Battle Pay System Is Flawed And Being Abused. Rework Suggestion.

[-InV-igo95862]

First, the issues with current battlepay system.

Currently setting battlepay does not actually ensures that people will win the conflict. Most of the times battle pay is depleted before any significant damage is done. And even more often clans trick people in with high battle pays with low total funding. Thus most of the times you see 0 battle pay. It could be a nice way to obtain credits but nobody takes it seriously and just set it to 0.

It could be changed removing Supporter Bonus per Mission and instead divide total budged between all rail percentage. Battle pay depends on how much damage your team dealt to solar rail in a match.

For example:

In one match fully destroying core will reduce Solar Rail integrity by 1%

The attacking alliance set total battle pay to 5 000 000 creadits.

If you won a match by fully destroying a core you will get: 5 000 000 * 0.01 / 4 = 12500 credits which is pretty decent.

If you damaged it by 50% by the end of match you will get 5 000 000 * 0.01 * 0.5 / 4 = 6250 credits

 This way battle will stay for all solar rail conflict plus eliminates abuses like this one:https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/352181-who-else-noticed-that-owning-ds-nodes-currently-has-an-incentive/ Clans put a high battle pays that will only last couple of games.

 Defenders are not that easy to tie battle pay with progress as the only way for them to win is waiting. This can be changed by either making Dark Sector conflict mirror mode with two cores or by adding a limit on total attackers revives across all matches. For example, with 5 000 000 credit fund and 3 000 attackers revives you will get 416 credits per kill or 8333 in completed match. It will kind of increase defenders advantage but I my opinion is that it should be balanced by reducing defenders advantage with in the match it self. Best way is to add respawn timers for defenders.

Plus couple of suggestions to make alliances to compete for higher battle pays:

1). Make an auction for the right to attack solar rail instead of "who first pressed button". The clan with highest battle pay proposed wins. To eliminate clans setting only one credit more battle pay add some threshold of minimum price increase based on percent of current leading battle pay. Plus add some measures to prevent last second increase of battle pay.

2). If limited total attackers revives would be added, make battle pay increase this limit. It would make clans add even more battle pay. Even defenders will seek to add more battle pay as their battle pay per kill would reduce with more total revives added by attackers.

[rechot]

I hope they fix DS conflicts PvP before they try fixing battle pays

[(PSN)IIIDevoidIII]

It used to be a match of gods when fighting over Pluto relays, millions upon millions of credits were flung by both sides.

It's 0 now because no one cares enough to even play these conflicts for anything much more than playing the PVP.

 

These rails are practically permanately instilled to the clan or alliance that currently owns them.

 

The issue, I think, is not how the battlepay works, but how conflicts are handled, because honestly, it was far better when they first came out.

[Fraank]

First, the issues with current battlepay system.

Currently setting battlepay does not actually ensures that people will win the conflict.

Battlepay never ensures that people will win a conflict. e.g. Orion spent ~2.1 billion credits to defend their rail. They lost. And 2.1 billion is a lot of money.

 

 

 

Most of the times battle pay is depleted before any significant damage is done. And even more often clans trick people in with high battle pays with low total funding. Thus most of the times you see 0 battle pay. It could be a nice way to obtain credits but nobody takes it seriously and just set it to 0.

It s good for the defender, when the attacker deals no damage to a rail.

On the other side it s good for the attacker when he can damage the defender's rail.

 

 

It could be changed removing Supporter Bonus per Mission and instead divide total budged between all rail percentage. Battle pay depends on how much damage your team dealt to solar rail in a match.

For example:

In one match fully destroying core will reduce Solar Rail integrity by 1%

The attacking alliance set total battle pay to 5 000 000 creadits.

If you won a match by fully destroying a core you will get: 5 000 000 * 0.01 / 4 = 12500 credits which is pretty decent.

If you damaged it by 50% by the end of match you will get 5 000 000 * 0.01 * 0.5 / 4 = 6250 credits

It would work, but you dont deal 1% dmg. you deal  0.13% dmg per conflict. Which means, instead of 12.5k credits you would only get ~1600 credits, in the best case.

If you want to payout 12500 credits to each player  you cant spent 5000 000 credits you would have to spent a lot more credits.

 

Of course it would ensure that everyone gets paid with a low amount of credits.

