Covers

Unknown

A lot of people in the mpq community wish they were able to trade covers with others or put them up as wager (hp too) if mpq were to do an actual "live" pvp. I too wish it were possible but I'm aware that that is not business savvy after all that's part of your job. With that said I would I propose that D3 should charge alliances (maybe 500hp) per member a season so that they may trade covers of equal value among themselves (no more than say 3 covers a season). That way the mpq community is able to further expand their roster while helping their alliance and making it more competive as well, all while still making money for you. This of course would be optional and up to the alliances to take part in. But also note that leaving an alliance mid season will not constitute a refund of the HP unless the member were to be kicked. If they happen to join another alliance that has paid to swap covers they must pay the 500hp after being accepted into the alliance ( automatic deduction of HP) the player may not join the alliance if they don't have the hp required

JamieMadrox

Trading also creates a secondary market that D3- has no control over. Top players that earn top rewards that they don't need can easily charge whatever they want for. Then there is the ability for them to create secondary, or tertiary, accounts and give them a boost with awesome covers traded from their main account.

Unknown

The covers are not for sale they would only be allowed to trade 3 covers within the alliance the hp goes straigh to D3 from the alliances there is no transaction other than the cover(s) among the 2 parties that's it.

Unknown

Here let me break it down. Alliances have the option to partake in trading up to 3 covers of equal value within the alliance. If they wish to do so the alliance as a whole has to pay d3 before the start of the season - there will be no transactions between alliance members only the cover(s) they wish to swap. Now how alliances decide to pay for it is up to them do they want to divide it evenly among the members at 500hp that will automatically be deducted by d3 or do the commanders and or a number of individuals want to pony up the total. Again there would be no transactions of hp among players just the ones chosen to pay will submit the hp to D3. THIS WILL NOT BECOME MWOH LOL

MojoWild

UKYO2769 wrote:

Here let me break it down. Alliances have the option to partake in trading up to 3 covers of equal value within the alliance. If they wish to do so the alliance as a whole has to pay d3 before the start of the season - there will be no transactions between alliance members only the cover(s) they wish to swap. Now how alliances decide to pay for it is up to them do they want to divide it evenly among the members at 500hp that will automatically be deducted by d3 or do the commanders and or a number of individuals want to pony up the total. Again there would be no transactions of hp among players just the ones chosen to pay will submit the hp to D3. THIS WILL NOT BECOME MWOH LOL

And here I was afraid the solution would be complicated

JamieMadrox

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'd rather they put their dev efforts to better uses like making new game modes/events, balancing characters, fixing bugs, etc.

Unknown

Lol it's not. its just here D3 take my alliances 10,000 hp (500hp per person in alliance)
D3 grants each user 3 cover trades of equal value among each other in the alliance.

MojoWild

500 hp vs 3750 or 7500?!
Shut up and take my money!

Unknown

This is a very discouraging form of the 'strong get stronger' idea that makes tons of pay to win games so infuriating. In those, you end up with a top 'guild' that constantly take the top prizes and trade the excess cards to power up their weak. Yeah, you suggest a limit on covers, but you're talking about one guy who might wiin a character release PvE, earn his 3 different colors, get his fourth from the next PvE's progression rewards, gain three more from the following PvP event (and that's not counting the top 100 alliance rewards that give another cover) then get three MORE OF HIS CHOICE from his aliiance mates.

You're looking at up to potentially TWELVE covers being potentially traded to one guy. Oh, and perhaps he might be the Alliance's Commander, where lack of cooperation gets you kicked out. So then you have tryhards who bully their three of their ilk into wasting their 'allotted trades' for the season for their own gain. Even if it is a self-destructing prophecy where those kinds of Alliances get disbanded, it still causes too much more damage than NOT incorporating a trade system would.

MPQ is about personal progression, not maxing out everything as much as you can as soon as possible.

I admit, I wish there were a way to convert trashed 3*s and 4*s into some sort of benefit beyond the amount of Iso to buy another Standard Token. Perhaps the devs will figure it out sooner or later, but until then, speaking of a Trade system is also speaking of creating an aggressive elite who ruin the fun of the game. For everyone. Whether it's greedy Commanders shaking down their group's rightful rewards, an insurmountable wall of top 100 alliances loaded with XFs and Thorinas, or some third awful thing that no one could have predicted. People are content with the system as it is, and trying to shake that up because you got one too many Hulks or you're stuck at 5/5/2, and need that 1 in 3 final cover, is selfish. People already have a decent chance at competing in most of the game, even if it takes a bit of build up, but they aren't immediately oppressed by people who've been playing since Day 1. All you've proposed is a system where people pay to an ambiguous higher power for the chance to be royally screwed over when their Commander decides his personal gratification is worth more than stability of his alliance when the end of season comes knocking.

Unknown

You won't be able to trade 12 covers to one player it be limited to 3 per person - if the person already traded they can't receive or trade any more. And as I stated only 3 per season.

Unknown

And remember I said of equal value so if your missing that one cover and your buddy has 6 he can trade you one for another of yours of equal value. 3 star for 3star 4 for 4 etc

Unknown

UKYO2769 wrote:

You won't be able to trade 12 covers to one player it be limited to 3 per person - if the person already traded they can't receive or trade any more. And as I stated only 3 per season.

