An alliance in tier 1 has all its members join a shell alliance (an inactive alliance where maybe they keep their second or alt accounts). The alt account invites them then moves itself and any other alt accounts to the tier 1 alliance. The shell alliance would miss out on two weeks of AQ rewards but assuming it is an inactive alliance with a war rating of somewhere around 500-1000 then they will start climbing back through the tiers in war and accumulate more crystal shards as a result. In theory they will draw lots of weaker opponents until they probably hit tier 4 again.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
If true, then I say they're pretty dumb. Getting way less rewards over the same time as they climb back through the ranks to reach 5* shards again.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
If true, then I say they're pretty dumb. Getting way less rewards over the same time as they climb back through the ranks to reach 5* shards again.
You missed my point...they aren't taking that long to climb back up in points. If you go to an alliance with 800 points (let's theorize that is tier 11) and gain even 50 points per match then you are back in tier 7 (let's theorize 1100 points) in 6 wins. One in tier 7 they are getting 5* shards again and will continue to get them until they probably start drawing harder matches around war rating 2100 or 2200 again.
Easy fix. Make the rewards a lot higher for tier 1. Why do I want to use a **** ton of items for a win and get 500 5* shards when I can spend no items and get 400 or so I'm a lower tier. They made the system flawed.
Easy fix. Make the rewards a lot higher for tier 1. Why do I want to use a **** ton of items for a win and get 500 5* shards when I can spend no items and get 400 or so I'm a lower tier. They made the system flawed.
This is the right answer. This is not on people operating within the system Kabam created, it's on Kabam and the system they created.
I think if someone leaves an alliance and then goes back to same one later they should be stripped of all rewards they won in between
So, if I were busy for a few weeks and stepped down from my alliance, I should be stripped of everything I gained while in a vacation alliance? Makes sense.
I think if someone leaves an alliance and then goes back to same one later they should be stripped of all rewards they won in between
So, if I were busy for a few weeks and stepped down from my alliance, I should be stripped of everything I gained while in a vacation alliance? Makes sense.
Yep call it what you want vaca or what ever it takes to make you feel better. Is all the same dishonesty
Yes more and more alliances are doing the shell game for AW.
Have 2 alliances, and a few low level alternate accounts, swap between them and use your alt accounts to tank war rating in the alliance you are not in currently. Then swap back. Why is this happening? Because rewards suck for tier 1 AW. I think tier 1 thru 4 need all their rewards doubled. Also, for AQ, you need to add 1 t2a as a milestone in the highest bracket. Like 110mil points. 6 stars are coming so start making t2a's more available. People are going to chase the best rewards for a proportionate amount of effort.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
If true, then I say they're pretty dumb. Getting way less rewards over the same time as they climb back through the ranks to reach 5* shards again.
You missed my point...they aren't taking that long to climb back up in points. If you go to an alliance with 800 points (let's theorize that is tier 11) and gain even 50 points per match then you are back in tier 7 (let's theorize 1100 points) in 6 wins. One in tier 7 they are getting 5* shards again and will continue to get them until they probably start drawing harder matches around war rating 2100 or 2200 again.
I got your point, but winning 50-60% at tier 1 over an extended period of time is more shards than winning 100% as they climb back from tier 12. So it's a net negative in rewards, though they likely used way fewer items.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
If true, then I say they're pretty dumb. Getting way less rewards over the same time as they climb back through the ranks to reach 5* shards again.
You missed my point...they aren't taking that long to climb back up in points. If you go to an alliance with 800 points (let's theorize that is tier 11) and gain even 50 points per match then you are back in tier 7 (let's theorize 1100 points) in 6 wins. One in tier 7 they are getting 5* shards again and will continue to get them until they probably start drawing harder matches around war rating 2100 or 2200 again.
I got your point, but winning 50-60% at tier 1 over an extended period of time is more shards than winning 100% as they climb back from tier 12. So it's a net negative in rewards, though they likely used way fewer items.
They wouldnt drop to tiers where they dont get 5* shards. Just drop down to where you would receive similar amnt of shards as t1 and win until hard matchups and switch.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
If true, then I say they're pretty dumb. Getting way less rewards over the same time as they climb back through the ranks to reach 5* shards again.
You missed my point...they aren't taking that long to climb back up in points. If you go to an alliance with 800 points (let's theorize that is tier 11) and gain even 50 points per match then you are back in tier 7 (let's theorize 1100 points) in 6 wins. One in tier 7 they are getting 5* shards again and will continue to get them until they probably start drawing harder matches around war rating 2100 or 2200 again.
