Upcoming Change: Tournament Alliance Ranking

Unknown

LordWill wrote:

I have to say I am super impressed with S.H.I.E.L.D'S attitude on this. Instead of crying about it, you guys are actually speaking up for all the other alliances which I think is super cool.

I usually tell our members, there is no difference between 2-49th place so don't burn yourself out. No reason to burn through shields and all that when we are going to get the same as everyone else in that bracket. We haven't really tried for first. We do try for top 10 as long as we don't need to push very hard because again, we are rewarded the same as 49th in the top 10.

Now if they had tiered rewards like some have mentioned, we might be a little more aggressive in ranking. But until they do, we have no reason to.

We all benefit from more competition. if enough people are trying for first then we will end up getting a lot more people in the 1000+ range and shielding wont be as necessary to get to 1100. If the community is aggressive enough we could start to see more 1200 and 1300 scores.

Anything that can increase the sense of competition will improve the game long term. The main thing I'm worried about is that with PvE. most of the changes have the result of making it so people just want to do well enough to get the covers. I would hate for the same thing to happen to PvP.

although playing PvE casually has the benefit of not burning us out. so maybe I should look at that as a positive.

Unknown

davecazz wrote:

LordWill wrote:

I have to say I am super impressed with S.H.I.E.L.D'S attitude on this. Instead of crying about it, you guys are actually speaking up for all the other alliances which I think is super cool.

I usually tell our members, there is no difference between 2-49th place so don't burn yourself out. No reason to burn through shields and all that when we are going to get the same as everyone else in that bracket. We haven't really tried for first. We do try for top 10 as long as we don't need to push very hard because again, we are rewarded the same as 49th in the top 10.

Now if they had tiered rewards like some have mentioned, we might be a little more aggressive in ranking. But until they do, we have no reason to.

We all benefit from more competition. if enough people are trying for first then we will end up getting a lot more people in the 1000+ range and shielding wont be as necessary to get to 1100. If the community is aggressive enough we could start to see more 1200 and 1300 scores.

Anything that can increase the sense of competition will improve the game long term. The main thing I'm worried about is that with PvE. most of the changes have the result of making it so people just want to do well enough to get the covers. I would hate for the same thing to happen to PvP.

although playing PvE casually has the benefit of not burning us out. so maybe I should look at that as a positive.

Wouldn't this change cause more competition? Before we had SHIELD getting first just out of doing mostly what you all doing anyways, and then everyone else not caring because its hard for a reasonably competitive 20-man alliance to NOT get top 50.

I'm not sure if this change is really going to have much effect but if it does, I think it's that with a top-2 reward structure I think we're going to see more of SHIELD, 5DX, Django, Scavengers, and others pushing as hard as they can because they have something to gain from it

Unknown

As the first Django to post my reply here I'd just like to say, i like ****.

Unknown

But in all seriousness, this helps nobody but 5DeadlySTDS. I'm with everyone in that there should be a better advantage to those that finish in the top 10. For regular top 10 alliances like ourselves,that would be better. Oh well, i guess we can start grinding like badasses now.....right Djangos????? No?????

Unknown

gamar wrote:

davecazz wrote:

LordWill wrote:

I have to say I am super impressed with S.H.I.E.L.D'S attitude on this. Instead of crying about it, you guys are actually speaking up for all the other alliances which I think is super cool.

I usually tell our members, there is no difference between 2-49th place so don't burn yourself out. No reason to burn through shields and all that when we are going to get the same as everyone else in that bracket. We haven't really tried for first. We do try for top 10 as long as we don't need to push very hard because again, we are rewarded the same as 49th in the top 10.

Now if they had tiered rewards like some have mentioned, we might be a little more aggressive in ranking. But until they do, we have no reason to.

We all benefit from more competition. if enough people are trying for first then we will end up getting a lot more people in the 1000+ range and shielding wont be as necessary to get to 1100. If the community is aggressive enough we could start to see more 1200 and 1300 scores.

Anything that can increase the sense of competition will improve the game long term. The main thing I'm worried about is that with PvE. most of the changes have the result of making it so people just want to do well enough to get the covers. I would hate for the same thing to happen to PvP.

although playing PvE casually has the benefit of not burning us out. so maybe I should look at that as a positive.

Wouldn't this change cause more competition? Before we had SHIELD getting first just out of doing mostly what you all doing anyways, and then everyone else not caring because its hard for a reasonably competitive 20-man alliance to NOT get top 50.

I'm not sure if this change is really going to have much effect but if it does, I think it's that with a top-2 reward structure I think we're going to see more of SHIELD, 5DX, Django, Scavengers, and others pushing as hard as they can because they have something to gain from it

I'm not talking about the old system. I think the old system needed to change as well because we were too dominant. I would like to see a system that encourages more alliances to be competitive, either through smaller tier sizes or through some other incentive that works for a larger range of alliances than just the top 50.

