Making the Alliances less stressful

Unknown

I'd like to see the alliance player cap be raised to 50, but have only the top 20 scores in that alliance count towards the alliance rewards competition. However, the additional slots should not cost more than the current maximum value (2000hp) so alliances do not feel that they have to take out a second mortgage to add a slot.

This would allow people to take a break and not get kicked from the alliance just to bring in a ringer; the game will feel less like a job to keep up; alliances would be more likely to allow newer players to join; there would be no need for "super" alliances to move players to/from lower tiers just to get the rewards; and allow D3P to potentially make more money selling alliance player slots.

Unknown

I think d3 wants the alliances as stressful and cutthroat as possible. I think they hope this will encourage alliances to insist members spend HP on shields and boosts. I don't think it will work - I think psycho players find psycho alliances, and so the people who would spend do anyway - but remember that alliances aren't here for the benefit of the players.

Unknown

Ben Grimm wrote:

I think d3 wants the alliances as stressful and cutthroat as possible. I think they hope this will encourage alliances to insist members spend HP on shields and boosts. I don't think it will work - I think psycho players find psycho alliances, and so the people who would spend do anyway - but remember that alliances aren't here for the benefit of the players.

And they wouldn't be spending just as much getting to 50 roster slots? Also what do you mean, they're not for the benefit of the players? I'm getting 1k+ "free" ISO each event because of a friend's initial investment in a 20 player alliance.

Unknown

grimeon wrote:

Ben Grimm wrote:

I think d3 wants the alliances as stressful and cutthroat as possible. I think they hope this will encourage alliances to insist members spend HP on shields and boosts. I don't think it will work - I think psycho players find psycho alliances, and so the people who would spend do anyway - but remember that alliances aren't here for the benefit of the players.

And they wouldn't be spending just as much getting to 50 roster slots? Also what do you mean, they're not for the benefit of the players? I'm getting 1k+ "free" ISO each event because of a friend's initial investment in a 20 player alliance.

They're there to force people to spend HP they wouldn't have spent otherwise. They completely nerfed single player prizes when they put in the alliance rewards. The current PVP is much better, but the alliance system was not put in place to make things better for players.

simonsez

mkchuk wrote:

I'd like to see the alliance player cap be raised to 50, but have only the top 20 scores in that alliance count towards the alliance rewards competition.

I'm not sure I'd want to be in an alliance where 30 of the 50 people have no incentive to contribute.

Unknown

I would only be okay with it if the top 20 were the only ones to receive the prize for placing. Otherwise, you are just making the top alliances that much stronger.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

I'm not sure I'd want to be in an alliance where 30 of the 50 people have no incentive to contribute.

The great thing about the idea is that you wouldn't have to. Your alliance could stop adding slots at 20 and still be just as competitive as one with 50.

tbighead21

I think it all depends on the alliance you are in. There isn't really any stress in mine. We've had a majority of the same members since before Season 1 finished.

Unknown

I'm new to a top 100 alliance and I don't feel stressed at all. I think this is all about whether or not you feel comfortable in your alliance, whether the others' playing style suits your own etc.