Quick question regarding AM

So, can bg1 , 2 and 3 not run at different levels? We have finally gotten enough in our alliance to have 2-3 bgs, and how disheartening it was for the lower tier players to join into their first AM, and get decimated quickly(before second area on map 2).. simply cause they're running it the same level as bg1(34) . Our other two bgs need to be closer to 25.

Is this a bug? Or is this how things are? Need clarity on this issue asap

Comments

  • ManthroManthro Posts: 2,045
    edited January 14
    This is how it's always been. You need to manage your alliance a little better, man.

    Balance out your BGs and spread out your best players.

    6 per BG, and BG1 is your strongest.. put two of each in BG2 and 3.

    You might have to lower your difficulty down a few levels, but once everyone gets acclimated you can start to push the boundaries again
  • Mufc14Mufc14 Posts: 268
    It is not a bug, the AM difficulty apply to the entire alliance.
    If you are playing map2 then you should but 4 strong players in each group.
  • RemmieRemmie Posts: 165
    Manthro wrote: »
    This is how it's always been. You need to manage your alliance a little better, man.

    Balance out your BGs and spread out your best players.

    6 per BG, and BG1 is your strongest.. put two of each in BG2 and 3.

    You might have to lower your difficulty down a few levels, but once everyone gets acclimated you can start to push the boundaries again

    Not about managing better, it's about we finally have enough active to fill two bgs. We were under the impression these levels could be adjusted in each individual bg. I'm always in bg1, so how am I to know? I don't run the alliance, I'm just involved and try to help out. Now we know, now well reevaluate our approach and spread out our strongest members
  • Jay32Jay32 Posts: 100
    Manthro wrote: »
    Remmie wrote: »
    Manthro wrote: »
    This is how it's always been. You need to manage your alliance a little better, man.

    Balance out your BGs and spread out your best players.

    6 per BG, and BG1 is your strongest.. put two of each in BG2 and 3.

    You might have to lower your difficulty down a few levels, but once everyone gets acclimated you can start to push the boundaries again

    Not about managing better, it's about we finally have enough active to fill two bgs. We were under the impression these levels could be adjusted in each individual bg. I'm always in bg1, so how am I to know? I don't run the alliance, I'm just involved and try to help out. Now we know, now well reevaluate our approach and spread out our strongest members

    I don't disagree with you about wanting adjustable difficulty in each BG. I think it would be a fantastic way to engage more of the player base, and allow players with weaker rosters to make alliances with stronger ones. This way strong players can ultimately help them progress at a faster rate, increasing competition.

    I think it would also spark more spending in a variety of ways.

    But... There should be a limit of the differential between the highest difficulty being run and the lowest.

    Say, 10 levels difference max.

    That's a great idea! It should benefit all alliances.
  • Manthro wrote: »
    Remmie wrote: »
    Manthro wrote: »
    This is how it's always been. You need to manage your alliance a little better, man.

    Balance out your BGs and spread out your best players.

    6 per BG, and BG1 is your strongest.. put two of each in BG2 and 3.

    You might have to lower your difficulty down a few levels, but once everyone gets acclimated you can start to push the boundaries again

    Not about managing better, it's about we finally have enough active to fill two bgs. We were under the impression these levels could be adjusted in each individual bg. I'm always in bg1, so how am I to know? I don't run the alliance, I'm just involved and try to help out. Now we know, now well reevaluate our approach and spread out our strongest members

    I don't disagree with you about wanting adjustable difficulty in each BG. I think it would be a fantastic way to engage more of the player base, and allow players with weaker rosters to make alliances with stronger ones. This way strong players can ultimately help them progress at a faster rate, increasing competition.

    I think it would also spark more spending in a variety of ways.

    But... There should be a limit of the differential between the highest difficulty being run and the lowest.

    Say, 10 levels difference max.

    Yes thats smart idea, imagine there is no restriction, high players can boost low players that could be unfair, or lead to boosting their own alt accounts.
  • RemmieRemmie Posts: 165
    That's why he said there should be a restriction of level differential by 10 . Do you troll every thread I make?
  • StreetFighterStreetFighter Posts: 165
    edited January 14
    @Remmie,
    For now it's not possible to run different levels and it's complicated in a way to find players with same levels or active players. Setting requirements depending on the AM level your team runs for new players would help. We all can see top 3 bots. So, for example in a team description: 3* maxed out to join. Playing level 2.24. When you search for alliances, in default you can see other teams. These teams usually have same level/rating players your team has. You can communicate with others to see if they are looking or just keep in touch for future. Sometimes teams are not active or maybe a player wants to play higher levels of AM and it's complicated for him to find a new team. Just by asking a question, I wouldn't thing it's inappropriate.
    Also, adding Line Application ID in team description would make others easier to get in touch with your team. I suggest to set team status to "by request".
Sign In or Register to comment.