Additionally your suggestion would cause a big issue for the attacker. he wouldnt be able to act or react anymore.

e.g. The defender increases his battlepay? => attacker lost.

And in my opinion it s too complex.

 

 This way battle will stay for all solar rail conflict plus eliminates abuses like this one:https://forums.warfr...s-an-incentive/ Clans put a high battle pays that will only last couple of games.

As i stated in this thread a while ago. 1million payouts for a small amount of tickets is not meant for the public. We usually reward this way alliance mates for contributing resources or specters , playing a few DS PvP missions without getting paid or simply as a birthday/christmas/whatever present.

 

 

 Defenders are not that easy to tie battle pay with progress as the only way for them to win is waiting. This can be changed by either making Dark Sector conflict mirror mode with two cores or by adding a limit on total attackers revives across all matches. For example, with 5 000 000 credit fund and 3 000 attackers revives you will get 416 credits per kill or 8333 in completed match. It will kind of increase defenders advantage but I my opinion is that it should be balanced by reducing defenders advantage with in the match it self. Best way is to add respawn timers for defenders.

 

mirroring, would probably work.

the problem with the revive thing is that you dont know how many people will get killed. and the fact that it is simply too complex

 

1). Make an auction for the right to attack solar rail instead of "who first pressed button". The clan with highest battle pay proposed wins. To eliminate clans setting only one credit more battle pay add some threshold of minimum price increase based on percent of current leading battle pay. Plus add some measures to prevent last second increase of battle pay.

2). If limited total attackers revives would be added, make battle pay increase this limit. It would make clans add even more battle pay. Even defenders will seek to add more battle pay as their battle pay per kill would reduce with more total revives added by attackers.

1.  it s no clickwar since half a year(?) anymore.

 

2. wont be implemented because too complex.

 

tl:dr the battlepay system we have is totally fine. the only addtional option i d like to have is to set up the next battlepay while the current battlepay is still running out.   High battlepay for a small amount of tickets is not meant for the public.

[-InV-igo95862]

Battlepay never ensures that people will win a conflict. e.g. Orion spent ~2.1 billion credits to defend their rail. They lost. And 2.1 billion is a lot of money.

And that is the problem. If setting battle pay does not do anything but waste credits why bother with it? My suggestion fixes it.

It s good for the defender, when the attacker deals no damage to a rail.

On the other side it s good for the attacker when he can damage the defender's rail.

It is terrible for defenders as does not make them win at all. Only way for defenders to win is to wait but battle pay is tied with time. You can get multiple people connect in first hour, deplete all battle pay and then leave you for 8 hours with no credits.

It would work, but you dont deal 1% dmg. you deal  0.13% dmg per conflict. Which means, instead of 12.5k credits you would only get ~1600 credits, in the best case.

If you want to payout 12500 credits to each player  you cant spent 5000 000 credits you would have to spent a lot more credits.

Take your 2.1 billion situation. 2 100 000 000 * 0.0013 / 4 = 682500 That is per run. Pretty good money.

Of course it would ensure that everyone gets paid with a low amount of credits.

Additionally your suggestion would cause a big issue for the attacker. he wouldnt be able to act or react anymore.

e.g. The defender increases his battlepay? => attacker lost.

And in my opinion it s too complex.

If defender can increase battle pay why cant attacker? If you make clans compete for higher battle pay, they would increase and more people will participate conflicts

As i stated in this thread a while ago. 1million payouts for a small amount of tickets is not meant for the public. We usually reward this way alliance mates for contributing resources or specters , playing a few DS PvP missions without getting paid or simply as a birthday/christmas/whatever present.

You are not using system as intended. Clearly a sign how flawed it is. Why does you use you clan control menus to dispense resources? If there is no such system there clearly needs one.

In red

[Fraank]

I hope you can read scientific numbers and know what a limit is

side notes:

The scaling in wolframalpha plots is always the same.which means you wont see any difference, except of the scale.(other scientific numbers)

knowledge about limits and how to read plots is appreciated.  The example below is a really optimistic one. The example below is calculated with 500million (0.5bil) and only for PC "reasonable".

 

500million credits are a lot. i mean, really, a lot. and the average is far below 500million. i assume the avg per conflict is somewhere between 1 and 150million credits. and even lower on XBOX and PS4.

