Milestone minimum participation requirement for alliance gifting event is ridiculous
Chanfs
Member Posts: 54 ★
The last milestone for the alliance gifting event is 350,000. Assuming everyone in the alliance participate semi-evenly, no one would get the milestone reward. The average score to get the milestone is about 11,600 points. However, the minimum participation for the milestone is 21000. This is just wrong. It is good to set a reasonable requirement, but the one that is set currently is way too high and unachievable to most people. Someone probably need to take some math lesson to set that number.
16
Comments
December and the gifting event earn kabam alot of money.
The problem is if everyone contribute evenly. No one would get the milestone because assuming average participation, which is 3.3% of the milestone and the requirement to get the reward is 6% of the milestone.
Just because you do not agree with it does not make it wrong...just as offers that hold no weight for some gamers are not wrong either. You either are invested in the event or you aren't. It is your choice at the end of the day.
it's not really extreme, i'm sure this is exactly what they're trying to prevent. they want everybody participating in the season of giving.
They already give everyone a temporary gifting badge. And most players that do not spend to hit that last milestone for participation have been saving their units for months for this event.
Let me get this right? There is a free to join alliance event that has set targets to get set rewards. Good rewards as well. If you choose to make them you get the rewards, same as every event. If you choose not to then you dont
How exactly is there any problem with this at all, apart from the fact you dont want to try and achieve the required levels for the rewards? Is that how it works now, we choose what we have to achieve to reach milestones? Will this be the same for every ally event, or just ones you dont like?
This is not a participation issue. It is a math issue. As I said earlier. Everyone participated in event and achieve the milestone, but no one would get it because the participation requirement is just higher than the average points needed from each member. Find me an alliance event that it happened before. I don't believe there is an alliance event that this kind of requirement. Also, I did spend close to 3000 units in this event and not even close to getting the last milestone participation requirement.
where did they say it would be the same as last time mate, I think I missed that?
Since when does Kabam have to make that claim for a comparison to be made? Seriously, do you practice being so obtuse?
I do. Was it worth it?
if 30 people in the ally contribute 350k/30= 11.66k for the last milestone the ally has reached it, yet EVERYONE is 9340 points short of claiming it, they cant even claim the second to last milestone cause they are short 3340 for that one too.
the OP points out that the numbers dont add up between individual (and equal) contribution and the rewards, no one is complaining about the minimum, just that its to high. or in other words, if more then 16 people contribute equaly for the last milestone no one can claim it unless you drastically overshoot.
That's the point if people read the whole comment. No one say having minimum is bad, but it sets too high. It is very possible the whole alliance make the milestone, but no one able to claim it.
Your original post says that it is wrong. I do not see it as being wrong. I think you should have said you think it is unfair.
Pretend* the last milestone is 300 points. Divided equally in an alliance of 30 each member should contribute 10 points, yet the actual minimum participate per member to receive the last milestone is 11.
Kabam is basically saying if everyone in the alliance wants the last milestone reward you need to score well over 350,000 collectively.
Everyone going off on tangents really let this sink in.
For your theoretical case, the minimum is actually closer to 20.
The math is right if you look at Kabam's profit projection chart.