[UPDATE: [OFFICIAL] Upcoming Rumble Improvements](https://animationthrowdown.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000980112) *** Hello Everyone, As we’ve mentioned in a [previous thread](http://www.kongregate.com/forums/727066-general/topics/1491533), we’re working to make improvements in many areas of the game and would like to start discussing possible changes to Guild Rumbles and Sieges. Thanks to the help and feedback of our community, we’ve narrowed down a few high priority issues that we plan to address. * **Matchmaking** - We’ve received plenty of reports of guilds being incentivized to lose matches early in the war for better placement later in the war. This is clearly not an intended design and is not fun for any of the guilds involved. * **Length** - Many players feel that 5 days is too long * **Initial Matchup** - the first matches are often random and are rarely between two guilds of similar strength * **Scoring/Ranking** - Currently, scoring/rewards are only determined by a guild’s final placement * **Low Participation** - Although Rumble participation is quite high, we have found that many guilds regularly do not opt-in for Siege. With those issues in mind, below are a few options being explored that we hope will not only enhance Rumbles and Siege, but boost participation.** Please note that this is an early discussion about potential changes and are subject to change.** Your feedback will help us to refine these options and make more concrete plans. *** *** #### Rumble Victory Points instead of Ranking One option being explored is to begin rewarding “Victory Points” as a new way to rank guilds. Victory Points are a way to **add more weight to a guild’s overall performance throughout the whole event. ** At the end of each match, guilds gain Victory Points based on their new standings. The higher your rank, the more Victory Points your guild gains. This means that the longer you stay in a higher rank, the more Victory Points you will earn and the better your final ranking will be. Victory Points would make Guild Wars a “king of the hill” style event, where it is important to stay in higher ranks for longer. *** #### Using Siege to Seed Rumble Matches We are exploring the idea of using Guild Siege to “seed” Rumbles. What does this mean? We would link a guild’s starting Rumble score/rank to how they perform in Siege. There are a few benefits to this: * Heavily ties participation into the rankings * Makes Sieges more significant * Starting and subsequent matches will be better/closer * Rumbles can potentially be shorter If this change is implemented, we would certainly account for giving guilds plenty of time to work at establishing or improving their Siege Ranking beforehand. *** #### Reduce Repeat Matches We plan to further prevent repeat Rumble matches by preventing any repeats within a given day and no more than once every 3 Matches. *** #### Shorter Rumbles If we are able to implement the above changes, we would have more effective initial matchmaking. This means that we can eliminate the first couple of days of random wars and** reduce Rumbles to a 3 day event,** hopefully reducing exhaustion and increasing participation. *** #### Share your Feedback! We’d like to hear more from our players of all levels, ranks, and spend. All feedback is welcome and encouraged, but here are a few questions to help get the ball rolling: * Do you or your guild have concerns about the timing of these events? * How can we make Siege more engaging or appealing? * What other changes to Sieges or Rumbles might improve your experience?

1. Having a shorter rumble would be fantastic. So long as it is enough time to earn an accurate ranking 2. You can try different bge effects rather than the same 25% buffs? 3. If leaders and officers could move players to an island, that would make siege planning way easier

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the length of the rumble just the prizes for rumble are the problem . I set my alarm to wake me up at 3am just to win a quad epic card and I’m in a top 50 guild . Doing 3 matches a day for the ones that are dedicated I assume isn’t to much of an issue . I have no problem taking 15min out of my day to do the 3 matches. 5 minutes is about how long it takes me to use my 10 attacks for that match so let’s say an hour and 15min of play time for the rumble that last 5 days . Not to hard for I would hope most people since I as well have a job and function play time into my schedule but that’s just because I enjoy the game more than others maybe . I only have a problem with it when placing #40 isn’t worth a damn . Unless you are top 10 guild the prizes arnt worth the time you have to put in order to win them. But at the same time giving the top 100 guilds a legendary isn’t a good idea either . Can’t give the people who don’t play nice rewards , but I think 10-50 guild prizes should be better . As for 1-10 place the same guilds win every time so they would probably be fine getting the same type of prize they do every rumble. That’s just my 2 cents

