Upcoming Change: Tournament Alliance Ranking

Unknown

Linkster79 wrote:

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?

They aren't expecting that to be the final fix. Just something to get started and go from there.

Shield is no longer gonna be making a HUGE hp profit from pvp. There might still earn a little more than they use but prolly about break even depending on the tourney.

Since a lot of our members are f2p the extra hp will help us be a tad more competitive.

Also, I expect d3 assumes this will create competition among the top 10. I bet other changes are gonna come but are gonna be introduced subtly, as they should be.

It's in all honesty not a bad change when you step back and look at it. Maybe not perfect and maybe not the only 1 needed but it's a start. I'm just thrilled it did coincidentally help us more than others if the current trend continues. I also expect that to be short lived though

Unknown

Just cut the size of alliances to a max of 10 per alliance cap, would make this more fair, or but the 10+ alliances in a different division with slightly better prizes. I am in an alliance of 5 people and I am just hoping for top 2,500 every time.

Unknown

MonkeySlut wrote:

Just cut the size of alliances to a max of 10 per alliance cap, would make this more fair, or but the 10+ alliances in a different division with slightly better prizes. I am in an alliance of 5 people and I am just hoping for top 2,500 every time.

Do you know how much work cutting roster sizes in 1/2 would give me? Omg please never ever ever let that come to fruition. Lol

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

MonkeySlut wrote:

Just cut the size of alliances to a max of 10 per alliance cap, would make this more fair, or but the 10+ alliances in a different division with slightly better prizes. I am in an alliance of 5 people and I am just hoping for top 2,500 every time.

Do you know how much work cutting roster sizes in 1/2 would give me? Omg please never ever ever let that come to fruition. Lol

2.5 Deadly Venoms just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Unknown

walkyourpath wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

MonkeySlut wrote:

Just cut the size of alliances to a max of 10 per alliance cap, would make this more fair, or but the 10+ alliances in a different division with slightly better prizes. I am in an alliance of 5 people and I am just hoping for top 2,500 every time.

Do you know how much work cutting roster sizes in 1/2 would give me? Omg please never ever ever let that come to fruition. Lol

2.5 Deadly Venoms just doesn't have the same ring to it.

It would be 10 Deadly Venoms.... Math, amirite? ;D

Unknown

pretty sure people would then be complaining about S.H.I.E.L.D team 1 and 2 taking top 2 every event then it will be share the top rewards out to the top 4

Unknown

Yeah let's be honest, this change is welfare for alliances that simply aren't top tier and a handicap on the one that is.

But hopefully it leads to increased differentiation in the 3-50 bracket and they add back in the 2000 HP they removed from the prize pool.

Unknown

I think it's a reaction change, as having witnessed, what, three weeks of alliances, it was clear there was a dangerous unbalanced situation evolving. I think it was necessary, and from what I've read, the majority of S.H.I.E.L.D agree.

It was a "zero surprise" change, as the general approach taking to changing / balancing this game has always been small incremental tweaks (fun balancing of Chars being the exception, which is why that doesn't happen every week). Again, though, I agree with the majority of AllianceWithTooManyDotsInTheName In that in this case, the change isn't revolutionary enough, and hasn't really changed the status quo much.

Hopefully this is the start of more tweaks to finesse the approach taken to the alliance functionality that has only been part of the MPQ ecosystem for a few weeks. E.g. Not always having the same colour of char cover (Hulk Black, Cap Blue) as an alliance reward.

MPQ is continually evolving. That can be great, as it keeps the game interesting and forces you to keep on your toes. But it can also be hard, as the continual shifting sands can make it difficult to understand how to get the most from the game. I worry about the "nickel and dime" direction someone else mentioned they feel the Devs are taking the game in. However, I do believe they know they need a solid player base, and the majority of decisions are motivated by the desire to make the game better for us. They don't always get it quite right, but if we feed back in a constructive manner we can help make it better.

