we've been top 100 Gold1. The alliances at the bottom of Gold 1 are nowhere near the level we are, but still get the same (with RNG even better) than we get.
we've been top 100 Gold1. The alliances at the bottom of Gold 1 are nowhere near the level we are, but still get the same (with RNG even better) than we get.
If you're top 100... why are you having to put in so much effort?
I mean, I agree the RNG needs a major overhaul, but from the sound if it, y'all could probably put in very little effort and still remain in Gold 1.
yes. for all the stress staying awake boosts straining neck n eyes keeping the poor thumb busy the rewards are really too paltry. better to put that labour in AQ n chill out.
Season 6: 27k T2A & 5k T5B
Season 7: 13k T2A & 5k T5B
Putting that level of RNG on the end of a month's worth of hard work is just plain stupid. Practices like this are why the mobile gaming community is widely criticized and seen as manipulative.
It also seems very weird to give members of the same alliance different rewards in the end. We all work together as a team, everyone should get the same, fixed rewards.
we've been top 100 Gold1. The alliances at the bottom of Gold 1 are nowhere near the level we are, but still get the same (with RNG even better) than we get.
If you're top 100... why are you having to put in so much effort?
I mean, I agree the RNG needs a major overhaul, but from the sound if it, y'all could probably put in very little effort and still remain in Gold 1.
I disagree. Top 100 gold 1 is just one oops, or a bad break away from p3. My alliance lost 3 wars to alliances that got docked mid season, all by less than 3 attack bonus. Had we gotten the victory points we’d have been firmly in p3 and would have gotten marginally better rewards that almost make it worthwhile.
Honestly I don't even care that much about the RNG on the t2 alphas. War is supposed to be the "go to" place for t5 basics. I got more T5 Basic shards from the Occult Labs than from Plat 2.
we've been top 100 Gold1. The alliances at the bottom of Gold 1 are nowhere near the level we are, but still get the same (with RNG even better) than we get.
If you're top 100... why are you having to put in so much effort?
I mean, I agree the RNG needs a major overhaul, but from the sound if it, y'all could probably put in very little effort and still remain in Gold 1.
It's not much effort, but It's the RNG that's the issue. There should be no RNG for this.
we've been top 100 Gold1. The alliances at the bottom of Gold 1 are nowhere near the level we are, but still get the same (with RNG even better) than we get.
If you're top 100... why are you having to put in so much effort?
I mean, I agree the RNG needs a major overhaul, but from the sound if it, y'all could probably put in very little effort and still remain in Gold 1.
I disagree. Top 100 gold 1 is just one oops, or a bad break away from p3. My alliance lost 3 wars to alliances that got docked mid season, all by less than 3 attack bonus. Had we gotten the victory points we’d have been firmly in p3 and would have gotten marginally better rewards that almost make it worthwhile.
This. We had 2 wars where the connection issues cost attack bonuses. we lost by less than those attack bonuses
I don't think there goal was to be Gold 1. Probably trying for platinum 3.
Gold 1 is way too big a grouping to get all the same rewards. Imagine if Masters, Plat 1, 2 and 3 all got the same rewards and that is less alliances than in Gold 1.
War rewards ain’t necessarily terrible, could do with the 5 and 6* shards maybe get a 10/20% increase but even without it theyre fine.
Its just the war seasons crystals are abysmal, hiding behind RNG is going to force people away from wars in future unless it changes. Someone finishing in gold 1 could potentially get better rewards than someone in plat 2/3. I actually got better rewards on my alt from gold 2 seasons crystals than plat 3 on my main.
I don't think anyone would disagree that obviously Master and the 3 Plat ranks are harder to obtain but the problem is the rewards do not scale right through all of them when you compare the decrease each level of 6*, 5* shards and the t2a and t5b.
I get Masters is the best of the best but Masters getting a fully formed t2a for example and Gold 1 getting 4500 shards is a bit low. 6 times as much and then they get 18 time as much t5b not including the war crytals which can be good or bad.