Can you please consider changing the amount of points needed for one person to get the tier rewards? Right now it's way to low and one can only do 5-6 easy wins with zombie guilds to get high tier rewards thus making some guild members slack off in the second half of rumble. Rising the limits will also help appreciate the top scorers in the guild ;) As for the feedback: - 3 day rumbles would be a godsend, getting start point from siege is excellent idea, - would be REALLY nice to see some defense statistics in siege, i.e. how many wins/loses did an island and even individual player get, - moving ppl around the islands by the officers would be great,

Victory Points- seems like it will screw over people who lose their first match, putting some in a position of hopelessness early on. Why not just do a simple accumulative scoring system and stop giving a guaranteed point value for a win? Straight up make however many points you get for the entire rumble be your final point tally for ranking? Siege Seeds- a perfect idea if it is only used to start the first matchups. Dont actually have it start ppl in different ranks. Everyone should atill begin at rank 1, but behind the scenes use siege as a tie breaker to determine who plays who when tied for rank. Shorter rumbles- 12 hour rounds would be a preferred option over shorter rumbles if you want participation to increase imo New topic- siege rewards. Ppl arent opting in often because they feel ripped off from a loss. For example, the #2 guild Killer Care Bears is going to lose on sunday to KoaBG. Their reward will be less than the winner of the rank 300 match. Lamr. Youd be better off having a set reward for whatever rank one finishes at after their match. That way when KCB falls to #25 or whatever thry get the 25th best reward for the siege week like the deaerve.

Another rumble idea- have every round be a different bge effect instead of the monthly. Round 1 drunk, round 2 futurama, round 3 fighter, etc

P.S. Rumble rewards suck donkey

There have been a bunch of suggestions for Rumble improvement but I think these two items could be easily implemented without a lot of changes to the code. 1. Increase scoring range for losses from 1000-3500 to 0-8000. This will reward teams that have close losses and also make it harder to point-target (aka sandbag). 2. Randomize matchups between guilds. This means instead of having the #10 guild always battling the #9 or #11 guilds, expand the pool of potential matchups. This can be done either by W-L record or point total (e.g. any guild within 10,000 points). Having a random matchup also makes point-targetting (sandbagging) less desirable since it's harder to predict what the next opponent will be.

The repeat rules you mentioned are already in place. You need to extend them beyond this. Last rumble series faced Killer Care Bears 3 times and ended up placing 24th instead of 4th because of it (KCB should have placed 3rd, they placed 5th, big difference in 3rd and 4th placing because of repeat matches). If we had played a wider variety of teams, we would have had a more accurate final ranking. Also for siege, turds and in other places, drop rates for useful cards has dropped off significantly. During the past 2 BGE's I only received 2 legendary cards throughout each of them. None of which I could use to make any difference to my deck because you can't upgrade with 3 cards. Even though the epic PC's are getting better, they still need to be quad or they are too weak. I have quite a large 3 card collection just taking up space. They aren't exiting enough to think it's worth trying for a fourth, but I end up keeping them thinking I might get a 4th next BGE, by which time they have mostly become obselete.

