[POLL] How do you react on latest alliance changes?

Unknown

I read a lot about the change of the alliance system and all those, who spent and lost their invested HP have my full sympathy.
I'm a bit curious now, on how you react to that unexpected surprise.

Unknown

I don't like any of the options. I would like to pick "Praise D3" because I think the change will be beneficial. It's the way they are ignoring the people who paid that annoys me. So I will refrain from voting.

Unknown

Where is the "All MPQ players do is whine" option?

Taganov

Paintsville wrote:

I don't like any of the options. I would like to pick "Praise D3" because I think the change will be beneficial. It's the way they are ignoring the people who paid that annoys me. So I will refrain from voting.

Exactly this. Yes, I think increasing alliances to 20 is a good move for the game in general.That said, for small/friendly alliances like mine, each commander who kicked in 1k plus HP, not to mention our founder who burned much more, it's kind of a **** move. We did not and will not benefit the way large/competitive alliances have, so let's get that out of the way.

Unknown

Added the so far missing options. Remember, at some point i cant expend the list any further ...

turul

Edit the topic title to include [POLL]

SunCrusher

My vote is similar to Paintsville's; I think it was in the coming (re: old original discussions about Alliances when they were first released) and perhaps, came a little late. What I take issue with is the way this change was presented and the faux pas of not realizing in advance (or rather, not voicing their realization if it was indeed already realized) that people would be - in my opinion - -understandably- upset given how expensive Alliance slots were with the older system.

I don't see anything wrong with, "Money gives an advantage," but at the same time, I think that the Alliances as they were originally birthed really ended up ultimately driving a deeper and more unbreachable divide between the stronger players and their stronger Alliances and the people without that advantage - something that D3 tried to reassure wouldn't happen amidst all the discussion.

It wasn't just about 'strong Alliances' it was also about 'who has either the most HP they can spare or who has the deepest pockets to build out a full Alliance in the first place' and that's a really strong Pay to Have an Advantage feature.

I have played MPQ since pre-R47/pre-Ragnarok nerf and save for my tiny 3-person Alliance, I'm a soloist whose primary interest is in PvE and whose roster isn't really strong enough to seriously tackle PvP save on rare occasions when people aren't too interested in the events. Combined with taking a hiatus from my early Transition Land frustration and I'm going nowhere anytime fast in my transition despite the fact that I can now consistently place top 100/top 50 in PvE almost all the time if I set my mind to it.

I get my single (or sometimes better) new cover, collect some HP, collect some ISO, and collect all my Progression Rewards etc, and compared to previously, it's quite an improvement so my transitioning is getting a bit easier and a bit quicker... but it's nothing compared to the people who are in my situation BUT have the added bonus of a strong top 100 Alliance whose rewards more or less doubles what you would have gotten on your own if you hit the last tier of the 3* (or occasionally other) cover award.

How D3 ever thought these 'small rewards' wouldn't add up over time is sincerely beyond me and a bunch of us voiced concern about this way back when Alliances were first announced, but it would seem that they finally now see - perhaps statistically - what we had all foreseen happening prior.

The paying people might be paying a lot... but I would bet that new blood isn't coming in and staying (or paying) as much as they would like. Additionally, though there is competition, it's almost all at the top and not more spread out. The whys of this is likely due - at least in part - to intimidation and just feeling frustrated and discouraged.

Alliances aren't all to blame (and when I say this, I mean the concept and current system of Alliances as opposed to actual Alliances), but they've unfortunately ended up helping to highlight one of the problem areas that MPQ has struggled with the most - the balance of the overall game in terms of pacing and transitioning.

Transitioning was already tough - ask any of the older players who are still around and most of them will agree that transitioning was at least somewhat difficult for them, too (hence we get a lot of, 'just be more patient' responses); transitioning nowadays when you're not in a good/great Alliance is pretty much asking to be in Transition Land for 6+ months.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing in my opinion (I've gone past the 6 months mark, personally, and I like the fact that I can pull Tokens and still get decent/necessary covers), but I think a lot more people see the great results other people have (who are in great Alliances) and want the same and are discouraged at the 'longer' transitional period outside of strong Alliances to the point of quitting the game. Add on the cost-prohibitive factor related to building a full Alliance and it's a recipe for scaring people/discouraging people away who aren't sure of their own longterm staying power with the game and for the longterm health of this game, this isn't really viable or healthy... especially seeing as how we've lost quite a few longterm players over the months.