Point is those 2 items are most important and they don't scale down like the rest of rewards do properly.
I don't think anyone would disagree that obviously Master and the 3 Plat ranks are harder to obtain but the problem is the rewards do not scale right through all of them when you compare the decrease each level of 6*, 5* shards and the t2a and t5b.
I get Masters is the best of the best but Masters getting a fully formed t2a for example and Gold 1 getting 4500 shards is a bit low. 6 times as much and then they get 18 time as much t5b not including the war crytals which can be good or bad.
Point is those 2 items are most important and they don't scale down like the rest of rewards do properly.
You're right they don't scale well at all. Master is definitely more than 18 times harder than gold 1. Rewards for master should be increased by x50 that of gold 1.
I don't think anyone would disagree that obviously Master and the 3 Plat ranks are harder to obtain but the problem is the rewards do not scale right through all of them when you compare the decrease each level of 6*, 5* shards and the t2a and t5b.
I get Masters is the best of the best but Masters getting a fully formed t2a for example and Gold 1 getting 4500 shards is a bit low. 6 times as much and then they get 18 time as much t5b not including the war crytals which can be good or bad.
Point is those 2 items are most important and they don't scale down like the rest of rewards do properly.
I could sleep through an entire gold 1 season, never boost, and basically coast like I do in EQ. I don't think they're scaled too far towards the top at all. A season in master - even P3 drains a ton of resources typically unless you're running edge paths maybe.
I don't think anyone would disagree that obviously Master and the 3 Plat ranks are harder to obtain but the problem is the rewards do not scale right through all of them when you compare the decrease each level of 6*, 5* shards and the t2a and t5b.
I get Masters is the best of the best but Masters getting a fully formed t2a for example and Gold 1 getting 4500 shards is a bit low. 6 times as much and then they get 18 time as much t5b not including the war crytals which can be good or bad.
Point is those 2 items are most important and they don't scale down like the rest of rewards do properly.
You're right they don't scale well at all. Master is definitely more than 18 times harder than gold 1. Rewards for master should be increased by x50 that of gold 1.
I don't think the rewards should "scale" in this way because that's not how rewards should work in this type of competition, but when this came up the last time I calculated that someone doing a straight forward calculation for rewards would find Gold 1 is too high, not to low, relative to master rewards. There are twenty master alliances and Gold 1 requires only getting into the top 1500 alliances (Gold 1 represents the bottom 1200 of the top 1500 alliances). That means the master alliances represent the top 1/75th of all Gold 1 and higher alliances. You could argue their rewards should be 75 times higher, if you were only considering rank effort vs rewards.
To repeat: I don't agree this is the proper way to set the rewards. Only that someone claiming Gold 1 should be increased due to the comparison between Gold 1 and Master level effort vs reward is probably shooting themselves in their own foot.
I don't think anyone would disagree that obviously Master and the 3 Plat ranks are harder to obtain but the problem is the rewards do not scale right through all of them when you compare the decrease each level of 6*, 5* shards and the t2a and t5b.
I get Masters is the best of the best but Masters getting a fully formed t2a for example and Gold 1 getting 4500 shards is a bit low. 6 times as much and then they get 18 time as much t5b not including the war crytals which can be good or bad.
Point is those 2 items are most important and they don't scale down like the rest of rewards do properly.
You're right they don't scale well at all. Master is definitely more than 18 times harder than gold 1. Rewards for master should be increased by x50 that of gold 1.
I don't think the rewards should "scale" in this way because that's not how rewards should work in this type of competition, but when this came up the last time I calculated that someone doing a straight forward calculation for rewards would find Gold 1 is too high, not to low, relative to master rewards. There are twenty master alliances and Gold 1 requires only getting into the top 1500 alliances (Gold 1 represents the bottom 1200 of the top 1500 alliances). That means the master alliances represent the top 1/75th of all Gold 1 and higher alliances. You could argue their rewards should be 75 times higher, if you were only considering rank effort vs rewards.