 

 

attacker:

some math: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y%2Fx+%2Cy%3D0...500000000+%2C+x%3D1...30000

y= battlepay reserve 0.5 bil   (i think that s the common limit for alliances, if they have credits. if not, then their limit is way below 0.5bil)

x= players 30k, for the assumtion that every full squad that runs the rail destroys the core.

 

as you can see it doesnt really matter how much battlepay you put up with your suggestion. the more players are on the rail the worse everyone gets paid.

 

When you put up 0.5 billion reserve and 30k ppl run the rail, everyone gets 166 666 credits, but only if we assume that every run is perfect(they destroy the core)

Well, mercs would run missions when we would put a bp reserve like this, but we dont do it, because we would run out of credits sooner or later, when we do this every time.

 

What changes if every 2nd squad fails? Which means, 60k ppl run the rail. 30k ppl destroy the core, the other 30k ppl fail

Oh wait, nothing changes because your system is flawed and doesnt involve ppl who fail.

 

What changes if every squad deals 50% dmg to the core in average? Which means 60kppl run the rail and "fail to 50%".

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y%2Fx+%2Cy%3D0...500000000+%2C+x%3D1...60000

Everyone would get 83 333 credits in average.
I m not sure if mercs would run for this pay for me.

 

Let s say the defenders are really tough opponents.
Let s say every squad of the attacker deals 10% dmg in average

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y%2Fx+%2Cy%3D0...500000000+%2C+x%3D1...300000

Everyone would get 16 667 credits.
Mercs, alliance mates, not even i would run for me/myself because t3/4 caps and exterminates are more profitable than running a lousy rail with a bad battlepay like this.

 

defender:

And the same counts for the defender thing. the more ppl you have on a rail, the less revives everyone have. the less revives everyone have the bigger ist the advantage for the defender. How to protect a rail? put up low battlepay as defender and attack the rail through a 3rd party alliance. to lower the revives in total.

 

How to win a rail?not possible because defending would be easy.

 

conclusion:

as i said earlier, your system is way too complex and wont be implemented at all.

your system would be broken compared to the one we have at the moment. (in my opinion it s completely fine. it only needs some "tweaks". There are other things about dark sectors that are broken)

You forgot to check a lot of cases. and i only described one case very detailed, why your suggestion wouldntwork well /at all.

 

 

 

 

The system is not flawed there is only a lack of options and features. e.g. We can set the current battlepay and only give away credits as battlepay. neiter mods/fusion cores  nor resources. Some cool stuff like increasing/decreasing battlepay over the total amount of tickets.

Which is why, I say it once more:
The battlepay system we have is totally fine. The only option we need would be to set up the current AND the following battlepay, to ensure that ppl get paid while the current battlepay is running out.

[-InV-igo95862]

as you can see it doesnt really matter how much battlepay you put up with your suggestion. the more players are on the rail the worse everyone gets paid.

 

Lol, no. The more players are on the rail the faster it will fall. If you can get 100% damage you will get 166 666 credits no matter what.

 

If people completely fail they receive no money at all. If they get 50% damage they get half of 166 666.

 

 

With my system battle pay serves its purpose of warranting the damage on rail. Clans and Alliances are more interested in setting battle pay. With high battle players are more interested in PvP.  PvP gets attention and gets balanced.

[Feyangol]

[...]

Let s say the defenders are really tough opponents.

Let s say every squad of the attacker deals 10% dmg in average

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y%2Fx+%2Cy%3D0...500000000+%2C+x%3D1...300000

Everyone would get 16 667 credits.

Mercs, alliance mates, not even i would run for me/myself because t3/4 caps and exterminates are more profitable than running a lousy rail with a bad battlepay like this.

[...]

Funny, how you say this ^^ . Not even you would run for 16k credits ...

What about the current battleplay? 0 credits :) .

Is that better than 16k credits? Is that better than at least 1k credits?

 

The proposed system is better than the current system, even if it isn't perfect how you already showed us. You will get at least any battlepay and you can be sure that no alliance will abuse this system like ICE, Orion, V or how they call themselves, do.

 

 

[...]

conclusion:

as i said earlier, your system is way too complex and wont be implemented at all.

your system would be broken compared to the one we have at the moment. (in my opinion it s completely fine. it only needs some "tweaks". There are other things about dark sectors that are broken)

You forgot to check a lot of cases. and i only described one case very detailed, why your suggestion wouldntwork well /at all.

