Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures. So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards? Yes. One involves playing the same Maps and placing based on Points. Rewards include Glory and other Rewards like Crystals. Which allows people to purchase the Rewards they want. It's a static system that's played every week with very little variables.The other involves playing against other Alliances in a Win/Loss scenario which gives Rewards based on that, plus Points towards added Rewards for the Season. Both contribute to overall progress, but neither one is designed to replace the other. That may be what people prefer focusing on, but they're very different game modes. Which means that AW is the more difficult mode and yet somehow has worse rewards Difficult is relative. Depends on where you're playing, what you're running with, what your goals are, how hard you're pushing, etc. Can't always be the best in all modes. That's where choice comes in. Top tier AQ is MUCH easier than top tier AW. So that would mean the choice is to focus on AQ and let the cards fall where they do in War. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that @Worknprogress isn’t looking for game advice—and if he is, it’s likely going to be from players who have played at the highest levels. I don’t want to discourage dialogue, but it’s probably prudent to assume different level players have very different experiences. I wouldn’t deign to lecture top tier AW or AQ alliances on the game. Dr. Zola
Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures. So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards? Yes. One involves playing the same Maps and placing based on Points. Rewards include Glory and other Rewards like Crystals. Which allows people to purchase the Rewards they want. It's a static system that's played every week with very little variables.The other involves playing against other Alliances in a Win/Loss scenario which gives Rewards based on that, plus Points towards added Rewards for the Season. Both contribute to overall progress, but neither one is designed to replace the other. That may be what people prefer focusing on, but they're very different game modes. Which means that AW is the more difficult mode and yet somehow has worse rewards Difficult is relative. Depends on where you're playing, what you're running with, what your goals are, how hard you're pushing, etc. Can't always be the best in all modes. That's where choice comes in. Top tier AQ is MUCH easier than top tier AW. So that would mean the choice is to focus on AQ and let the cards fall where they do in War.
Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures. So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards? Yes. One involves playing the same Maps and placing based on Points. Rewards include Glory and other Rewards like Crystals. Which allows people to purchase the Rewards they want. It's a static system that's played every week with very little variables.The other involves playing against other Alliances in a Win/Loss scenario which gives Rewards based on that, plus Points towards added Rewards for the Season. Both contribute to overall progress, but neither one is designed to replace the other. That may be what people prefer focusing on, but they're very different game modes. Which means that AW is the more difficult mode and yet somehow has worse rewards Difficult is relative. Depends on where you're playing, what you're running with, what your goals are, how hard you're pushing, etc. Can't always be the best in all modes. That's where choice comes in. Top tier AQ is MUCH easier than top tier AW.
Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures. So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards? Yes. One involves playing the same Maps and placing based on Points. Rewards include Glory and other Rewards like Crystals. Which allows people to purchase the Rewards they want. It's a static system that's played every week with very little variables.The other involves playing against other Alliances in a Win/Loss scenario which gives Rewards based on that, plus Points towards added Rewards for the Season. Both contribute to overall progress, but neither one is designed to replace the other. That may be what people prefer focusing on, but they're very different game modes. Which means that AW is the more difficult mode and yet somehow has worse rewards Difficult is relative. Depends on where you're playing, what you're running with, what your goals are, how hard you're pushing, etc. Can't always be the best in all modes. That's where choice comes in.
Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures. So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards? Yes. One involves playing the same Maps and placing based on Points. Rewards include Glory and other Rewards like Crystals. Which allows people to purchase the Rewards they want. It's a static system that's played every week with very little variables.The other involves playing against other Alliances in a Win/Loss scenario which gives Rewards based on that, plus Points towards added Rewards for the Season. Both contribute to overall progress, but neither one is designed to replace the other. That may be what people prefer focusing on, but they're very different game modes. Which means that AW is the more difficult mode and yet somehow has worse rewards
Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures. So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards? Yes. One involves playing the same Maps and placing based on Points. Rewards include Glory and other Rewards like Crystals. Which allows people to purchase the Rewards they want. It's a static system that's played every week with very little variables.The other involves playing against other Alliances in a Win/Loss scenario which gives Rewards based on that, plus Points towards added Rewards for the Season. Both contribute to overall progress, but neither one is designed to replace the other. That may be what people prefer focusing on, but they're very different game modes.
Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures. So let me get this straight. Two game modes, both competitive between alliances ranking, that both give rank up materials shouldn't be compared? Particularly when one is significantly more expensive with lesser rewards?