NorthernPolarity

allorin wrote:

I think it's a reaction change, as having witnessed, what, three weeks of alliances, it was clear there was a dangerous unbalanced situation evolving. I think it was necessary, and from what I've read, the majority of S.H.I.E.L.D agree.

It was a "zero surprise" change, as the general approach taking to changing / balancing this game has always been small incremental tweaks (fun balancing of Chars being the exception, which is why that doesn't happen every week). Again, though, I agree with the majority of AllianceWithTooManyDotsInTheName In that in this case, the change isn't revolutionary enough, and hasn't really changed the status quo much.

Hopefully this is the start of more tweaks to finesse the approach taken to the alliance functionality that has only been part of the MPQ ecosystem for a few weeks. E.g. Not always having the same colour of char cover (Hulk Black, Cap Blue) as an alliance reward.

MPQ is continually evolving. That can be great, as it keeps the game interesting and forces you to keep on your toes. But it can also be hard, as the continual shifting sands can make it difficult to understand how to get the most from the game. I worry about the "nickel and dime" direction someone else mentioned they feel the Devs are taking the game in. However, I do believe they know they need a solid player base, and the majority of decisions are motivated by the desire to make the game better for us. They don't always get it quite right, but if we feed back in a constructive manner we can help make it better.

It just puzzles me that the change would be so minor. If the problem is that SHIELD is dominating so hard that the other 49 alliances in the top 50 feel discouraged, how would changing the award structure this way help with that problem? Now instead of people being discouraged because of SHIELD, now they're going to be discouraged because of SHIELD and 5DV. The core issue of having a couple of key alliances dominating the tournaments doesn't change: I would have liked to see a more aggressive change in prize structure that partitions the rewards enough such that the other alliances in the top 50 actually have something to go for, since its clear that the top 50 alliances contain a majority of the people on this forum.

Unknown

I don't understand why you people don't consider DjangoUnbuffed competition. It breaks my heart. We have been around for 2 months and we have won more than zero but less than 2 events. That makes us great. Way better than those 5x5deadlydiseases. People should be scared of us, and not in the way normal people are scared of us. Yes we like to hide in bushes and frequent girls locker rooms but we can also play a great game. Maybe not this game, but we are unreal at Mario kart. One of these days, everyone will be too busy talking about those pesky SHIELD and 5x5deadlycontagions that we will sneak right up on you like a hungry pervert and win. Granted someone may be away on "holiday" but a wins a win.
BE WARNED

kidicarus

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

I don't understand why you people don't consider DjangoUnbuffed competition. It breaks my heart. We have been around for 2 months and we have won more than zero but less than 2 events. That makes us great. Way better than those 5x5deadlydiseases. People should be scared of us, and not in the way normal people are scared of us. Yes we like to hide in bushes and frequent girls locker rooms but we can also play a great game. Maybe not this game, but we are unreal at Mario kart. One of these days, everyone will be too busy talking about those pesky SHIELD and 5x5deadlycontagions that we will sneak right up on you like a hungry pervert and win. Granted someone may be away on "holiday" but a wins a win.
BE WARNED

I think IceIX is holding you guys back.. You should kick him!

*runs for the hills*

Unknown

kidicarus wrote:

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

I don't understand why you people don't consider DjangoUnbuffed competition. It breaks my heart. We have been around for 2 months and we have won more than zero but less than 2 events. That makes us great. Way better than those 5x5deadlydiseases. People should be scared of us, and not in the way normal people are scared of us. Yes we like to hide in bushes and frequent girls locker rooms but we can also play a great game. Maybe not this game, but we are unreal at Mario kart. One of these days, everyone will be too busy talking about those pesky SHIELD and 5x5deadlycontagions that we will sneak right up on you like a hungry pervert and win. Granted someone may be away on "holiday" but a wins a win.
BE WARNED

I think IceIX is holding you guys back.. You should kick him!

*runs for the hills*

we have tried but he says he would sandbox the entire alliance if we kick him. So for now we put up with him. But one day....