UKYO2769 wrote:

And remember I said of equal value so if your missing that one cover and your buddy has 6 he can trade you one for another of yours of equal value. 3 star for 3star 4 for 4 etc

I mistyped. I'm saying 12 covers is what a manipulative Commander can end up with in the very FIRST run of a character cover released with a trade system.

1/1/1 from winning the release PvE
1 bonus for being a top 100 alliance
3 covers he forces his alliance to trade him or risk getting kicked (doesn't matter what 3* he trades, because he didn't want them anyway), and they can be any color he needs more in.
1 from the next PvE's progression reward
1/1/1 from the following PvP that awards the new hero
1 from the top 100 alliance bonus again
1 from that hero's PvP's progression reward

Never mind, my math was wrong. That's ALL THIRTEEN.

And those three he bullied into 'trade or be kicked'? Now they have one less trade for the whole season, and again, since it doesn't matter what the Commander trades, because of the blackmail, they likely didn't get a fair deal for what their 500HP investment paid for. Sure they could get their refund if they got kicked, but now they don't have an alliance. And maybe other top 100 alliances would easily bully them the same way to trade a portion of their roster as a CONDITION TO JOIN.

You didn't address these issues. You repeated "three per season" and "equal value". Value is a lot more variable than the number of stars on a cover. Ragnarok is 3* cover, but you wouldn't see me trade a Modern Thor for him.

The human element is the most important thing when talking about incorporating any kind of trade system, because FTP games bring out the worst in a lot of people, and oftentimes it's people who want to spend the least amount of money.

Unknown

No trade happenes without the approval of both parties - and a so called bully can easily be banned and or sandbox - your concerns are easily addressed. If a person earns something it's up to them what they wish to do with it - that is life.

Unknown

UKYO2769 wrote:

No trade happenes without the approval of both parties - and a so called bully can easily be banned and or sandbox - your concerns are easily addressed. If a person earns something it's up to them what they wish to do with it - that is life.

The problem is that you can't just make a rule against something because it's undesirable. Already most of the etiquette in our current Alliance system is self-explanatory things like 'don't use offensive language' and 'don't be a jerk', but none of it is outright cause to ban someone from playing MPQ unless it's like a death threat, doxxing, or talk of cheating. There's no magical list of rules posted in game of what you're not allowed to do, or what conditions you're allowed to remove someone from an Alliance you put together, because the consequences are as minimal as they can be. You can find a new semi-decent one almost immediately with no problem based on your roster alone.

This one implementation would create tons of new rules involving trade etiquette, scam warnings, and tons of lesser things like multiple account farming (the game is on Steam, Facebook, and mobile devices). It would destroy the casual, tween-friendly nature of the game with an aggressive or manipulative economy loaded with bylaws and the regulation of valuable HP that you propose to be spent. And while you say "Just ban the bad people", it's not really your call to make. Perhaps D3 would be perfectly comfortable allowing Commanders to be tyrannical taxers to their members or applicants, because it's in the hands of the users to decide what's best for them, like it's always been. They make a community, but the community runs itself, and it relies on the nature of people for the destination to not be 'right into the ground'. Personally, given the entitlement I've seen from a lot of suggestions here in this forum, I don't like those odds.

I don't propose my suggestions with the intent of making the game more generous or easier to 'complete'. I propose them with a company's business interests in mind, with regards to alleviating common complaints from reviewers on Steam or even the naysayers that show up here and air out their greed with a zero reputation post. If I see a suggestion that creates worse complaints than what it solves, that's an immediate shut down for me. The goal is to retain both veteran and new players by keeping the game fun, but not frustrating.

As for this idea. This creates a lot of issues, ones I've already gone over. And the only complaint I see it solving is:

- "I have a cover I don't want, let me give it to someone else in exchange for a cover I DO want."

Meanwhile the list of complaints it causes:
-Will introduce scamming
-Will introduce Commander bullying
-Will cause account farming for trashed alts to feed a larger account (the game rewards you a lot of free HP to start, unless that gets removed, thereby creating ANOTHER complaint)
-Will introduce possible exploits with trades from accounts that have been cheat modified to launder generated covers so they appear 'legitimate'.
-Will have negative consequences to the game's more relaxing casual elements
-Will be a monthly expense in order to remain in an alliance that's chosen to include trading, making new roster slots even more of a pain to build up and causing an artificial rank cap on alliances who choose to opt out since higher ranked alliances win more HP.
-Will draw out the greed in people, when the current attitude of most has been tame, given the personal progression element that sees little influence from other people playing

I could go on, but I think I've said enough. There isn't a business model on this earth that could make addressing all of those problems cost-effective for a humble FTP game like MPQ. It is, quite literally, not worth the trouble.

Unknown

Hackers are already sandboxed and to be honest if someone goes to all that trouble to cheat on a game they need a life. If anything as I stated the 3 limit cover rule will make it harder and not worth the trouble as you have to make a lot of accounts just to trade 3 and not only that they have to be of the same value. So no newbie account can just trade - also if the new account is a hack once it's sandboxed there's no alliance to join. I see a lot of pessimism on your part which is cool but how about you help further along a solution. Were not here to argue but to discuss and come to a resolution. For every excuse they're a an answer. And it really is just that simple.