Thanks for posting this. My thoughts are: 1. "We plan to further prevent repeat Rumble matches by preventing any repeats within a given day and no more than once every 3 Matches." This is already the current repeat rules in use and is not a change. 2. Shorter Rumbles are a great idea - the first 2 days are an abolute waste of time. 3. I am not sure about the kong of the hill strategy since the same 2 teams are going to always be top rank - seems like this just rewards the top like seige is doing currently. 4. You give such a good prize for 1st place in seige that it just helps them maintain that position (1500 watts and the 8k turds). I think this could work if you bumped the prizes for 5-50th ranks generously to help even this out a bit. Rumble rewards are abolute garbage and would benefit from an overhaul. give everyone in top 250 the legend and epic and award watts and turds of tiered quantities for other prizes. I would like to also see mythics but again, that would tend to just make the rich richer so meh. I think Nixons need to be straight up eliminated as well as epic shards in the prize pool. wonder wharf coins are ok I guess. 5. I am conflicted about repeat rules - I understand the frustration when you meet another team 2x that has your number. But at top ranks, last rumble for example, #1 & 2 split their matches and 1st was decided by 11 points. A third match would have been very satisfying. 6. Do the same opt-in option for rumble that you do in seige. 7. I think it would be really interesting to have several rumble classes that correspond to seige rankings - say 1-250 in rumble league A, 251-500 in B and so on. then you could have more parity in the competition perhaps. this would incentivize participation since a 251st ranked seige team could theoretically win 1st place prizes. And think of how happy some of our sandbagging friends would be to try to figure out how to drop just the right amount in seige to make that happen! 8. For seige, the 25/25 is underpowered and often can be overcome with a good non-BGE deck. I think it would be fantastic to give guilds an "allowance" of 50-100 BGE "points" to apply as they choose for a particular trait island for any skills. You could apply increments of 5% to whatever like offence, defence, punch bomb etc. Perhaps you want to do 100% to Cripple all or just go simple with a 50/50 offence/defence boost. This would kind of make seige planning a bit like swole and a lot of fun in my opinion. 9. Make seige awards reflective of your rank after the battle. The 10% loser awards suck and incentivize opting out when you know you are going to lose anyway (ie every #2 team every week). 10. How about rumble matchups (after start) be set by matching closest total guild SFC score for teams of same record. This would let mid range teams avoid being blown out by top spending teams. 11. Please reset the seige ranks at the begining of each new BGE. The current scoring system has created a method for the #1 team to blow everyone they face out and be able to absorb a loss without dropping rank which is nonsence. A reset to rank teams by SFC score would allow other teams a path to #1 for at least a week or two! Thanks for giving us the opportunity to comment on this stuff!

Rewards in AT are actually a disincentive to play. The amount of rewards needs to be buffed in all areas. While AT has a small number of players that spend a large monthly sum, if kong would increase rewards across the board they would be able to draw new players and retain the players they have. Kong should attempt to shorten the length of rumble by, at least, 2 days; prevent fighting a team more than once; and simply increase drop rates across the board from boxes, turds, sep, etc. The simple increase would expand your player base and would generate a higher retention rate of current players. i have spent over a $1,000 on this game and the rewards of diminishing returns have me contemplating reitrement.

Personally i dont think rumble needs changing, maybe only change the rewards, perhaps offer legendary precombo shards to top 100, or from 10-100 as top 10 already get best rewards. Time is good, only 30-40mins a day needed to use attacks. Main problem with both events is the lock from recruiting, this hinders anyone trying to join or leave during events, or shorter time to recruit between events. Im hoping not too much change happens as i dont want to see the game lose it's appeal, sometimes changes can ruin an already good successful game.

Personally I think the length of the rumbles is fine. If it was shortened, it would be very difficult to determine guild strength since many of the guilds wouldn't have a chance to battle each other. One possible way to help with this issue is to do 2 battles every 12 hours (e.g. your next 2 opponents are determined instead of the current system where a single opponent is picked). So the Rumble can be shorted to 4 days but still get 16 battles in.

So many great points. I have no issue with the rumble length, it's the best part of the game, if it only lasted a few days, that would seem a bit unsatisfying. But, if it leads to the end of 'strategic playing' then I'm all for it. The main thing I want to post that several others have said is to allow at least guild leaders to move players for siege. That would be extremely helpful.That and better rumble/Siege rewards.

1. Matchmaking - this will change automatically with other changes. 2. 5 days isnt too long - the commitment is what seperates elite players and part timers. 3. Agreed, initial matchups in past were pointless. Putting teams into siege ranked battles would fix this. 4. Scoring and ranking would benefit alot by not allowing repeat meatches, repeat mathes are a major mistake period. 5. Siege based seeding in rumble is a fantastic idea. 6. Repeat matches, dont allow it. Anything but is unfair to the few who have rematches. 7. Shorter rumbles only takes away from committed players to balance for part time players. Dont do that to your real payer base. 8. Rumble rewards are pathetic. Offer tiered rewards. Where tier 2s top prize is slightly worse than tier 1s last place. The biggest thing is individual achievement requirements in rumble. 10k points recieves maximum guild rewards is insane. No guild with all 10k players makes top 50. It takes alot of 13,14,15k players. Individual requirements should start at a minimun of 14k for top tier based rewards. Especially if guilds are fighting equivelent power enemies.

