IceIX wrote: 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. 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.
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
The Ladder wrote: The alternative is having to have a huge team to place well. For that reason alone, I would have thought best x cumulative scores would be preferable over total cumulative or average based scoring systems. Bad morale, coasting etc - each alliance would have to police that in whatever way they see fit!
Ben Grimm wrote: 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. Yes, they have. The blue cover is not included in the regular top 5 anymore, just the alliance scores.
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.
The Ladder 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). The alternative is having to have a huge team to place well. For that reason alone, I would have thought best x cumulative scores would be preferable over total cumulative or average based scoring systems. Bad morale, coasting etc - each alliance would have to police that in whatever way they see fit!
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).
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.
Psykopathic wrote: Ben Grimm wrote: 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. Yes, they have. The blue cover is not included in the regular top 5 anymore, just the alliance scores. I think that's the only issue then. If they would have left regular rewards alone and made the alliance competition a small bonus then that would have just been awesome.
Psykopathic wrote: I think that's the only issue then. If they would have left regular rewards alone and made the alliance competition a small bonus then that would have just been awesome.
ihearthawthats wrote: 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. Why's that bad? You can make sure you don't lose points and better coordinate shield usage.
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.
pandaberry6 wrote: This is the first one - they are just testing the waters and watching our reaction. They will adjust the rewards based on feedback. Nothing is set in stone but they needed to start somewhere.
Kelbris wrote: pandaberry6 wrote: This is the first one - they are just testing the waters and watching our reaction. They will adjust the rewards based on feedback. Nothing is set in stone but they needed to start somewhere. That, or having a bigger alliance makes it more likely you're going to ge tthe high-end alliance reward, which means people have to buy HP and give money to the game to increase roster space, therefore alliances are now definitively monetized
Riggy wrote: radav wrote: 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.
radav wrote: 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.
Psykopathic wrote: I think that's the only issue. If they would have left regular rewards alone and made the alliance competition a small bonus then that would have just been awesome.
abuelo wrote: Riggy wrote: radav wrote: 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. Really? If you are in an 'alliance' you are still a solo player you goose. This isn't World of Warcraft.
Team_Xtreme wrote: At least the event token is back as progression reward for 300 pts
MarvelMan wrote: Psykopathic wrote: I think that's the only issue then. If they would have left regular rewards alone and made the alliance competition a small bonus then that would have just been awesome. For those of us who dont know anyone playing the game and would prefer not to join an alliance with people we dont know, that is a HUGE issue. It means we will fall further and further behind even if we are the best/most dedicated MPQ player.