Not to step on anyone's suggestions or feedback, but I will make a quick note on the comparison of AQ and AW. One is not supposed to better the other. They're not replacements for each other. Two totally different game modes, different Reward structures. Progress in the game comes with doing as many areas as possible and it all goes into the pool. AQ, EQ, War, Arena, Story, etc. It's moldable because people can focus on what they choose, but War is not intended to entice people away from AQ. Nor vice versa. They're both game modes that will need to be run if maximum progress is the goal. I hear the suggestions about Ranking materials. I won't dispute that if that's what people are asking for. I will point out that these are the highest level Resources we're talking about, so it will take the longest to accumulate. More so when R3 6*s come. The higher the Rank and Rarity, the longer it will take. There is always room for improvement, but overall I see progress being made simply because there is more to gain. Plus, it's cumulative over time. They will add up. I don't debate anyone's suggestions. I just wanted to point out that there isn't really supposed to be a comparison. Two different modes that have different competitive natures, and different Reward structures.
What level of rewards would be satisfactory for those saying they aren't better? Lots of negative remarks but zero suggestions besides the victory/defeat crystal. Considering the cost and difficulty, they should be better then a month of AQ, which they aren't. We're very interested in hearing more about this, but could use some more information. In a month of AQ, what are you running? Is it 5x7 every series? Additonally, those don't include any 5 or 6-Star Shards, but is that something you are interested in or is that not something you worry about? I run 7*5 top 20. For a month of AQ I get:From Rank rewards:20k t5b100k t2a11200 gloryFrom daily map rewards I get:18000 t5b18000 t2a15 map 7 crystalsFrom Peak Milestones I get:28 map 7 crystals64 map 6 crystals 13600 gloryFrom Glory I get:108800 t5bIn total that equals:48800 t5b118000 t2a43 7 crystals64 map 6 crystalsPretty sure that's correct. Add the t2a and t5b from the crystals and AQ is by far the better mode of game play. And crystal shards aren't really worth that much. 90% of the champs are worthless to me and i can sleep walk to top 10% in the featured 5* arena so that doesn't really do it for me either. The majority of the community isnt getting these type of rewards though.
What level of rewards would be satisfactory for those saying they aren't better? Lots of negative remarks but zero suggestions besides the victory/defeat crystal. Considering the cost and difficulty, they should be better then a month of AQ, which they aren't. We're very interested in hearing more about this, but could use some more information. In a month of AQ, what are you running? Is it 5x7 every series? Additonally, those don't include any 5 or 6-Star Shards, but is that something you are interested in or is that not something you worry about? I run 7*5 top 20. For a month of AQ I get:From Rank rewards:20k t5b100k t2a11200 gloryFrom daily map rewards I get:18000 t5b18000 t2a15 map 7 crystalsFrom Peak Milestones I get:28 map 7 crystals64 map 6 crystals 13600 gloryFrom Glory I get:108800 t5bIn total that equals:48800 t5b118000 t2a43 7 crystals64 map 6 crystalsPretty sure that's correct. Add the t2a and t5b from the crystals and AQ is by far the better mode of game play. And crystal shards aren't really worth that much. 90% of the champs are worthless to me and i can sleep walk to top 10% in the featured 5* arena so that doesn't really do it for me either.
What level of rewards would be satisfactory for those saying they aren't better? Lots of negative remarks but zero suggestions besides the victory/defeat crystal. Considering the cost and difficulty, they should be better then a month of AQ, which they aren't. We're very interested in hearing more about this, but could use some more information. In a month of AQ, what are you running? Is it 5x7 every series? Additonally, those don't include any 5 or 6-Star Shards, but is that something you are interested in or is that not something you worry about?
What level of rewards would be satisfactory for those saying they aren't better? Lots of negative remarks but zero suggestions besides the victory/defeat crystal. Considering the cost and difficulty, they should be better then a month of AQ, which they aren't.
What level of rewards would be satisfactory for those saying they aren't better? Lots of negative remarks but zero suggestions besides the victory/defeat crystal.
GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design. No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play.
If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it. You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view.
If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it.
GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design. No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play. That's not the general concensus of the community. If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it. You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view. Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all.
GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design. No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play. That's not the general concensus of the community. If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it. You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view. Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all. It pretty much is the general consensus especially higher tiers
GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design. No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play. That's not the general concensus of the community. If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it. You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view. Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all. It pretty much is the general consensus especially higher tiers Specifically higher Tiers because that's where the most difficulty has been added. Not a general concensus. However, there's a tendency for War discussions to be piloted by the Top Tier on here.