 

 

 

 

The system is not flawed there is only a lack of options and features. e.g. We can set the current battlepay and only give away credits as battlepay. neiter mods/fusion cores  nor resources. Some cool stuff like increasing/decreasing battlepay over the total amount of tickets.

Which is why, I say it once more:

The battlepay system we have is totally fine. The only option we need would be to set up the current AND the following battlepay, to ensure that ppl get paid while the current battlepay is running out.

The one we have at the moment is more broken than the proposed one.

If you would add more options, you guys would abuse this system just more (I already see 100 neurale sensor-battlepays for 16 person ... ).

 

I agree with you that it should be possible to modify the battleplay (that is the problem of his suggestion), but not unlimited. People did abuse this possibility and they will abuse it. We need a limit!

Edited January 5, 2015 by Feyangol

[Fraank]

Lol, no. The more players are on the rail the faster it will fall. If you can get 100% damage you will get 166 666 credits no matter what.

 

If people completely fail they receive no money at all. If they get 50% damage they get half of 166 666.

 

 

With my system battle pay serves its purpose of warranting the damage on rail. Clans and Alliances are more interested in setting battle pay. With high battle players are more interested in PvP.  PvP gets attention and gets balanced.

"lol, no."

The purpose of battlepay is not to only reward winners. You have to reward people at least for the time they spent and the effort they put in. 

When a good attacker squad can keep a good defender squad busy for a long time or vise versa, then i appreciate their help and time. They deserved a reward, even if they only "try to drain my vault" with AFKers.

 

 

Edit:

 

 

Funny, how you say this ^^ . Not even you would run for 16k credits ...

What about the current battleplay? 0 credits :) .

Is that better than 16k credits? Is that better than at least 1k credits?

 

The proposed system is better than the current system, even if it isn't perfect how you already showed us. You will get at least any battlepay and you can be sure that no alliance will abuse this system like ICE, Orion, V or how they call themselves, do.

 

 

 

 

I have more than 71 million credits, i dont need credits anymore. Which is why i wouldnt play for lousy 16k. not even for 100k.

 

And There is simply no urge to always put up battlepay. Sometimes you dont need it because there is no threat. And sometimes you can handle it with 2 or 3 squads.

 

 

How i would abuse the proposed system:

1. put up higher battlepay on defender side

2. block the attacker side

3. the attacker puts up 1 credit  for 7500 runs.

4. profit! because the amount of defending squads is limited by attacking squads

 

the problem is still, that you dont know, how many people will run a rail until the conflict is over. DE has no magic glas ball as server. And no one wants to get paid ??? credits. Every player wants to know what he will get as an reward before he runs the missions.

You wouldnt take a job in real life which pays you after 12 hours of work ??? $ for every hour you work depending on how many other ppl are employed or getting the same job within these 12 hours.  Maybe you get 20$/h , maybe you get a quarter per hour. if you dont know the reward you dont do the work.

 

 

 

The one we have at the moment is more broken than the proposed one.

If you would add more options, you guys would abuse this system just more (I already see 100 neurale sensor-battlepays for 16 person ... ).

 

I agree with you that it should be possible to modify the battleplay (that is the problem of his suggestion), but not unlimited. People did abuse this possibility and they will abuse it. We need a limit!

 

[sarcasm]"I abuse the system" "Please ban me, i m evil because i dont play warframe as player XY thinks it is intended"[sarcasm]

the system is still fine.

Right now, I have the complete control over my vaults(clan and alliance vault).

I can reward as much players as i want, I can reward each player with as much credits as i want (well, the limit is 1 million per ticket) and i dont have to reward players at all if i want or if i m asleep, cooking or do something else more important than playing warframe.

 

And i as a tactician have to keep the control. When i have to set up battlepay before the conflict begins, the system is simply broken for me. Because i dont know how much credits i have to put. No one has a magic glass ball.

 

 

the battlepay system we have is totally fine. the only addtional option i d like to have is to set up the next battlepay while the current battlepay is still running out.   High battlepay for a small amount of tickets is not meant for the public.

Edited January 5, 2015 by -ExT-Fraank

[Feyangol]

[...]

