To these guys/gals
A truly sincere congratulations on winning the Immortal Sun mythic card.
Seriously, I mean it.
**this is not sarcasm directed at these coalitions. It is of no fault of any of these players for their hard work at maintaining their top spot but to point out the poor design of an event that already pre-selected the winners to receive a prize that alienates the hard work of thousands who are not in a position to even compete.***
Fully agree with OP.
@Thuran: Indeed it isn't, except for one thing. You need 20 people with the same scoring power. If you only have a few in a non top 10 coalition, you are automatically shut out from this reward. Utterly bad design.
Machine said: Fully agree with OP.@Thuran: Indeed it isn't, except for one thing. You need 20 people with the same scoring power. If you only have a few in a non top 10 coalition, you are automatically shut out from this reward. Utterly bad design.
Gotcha617 said: Machine said: Fully agree with OP.@Thuran: Indeed it isn't, except for one thing. You need 20 people with the same scoring power. If you only have a few in a non top 10 coalition, you are automatically shut out from this reward. Utterly bad design. In fairness a lot of the players in a top ten started in a coalition just as you describe. Myself included. What I did was put a request on the forum and work my way up. Not extremely tough. Not saying the award structures are completely fair. However if anyone doesn’t want to put in the work to move up then it’s more on them oppose to a bad award structure. If you want something work for it...if you don’t to be Jell-o
Bil said: What kind of teammate would drop his team in the middle of a game because the oponent has better chances to earn the cup ...?
bken1234 said: Gotcha617 said: Machine said: Fully agree with OP.@Thuran: Indeed it isn't, except for one thing. You need 20 people with the same scoring power. If you only have a few in a non top 10 coalition, you are automatically shut out from this reward. Utterly bad design. In fairness a lot of the players in a top ten started in a coalition just as you describe. Myself included. What I did was put a request on the forum and work my way up. Not extremely tough. Not saying the award structures are completely fair. However if anyone doesn’t want to put in the work to move up then it’s more on them oppose to a bad award structure. If you want something work for it...if you don’t to be Jell-o Actually, @Machine is one of the top 5 scorers out of the 340 players in ThePower9. He puts in the work week after week and leads a top 25 coalition so well there is hardly any turnover. As a leader, he probably puts more work in than 95% of top 10 players.It’s not cool to make assumptions about people.
ZW2007- said: bken1234 said: Gotcha617 said: Machine said: Fully agree with OP.@Thuran: Indeed it isn't, except for one thing. You need 20 people with the same scoring power. If you only have a few in a non top 10 coalition, you are automatically shut out from this reward. Utterly bad design. In fairness a lot of the players in a top ten started in a coalition just as you describe. Myself included. What I did was put a request on the forum and work my way up. Not extremely tough. Not saying the award structures are completely fair. However if anyone doesn’t want to put in the work to move up then it’s more on them oppose to a bad award structure. If you want something work for it...if you don’t to be Jell-o Actually, @Machine is one of the top 5 scorers out of the 340 players in ThePower9. He puts in the work week after week and leads a top 25 coalition so well there is hardly any turnover. As a leader, he probably puts more work in than 95% of top 10 players.It’s not cool to make assumptions about people. But there's the rub, he knows how the rewards work and has the ability to reap the benefits but chooses not to. I'm not saying I wholly disagree with Machine but you can't say it is utterly bad design. The entire purpose of coalitions is to bring people together to play the game. They want us playing the game. Being in coalitions and making friends with other people playing the game makes us more likely to continue playing the game. If there is little to no incentive (i.e. meaningless coalition rewards) for being in a coalition besides the people in the coalition, why would people join coalitions in the first place? A circle has no beginning...or something like that. The reward structure may not be ideal but it is a necessary evil.
Lars said: Well, look, after the teams at the top have won The Immortal Sun this time around, they'll be swapping other players into their rosters the next time the event is running so they can win it too, so I'd apply for one of those spots if I was you.