Overall, this move to opening Alliance formation to literally everyone may actually encourage more competition across the board by taking away at least one Intimidating Factor - the HP/money required for the Alliance slots - and may even bring more balance into scoring and longer term health into the game.

HailMary

Paintsville wrote:

I don't like any of the options. I would like to pick "Praise D3" because I think the change will be beneficial. It's the way they are ignoring the people who paid that annoys me. So I will refrain from voting.

This, exactly.

I still don't see the option that covers the "...but there should be compensation/perks for bought slots" part of that opinion (understandable, since adding options wipes existing votes), so I'll just go with "This change was long overdue and i will praise D3 for doing it," and include the second bit silently.

Wolarsen

by Paintsville » Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:46 pm

I don't like any of the options. I would like to pick "Praise D3" because I think the change will be beneficial. It's the way they are ignoring the people who paid that annoys me. So I will refrain from voting.

Spot on.

Unknown

Where my alliance is, it will hurt our ranking. But long term I can see it being good for the game. But as others have said, I won't be voting without a sentence about how the delivery and lack of compensation for those put out in an option.

Teddybabes

I don't even think this is legal in Sweden. Companies can't hide behind EULAs the same way here. I paid 100$, and that is just over the limit for this to get ruled by "konumentombudsmannen". If a company don't listen to their ruling, they will get blacklisted. I suspect D3 has many paying customers in Sweden. We can buy an entire clan by ourself, but we will not be bullied with just because we have the funds.

If I don't get fully refunded, I will get them blacklisted in Sweden. Thats how I react to the recent alliance changes!

Here in Sweden, Nordic games imported PS3 and sold at $1200 when it was new. My protests got viral real fast and C.E.O was fired and prices went down.

wymtime

First this change is long over due. I have friends who quite because they were helping build alliances and it just cost too much and they were not getting the alliance rewards which made the transition much more difficult.

2nd with this change commanders who spent the HP and $$ to build these alliances need to be compensated in some way. to buy a 20 person alliance cost a lot of money. Now should there be a time frame on it from when they paid, probably since 20 person alliances that were formed at the begining have had the opportunity to dominate the game and gain great rewards. They paid to have enough people to win more HP and extra covers for not only them but their alliance. It should be a sliding scale on refunds. Anyone who paid in October gets a full refund. Any commander who paid for slots or an alliance in September and August gets 1/2 back. July and June 1/4 back and anything previous should get 1/8 back.
People who have invested in the game should have been able to benifit from there investment. Because the cost of alliances is so huge I think D3 should take care of the commanders who have taken care of D3.

Unknown

This might have been a good change if it happened 1 month after alliances went live instead of 6. It's needed but it came awfully late and there's way too much unneeded damage done that's all D3's fault. It's better late than never but it should not have been this late to begin with. People have a right to be angry if they just spend considerable amount of HP on alliance since it's been the status quo for so long.

Unknown

This kind of decision needed at least a month-long lead-in for people to wrap their heads around it and give feedback.

It should've been approached like this:

"In a month or so, all alliances will be going to 20 slots. We're giving you this heads-up for two reasons:

1. You can stop spending HP on alliance slots now if you want

2. We want to hear from alliance leaders in the forum about your reactions to this news - obviously you'll have questions about whether there will be compensation, how we came to this decision, and how it will affect all of you going forward."

There. That's it. You don't leave any doubt that the change ISN'T happening, but you get the community involved. That's the whole point of Will's position, right?

It's not rocket science to realize that if people perceive they have more of a say in how things are going forward (re: compensation for HP spent on alliance slots, if any), they're much more likely to be invested in the outcome, WHATEVER IT IS.

babinro

Praise D3!

Call me jaded but I've played enough online games with patches over the past 15 years that I fully expect some changes to impact my time/money. I've long since gotten passed the point of being angry when a build is nerfed, something else is buffed, a feature is modified or removed entirely, etc. I'm a Blizzard fan...it's been part of the business since at least Diablo 2.

So when I hear that alliances are now default 20...I'm just plain happy about it. This is a positive change for the game as a whole. It was a major frustration as a new player that my initial alliance was only 8 people and we were trying to compete against those with 20. We were all newer players and couldn't easily spare the HP to build our alliance while also taking care of roster slots and the like.