> *Originally posted by **[Deders2](/forums/727066/topics/1496980?page=1#12375544)**:* > The repeat rules you mentioned are already in place. Youneed to extend them beyond this. > > Last rumble series faced killer care bears 3 times and ended up placing 24th instead of 4th because of it. If we had played a wider variety.of teams we would have had a more accurate final ranking Sorry, we at Killer Care Bears agree with you. That was completely unfair to your strong team. Additionally, KCB is sick of having to play koabg or wog, at least, twice each rumble. Sandbagging hasn't been corrected as much weaker teams that intentionally avoid stronger teams still finish above better and stronger teams.

Rumble rewards are really bad I'm in a guild that is ranked in the top 500 some times we have many paying players and there are 1000 s of guilds but it isn't worth the effort of a hard working guild to lose so much sleep for so many days just to get one epic card. Epics are free by completing missions. And the missions give the best epics if you want new and returning players to keep playing. And paying you should raise the rewards top 100 guilds already have a deck full of legendary cards that are maxed and fully fused new players have nothing and continue to have nothing even with a guild where everyone participates top guilds won't take us.. I think rewards should have a guild members participation reward and a ranking reward and I think both should be better than what we get now because these are a huge part of the game and there is no point in paying if it doesn't yield good rewards no matter how much we pay

Why not take the top xxxx rumble ranked guilds to participate in the siege? I’ve suggested to others in the past also for the rewards system to win a different type of reward currency for rumble and siege. For example, first place wins 5000 currency or whatever and scale it down from there for the rest. Have a separate currency exchange shop where you can choose if you want mythic shards, turds, watts, legendary shards, or even a specific legendary card. That way the lower teams can save up their currency from event to event and buy something bigger if they wait.

(1) Guild leaders need a way to incentivize member participation...beyond sharing in any end rewards. Although I don't know how that could be accomplished. (2) Better rewards for losing guilds that put in a lot of time and effort only to get shredded by big money guilds.

No Reward change? For the time rumble takes the top 50 honestly deserve a goddamn legend card... That's honestly the only complaint i got on Rumble, no idea why the f you even changed the rewards to what we have right now.. Edit: the top 50 clans normaly have poured in alot of money into the game and 90% of them dont even use epic's anymore so the rumble reward top 50 get now is insta sell for watts.

shortening the rumble is great idea! Thursday night to Monday is sufficent. Tying siege in for initial match making would be great. Better prizes really should be considered with improving rumble at all levels it only benefits the few currently. Not sure about the victory points. How about just using the actual point total with a clear win bonus & clear loss peanlty? Then match the guild with closes points to battle each other? But glad open discuss is happening about this & be great if F2P are finally taken into consideration. Lastly I believe boxes & golden turd should only have legendary cards. Also MOM box gas can & beer bottles should come out along with epic shards.

My Thoughts: 1. Rumble Victory Points - Meh. The last thing we need is another ranking system when you already have one in the place that would work (the amount of points your team scores as a whole per round). Take that number and divide it by X% to keep the numbers smaller. It's simple and easy to implement. 2. I am all for the 3 days instead of 5 days only if the ranking system is corrected and I am not playing guilds that have 5 people participating. Using Siege to "seed" might cause teams to now purposely lose in Siege to get more "Rumble Victory Points". What about guilds that don't play in Siege but play in Rumble? How about "seeding" based off the SFC # for a guild [Edit: This is the number of trophies for your guild]? Our guild has SFC of 800 because we are all in the SFC so maybe we would start with guilds that have a similiar or closer value? Obviously this could suck as we might have to play the best team in the game but at least we are not playing a team with nobody. [Edit: Why not just base if off the last Rumble of where you ended for where you start]? 3. Repeat Matches. I like them when they are close matches so you can beat a team that maybe you lost to a fight rounds ago. I honestly don't see what the big deal is here though. [Edit: I understand this is a problem for teams that go from 4th to 24th but if they change the way the ranking system is then this should not matter what so ever] 4. Does Shorter Rumbles mean more Rumbles? Maybe instead of 8 hour Rumbles go for 12 hour Rumbles? Your Questions: 1. Timing of events - No issue here. Every sunday and every 2 weeks. 2. My guild has always participated in Siege. Maybe give us something besides Golden Turds or improve what Golden Turds give's us. I know people using 10,000 turds and do not receive 1 Legendary card from it. I've seen 13,000 too. Maybe improve this? 3. Make the Rewards for Rumble more appealing. I am not saying giving out mythic shards to everything because this wouldn't help. Give more players a single legendary card (top 100)? Give more players a maxed out blue (so most of us can recycle it)? Give us Golden Turds? Give us a bonus for getting all members of the guild participating?

