those changes would greatly reduce the covers given out to the players.
just some math:
top 100 alliances each 20 members = 2000 3star covers given out total to the players as alliance rewards
lets suppose the top 100 alliances after those changes would have an average of 10 players = 1000 3star covers given out.
just by global thinking i like “the bigger the alliance the better the chances to get the rewards” aspect more
I’m not sure I follow your logic… D3 has varied what placement gets covers from event to event since Alliances came out (simulator was top 250 for example). I’m sure they have a target amount of covers to distribute and would adjust the eligible ranks accordingly - as they already have. You disagree? Why?
Technically, alliance rewards gives more out assuming 20 man teams.
That’s true only if the award rank intervals remain constant.
20-man teams with a second rank that ends at 50th and 10-man teams with a rank that ends at 200 - well, the second scenario results in more rewards.
The amount of rewards handed out is entirely at D3’s discretion and is completely adjustable.
I think OP’s idea is a good one, and far better than what we have now. Several people have objected on the grounds that some players would feel like they’re not contributing, but as the scores of all of your alliance members are hidden, it would still behoove everyone to do their best, as they would have little to no idea if their score was a contributing factor or not. Unless, of course, they decided to sit an event out, but that seems pretty unlikely.
D3 has no reason to make this change. They are much better off as it is, where people will feel the need to pay/buy the HP to expand their alliances.
For the love of god can a mod please either lock this topic or move it to suggestions?
Thanks.
I’d like to see something like this, though maybe top ten would be more reasonable. In their current form alliances are going to induce burnout faster. I already have ground up a score in events I don’t care about so as not to screw over my alliance. It’s not the most thrilling gameplay motivation.
Takes the common alliance working all together. Just have 5 yo 6 guys go all out on a rotation basis.
No matter what, winning still takes a lot of hard work from a lot of people. Using a point-average system will drag top teams down and pull the lower teams up. Burnouts, absentees, lathargy, life. Not every player experiences these things (especially insane people like TheLadder), and it would be unfair to them to implement something that would detract from their efforts. The best solution is to be more selective of your alliance members. There are good and bad ways to do this as well.
I’m sorry if I posted in the wrong forum, but if a mod could move it to the “Suggestions” forum that would probably be better. It looks like it accidentally got moved to the alliance recruitment forum.
I tried playing on mobile and pc at the same time just 2 accounts, and one ended up being a “take the daily reward” account and that was it. I can’t imagine a group of 5 guys playing 4 accounts each, and if some people did pull it off, I say they earned whatever they get, because they have WAYYYYY to much dedication to this game.
[/quote]
I had a 2nd account till the game got updated past what my iPad could run. Never linked it to Facebook, so that account is lost to the ages. It was nice while I was waiting for health packs to regenerate before I got my OBW and started Prologue healing…ah, those were the days!
Ask Moon Roach & Wolveroach how playing 2 accounts works. Though they may have an unfair advantage since I’m pretty sure they have Dissociative Identity Disorder.