 

I have more than 71 million credits, i dont need credits anymore. Which is why i wouldnt play for lousy 16k. not even for 100k.

 

And There is simply no urge to always put up battlepay. Sometimes you dont need it because there is no threat. And sometimes you can handle it with 2 or 3 squads.

 

[...]

Lol?

At first you say that a battlepay of 16k credits is not worth it (for everyone, not only you!), than I ask you if 0 credits is better and you answer me with 'I don't need credits'.

This makes no sense. So pls tell me if it is better to have 0 credit battlepay for everyone or a 16k credits battlepay?

 

[...]

 

How i would abuse the proposed system:

1. put up higher battlepay on defender side

2. block the attacker side

3. the attacker puts up 1 credit  for 7500 runs.

4. profit! because the amount of defending squads is limited by attacking squads

 

the problem is still, that you dont know, how many people will run a rail until the conflict is over. DE has no magic glas ball as server. And no one wants to get paid ??? credits. Every player wants to know what he will get as an reward before he runs the missions.

You wouldnt take a job in real life which pays you after 12 hours of work ??? $ for every hour you work depending on how many other ppl are employed or getting the same job within these 12 hours.  Maybe you get 20$/h , maybe you get a quarter per hour. if you dont know the reward you dont do the work.

 

 [...]

This is a problem of the current battlepay system!

You are not sure wether you get the shown battlepay number or not. This is one reason why the majority of the players don't play Dark Sector PvP.

 

How could this system be fine? It needs to be changed, I'm not sure if the proposed one is good, but the current system is not fine and you (!) already said why.

 

[...]

 

[sarcasm]"I abuse the system" "Please ban me, i m evil because i dont play warframe as player XY thinks it is intended"[sarcasm]

the system is still fine.

Right now, I have the complete control over my vaults(clan and alliance vault).

I can reward as much players as i want, I can reward each player with as much credits as i want (well, the limit is 1 million per ticket) and i dont have to reward players at all if i want or if i m asleep, cooking or do something else more important than playing warframe.

 

And i as a tactician have to keep the control. When i have to set up battlepay before the conflict begins, the system is simply broken for me. Because i dont know how much credits i have to put. No one has a magic glass ball.

 

 

the battlepay system we have is totally fine. the only addtional option i d like to have is to set up the next battlepay while the current battlepay is still running out.   High battlepay for a small amount of tickets is not meant for the public.

 

[...]

I don't care how you play, I don't say that you should be banned for abusing this system.

I want a change for this broken system and nothing else.

 

And there are two reason why this system is broken:

1.) As a mercenary you don't know what you get as battlepay. But in almost every case you can be sure that it will be nothing. Even if the mission said in the beginning 1mio credit.

2.) Certain alliances are able to use this battlepay system on an other way than DE designed it for. This system should reward mercenaries, but it rewards an elitist cycle of players. This is not how DE intended it work.

Because of that the system is being abused.

 

The problem is that mercenaries have no control about the battlepay, and not that you don't have enough control. The problem is that you use the battlepay to reward only your clan.

 

I don't care if high battlepay is not meant for the public. Everyone should have the same possibility to get high amounts of credits if he starts the mission.

The system is not fine.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Feyangol

[-InV-Skitz0]

 

This is a problem of the current battlepay system!

You are not sure wether you get the shown battlepay number or not. This is one reason why the majority of the players don't play Dark Sector PvP.

 

The problem is that mercenaries have no control about the battlepay, and not that you don't have enough control. The problem is that you use the battlepay to reward only your clan.

 

I don't care if high battlepay is not meant for the public.

The system is not fine.

The BattlePay system by far is the least broken part of DarkSectors. As a Tactician who has been setting BattlePay from the very beginning of DarkSectors I have seen first hand how much BattlPay actually does influence a successful victory. Historically speaking which ever clan or alliance with enough bank and will to place a higher BP for longer runs is almost insured victory. IE setting 1 million BP for 3k runs.

 

The reason why this does not happen is because there are very few clans/alliance with a real interest to fight for and own a DarkSector. If and when an actual benefit or reward is given to an owner of a DarkSector will we ever see DS as they where at launch where the only side not setting BP is the one sure to fail. That only reason this system does not shine is because of this stagnation in competing for the control of DS, and until this is fixed any revision of the BP system will be a moot point.

