Kolence wrote: Riggy wrote: Personally, I feel cheated by this event. The cover of the event clearly shows Devil Dino and yet there are no nodes that feature the green team-killing machine. And to be fair, neither Hulk nor Moonstone is featured in a node either, but who cares about them compared to our favorite dinosaur? Don't say that, people care . Anyway, Moonstone is already there with Storm and the gangster boss in the solo mission next to the ISO lump. Hopefully (?) there are still more rounds for the other two to show up yet.
Riggy wrote: Personally, I feel cheated by this event. The cover of the event clearly shows Devil Dino and yet there are no nodes that feature the green team-killing machine. And to be fair, neither Hulk nor Moonstone is featured in a node either, but who cares about them compared to our favorite dinosaur?
ihearthawthats wrote: Only need top 50? I guess I can relax. Depending on the buff %, Bullseye shouldn't be slept on.
bahukma wrote: Is there a phat ISO reward in Sim 5 like there was last time?
bughunt wrote: bahukma wrote: Is there a phat ISO reward in Sim 5 like there was last time? yeah, 2500.
KaioShinDE wrote: There are only prizes for the Top100 alliances in sub events. But we are currently ranked 300-something. So... no brackets but actually just next to no prices except for the top alliances. Ugh... Unless the system is bugged and there is a mistake somewhere.
bahukma wrote: bughunt wrote: bahukma wrote: Is there a phat ISO reward in Sim 5 like there was last time? yeah, 2500. Sweet. Thanks, dude.
Spoit wrote: I want to start it, but without a daredevil, I dunno if I can get top 50 in these brackets of death
Skyedyne wrote: They should really start bracketing alliances according to general size. Either that, or make alliance spots free and capped out. As the way alliance system stands now, it's simply pay a bit of money and not have to score many points for your alliance to collectively be in the lead by a wide margin. At least with bracketing according to general size, you will have some kind of meaningful competition amongst alliances. With players who only group with a small group of friends and makes an alliance private, it completely defeats the purpose of having fun with said small group, since there is no other point to alliances outside of being an extension of competition, albeit with a group of people you really want to play with. Short version: Unbracketed alliance leaderboard makes top spots essentially pay to win.
jozier wrote: Skyedyne wrote: They should really start bracketing alliances according to general size. Either that, or make alliance spots free and capped out. As the way alliance system stands now, it's simply pay a bit of money and not have to score many points for your alliance to collectively be in the lead by a wide margin. At least with bracketing according to general size, you will have some kind of meaningful competition amongst alliances. With players who only group with a small group of friends and makes an alliance private, it completely defeats the purpose of having fun with said small group, since there is no other point to alliances outside of being an extension of competition, albeit with a group of people you really want to play with. Short version: Unbracketed alliance leaderboard makes top spots essentially pay to win. So your alternative is to punish people who support the game the most? You can see why that doesn't really fly all that well right? If you don't find a big alliance to group with, you are still competitive for the primary award (the blue Cap cover) but you're right, you're locked out of the HP rewards. Why should an alliance that spends a fraction of the HP of another be entitled to the same HP reward? You're not asking for an equal playing field, you're asking to piggyback off the whales who support the game. Also, there are plenty of large alliances where you can just join in. The game has a lot of people willing to spend money to partner up with people and to support the game. If you're on the forum you're ahead of a lot of others who play.
Skyedyne wrote: jozier wrote: Skyedyne wrote: They should really start bracketing alliances according to general size. Either that, or make alliance spots free and capped out. As the way alliance system stands now, it's simply pay a bit of money and not have to score many points for your alliance to collectively be in the lead by a wide margin. At least with bracketing according to general size, you will have some kind of meaningful competition amongst alliances. With players who only group with a small group of friends and makes an alliance private, it completely defeats the purpose of having fun with said small group, since there is no other point to alliances outside of being an extension of competition, albeit with a group of people you really want to play with. Short version: Unbracketed alliance leaderboard makes top spots essentially pay to win. So your alternative is to punish people who support the game the most? You can see why that doesn't really fly all that well right? If you don't find a big alliance to group with, you are still competitive for the primary award (the blue Cap cover) but you're right, you're locked out of the HP rewards. Why should an alliance that spends a fraction of the HP of another be entitled to the same HP reward? You're not asking for an equal playing field, you're asking to piggyback off the whales who support the game. Also, there are plenty of large alliances where you can just join in. The game has a lot of people willing to spend money to partner up with people and to support the game. If you're on the forum you're ahead of a lot of others who play. On the contrary, I'm not asking to piggyback off whales (considering I am one myself). However, I shouldn't be forced to group with persons I only know through online interactions to be a shoo in for top prizes. I am in an Alliance with my small group of real life friends, but with only being at 5, there is no realistic chance of competing against those that have 17+ members. In other words, those who choose to remain a small group should instead be in brackets with similar sized alliances. The same could be said for those in the higher member quantities being grouped together in their own bracket. Being unbracketed makes it rather unequal in terms of placement for alliances. What takes a 5 member team to achieve 20000 points (4000 each member if averaged) takes a 17-20 only about 1200-1000, respectively. So what point is there in making alliance leaderboard unbracketed, when the majority of alliances are only 5? All it does is essentially give out the prizes to those who are "forced" to join an alliance (that they may not want to) just to have an exponentially easier time of achieving a top spot. In essence, this is encouraging the piggybacking on whales more than bracketing according to size.