Phantron wrote: It looks like the alliance rating is just the sum of its members unless someone miraculously has a score of 700 in the first 10 minutes of the Fearless Defenders event starting. This seems really backwards to me. It will mean the biggest alliance will always win and even if there's a cap it still means there's no point to compete unless you're at the maximum size. It's easy to get 2 guys with 500 rating. Good luck getting a single guy with 1000 rating.
Riggy wrote: radav wrote: Iron Batman wrote: So the more members you have in the alliance, the higher your chance of winning since the members' points add up? or is it an average? I have a feeling it will just be the total but, it would make a lot more sense to do it as an average so that the inevitable 10+ person alliance doesn't just walk away with an easy win. I'd be surprised if its not the total though because that way it will encourage people to spend HP on member slots for alliances. Not really liking this addition to the game at all tbh. The idea of averages is terrible as it would unfairly penalize an alliance when a team member has to take a weekend off or can only play casually in an event. At least with summation, players can make up for missing players by playing more themselves. If you as a loner or small alliance player doesn't want to join a large alliance, then that's entirely your decision and you can still place highly in the individual rankings and earn rewards appropriate for a solo player. Based on what I've seen so far, I think more people have joined the tournament near the beginning. I'd love to get IceIX's input on specific numbers of when people are joining this tournament compared to past tournaments. It might actually be easier for the solo players who want to jump in late to get the individual rewards.
radav wrote: Iron Batman wrote: So the more members you have in the alliance, the higher your chance of winning since the members' points add up? or is it an average? I have a feeling it will just be the total but, it would make a lot more sense to do it as an average so that the inevitable 10+ person alliance doesn't just walk away with an easy win. I'd be surprised if its not the total though because that way it will encourage people to spend HP on member slots for alliances. Not really liking this addition to the game at all tbh.
Iron Batman wrote: So the more members you have in the alliance, the higher your chance of winning since the members' points add up? or is it an average?
Riggy wrote: Phantron wrote: It looks like the alliance rating is just the sum of its members unless someone miraculously has a score of 700 in the first 10 minutes of the Fearless Defenders event starting. This seems really backwards to me. It will mean the biggest alliance will always win and even if there's a cap it still means there's no point to compete unless you're at the maximum size. It's easy to get 2 guys with 500 rating. Good luck getting a single guy with 1000 rating. Why is big alliances always winning a bad thing? Wouldn't small alliances beating large ones be the equivalent of a 1* roster taking first in the big PVE events? I want to see a team in the NFL that complains that it should be able to win with 5 people on the field against a team that fields 11.
Puritas wrote: Riggy wrote: Phantron wrote: It looks like the alliance rating is just the sum of its members unless someone miraculously has a score of 700 in the first 10 minutes of the Fearless Defenders event starting. This seems really backwards to me. It will mean the biggest alliance will always win and even if there's a cap it still means there's no point to compete unless you're at the maximum size. It's easy to get 2 guys with 500 rating. Good luck getting a single guy with 1000 rating. Why is big alliances always winning a bad thing? Wouldn't small alliances beating large ones be the equivalent of a 1* roster taking first in the big PVE events? I want to see a team in the NFL that complains that it should be able to win with 5 people on the field against a team that fields 11. except this is more like 5 NFL players getting smoked by 11 office drones who play pickup on the weekends
frozenhero1 wrote: I for one think the alliances are a nice addition. It's not like you're forced to be in one to participate or you're missing out on any unbelievable alliance-only prizes - most alliances will end up with 50HP and a little ISO (oooooh). If you think you're missing out, join an alliance - what's the harm? You can leave it and join another one for the next event if you want to. Those of us that are in alliances get to engage in a little friendly competition and reap some small, extra rewards. The developers should be patted on the back for continuing to add and test new features. And who cares if there is an alliance out there with 10, 15, or even 20 members? Let them go buy their big alliance. It's not like this game isn't already geared for pay-2-win. That doesn't have to detract from the fun you can still have with a 5-person alliance.
Ben Grimm wrote: I think this will be a nice time to have a MPQ-lite (or even -free) weekend for a change. I'll probably play a little, but this is the sort of change I really don't want to encourage.
radav wrote: Ben Grimm wrote: I think this will be a nice time to have a MPQ-lite (or even -free) weekend for a change. I'll probably play a little, but this is the sort of change I really don't want to encourage. Just wanted to chime in at my distaste of how the alliance competition is being implemented. The fact that it's not an average is a pretty blatant cash grab.
radav wrote: Ben Grimm wrote: I think this will be a nice time to have a MPQ-lite (or even -free) weekend for a change. I'll probably play a little, but this is the sort of change I really don't want to encourage. Just wanted to chime in at my distaste of how the alliance competition is being implemented. The fact that it's not an average is a pretty blatant cash grab. The group with the largest number of people will always win out period. The football analogy made earlier makes no sense because you're talking about pure numbers. You don't see teams playing 4 vs 20. lol Anyway, with this and the "tweak" to prize structure recently coupled with the disappearance of event tokens from the Hulk event I'm pretty disheartened by the changes. I'd love to see one of these f2p games actually try to make the game more enjoyable for it's players vs. what you always see which is for them to try and find the money grubbiest way to get money from its players. I get that they have to make money and I've spent it on their game. I just don't agree with the path they're continuing down and that there are largely more positive ways to try and grow their game monetarily and from a player stand point.
Psykopathic wrote: If it went off alliance average then 1 man alliances would be unstoppable.
frozenhero1 wrote: I for one think the alliances are a nice addition. It's not like you're forced to be in one to participate or you're missing out on any unbelievable alliance-only prizes