Challenger Alliances in Gold 2 or Below
Brainimpacter
Member Posts: 578 ★★★
If you are a Challenger alliance in Gold 2 or Below you are better off not playing AW and using the Glory instead for buying T2A frags, it will work out better for you in the long run because gold 2 rewards and below are no where near good enough to cover the resources it takes.
its more viable buying T2A frags than using glory on potions to get war season rewards
you will guarantee yourself a full T2A every 5-6 weeks
its more viable buying T2A frags than using glory on potions to get war season rewards
you will guarantee yourself a full T2A every 5-6 weeks
0
Comments
Most the items and Shards in season rewards are plentiful in the game these days so there is next to no incentive to try go the extra mile for them when the above is took into account for rare t2A
When you are in challenger running only 2 groups it takes a lot of effort
For you* and your alliance. if the rewards arent worth it, don't push. When you start doing 2bgs, the results get wonky with retired players and smaller alliances. IMO alliances at that level should be AQ focused, with AW secondary. Because of the glory you mentioned.
You are making a lot of assumptions, we have guys that are doing feature 5* arena getting top 150, Half the players have been in a top 50 Alliance and you are talking like we are beginners lol
Before multipliers -
3 groups gets ~50k more points than 2 groups.
A win in general will give you 50k points.
With those numbers, a 2 BG war alliance would have to win every single war of a season to keep up with a 3BG war alliance that loses every single war. And that would only make them even if they are in the same tier.
3BG wars losing 75% of wars will get you more points than a 2 BG alliance winning 50% of wars. If you both stay in the same tier.
This is the losing battle you're fighting. Gold 1-2 etc arent about ranking. but about season points.
we were not pushing up the different rewards brackets, but we were pushing harder to get wins than everyone else around us because playing 2 groups when all alliances around you play 3 means we cant afford to slip up often because we get less points per win and are on harder maps than them too and being matched against higher opponents, To stay in a bracket with Alliances that play 3 groups is more effort than it takes to stay there with 3
BTW we are playing 3 groups this season
Ive done the math a million times I know 100% it was more rewarding for us to win every war with boss takedowns with 2 groups than spread our alliance thinly and risk not getting any bosses over 3 groups
You're kind of saying my point now. You are working hard with 2 groups for these rewards and it takes a lot to keep pace. because while 3 bgs would score more points, you might score even less points because you dont have a fully skilled alliance to take down all the bosses/routes etc. So you're asking for better rewards for what you work for. Except you're not working for it. Every alliance has their good and bad players. Part of the competition is having a full 30 who can perform.
Its way easier to take bosses in 2 groups because you have best players concentrated over a smaller pool so get easier points
Exactly. Its easier.... in 2 groups...
more difficult = more points = better rewards
but it s not true because the rewards suck for the effort and resources that are needed, which is my original point of this article
I only had to do the math once to determine that in-season any alliance doing less than three battlegroups is placing themselves at a severe disadvantage. That disadvantage translates to having to do more to get less seasonal rewards. It might be optimal for the per-war rewards, but it effectively forfeits one or more brackets of seasonal points. In fact, any alliance that is simultaneously in a high enough war tier to be in the challenger level but also scoring less points per season than is required to get into Gold 1 must be handicapping themselves in one way or another, either by fighting with less than three battlegroups or not fighting in every war of the season.
As to the advice to not fight in wars at all, I think that is extremely unlikely to work out well. It would be better to simply fight in every war but not spend. You'll get two benefits from doing this. First, you'll likely lose more often which would lower rating which would match you against weaker alliances that would be a better match for you when fighting with three battlegroups. And second any seasonal rewards you get will cost virtually nothing to get.
By front loading your best players into two groups, you're in effect increasing war difficulty while simultaneously decreasing season points. It might work in the off-season, but during seasons it is seasonal suicide.
TL;DR: it is better to fight three battlegroups and lose than fight two battlegroups and win, because eventually you'll be fighting alliances you can beat with three BGs. And that's the best strategy for seasonal rewards.