. 20 players sporting 2/2/5 vs all the rest of us with 2/2/2, the math is pretty easy to predict how the first couple tourneys end which perpetuate the cycle.

don't read this as hating on s.h.i.e.l.d, you're earning 1st rightly. This is a critique of the current alliance reward structure which will stagnate competition in another month if d3 doesnt change it. stagnant competition isnt fun for any involved in the race.

Unknown

walkyourpath wrote:

Yep, I'd like to see something along the lines of 1st=500, 2-5=300, 6-10=200, 11-20=150, and 21-50=100. This would inject more HP into the economy, but not as much as you'd think, because alliances would be more willing to burn shields to compete for better tiered prizes at all levels near the top. Also would inject an interesting economic meta game into final stretch decisions - when to spend wisely as a team to try and jump up a tier vs. when it makes more sense to stay pat and reap more net HP by not burning that extra 3hr.

You know That is a great point. I remember reading a while back nemek said he had spent 600HP on shields in some random vs tourney and it got me thinking how since SHEILD can mostly count on that 500 HP they are more willing to drop shields to get higher scores, thus getting more points, and staying in first. I know if I had some extra HP from alliance rewards to count on I would for sure drop more than one shield every tourney. I remember when the 3 star covers would give HP I would calculate that into my shielding technique too. I really am amazed they still haven't changed the rewards for the alliances yet.

Dormammu

I was with you all the way, 100%, fist in the air and ready to march in rebellion against 'the man'... until you said this:

dlaw008 wrote:

And now people who play more are going to get more rewards! It's a joke. This reward scheme is totally biased towards invested, active players!

You would prefer people who play less get more? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Also... active, invested players have an easier time getting rewards, yes, but nothing is being outright given to them. The reason invested players are invested and have an easier time of things is because they played their **** off to get where they are. They fought and clawed tooth and nail to place as high as they could as often as they could in every tourney. In other words, they paid their dues in this game (or they just bought their team, but that's an entirely different conversation). That doesn't mean everyone else is locked out.

Nemek

Dormammu wrote:

I was with you all the way, 100%, fist in the air and ready to march in rebellion against 'the man'... until you said this:

dlaw008 wrote:

And now people who play more are going to get more rewards! It's a joke. This reward scheme is totally biased towards invested, active players!

You would prefer people who play less get more? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Also... active, invested players have an easier time getting rewards, yes, but nothing is being outright given to them. The reason invested players are invested and have an easier time of things is because they played their **** off to get where they are. They fought and clawed tooth and nail to place as high as they could as often as they could in every tourney. In other words, they paid their dues in this game (or they just bought their team, but that's an entirely different conversation). That doesn't mean everyone else is locked out.

You probably just read through it too quickly, but he was being sarcastic.

Unknown

Nemek wrote:

Dormammu wrote:

I was with you all the way, 100%, fist in the air and ready to march in rebellion against 'the man'... until you said this:

dlaw008 wrote:

And now people who play more are going to get more rewards! It's a joke. This reward scheme is totally biased towards invested, active players!

You would prefer people who play less get more? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Also... active, invested players have an easier time getting rewards, yes, but nothing is being outright given to them. The reason invested players are invested and have an easier time of things is because they played their **** off to get where they are. They fought and clawed tooth and nail to place as high as they could as often as they could in every tourney. In other words, they paid their dues in this game (or they just bought their team, but that's an entirely different conversation). That doesn't mean everyone else is locked out.

You probably just read through it too quickly, but he was being sarcastic.

Also, there were clues all along this thread that he indeed was been a sarcastic sexual troll. You must have skipped that bit.

Dormammu

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

there were clues all along this thread that he indeed was been a sarcastic sexual troll. You must have skipped that bit.

Lol. I'm usually better at picking up on comedic intent. My apologies, all. Long day at work...

Unknown

Dormammu wrote:

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

there were clues all along this thread that he indeed was been a sarcastic sexual troll. You must have skipped that bit.

Lol. I'm usually better at picking up on comedic intent. My apologies, all. Long day at work...

Unknown

Satire thread hijacked by good points being raised in replies.

Having more tiers at the top of alliance play would really increase competition. Currently what is your real motivation to push if you alliance is ranked 10-30 and you are top 5, unless you need the 4* cover and want 1st place or want the 1100 point cover? Sure you can earn some more ISO, but do you really want to blow all the HP you will earn on shielding?

Dauthi

kidicarus wrote:

However, the feedback loop from the reward structure is heavily anti competitive for everyone else including 5DV who seem to be perennial bridesmaids in this 1 horse race. While they have bad PR, I really believe that they do deserve a bigger share of their pie for bringing some an excitement to the alliance race and it actually mean something.

I run competitions, leagues in particular, and what we try to do is ensure that all teams have an equitable share of the prize pool to ensure that all teams remain competitive. ie ratio of distribution for a 5 team league could be 5:4:3:2:1 What this means is that it ensures that the teams remain competitive at the highest level.

With the new alliance progress rewards, supposing you need 1000 pts on average per alliance member for the top tier awards, this positive feedback loop for 1st place just gives the 1st place team an unfair advantage going forward.

In summary, we need more tiered alliance rewards apart from that 1 big 500HP reward for the 1st place and that negligible 100-50 and below HP for everyone else. Currently, for 2-25 it doesn't really matter where you place apart from e-peen.

Agreed. The reward for 1st is a joke. It isn't fun watching the same team get first consistently then having their reward tipped heavily in their favor.. I would bet most people would have less gripes against alliances if they spread the wealth more proportionately throughout the top ranks as well. It's the image of the top 1% getting wealthier that is enraging people, and seeing the same team get an overbalanced amount of HP every event promotes this image.

Unknown

We are the 99%

Unknown

Place first then. It's not like it's an automatic victory for the first place alliance each time.

But I'm pretty sure every person in my alliance agrees that seeing better rewards and further differentiation in the 2-50 bracket would be better.

Unknown

I don't think you'll see an increase in #2-#50 without a corresponding decrease in #1 because the amount of HP they give out is relatively generous at least for the guys in alliances and I don't see why they'd want to hand out even more. It's more likely #1 gets nerfed to 300 HP than the rest being made higher based on my observation of how relatively few HP awards are handed out. This is one of those subject where player input is meaningless because nobody is ever going to say no to more free HP. Sure, the proposals in this thread seems pretty good from a player's point of view because getting more HP is better than getting less HP, but you've to ask what does the company gain from doing that?

Dauthi

jozier wrote:

Place first then. It's not like it's an automatic victory for the first place alliance each time.

The problem is that the first place prize is so large in comparison to the others. Because of this every successive win SHIELD makes, the likelihood of others placing first drops. Even after HP distribution is balanced the effects are going to ripple for a long time.

Phantron wrote:

I don't think you'll see an increase in #2-#50 without a corresponding decrease in #1 because the amount of HP they give out is relatively generous at least for the guys in alliances and I don't see why they'd want to hand out even more. It's more likely #1 gets nerfed to 300 HP than the rest being made higher based on my observation of how relatively few HP awards are handed out. This is one of those subject where player input is meaningless because nobody is ever going to say no to more free HP. Sure, the proposals in this thread seems pretty good from a player's point of view because getting more HP is better than getting less HP, but you've to ask what does the company gain from doing that?

It is unlikely they will leave 1st place HP at 500, like you said it will infuse more HP into the game (likely) decreasing profits. Player input will eventually get the developers to balance the current HP being distributed into alliance rewards, and that is what matters.