Konman wrote: Psykopathic wrote: If it went off alliance average then 1 man alliances would be unstoppable. Logically, you can't have an alliance of one, and implementing a minimum sized alliance for events would be simple enough.
Psykopathic wrote: If it went off alliance average then 1 man alliances would be unstoppable.
Toxicadam wrote: I think everyone will benefit from this (overall) as it's going to encourage more people to try harder and push further in events and hold their positions at the end. Which (should) mean more progression awards for everyone at the top as their will be more points.
Sumilea wrote: They could do the best 5 scores from the alliance are counted. If you a one man alliance you have no hope. A 6 plus one a member could in your alliance could take the weekend off and your not effected so the bigger alliance has a slight advantage but not huge.
Riggy wrote: Sumilea wrote: They could do the best 5 scores from the alliance are counted. If you a one man alliance you have no hope. A 6 plus one a member could in your alliance could take the weekend off and your not effected so the bigger alliance has a slight advantage but not huge. The problem there means that not everyone is contributing (bad for morale) but everyone benefits from it (also encourages coasting and twinking).
ihearthawthats wrote: Riggy wrote: Sumilea wrote: They could do the best 5 scores from the alliance are counted. If you a one man alliance you have no hope. A 6 plus one a member could in your alliance could take the weekend off and your not effected so the bigger alliance has a slight advantage but not huge. The problem there means that not everyone is contributing (bad for morale) but everyone benefits from it (also encourages coasting and twinking). Other games do this, and their solution is to provide the reward to the top x members. I suppose it promotes in-alliance competition.
Psykopathic wrote: None of the other rewards have changed have they? I don't know how people are seeing this as a negative. Even if your alliance doesn't do great they get a bonus reward more than before. If you do great you get a 3* cover. Not that huge of an advantage from winning. This is a positive thing.
Konman wrote: So how many alliances are participating in Defenders at the moment? As an unaligned player, all I can see are the top 10 ranked alliances. Can anyone see about how many there are participating so far, and is the rewards are applicable for the numbers? thanks
Impulse wrote: 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 That would be true, if they didn't gut existing rewards and shift them to alliances. Alliances add nothing, they're another irritating hurdle and all you get is same reward. Yippie.
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
Toxicadam wrote: It just dawned on me that having an alliance of 15- 20 top-tier players isn't the best idea. Since most of your teammates will be appearing in each other's MMR-bubbles throughout the tournament, you could find yourself in a situation where half of the people you skip through are alliance members.
IceIX wrote: The only real shift was that one Cover for the 1-5 prize went over to Alliance rewards as a test. Other than that, rewards are the same tier for tier compared to Predator and Prey, with 500 extra Iso-8 for 1-5 in the newest Tournament. I get that you might not like that we shifted a cover over, but I'm honestly not sure where the thought of "gutting" comes from. The Alliance rewards are (except for the one cover shift) a bonus on top of current rewards.