Unknown

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

I don't understand why you people don't consider DjangoUnbuffed competition. It breaks my heart. We have been around for 2 months and we have won more than zero but less than 2 events. That makes us great. Way better than those 5x5deadlydiseases. People should be scared of us, and not in the way normal people are scared of us. Yes we like to hide in bushes and frequent girls locker rooms but we can also play a great game. Maybe not this game, but we are unreal at Mario kart. One of these days, everyone will be too busy talking about those pesky SHIELD and 5x5deadlycontagions that we will sneak right up on you like a hungry pervert and win. Granted someone may be away on "holiday" but a wins a win.
BE WARNED

I look forward to that day and I'll keep my red shells and banana peels ready.

And I know what your thinking... the damned fool forgot about the lightning bolt... but who needs it with Fathor and his thunder lazing about.

Unknown

beezer37_84 wrote:

I look forward to that day and I'll keep my red shells and banana peels ready.

And I know what your thinking... the damned fool forgot about the lightning bolt... but who needs it with Fathor and his thunder lazing about.

Trust me, you don't wanna know what in thinking *licks lips,Hannibal style*

Unknown

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

beezer37_84 wrote:

I look forward to that day and I'll keep my red shells and banana peels ready.

And I know what your thinking... the damned fool forgot about the lightning bolt... but who needs it with Fathor and his thunder lazing about.

Trust me, you don't wanna know what in thinking *licks lips,Hannibal style*

You're right, but either way, if you're thinking about eating Fathor or his food don't do it. Trust me it's not worth it.

Nighthawk81

Previous message won't disappear, but I have had the luck of entering into a bigger alliance, so hopefully I can continue to build my roster further and contribute to the forums more.

Unknown

Jdberia wrote:

This is not intended as a rant, but interpretations will vary.

I would like to see something that would allow the smaller alliances a chance to compete for better rewards as there is no possible way for a five person alliance to compete with a 20 person alliance (obviously). I say this because looking at the recruiting threads for the larger alliances tells me that I am not worthy of a spot in a larger, more active alliance because I don't have any maxed three star characters (even though I play a lot and am slowly building towards that). If I am way off base, or if I am missing threads for open alliances to which I seek, please enlighten me.

U got some maxed 2* and 1500hp? I'll get you in a top 100 alliance. Hehe

reckless442

I think this so-called fix has two problems. The first has been repeatedly identified. It doesn't provide incentive beyond the two alliances that have generally dominated PVP and leaves 3-50 basically with the same problem they had when the award was 2-50.

However, I'm not sure it is such a good idea to have 1-2 be the same. Not only is there no longer any real incentive to be the best, since second-place gets you the same rewards, the efforts S.H.I.E.L.D and 5DV made while trying to come in first as an alliance have a ripple effect on the entire event. The challenge from 5DV pushed S.H.I.E.L.D,, which helped boost scores for everyone. Look at the Hulk event. We were being pushed by 5DV, so many of us pushed to 1100 and 1200. That resulted in higher scores across the board because people who were in the 900-1000 range were finding juicy targets and were not facing the dreaded win 5/lose 40 scenario. That meant more people got the progressives at 1000-1200 than ever before.

With the same prize for 1 and 2 (or only a negligible difference), I don't see that continuing to happen. Why push to 2000 -- or 2200, like we did on Hulk -- when 1900 will be sufficient for the same prize? We certainly will save money on shield-hopping.

Unknown

reckless442 wrote:

We were being pushed by 5DV, so many of us pushed to 1100 and 1200.

Off topic but oh well:

some (and by some I mean one) of us pushed to 1400... coughreckless442cough

Unknown

beezer37_84 wrote:

reckless442 wrote:

We were being pushed by 5DV, so many of us pushed to 1100 and 1200.

Off topic but oh well:

some (and by some I mean one) of us pushed to 1400... coughreckless442cough

I was wondering how many shields did you use in hulk tourney