I got your point, but winning 50-60% at tier 1 over an extended period of time is more shards than winning 100% as they climb back from tier 12. So it's a net negative in rewards, though they likely used way fewer items.
The potions are a part of it I am sure. If a win in tier 1 is 5* shards of 518 and 4* shards of 266. Assuming the average alliance runs 12 wars per month and wins 50% of them then the total shards is 3108 5* shards and 1596 4* shards.
My current alliance is tier 7 with a war rating of about 1200. I know from a friend's account that tier 4 is currently around a war rating of 1450. So, within 5 war victories they move up into tier 4. The shard calculations would be:
3346 5* shards and 2926 4* shards. That is assuming they win a match at tier 7, two matches at tier 6, two matches at tier 5 and 85% of matches at tier 4. I think mathematics supports the use of the shell game.
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
If true, then I say they're pretty dumb. Getting way less rewards over the same time as they climb back through the ranks to reach 5* shards again.
You missed my point...they aren't taking that long to climb back up in points. If you go to an alliance with 800 points (let's theorize that is tier 11) and gain even 50 points per match then you are back in tier 7 (let's theorize 1100 points) in 6 wins. One in tier 7 they are getting 5* shards again and will continue to get them until they probably start drawing harder matches around war rating 2100 or 2200 again.
I got your point, but winning 50-60% at tier 1 over an extended period of time is more shards than winning 100% as they climb back from tier 12. So it's a net negative in rewards, though they likely used way fewer items.
They wouldnt drop to tiers where they dont get 5* shards. Just drop down to where you would receive similar amnt of shards as t1 and win until hard matchups and switch.
Was my point too, I was responding to someone else in that statement who said they go down to tier 12.
Whiny player base now. Simply make war rewards better for tier 1 "win and loss rewards" and you get left alone. We are a top 100 alliance and we have to spend every war. So if we have to spend to win why don't you? Why do you get/expect easy wars? And even if we choose to not spend for a month we would be on your level in war and you would be crying cause it was unfair. There is literately no winning. We either spend to win, don't spend and get called cheaters and that we should be banned, or switch alliance and be told we should be banned. I understand a lot of you take the mind set that anyone better then you should be banned but it doesn't work that way. Sorry not sorry
Again, I fail to see the problem here. They are dropping back and collecting lesser rewards for an easier win. So the alliances that now pull their weakened alliance get an easy win and good rewards. The now lower ranked stronger alliances face opponents that have zero chance or face another alliance doing the same thing. If they face another alliance doing the same thing, then they have just as hard a fight for less rewards, karma. If they seriously outclass whatever alliance they are facing, at least that alliance knows not to bother spending resources to try to win. I like having a chance in a war, but I'd rather put in little effort to a war we can't win than put in a lot of effort towards a close war we lose.
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
If true, then I say they're pretty dumb. Getting way less rewards over the same time as they climb back through the ranks to reach 5* shards again.
You missed my point...they aren't taking that long to climb back up in points. If you go to an alliance with 800 points (let's theorize that is tier 11) and gain even 50 points per match then you are back in tier 7 (let's theorize 1100 points) in 6 wins. One in tier 7 they are getting 5* shards again and will continue to get them until they probably start drawing harder matches around war rating 2100 or 2200 again.
I got your point, but winning 50-60% at tier 1 over an extended period of time is more shards than winning 100% as they climb back from tier 12. So it's a net negative in rewards, though they likely used way fewer items.
They wouldnt drop to tiers where they dont get 5* shards. Just drop down to where you would receive similar amnt of shards as t1 and win until hard matchups and switch.
Was my point too, I was responding to someone else in that statement who said they go down to tier 12.
I think the break in points is being missed by you guys. Unless there are an abundance of shell alliances with 1200+ ratings out there then the difference in war rating between tier 4 and tier 13 is not that drastic. Tier 13 is currently almost a 800 war rating.
Whiny player base now. Simply make war rewards better for tier 1 "win and loss rewards" and you get left alone. We are a top 100 alliance and we have to spend every war. So if we have to spend to win why don't you? Why do you get/expect easy wars? And even if we choose to not spend for a month we would be on your level in war and you would be crying cause it was unfair. There is literately no winning. We either spend to win, don't spend and get called cheaters and that we should be banned, or switch alliance and be told we should be banned. I understand a lot of you take the mind set that anyone better then you should be banned but it doesn't work that way. Sorry not sorry
Because you choose to be in a top 100 alliance if you want to play there then that is your choice we're their 16 ish and have to spend also when we go against an alliance 3 Xs our power which is happening a lot the war before last one champ koed all three of my champs taken out in the first fight , and I am by far strongest in our team by over double. So how are the rest of the team supposed to be able to do anything
Easy fix. Make the rewards a lot higher for tier 1. Why do I want to use a **** ton of items for a win and get 500 5* shards when I can spend no items and get 400 or so I'm a lower tier. They made the system flawed.