Kinesia said: ZW2007- said: bken1234 said: Gotcha617 said: Machine said: Fully agree with OP.@Thuran: Indeed it isn't, except for one thing. You need 20 people with the same scoring power. If you only have a few in a non top 10 coalition, you are automatically shut out from this reward. Utterly bad design. In fairness a lot of the players in a top ten started in a coalition just as you describe. Myself included. What I did was put a request on the forum and work my way up. Not extremely tough. Not saying the award structures are completely fair. However if anyone doesn’t want to put in the work to move up then it’s more on them oppose to a bad award structure. If you want something work for it...if you don’t to be Jell-o Actually, @Machine is one of the top 5 scorers out of the 340 players in ThePower9. He puts in the work week after week and leads a top 25 coalition so well there is hardly any turnover. As a leader, he probably puts more work in than 95% of top 10 players.It’s not cool to make assumptions about people. But there's the rub, he knows how the rewards work and has the ability to reap the benefits but chooses not to. I'm not saying I wholly disagree with Machine but you can't say it is utterly bad design. The entire purpose of coalitions is to bring people together to play the game. They want us playing the game. Being in coalitions and making friends with other people playing the game makes us more likely to continue playing the game. If there is little to no incentive (i.e. meaningless coalition rewards) for being in a coalition besides the people in the coalition, why would people join coalitions in the first place? A circle has no beginning...or something like that. The reward structure may not be ideal but it is a necessary evil. It _is_ bad design, because the design needs to take the entire playerbase into account, not just the top. There are coalitions at EVERY level, there are "just bronze" coalitions, coalitions exist for company, not to win. This is not meant to be e-sports and I hope it never heads that way.The prize structure does have to motivate the people at the top but ALSO EVERYONE ELSE. If everyone else goes away then the top people don't have a mountain to be on top of anymore and the company dies too.The design needs to make (almost) everyone happy. So this _is_ a bad design because it does not meet the companies purpose of keeping _most_ people playing.
ZW2007- said: Kinesia said: ZW2007- said: bken1234 said: Gotcha617 said: Machine said: Fully agree with OP.@Thuran: Indeed it isn't, except for one thing. You need 20 people with the same scoring power. If you only have a few in a non top 10 coalition, you are automatically shut out from this reward. Utterly bad design. In fairness a lot of the players in a top ten started in a coalition just as you describe. Myself included. What I did was put a request on the forum and work my way up. Not extremely tough. Not saying the award structures are completely fair. However if anyone doesn’t want to put in the work to move up then it’s more on them oppose to a bad award structure. If you want something work for it...if you don’t to be Jell-o Actually, @Machine is one of the top 5 scorers out of the 340 players in ThePower9. He puts in the work week after week and leads a top 25 coalition so well there is hardly any turnover. As a leader, he probably puts more work in than 95% of top 10 players.It’s not cool to make assumptions about people. But there's the rub, he knows how the rewards work and has the ability to reap the benefits but chooses not to. I'm not saying I wholly disagree with Machine but you can't say it is utterly bad design. The entire purpose of coalitions is to bring people together to play the game. They want us playing the game. Being in coalitions and making friends with other people playing the game makes us more likely to continue playing the game. If there is little to no incentive (i.e. meaningless coalition rewards) for being in a coalition besides the people in the coalition, why would people join coalitions in the first place? A circle has no beginning...or something like that. The reward structure may not be ideal but it is a necessary evil. It _is_ bad design, because the design needs to take the entire playerbase into account, not just the top. There are coalitions at EVERY level, there are "just bronze" coalitions, coalitions exist for company, not to win. This is not meant to be e-sports and I hope it never heads that way.The prize structure does have to motivate the people at the top but ALSO EVERYONE ELSE. If everyone else goes away then the top people don't have a mountain to be on top of anymore and the company dies too.The design needs to make (almost) everyone happy. So this _is_ a bad design because it does not meet the companies purpose of keeping _most_ people playing. If "just bronze" coalitions exist for company and not to win (which would also mean they don't care about the prizes) then it doesn't matter what the awards are and the system is just dandy for them. I'm not sure what kind of prize structure would make everyone happy. There is no good way to balance it. If everyone got participation trophies...err good rewards just for playing, then everyone could avoid spending real money which leads to that whole company dying thing you mentioned. If no one got good rewards, the game kind of wouldn't be worth playing and the company dies... Sure, there could probably be slightly better balance with the structuring but a 500th rank coalition should not get close to the rewards a 100th rank coalition gets, and the 100th ranked team shouldn't get what the top 10 get.
ZW2007- said: If "just bronze" coalitions exist for company and not to win (which would also mean they don't care about the prizes) then it doesn't matter what the awards are and the system is just dandy for them. I'm not sure what kind of prize structure would make everyone happy. There is no good way to balance it. If everyone got participation trophies...err good rewards just for playing, then everyone could avoid spending real money which leads to that whole company dying thing you mentioned. If no one got good rewards, the game kind of wouldn't be worth playing and the company dies... Sure, there could probably be slightly better balance with the structuring but a 500th rank coalition should not get close to the rewards a 100th rank coalition gets, and the 100th ranked team shouldn't get what the top 10 get.