Unknown

UKYO2769 wrote:

Hackers are already sandboxed and to be honest if someone goes to all that trouble to cheat on a game they need a life. If anything as I stated the 3 limit cover rule will make it harder and not worth the trouble as you have to make a lot of accounts just to trade 3 and not only that they have to be of the same value. So no newbie account can just trade - also if the new account is a hack once it's sandboxed there's no alliance to join. I see a lot of pessimism on your part which is cool but how about you help further along a solution. Were not here to argue but to discuss and come to a resolution. For every excuse they're a an answer. And it really is just that simple.

The problem is there are examples of people in other FTPs that DO go through that trouble. One particular example was a dumb translation port of a Japanese card RPG called Rage of Bahamut, of which I was playing when a mass account hack struck a lot of top ranking 'alliances', myself included, just so they could trade away what cards they could get away with and delete the remainder. Mobage and the game's original devs did nothing to help or restore or reimburse anyone affected under the 'just a game/get a life' premise.

Second, I've seen the methods for cheating in MPQ, and they are decidedly not that hard. I can't go into the specifics, but it was as simple as using an already available program to manipulate values like how much ISO and HP you have. Meaning they can get infinite HP, buy infinite roster slots, buy infinite cover packs, etc. 'Laundering' the covers they practically make for free could be as simple as creating a throwaway account, joining the same alliance as their main, buying cover packs until they get the covers they want to trade, trading them, then deleting all the extra HP and other covers they generated before they get caught. Theoretically, this activity can be tracked, but as we've seen from this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2789
D3 already relies on its community to catch anyone who's ALREADY cheating. And if someone was clever, they could pull off tiny little 'heists' like this on a regular basis and rebut foul play by saying they used their allotted trades for the month to get their extra covers

There have been other ideas proposed on these suggestion boards and that's the only reason I remain pessimistic to this proposed. One person suggested an idea I agree with where an individual player can spend HP to transfer an unredeemed cover to someone else for nothing in return. This could cut down on the trade manipulation because you can't force someone to have an unrecruited prize to force them to give you, and even then, being in a higher ranked alliance when they'll just take the reward you get for being in it will just send people to alliances with healthier relationships. Cheating could be tracked simply by seeing whose account seems to benefit excessively from 'generous' gifts, and if the ones giving seem to be robotic in their participation in MPQ, they could easily be pegged for a sock puppet account and have their purchase history examined to see of they bought a lot of packs, but didn't spend any actual money for the HP they were using to give away covers. The trade you proposed hides a lot behind a wall of feigned ignorance, where a person can act like their trades were legitimate because they DID have to give a 3* in return for the one they wanted, and they only detail they share is just what alliance they're in. They could claim they didn't know they were trading with a cheater and D3 would have to stop the pursuit there lest they risk damaging customer satisfaction. Knowing exactly who's cheated and who was benefiting from a 'paid giveaway' only system is a lot easier to police. There can even still be trades on an honor system with people you TRUST, where two players can agree what they want to send in return.

Another thing that I personally suggested elsewhere was a system of offering a tertiary currency for 3* and 4* covers that a player ends up selling or having expire, called cover scrapping. As an alternative to either system, it lets individual players convert mass amounts of unwanted or unneeded 3* and up covers over time to be converted into free color upgrades to replace the existing color upgrade for HP system.
Details are here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24930
But as it pertains to this thread, it's essentially a way to "trade" with the game itself, albeit the cost of unwanted 3*s are much higher. You still get a cover you 'want' in exchange for covers you don't, but now you don't even need to spend extra HP or find someone who wants your unwanted cover and has one that you DO want in order to make an exchange.

Both of these systems have their flaws, but they become way, way easier to manage and are less costly in the long run than the system you proposed where everyone has to spend 500HP just to stay in an alliance that wants to trade.

I may be pessimistic, but I can have optimism for systems that solve more problems than they create. Furthermore, you also need to account for how difficult a system would be to introduce, coding wise. Transferring cover rewards might involve an HP Purchase, specifying a recipient, deleting a prize, then informing the recipient with a pop-up like the ones with the event rewards or that say you're attacked, then placing the cover into the recipient's rewards like normal. Cover scrapping might entail adding a new value for the new currency, a shop page for the HP to Scrap exchange, replacing the color buying system to deduct scrap instead of HP, tweaking the sale of 3*/4* covers to award scrap instead of/in addition to ISO.

For your system, values for "trades per season", "trade enabled alliances", "automatic seasonal HP deductions", and more would have to be added. There would need to be a trade-pinging system and an interface for people to confirm desired trades or list desired items so they aren't flooded with unwanted trades. There would need to be management for people who don't have the HP when entering a trade-enabled alliance, or don't have the funds when the next season comes. I'm sure there's much more, but given that we're not thee ones coding it and weighing its cost effectiveness, it'd be difficult for us to estimate how much effort it would take to make it work.