Easy and True fix. Make the match according to the average pi member's instead a war rating.
Top alliances/player/whatever already has getting to much compared with the rest. It's what is making many problems: for example, nobody can face them because it's a suicide and easy win for them, Kabam cannot stop them because can beat any content then they make a new tier and new content impossible for everyone else, the gap between the <0,1% and the rest is bigger and bigger, etc.
Whiny player base now. Simply make war rewards better for tier 1 "win and loss rewards" and you get left alone. We are a top 100 alliance and we have to spend every war. So if we have to spend to win why don't you? Why do you get/expect easy wars? And even if we choose to not spend for a month we would be on your level in war and you would be crying cause it was unfair. There is literately no winning. We either spend to win, don't spend and get called cheaters and that we should be banned, or switch alliance and be told we should be banned. I understand a lot of you take the mind set that anyone better then you should be banned but it doesn't work that way. Sorry not sorry
Because you choose to be in a top 100 alliance if you want to play there then that is your choice we're their 16 ish and have to spend also when we go against an alliance 3 Xs our power which is happening a lot the war before last one champ koed all three of my champs taken out in the first fight , and I am by far strongest in our team by over double. So how are the rest of the team supposed to be able to do anything
so what happens if we said we don't want to be a top alliance anymore and stopped spending? Then we face you? Are we cheaters? Do we deserve to be banned? Your logic doesn't make any sense. You're not happy you fought a stronger alliance that's what I'm hearing. You're not always going to be able to take on everyone. There is wars that i have spent 2000 units just for a lose. It happens. You don't see us on here crying fool. really this is the same kind of post scream Nerf Hyperion cause i cant fight him. Yet again sorry not sorry
This probably only makes sense for very strong alliances in tier 1. There is a picture in Reddit of two +3000 tier 1 alliances in a war. Both got 3 boss kills and both explored 100% of the map. One had to lose and it was expensive. Let's be honest, the rewards from AW tier 1 aren't worth it.
We just recently faced a shell from a +50 AQ alliance in tier 1. They probably dropped to a tier 6 (or wherever five shards begin) alliance. They'll win 12-15 in a row, use almost no items (until tier 1), explore more of the map in the lowest tiers, and earn easy 5 shards. They'll switch once they're around 2500 AW rating (to their other alliance with secondary accounts that has been consistently losing in AW) and rinse and repeat.
They don't care about AQ blackout because these very strong alliances have expiring t4cc. They care about 5 shards and avoiding the money pit that is tier 1.
This makes sense for higher tier alliances and isn't an exploit. Kabam needs to greatly increase the rewards to discourage this behavior. FYI, my alliance doesn't do this and I've never been a part of one that does but I have friends who are in such alliances.
This probably only makes sense for very strong alliances in tier 1. There is a picture in Reddit of two +3000 tier 1 alliances in a war. Both got 3 boss kills and both explored 100% of the map. One had to lose and it was expensive. Let's be honest, the rewards from AW tier 1 aren't worth it.
We just recently faced a shell from a +50 AQ alliance in tier 1. They probably dropped to a tier 6 (or wherever five shards begin) alliance. They'll win 12-15 in a row, use almost no items (until tier 1), explore more of the map in the lowest tiers, and earn easy 5 shards. They'll switch once they're around 2500 AW rating (to their other alliance with secondary accounts that has been consistently losing in AW) and rinse and repeat.
They don't care about AQ blackout because these very strong alliances have expiring t4cc. They care about 5 shards and avoiding the money pit that is tier 1.
This makes sense for higher tier alliances and isn't an exploit. Kabam needs to greatly increase the rewards to discourage this behavior. FYI, my alliance doesn't do this and I've never been a part of one that does but I have friends who are in such alliances.
Comments
The people getting upset with it are the alliances in that tier 4 to tier 12 range that have to face these alpha alliances every now and then.
There's not a single ally that did this and dropped all the way down to tier 12. If they did, they really shot themselves in the foot and deserve all the 3* shards their earning.
I've seen some drop down to alliances that have a rating of 800...last I heard that was about tier 10 to tier 12. 1100 to 1200 rating though is about tier 7 to tier 9 so there really is not much spacing in those tiers as far as war points go.