[Feyangol]

The BattlePay system by far is the least broken part of DarkSectors. As a Tactician who has been setting BattlePay from the very beginning of DarkSectors I have seen first hand how much BattlPay actually does influence a successful victory. Historically speaking which ever clan or alliance with enough bank and will to place a higher BP for longer runs is almost insured victory. IE setting 1 million BP for 3k runs.

 

The reason why this does not happen is because there are very few clans/alliance with a real interest to fight for and own a DarkSector. If and when an actual benefit or reward is given to an owner of a DarkSector will we ever see DS as they where at launch where the only side not setting BP is the one sure to fail. That only reason this system does not shine is because of this stagnation in competing for the control of DS, and until this is fixed any revision of the BP system will be a moot point.

I will not disagree with you because I have the exactly the same opinion about Dark Sectors.

They need balance, they need be rewarding for the clans which own them.

 

I only disagree with -ExT-Fraank. Even if it is one of the least broken parts of Dark Sectors, the battlepay system is not fine how he said. (Maybe it seems fine when everything else is just ... bulls&%$)

 

Dark Sectors should reward the clans without to abuse the system. They can have advantages if they own a Solar Rail, but use the battlepay for give 1 mio credits away is not the right way.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Feyangol

[-InV-Skitz0]

Giving out 1 million bp is not the problem. The problem is lack of rewards for clans to own dark sectors much as you agreed. The 1 mill bp is simply the solution of alliance owners to offer a reward for their hard working members.

 

Don't get me wrong the BP system could use improvements but taking away the ability to set BP is simply removing the only good features of it as it stands now.

 

To improve the system we have now.

-The ability to set in the next bp before the current bp runs out.

-The ability to set bp for public support/private support separate from each other.

-The ability to pay alliance/clans from the treasury directly, instead of the divide all only option.

-The ability to hire clans / alliances directly for support.

-The ability to offer other rewards beside credits maybe resource maybe forma.( perhaps set up similar to an invasion complete 10 successful runs       within the duration of the battle)

 

 

Above is just a few off the top of my head. Again tho without an actual reason for clans to want and own a DS then competition will remain stagnant and even with this current system or any new system will fall short without it.

[Feyangol]

Giving out 1 million bp is not the problem. The problem is lack of rewards for clans to own dark sectors much as you agreed. The 1 mill bp is simply the solution of alliance owners to offer a reward for their hard working members.

[...]

Exactly how I said.

The only difference is that the 1 million bp is the wrong way to give rewards in my opinion.

 

[...]

To improve the system we have now.

-The ability to set in the next bp before the current bp runs out.

[...]

Agreed :P .

 

[...]

-The ability to set bp for public support/private support separate from each other.

[...]

Bp should be used only for reward mercenaries. It is possible to reward them by their performance, but their is no need for a private bp.

Clans/Alliances need another possibility to reward their members.

 

[...]

-The ability to pay alliance/clans from the treasury directly, instead of the divide all only option.

-The ability to hire clans / alliances directly for support.

-The ability to offer other rewards beside credits maybe resource maybe forma.( perhaps set up similar to an invasion complete 10 successful runs       within the duration of the battle)

 

 

Above is just a few off the top of my head. Again tho without an actual reason for clans to want and own a DS then competition will remain stagnant and even with this current system or any new system will fall short without it.

Agreed :P .

 

My problem with current battlepay is that it is used for the wrong thing:

For rewarding specific clan members and not mercenaries.

 

DE should rework the reward system for especially clans which own a Solar Rail, the battlepay system for give mercenaries their rewards and delete the option to abuse bp for rewarding an elitist group of players. Than everyone would be happy, or not?

Edited January 5, 2015 by Feyangol

[-InV-Skitz0]

My problem with current battlepay is that it is used for the wrong thing:

For rewarding specific clan members and not mercenaries.

It's almost impossible to give out BP like this from the defending side and every attacker who pays out specific clan members like this would not be able to do so if not running a block for the defender. If that incentive was there for others to mount serious campaigns of attack then this would become a far less frequent occurrence if at all.

 

Till other incentives are in place to foster direct competition and rewards for all those involved I'm extremely against taking away the only way to reward players who Sacrifice the majority of their in game time to supporting their clan/alliance.