That said, even though the old system was broken. 500hp was enough of an incentive to try for first. 250hp on the other hand is not enough incentive to go out of your way for that reward. I'm sure we will probably hit in the top 2 occasionally if enough of our team wants the 1100 prize, but if a lot of us already have that cover, I just don't see us worrying about 1st.

That could potentially open the way for other alliances to take a crack at it but the real objective is not to get 1st, it's to get a meaningful prize. I just don't see how an alliance will be motivated to earn an extra 150hp compared to the effort and shields it takes to hold that position.

here is an example. let's say you're alliance is close to 2nd, individually you are happy with your current placement, you are 1st in your bracket and you have the cover you need.

are you going to break shield for a couple matches in order to get your alliance to 2nd? just that one match will cost you 75hp for a possible 150 hp prize.

now if that was it, it would be fair, a 75hp profit, but what will likely happen is that another alliance is also being competitive and will likely bump you out of that spot. which means you have to either break shield again for another 75hp and break even or give up and take a loss of 75hp.

most likely whoever is fighting for 1-2 will suffer from a pretty big hp loss. I'm sure there will be some alliances that just throw themselves at it just to say they are 1st but I can't see someone paying for that bragging right on an ongoing basis.

in both PvE and PvP the effort it takes to get from 2nd to 1st is a lot more than the effort it takes to cross the top 50 barrier. I'm sure some people will not appreciate me saying that because they are struggling with getting into top 50 right now but if you struggle with the top 50 enough times, you're roster will grow and it will become easier. getting into the top tier will never become easier (wether its 1st or 1-3).

The top tier needs to be worth the effort for it to be a long term success. with the latest changes, the top prize tier is not worthwhile in either PvP or PvE.

the smartest way to play in PvE is to play casually and get the featured covers. play for fun and if you are close to a prize tier, get it but don't go all out just for the next prize. an extra 500 iso or 50 hp isn't worth the increases mmr or any boosts or health packs you would need to buy.

in PvP the smartest move is to just get the covers you need and thats pretty much it. If you need the 4* do what you need to get 1st. if you need the 1100 cover, get it. but it doesn't make sense to worry about 1-2 unless you want to brag on the forums.

Unknown

Just want to say one more thing about the power of incentives.

look at the 1100 3* prize and how radically it affected the game. at 1200 it was effectively unreachable but with it at 1100 the game went from average top scores of 800-900 to 1100+.

If the incentive is large enough and looks like it's reachable, players will react and go for it.

Arogntbastrd

I still say I did this with my mind

Unknown

Arogntbastrd wrote:

I still say I did this with my mind

god damn it, then do something else with your mind!!!!

Arogntbastrd

davecazz wrote:

Arogntbastrd wrote:

I still say I did this with my mind

god damn it, then do something else with your mind!!!!

My bad big dawg. But greater good etc etc. I figured s.h.i.e.l.d's world wouldn't end. It'll make whoever gets second feel good. I don't like imposing my will mentally. It makes my nose bleed and I usually end up ruining a perfectly good shirt.

I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused. As always, please leave me alone in pvp

Unknown

davecazz wrote:

That said, even though the old system was broken. 500hp was enough of an incentive to try for first. 250hp on the other hand is not enough incentive to go out of your way for that reward. I'm sure we will probably hit in the top 2 occasionally if enough of our team wants the 1100 prize, but if a lot of us already have that cover, I just don't see us worrying about 1st.

That could potentially open the way for other alliances to take a crack at it but the real objective is not to get 1st, it's to get a meaningful prize. I just don't see how an alliance will be motivated to earn an extra 150hp compared to the effort and shields it takes to hold that position.

here is an example. let's say you're alliance is close to 2nd, individually you are happy with your current placement, you are 1st in your bracket and you have the cover you need.

are you going to break shield for a couple matches in order to get your alliance to 2nd? just that one match will cost you 75hp for a possible 150 hp prize.

now if that was it, it would be fair, a 75hp profit, but what will likely happen is that another alliance is also being competitive and will likely bump you out of that spot. which means you have to either break shield again for another 75hp and break even or give up and take a loss of 75hp.

Hmm, makes sense

Unknown

davecazz wrote:

LordWill wrote:

I have to say I am super impressed with S.H.I.E.L.D'S attitude on this. Instead of crying about it, you guys are actually speaking up for all the other alliances which I think is super cool.

I usually tell our members, there is no difference between 2-49th place so don't burn yourself out. No reason to burn through shields and all that when we are going to get the same as everyone else in that bracket. We haven't really tried for first. We do try for top 10 as long as we don't need to push very hard because again, we are rewarded the same as 49th in the top 10.

Now if they had tiered rewards like some have mentioned, we might be a little more aggressive in ranking. But until they do, we have no reason to.

We all benefit from more competition. if enough people are trying for first then we will end up getting a lot more people in the 1000+ range and shielding wont be as necessary to get to 1100. If the community is aggressive enough we could start to see more 1200 and 1300 scores.