If true, then I say they're pretty dumb. Getting way less rewards over the same time as they climb back through the ranks to reach 5* shards again.
You missed my point...they aren't taking that long to climb back up in points. If you go to an alliance with 800 points (let's theorize that is tier 11) and gain even 50 points per match then you are back in tier 7 (let's theorize 1100 points) in 6 wins. One in tier 7 they are getting 5* shards again and will continue to get them until they probably start drawing harder matches around war rating 2100 or 2200 again.
This is the right answer. This is not on people operating within the system Kabam created, it's on Kabam and the system they created.
So, if I were busy for a few weeks and stepped down from my alliance, I should be stripped of everything I gained while in a vacation alliance? Makes sense.
Yep call it what you want vaca or what ever it takes to make you feel better. Is all the same dishonesty
Have 2 alliances, and a few low level alternate accounts, swap between them and use your alt accounts to tank war rating in the alliance you are not in currently. Then swap back. Why is this happening? Because rewards suck for tier 1 AW. I think tier 1 thru 4 need all their rewards doubled. Also, for AQ, you need to add 1 t2a as a milestone in the highest bracket. Like 110mil points. 6 stars are coming so start making t2a's more available. People are going to chase the best rewards for a proportionate amount of effort.
I got your point, but winning 50-60% at tier 1 over an extended period of time is more shards than winning 100% as they climb back from tier 12. So it's a net negative in rewards, though they likely used way fewer items.
They wouldnt drop to tiers where they dont get 5* shards. Just drop down to where you would receive similar amnt of shards as t1 and win until hard matchups and switch.
The potions are a part of it I am sure. If a win in tier 1 is 5* shards of 518 and 4* shards of 266. Assuming the average alliance runs 12 wars per month and wins 50% of them then the total shards is 3108 5* shards and 1596 4* shards.
My current alliance is tier 7 with a war rating of about 1200. I know from a friend's account that tier 4 is currently around a war rating of 1450. So, within 5 war victories they move up into tier 4. The shard calculations would be:
3346 5* shards and 2926 4* shards. That is assuming they win a match at tier 7, two matches at tier 6, two matches at tier 5 and 85% of matches at tier 4. I think mathematics supports the use of the shell game.
Was my point too, I was responding to someone else in that statement who said they go down to tier 12.
I think the break in points is being missed by you guys. Unless there are an abundance of shell alliances with 1200+ ratings out there then the difference in war rating between tier 4 and tier 13 is not that drastic. Tier 13 is currently almost a 800 war rating.
People should know the difference between exploit, and not skilled enough to play against skilled players
Because you choose to be in a top 100 alliance if you want to play there then that is your choice we're their 16 ish and have to spend also when we go against an alliance 3 Xs our power which is happening a lot the war before last one champ koed all three of my champs taken out in the first fight , and I am by far strongest in our team by over double. So how are the rest of the team supposed to be able to do anything
Easy and True fix. Make the match according to the average pi member's instead a war rating.
Top alliances/player/whatever already has getting to much compared with the rest. It's what is making many problems: for example, nobody can face them because it's a suicide and easy win for them, Kabam cannot stop them because can beat any content then they make a new tier and new content impossible for everyone else, the gap between the <0,1% and the rest is bigger and bigger, etc.
so what happens if we said we don't want to be a top alliance anymore and stopped spending? Then we face you? Are we cheaters? Do we deserve to be banned? Your logic doesn't make any sense. You're not happy you fought a stronger alliance that's what I'm hearing. You're not always going to be able to take on everyone. There is wars that i have spent 2000 units just for a lose. It happens. You don't see us on here crying fool. really this is the same kind of post scream Nerf Hyperion cause i cant fight him. Yet again sorry not sorry
We just recently faced a shell from a +50 AQ alliance in tier 1. They probably dropped to a tier 6 (or wherever five shards begin) alliance. They'll win 12-15 in a row, use almost no items (until tier 1), explore more of the map in the lowest tiers, and earn easy 5 shards. They'll switch once they're around 2500 AW rating (to their other alliance with secondary accounts that has been consistently losing in AW) and rinse and repeat.
They don't care about AQ blackout because these very strong alliances have expiring t4cc. They care about 5 shards and avoiding the money pit that is tier 1.
This makes sense for higher tier alliances and isn't an exploit. Kabam needs to greatly increase the rewards to discourage this behavior. FYI, my alliance doesn't do this and I've never been a part of one that does but I have friends who are in such alliances.
Very well said