GW argues that if players feel like AW is too much stress for the rewards that they are welcome to put less of an effort in war to focus on AQ instead. While this may be true at the individual level, what happens if that becomes the general consensus held by the community? A competition is designed with the goal of encouraging players to put forth their best efforts. If the rewards for competing in AW don't motivate players to try, then that should be considered a failure in game design. No one wants to play a game where the only winning move is not to play. That's not the general concensus of the community. If the argument is that the stress and the work is too much, that's a matter of scaling back on a personal basis. The structures are set up so that no matter how hard someone pushes, they receive Rewards. The comparison comes from people choosing not to bother as much with War as AQ. Which is entirely fine if that's how they feel. What isn't part of the goals of War is to buy them back. People can choose to focus on what they feel is best for them. As Wakandas mentioned, if you want to push for top in both modes, stress is a part of it. You act all enlightened when in fact, you have no experience in the end game community, hence having very little ammunition for arguments. You don't know what it takes to stay at the top, and therefore have a narrow sighted view. Pretty sure I never said anything about knowing what it takes to stay at the top. I said if you want to be at the top in both AQ and AW, that comes with stress. I also said if people are finding AW too stressful, it's always an option to focus less on it than pushing so competitively. What we focus on is up to us. I have, and will always be, a proponent of War being as stressful as we make it. We can either go all-out, or we can do what we can and accept whatever comes. I don't need lectured on what it takes to stay at the top. I'm not the one with the argument that it's too much. What I'm saying is, stress is a part of being competitive. We make our own chocies. Very few Allies can be top of it all. It pretty much is the general consensus especially higher tiers Specifically higher Tiers because that's where the most difficulty has been added. Not a general concensus. However, there's a tendency for War discussions to be piloted by the Top Tier on here. Yes so they added a much harder difficulty for higher tiers but not much better rewards I’m in high p3 and a few wars ago saw an ally get 150 deaths like I’ve never seen that beforeI’ll reserve my thoughts for when the war to war rewards are announced as it might be a large amount but right now doesn’t seem too great
This is a discussion about War. Not just the Top TIer. One demo does not dominate the discussion in general.
This is a discussion about War. Not just the Top TIer. One demo does not dominate the discussion in general. you do know that these changes only apply to the top tiersof AW right? why would someone who will never play at this level try to tell those who will how they should feel?
So by adding platinum 4, does that allow the top 800 in gold 2 to now move up to gold 1 ? The way it’s all stated is kind of confusing, Master is top 20, p1 is top 50, etc, but it’s not clear if p1 is top 21-50 or 21 to 71. That goes the same for p4 and gold 1; is p4 for 800 teams or the teams who have an overall rank inside the top 800 but outside the top 300 in p3 for a total of 500 teams. Please clear this up as it is pretty vague the way it’s worded currently.
So by adding platinum 4, does that allow the top 800 in gold 2 to now move up to gold 1 ? The way it’s all stated is kind of confusing, Master is top 20, p1 is top 50, etc, but it’s not clear if p1 is top 21-50 or 21 to 71. That goes the same for p4 and gold 1; is p4 for 800 teams or the teams who have an overall rank inside the top 800 but outside the top 300 in p3 for a total of 500 teams. Please clear this up as it is pretty vague the way it’s worded currently. @Kpatrix It's split down like this...Master - 1-20 (20 slots)Platinum 1 - 21-50 (30 slots)Platinum 2 - 51-100 (50 slots)Platinum 3 - 101-300 (200 slots)Platinum 4 - 301-800 (500 slots)Gold 1 - 801-1,500 (700 slots)Gold 2 - 1,501-3,000 (1,500 slots)Gold 3 - 3,001-4,500 (1,500 slots)...and so on. Hope that helps clarify how the season tiers work.
Having a range of 6k to 12k T5B seems a lot more reasonable vs 1.5k to 22.5k.
I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said. The "buffed" war season crystals are absurd. 1500-22,500 T5 basics? Why give rewards for a month's worth of war such a huge RNG swing? The minimum is garbage. Why not have a higher floor? Unless you have buffed the drop rate, I'll be getting the minimum just like I have every single damn season since season 1. Some other dude in Plat 4 will get way more t5 basics because RNG. These crystals were announced as one of the major perks to AW seasons and they are trash. High level AW requires a lot of resources and time. Stop making the payout RNG dependent.