To repeat: I don't agree this is the proper way to set the rewards. Only that someone claiming Gold 1 should be increased due to the comparison between Gold 1 and Master level effort vs reward is probably shooting themselves in their own foot.
You and I agree. I was being facetious using the same logic as the person I quoted to reverse his argument.
Comments
If you're top 100... why are you having to put in so much effort?
I mean, I agree the RNG needs a major overhaul, but from the sound if it, y'all could probably put in very little effort and still remain in Gold 1.
Maybe a nice break down would be.
MR1
MR2
MR3
Master - 20
Plat 1 - 50
Plat 2 - 100
Plat 3 - 300
Gold 1 - 1000
Gold 2 - 2000
Gold 3 - 3000
Silver 1 - 4000
Silver 2 - 5000
Silver 3 - 6000
Bronze 1 - 7000
Bronze 2 - 10000
Bronze 3 - 20000
Stone 1 - 30000
Stone 2 - 40000
Stone 3 - 50000
Participation - 9999999
Thanks for that. If only we had realized we could just not do it! Some of us like war and would like it to be better. So we are offering feedback.
Quiet you.
Quit trying to be all "logical" and "constructive". There's no room for that in here. We are a ranting and passive aggressive forum.
Not add salt on your wounds but...
Im in a gold 1 allaince... top 600
And I got 19k t2a, and 3k 5tb
just food for thought
Season 6: 27k T2A & 5k T5B
Season 7: 13k T2A & 5k T5B
Putting that level of RNG on the end of a month's worth of hard work is just plain stupid. Practices like this are why the mobile gaming community is widely criticized and seen as manipulative.
I disagree. Top 100 gold 1 is just one oops, or a bad break away from p3. My alliance lost 3 wars to alliances that got docked mid season, all by less than 3 attack bonus. Had we gotten the victory points we’d have been firmly in p3 and would have gotten marginally better rewards that almost make it worthwhile.
It's not much effort, but It's the RNG that's the issue. There should be no RNG for this.
This. We had 2 wars where the connection issues cost attack bonuses. we lost by less than those attack bonuses
Gold 1 is way too big a grouping to get all the same rewards. Imagine if Masters, Plat 1, 2 and 3 all got the same rewards and that is less alliances than in Gold 1.
Its just the war seasons crystals are abysmal, hiding behind RNG is going to force people away from wars in future unless it changes. Someone finishing in gold 1 could potentially get better rewards than someone in plat 2/3. I actually got better rewards on my alt from gold 2 seasons crystals than plat 3 on my main.
Big mistake, KBM!!! Not buying it. At all!!!!
I get Masters is the best of the best but Masters getting a fully formed t2a for example and Gold 1 getting 4500 shards is a bit low. 6 times as much and then they get 18 time as much t5b not including the war crytals which can be good or bad.
Point is those 2 items are most important and they don't scale down like the rest of rewards do properly.
You're right they don't scale well at all. Master is definitely more than 18 times harder than gold 1. Rewards for master should be increased by x50 that of gold 1.
I could sleep through an entire gold 1 season, never boost, and basically coast like I do in EQ. I don't think they're scaled too far towards the top at all. A season in master - even P3 drains a ton of resources typically unless you're running edge paths maybe.
I don't think the rewards should "scale" in this way because that's not how rewards should work in this type of competition, but when this came up the last time I calculated that someone doing a straight forward calculation for rewards would find Gold 1 is too high, not to low, relative to master rewards. There are twenty master alliances and Gold 1 requires only getting into the top 1500 alliances (Gold 1 represents the bottom 1200 of the top 1500 alliances). That means the master alliances represent the top 1/75th of all Gold 1 and higher alliances. You could argue their rewards should be 75 times higher, if you were only considering rank effort vs rewards.
To repeat: I don't agree this is the proper way to set the rewards. Only that someone claiming Gold 1 should be increased due to the comparison between Gold 1 and Master level effort vs reward is probably shooting themselves in their own foot.
You and I agree. I was being facetious using the same logic as the person I quoted to reverse his argument.