Personally the 3 matches a day sucks. I would like 2 matches a day for the same amount of time or longer.

I like the idea of extra reward for full participation.

Agree with all these points by Blsayre1 except don't make rumbles shorter as I see the event as a marathon, but instead add better rewards to encourage participation and a separate internal guild reward for rank achieved within the guild. This may democratize the consolidation in the top, and make it more interesting for all guilds. I think repeats are necessary at the top to establish the pecking order of at least the top 5. I see victory points as some normalized bonus for matches in addition to the 10000 pts, but you could simply increase a teams score based on their participation. I dislike that this new system entrenches the rankings at the top, making it less likely for newer and lower guilds to break into the top ranks and lowering overall player engagement . > *Originally posted by **[Blsayre1](/forums/727066/topics/1496980?page=1#12375545)**:* > Thanks for posting this. My thoughts are: > 1. "We plan to further prevent repeat Rumble matches by preventing any repeats within a given day and no more than once every 3 Matches." This is already the current repeat rules in use and is not a change. > 2. Shorter Rumbles are a great idea - the first 2 days are an abolute waste of time. > 3. I am not sure about the kong of the hill strategy since the same 2 teams are going to always be top rank - seems like this just rewards the top like seige is doing currently. > 4. You give such a good prize for 1st place in seige that it just helps them maintain that position (1500 watts and the 8k turds). I think this could work if you bumped the prizes for 5-50th ranks generously to help even this out a bit. Rumble rewards are abolute garbage and would benefit from an overhaul. give everyone in top 250 the legend and epic and award watts and turds of tiered quantities for other prizes. I would like to also see mythics but again, that would tend to just make the rich richer so meh. I think Nixons need to be straight up eliminated as well as epic shards in the prize pool. wonder wharf coins are ok I guess. > 5. I am conflicted about repeat rules - I understand the frustration when you meet another team 2x that has your number. But at top ranks, last rumble for example, #1 & 2 split their matches and 1st was decided by 11 points. A third match would have been very satisfying. > 6. Do the same opt-in option for rumble that you do in seige. > 7. I think it would be really interesting to have several rumble classes that correspond to seige rankings - say 1-250 in rumble league A, 251-500 in B and so on. then you could have more parity in the competition perhaps. this would incentivize participation since a 251st ranked seige team could theoretically win 1st place prizes. And think of how happy some of our sandbagging friends would be to try to figure out how to drop just the right amount in seige to make that happen! > 8. For seige, the 25/25 is underpowered and often can be overcome with a good non-BGE deck. I think it would be fantastic to give guilds an "allowance" of 50-100 BGE "points" to apply as they choose for a particular trait island for any skills. You could apply increments of 5% to whatever like offence, defence, punch bomb etc. Perhaps you want to do 100% to Cripple all or just go simple with a 50/50 offence/defence boost. This would kind of make seige planning a bit like swole and a lot of fun in my opinion. > 9. Make seige awards reflective of your rank after the battle. The 10% loser awards suck and incentivize opting out when you know you are going to lose anyway (ie every #2 team every week). > 10. How about rumble matchups (after start) be set by matching closest total guild SFC score for teams of same record. This would let mid range teams avoid being blown out by top spending teams. > 11. Please reset the seige ranks at the begining of each new BGE. The current scoring system has created a method for the #1 team to blow everyone they face out and be able to absorb a loss without dropping rank which is nonsence. A reset to rank teams by SFC score would allow other teams a path to #1 for at least a week or two! > > Thanks for giving us the opportunity to comment on this stuff! >