Challenger Alliances in Gold 2 or Below

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

Comments

Brainimpacter

@Kabam Miike lower War Brackets need to pay better to reflect the cost of the resources it takes, spending resources on Glory Store T2A which takes no extra effort, should not give more valuable items than investing glory potions for end of season rewards, Dont take this has a sign that Glory Store T2A prices need to go up, Make Gold rewards more worth the effort and resources it takes for Alliances in Challenger.
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

Primmer79

you're assuming it would take resources to stay in gold 2. Honestly it all depends on where the player is in progression.

Brainimpacter

Primmer79 wrote: »

you're assuming it would take resources to stay in gold 2. Honestly it all depends on where the player is in progression.

Im not assuming anything I've been in it for 3 seasons
When you are in challenger running only 2 groups it takes a lot of effort

Primmer79

Brainimpacter wrote: »

Primmer79 wrote: »

you're assuming it would take resources to stay in gold 2. Honestly it all depends on where the player is in progression.

Im not assuming nothing Ive been in it for 3 seasons
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.

Brainimpacter

its not my alliance but thanks, I dont need you advice how to play, but thanks
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

Primmer79

This is a forum for people to comment on. Im commenting on your suggestion. Your biggest problem is 2 bgs. you're not "pushing" in AW seasons with 2 bgs. its just math. I'm giving my opinion. your experience isnt the same as everyone's

Brainimpacter

What happens when you play 2 groups then go to 3 groups, you get way over matched because you war rating is way higher than the alliances around you in your bracket, we tried tanking to bring it down nearer to most around us but we could not keep it going as we feel its throwing away shards, so ended getting it back up by time War started but not as high, but still high enough for hard maps.

Primmer79

Exactly.
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.

Brainimpacter

Primmer79 wrote: »

This is a forum for people to comment on. Im commenting on your suggestion. Your biggest problem is 2 bgs. you're not "pushing" in AW seasons with 2 bgs. its just math. I'm giving my opinion. your experience isnt the same as everyone's

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

Brainimpacter

Primmer79 wrote: »

Exactly.
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.

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

Primmer79

Brainimpacter wrote: »

Primmer79 wrote: »

Exactly.
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.

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.

Brainimpacter

the point is if we did 3 groups last season and lost the war with 3 groups, we would need us to have at least 3 boss take downs to be on par with the points for what we get for winning 2 groups with full exploration and bosses, running 3 groups is more valuable if you get like for like results with what you get in 2 groups but that is never going to happen

Primmer79

Exactly. you're comparing 2 BG success to (essentially) 3 BG boss take down, but potential loss. The season scoring system rewards 3 BG wars compared to 2 BG success in wars.

Brainimpacter

Kabam says they dont expect us to take down bosses every war, so why is not taking bosses in 3 group wars not worth more than a 2 group war that does where it is easier?
Its way easier to take bosses in 2 groups because you have best players concentrated over a smaller pool so get easier points

Primmer79

Because of the number of people included and needed to do that. Takes more coordination and skill to cover 27 routes across 3 BGs

Brainimpacter

Its way easier to take bosses in 2 groups because you have best players concentrated over a smaller pool so can get easier points

Primmer79

Brainimpacter wrote: »

Its way easier to take bosses in 2 groups because you have best players concentrated over a smaller pool so can get easier points

Exactly. Its easier.... in 2 groups...

more difficult = more points = better rewards

Brainimpacter

Primmer79 wrote: »

Brainimpacter wrote: »

Its way easier to take bosses in 2 groups because you have best players concentrated over a smaller pool so can 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

Whathappened

Just don't spend in war...then use your glory for resources. My second account is silver 1 last season and I don't spend in war unless it's resources given to me from S.A or whatever and I'm usually a top contributor in war. We have no requirement or expectation to use glory for war. My main account is a different story.

DNA3000

Brainimpacter wrote: »

Primmer79 wrote: »

Exactly.
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.

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

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.