I like the idea of making the rewards so that losing in your current tier will be better rewards than winning in a lower tier. Incentivize alliances to strive for a higher tier and stay there. I couldn't care less what the big-time whales do as long as they aren't playing in my little pond screwing up what I'm trying to do. Kabam should have realized that these alliances are all in and will do whatever annoying, seemingly tedious thing they need to to eke out whatever nugget of member progression they can.
Kabam is fully aware and these changes are made for those players. I have been in very few wars where players do not use items, sometimes excessively, in an attempt to win. Kabam knows we will do this no matter how much we ****. We the player has to decide if we wanna spend or not.
Better loser rewards to eliminate the need to use shells is a fantastic idea imo.
Everything is inter connected, The rewards for tier 1 should be 5 star shards, soon to be 6 star shards, and t2a shards. ONLY for tier 1, tier 2 should only be 5 star shards and t2a shards. tier 3 & 4 should only be 5 star shards. then continue down the line as current. Make the rewards better and alliance shells go away. going up a tier in AW should be a big deal, currently there is really only 3 categories, 2 and 3 star shards, 3 and 4 star shards, and 4 and 5 star shards. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. AQ rewards also feeds into this as well, when you no longer care about AQ rewards the penalty to switch alliances is moot. Putting a black out in for AW wont solve anything it will just mess up the alliances that don't swap and just delay war starts for the alliances that do swap.
Hey guys, you know, as a whole, the alliance community only wins half of its wars. Losing here and there is really not the end of the world.
When you spend 800-2000 units and lose it is painful. In the top 100 alliances they will have almost all type of 4&5* champs and that means spending even to have a chance. You hit a point of no return and decide did I waste 1000 units or spend another 1000 for the win. Half the time losing 2000 units doesn't work. If rewards aren't increased people will find ways to get them. That's like the car that can't be stolen. If there is a will there is a way.
2k units for a tier 1 war? Get skilled or go home
I threw a hypothetical number out there in a range. In top 35 though wars can cost a lot @AyyyyLmaoooo
I think there actually needs to be Elite Tier only for the top 50 alliances. They should both get the same rewards but then compete for Alliance titles or something. tie the reward to the alliance so swapping out means you are somewhat tossing away your alliance recognition. Then you aren't fighting for rewards you are fighting for bravado. War Rating kind of was suppose to do that, but in reality it needs to be buffed up a little it is just a number currently it needs more flair for the top of the top tier.
Everything is inter connected, The rewards for tier 1 should be 5 star shards, soon to be 6 star shards, and t2a shards. ONLY for tier 1, tier 2 should only be 5 star shards and t2a shards. tier 3 & 4 should only be 5 star shards. then continue down the line as current. Make the rewards better and alliance shells go away. going up a tier in AW should be a big deal, currently there is really only 3 categories, 2 and 3 star shards, 3 and 4 star shards, and 4 and 5 star shards. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. AQ rewards also feeds into this as well, when you no longer care about AQ rewards the penalty to switch alliances is moot. Putting a black out in for AW wont solve anything it will just mess up the alliances that don't swap and just delay war starts for the alliances that do swap.
First, I doubt t2as will ever be part of war. That's going to be the selling point for prestige in aq I'm assuming.
Second, I'm not sure how they can make losing in higher tier "better rewards" than winning in lower tier. The only way I see that happening is by lowering the reward amount in lower tiers. It also increases the gap between the top alliances and the lower alliances (and btw, that's also why the shell alliance game is total bs--it's artificially increasing the gap between already established alliances and up-and-coming ones).
Third, the 6 star shard issue could be a game changer on this front. "If" kabam instituted a blackout period for war rewards which I am NOT in favor of, at all. (Perhaps a limited blackout period which penalizes people from dropping tiers or dropping more than one tier for a few hundred shards to get closer to duped of 5*s so as to try and avoid penalizing people just looking for a better alliance generally). Also, have a 6* shard payout for winners and losers in a new tier 1 system. That combination "might" discourage this from occurring. These alliances would have to weigh the cost/benefit of both forgoing 5* shards over a certain period and being unable to get 6* shards as well.
Another option is to have weekly rewards sent out Wednesday mornings. Tier 1 allies get higher rewards than tier 2 and down the line, would also incentivize allies to stay higher tiers (assuming rewards are good).
Second, I'm not sure how they can make losing in higher tier "better rewards" than winning in lower tier. The only way I see that happening is by lowering the reward amount in lower tiers. It also increases the gap between the top alliances and the lower alliances (and btw, that's also why the shell alliance game is total bs--it's artificially increasing the gap between already established alliances and up-and-coming ones).
Who cares if there is a gap between lower tier and higher tier? There's supposed to be a gap between weak and strong. This problem comes from the strong masquerading as weak. Where did this idea come from that the low tiers are supposed to be able to "catch up" to the high tiers? Unless the high end groups stop pushing and fall back (or max out), the lower tiers will never match them.
Eliminating the war rating would help, IMO. Why couldn't prestige and total PI be used to determine tiers for AW?
Comments
Better loser rewards to eliminate the need to use shells is a fantastic idea imo.
I threw a hypothetical number out there in a range. In top 35 though wars can cost a lot @AyyyyLmaoooo
First, I doubt t2as will ever be part of war. That's going to be the selling point for prestige in aq I'm assuming.
Second, I'm not sure how they can make losing in higher tier "better rewards" than winning in lower tier. The only way I see that happening is by lowering the reward amount in lower tiers. It also increases the gap between the top alliances and the lower alliances (and btw, that's also why the shell alliance game is total bs--it's artificially increasing the gap between already established alliances and up-and-coming ones).
Third, the 6 star shard issue could be a game changer on this front. "If" kabam instituted a blackout period for war rewards which I am NOT in favor of, at all. (Perhaps a limited blackout period which penalizes people from dropping tiers or dropping more than one tier for a few hundred shards to get closer to duped of 5*s so as to try and avoid penalizing people just looking for a better alliance generally). Also, have a 6* shard payout for winners and losers in a new tier 1 system. That combination "might" discourage this from occurring. These alliances would have to weigh the cost/benefit of both forgoing 5* shards over a certain period and being unable to get 6* shards as well.
Eliminating the war rating would help, IMO. Why couldn't prestige and total PI be used to determine tiers for AW?