Anything that can increase the sense of competition will improve the game long term. The main thing I'm worried about is that with PvE. most of the changes have the result of making it so people just want to do well enough to get the covers. I would hate for the same thing to happen to PvP.

although playing PvE casually has the benefit of not burning us out. so maybe I should look at that as a positive.

I've played long enough to know that, without a doubt, if that starts to happen you can fully expect the reward structure of the progressions in PvP to increase. The devs have an idea of how much they want to give out. If the amount is too low, things might change. If they are too high then they will change at an alarming rate.

That said, yea, I don't think there is much incentive for 1/2 vs 3/50..for PvP at least. Also as someone said earlier, the reward should be 300/300..or maybe 350/250 ...or maybe lump 2/3 together and make it 300 for first and 200 for 2/3. Reason being that 100 hp from 2nd place is being left out of the equation (since they clearly are trying to keep the amount of hp given out the same).

Kelbris

So before first got 500 and second got 100

That's 600 points

Now it's 250 a piece for 500 points

The remaining 100 should go to third

Unknown

Kelbris wrote:

So before first got 500 and second got 100

That's 600 points

Now it's 250 a piece for 500 points

The remaining 100 should go to third

the scAvengers approve of this idea, with a slight change:

The remaining 2x50 should go to third and fourth.

Right, Django?

Unknown

Ok so honestly. I couldn't be happier ATM. Lmfao for serious. They just cut shields hp. Taxed it. And gave the leftovers to me. Holy fkn hell that's awesome. Shield budget increased. This all took me by total surprise if u can't tell. Sweeeeeet.

Unknown

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

But in all seriousness, this helps nobody but 5DeadlySTDS. I'm with everyone in that there should be a better advantage to those that finish in the top 10. For regular top 10 alliances like ourselves,that would be better. Oh well, i guess we can start grinding like badasses now.....right Djangos????? No?????

I.... I've been nothing but nice and STD free. WHY WOULD YOU ACCUSE ME OF HAVING 5 OF THEM? (I'm not claiming some of our more senior members don't have 5 STDs, just an unfair assumption;D )

For real though, this is a step in the right direction, but horizontally so instead of just plain forward. Once 3-100 gets restructured, or even the whole system (1-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-25, 26-50 seem decent enough, but that's also why I'm not a game programmer lol), I think we'll be seeing a lot more newcomers into the top 10. Which is COMPLETELY welcome.

kensterr

I would prefer:
1-3: 300HP
4-10: 150HP
11-50: 100HP

This might make those in top 10 to push for top 3 places, while other alliances who want to take it easy can still settle for 11-50. It's more HP into the pool, but since tokens are changed in LR and IAP this might balance overall game rewards.

NorthernPolarity

kensterr wrote:

I would prefer:
1-3: 300HP
4-10: 150HP
11-50: 100HP

This might make those in top 10 to push for top 3 places, while other alliances who want to take it easy can still settle for 11-50. It's more HP into the pool, but since tokens are changed in LR and IAP this might balance overall game rewards.

They could also easily do something like
1-2 300HP
4-10 150HP
11-45 100HP
45+ - 50HP.

I don't get IceIXs comment of "but breaking things up there is more difficult since the Iso-8 and Hero Point rewards can't be changed too much without making ripples that echo down to the rest of the placements.". This scheme would hand out the same amount of hp and give extra incentive for ranks 4-10 to maintain their spots without taking too much away from the bottom. All you're doing is shifting the awards given to ranks 45-50 to ranks 4-10, and I would imagine that everyone would be perfectly fine with this change.

Spoit

NorthernPolarity wrote:

kensterr wrote:

I would prefer:
1-3: 300HP
4-10: 150HP
11-50: 100HP

This might make those in top 10 to push for top 3 places, while other alliances who want to take it easy can still settle for 11-50. It's more HP into the pool, but since tokens are changed in LR and IAP this might balance overall game rewards.

They could also easily do something like
1-2 300HP
4-10 150HP
11-45 100HP
45+ - 50HP.

I don't get IceIXs comment of "but breaking things up there is more difficult since the Iso-8 and Hero Point rewards can't be changed too much without making ripples that echo down to the rest of the placements.". This scheme would hand out the same amount of hp and give extra incentive for ranks 4-10 to maintain their spots without taking too much away from the bottom. All you're doing is shifting the awards given to ranks 45-50 to ranks 4-10, and I would imagine that everyone would be perfectly fine with this change.

Not the 46-49ths alliances

Linkster79

So after all the feedback given about the alliance reward structure and the biggest gripe being it does not matter if you finish 2nd or 50th all the devs can come up with is it now doesnt matter if you finish 3rd or 50th?

Do they have Ray Charles reading these boards?

Unknown

I don't see why it can't follow a similar structure as the individual brackets, 1, 2-5, 6-10. 300, 200, 150 sounds reasonable to me.