I'm not that player anymore. I've been with a 20 person alliance for over half a year now. Still...I acknowledge that this was a big barrier to entry in the long term enjoyment of the game. I don't care that the HP I spent on roster slots went to waste. I don't care that the change only means that my current alliance will have more competition. This change is a great one for the long term health of the game, period.

Unknown

The overall change may be a good one, dunno. but as I posted elsewhere the only ones that even had a chance at breaking even HP wise were the ones that bought 4 -5 or fewer slots and are an alliance that can get anywhere in the top 10 of an event consistently)

D3 made it a barrier to everyone that only the top alliances would get the top rewards, and if you did not have a 20 man you stood no chance (and even with a 20 man, you still don't unless your name starts with X) but that is a matter of play style.

So well done D3Lucy for pulling away that foot ball from those of us Charlie Brown Alliances that ran up to kick it. Well done.

But as to how I would vote, well, there is not a option for "Do Nothing, Yes I spent the HP, and probibaly will not see a dime back, but hell if I am going to abandon my Alliance, I just hope that D3 sees how much of a **** move this is."

Unknown

I'm with everyone else who is annoyed about the apparent lack of compensation for those who have already spent HP on their alliances. I'm not even one of them; a friend of mine bought the HP necessary for five more slots so all of our interested friends could join us. The money's spent, but the least they could do is refund the HP so he can buy roster slots. People who feel like their spent money might end up going for naught are a lot less likely to spend more, as are the people who see that happen; but if people know changes that take away the perks of time/money spent will be compensated, they're more likely to feel that whatever they spend will retain its value.

Unknown

Teddybabes wrote:

I don't even think this is legal in Sweden. Companies can't hide behind EULAs the same way here. I paid 100$, and that is just over the limit for this to get ruled by "konumentombudsmannen". If a company don't listen to their ruling, they will get blacklisted. I suspect D3 has many paying customers in Sweden. We can buy an entire clan by ourself, but we will not be bullied with just because we have the funds.

If I don't get fully refunded, I will get them blacklisted in Sweden. Thats how I react to the recent alliance changes!

Here in Sweden, Nordic games imported PS3 and sold at $1200 when it was new. My protests got viral real fast and C.E.O was fired and prices went down.

Just to take the contrary side - why would you need to get refunded?

You spent money for an in game currency ( ) and then used that currency to expand your alliance's size.

D3 has not taken away those slots in your alliance. They are still there. Simply because other players will no longer need to pay for them does not make it so your slots have vanished.

I see this as very similar to when they started giving out covers as fight rewards in PvP. People who had paid to level skills were a little upset initially because they paid for something that was now free, but again, it was not that anyone took away the covers they paid for.

The timing and communication may be unfortunate for a subsection of the player base, but again, nothing is being taken away from you. If you're going to argue that you "paid" for an exclusive advantage; that is not really a tangible good, even in a virtual world like a game. You may have used the tangible good (additional alliance slots) to leverage an advantage, but that doesn't mean you paid for the advantage. You paid for the space. You got the space.

Teddybabes

No, I did pay for the advantage. There was a price for it and I paid it in full. No less than 100$

In addition to that, I spent alot more to be able to lead as a good commander. If I had know it would be free in two month, I would have waited and spent my hard earned money on something else.

Unknown

Teddybabes wrote:

No, I did pay for the advantage. There was a price for it and I paid it in full. No less than 100$

In addition to that, I spent alot more to be able to lead as a good commander. If I had know it would be free in two month, I would have waited and spent my hard earned money on something else.

The price wasn't $100 - the price was whatever HP you spent. You didn't HAVE to get that HP by spending money. You did, and then the situation changed, and you're one of the unfortunates who gets a little screwed over.

And listen - you're pissed, and you're allowed to be pissed. If I were you, I'D be pissed. But there isn't a monetary issue here - you didn't HAVE to buy those alliance slots. The issue is with how this whole thing came down - that they announce it out of the **** blue with a lame excuse that this will make it more fun for EVERYONE.

But it's not making it more fun for you, and a lot of other people. D3 probably knew this going in, and decided to do it anyway. It sucks. There was a better way to do this. They just didn't think it through.

Lystrata

The change itself isn't too bad. The handling of it - and continued radio silence, despite 12 pages of (overall) negative feedback - are the troubling factors. Don't really know if I want to waste my time on a game with that sort of 'management'.