Mercing/Dropping of players in PVE

NighteyesGrisu

In my open the alliance/alliance reward mechanic is broken.

Especially in 4* PVE like the current Hunt, it encourages late game mercing/alliance hopping so that a given alliance will hop over the top 50 bar. As a result alliance standings throughout most of the event are pretty much useless since it's all gonna change in late game. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about mercs. I'm not blaming them for this, since this is just how the game works at the moment, they'd be stupid not to do this.

Another effect of this is that sometimes even mid-range-scorers (say top 50 but not top 10) in the end find themselves without the alliance cover, since the top grinders hop out when it gets tight (which again is understandable, since nobody likes to lose the 3rd/4th 4* cover when they've grinded so hard).
Then there's those in the lower third of the alliance who might not post great points but worked nevertheless and sometimes risk being left without any alliance reward since they get kicked out very late in the event. (myself I'm somewhat between mid-range and low range with an expected final 80k or so points.)

So I'd like to find some solutions that might somewhat lessen these problems (unless I'm the only one that feels that way).

I guess one way would be to keep the scores of one member fixed to one alliance after a certain deadline. that way, adding a high scorer in the last minutes/hours woud do nothing for the alliance score. Another thing might be some kind of cooldown on alliance moves, etc. Do you guys have any ideas to fix this?

WilsonFisk

I agree, some type of alliance switching cooldowns would be nice to reduce the late swap shenanigans. I'm an abuser of this system myself, and will be hopping out to merc in another alliance for pve, but in principle, agree they should fix it. I will continue to abuse the system while I can though

Unknown

So you believe the stability of alliances should be improved, correct?

24 hour cooldowns.
1. If an alliance boots a player, they are point flagged for 24 hours. Any new players joining the alliance will have their score not count towards any pending events.
2. If a player leaves an alliance, they are point flagged for 24 hours. Any alliance they join will not have this player's score count towards their total.
These are visible flags to all, so that people can know if they are joining a flagged alliance, or accepting a flagged player.

So if an alliance has a jumping player, they aren't penalized for it, but have to find an additional member.
If a player is booted unexpectedly, they aren't penalized for it, but can find a new alliance.

Since there is some penalty for anyone leaving an alliance regardless of reason, this lessens collusion between alliances.

Unknown

daibar wrote:

So you believe the stability of alliances should be improved, correct?

24 hour cooldowns.
1. If an alliance boots a player, they are point flagged for 24 hours. Any new players joining the alliance will have their score not count towards any pending events.
2. If a player leaves an alliance, they are point flagged for 24 hours. Any alliance they join will not have this player's score count towards their total.
These are visible flags to all, so that people can know if they are joining a flagged alliance, or accepting a flagged player.

So if an alliance has a jumping player, they aren't penalized for it, but have to find an additional member.
If a player is booted unexpectedly, they aren't penalized for it, but can find a new alliance.

Since there is some penalty for anyone leaving an alliance regardless of reason, this lessens collusion between alliances.

Yep, an easy fix.

NighteyesGrisu

daibar wrote:

So you believe the stability of alliances should be improved, correct?

24 hour cooldowns.
1. If an alliance boots a player, they are point flagged for 24 hours. Any new players joining the alliance will have their score not count towards any pending events.
2. If a player leaves an alliance, they are point flagged for 24 hours. Any alliance they join will not have this player's score count towards their total.
These are visible flags to all, so that people can know if they are joining a flagged alliance, or accepting a flagged player.

So if an alliance has a jumping player, they aren't penalized for it, but have to find an additional member.
If a player is booted unexpectedly, they aren't penalized for it, but can find a new alliance.

Since there is some penalty for anyone leaving an alliance regardless of reason, this lessens collusion between alliances.

That sounds like a good fix. I was thinking about only counting the points people made within the alliance but that could be abused as well due to different time slices.

lukewin

If you don't want players to merc, then have your alliance have a PVE minimum/goal. Scores should speak for themselves, and players should be able to do what they want with them. I don't think the amount of work required from the devs, regarding alliance points, etc, would be worth the time or effort they'd have to put into it. They have enough problems they should focus on.

If that having a PVE minimum/goal sounds unreasonable, maybe the thought of having every 4* alliance cover is also unreasonable.

elvy75

My alliance has pve minimums, and in most of the cases we do quite decent in pve, but even minimums are not guarantee that you will get into t50. When SL was introduced, we were in t20 at the end of shard 4, to find ourself out of t50 with some hour until the end of shard 5. Minimum pve scores are not guaranteeing you the alliance cover when rewards are given to only t50 alliances. The real issue is reward structure. I understand its 4* and they dont want too many people to have at once, but an easy fix would be to just widen reward structure for alliances as it is for any other new character, as we dont see this much mercing/dropping of players in any other pve, except when 4* are at stake.

SnowcaTT

Problem is (somewhat) time, these 4* T50 events are often 5+ days - often not all 20 people can grind all hours either during the week (work) or weekend (family).

Hi there AoB OP : whom we merged our top 10 with your top 10 last time. Once again we aren't going for T50 - to much hassle for rewards that won't be usable for a year - rather our folks are mercing out for the day. Alliance merging is a "solution", but it isn't fun and shouldn't -be- a solution....the solution should be deeper reward structure (T100 for 4*, T150 for 3*).

All suggestions of time limits for merc's have the problem that people will just jump before these limits. Everyone will leave before the 24 hour mark.

I've made two suggestions in the past.
One: Only take the top 18 players of each alliance score (for every event, PVP and PVE). This allows for alliances to give their mates a life, rather than the boot.
Two: make covers tradeable among alliances: but only if both partners have been in the alliance for 30 days. Jumps still possible, but a big downside for doing it.

SymmeTrey

Easiest fix of all - closed sub scores don't move with the player, they are locked into the alliance. Only currently open sub scores move. This would make subs more meaningful and prevent this last minute meta-game of alliance swapping of mercs.

It should work just the like the score of a sporting event. Just because the high scorer from a game leaves the team before the end of the season, doesn't mean that the team's previous games are all re-written and scores erased when they leave. This is how the game functions today and it makes no sense and puts too much emphasis on commanders making late switches.

xellessanova

The real problem is the cover distribution being too stingy especially for 4* PVE release, and even in the PVP Season ending. Top 125-150 getting Season covers and 3* PVP and Top 100 Alliance rewards for PVE 4* release would be a start at making it less cutthroat at the end of the event. This is probably even the easiest fix since it doesn't touch the code.

Our alliance specifically doesn't have PVE minimums for stability's sake -- in order to prevent burnout and let people have lives outside of MPQ. So we let our PVE high-scorers merc so they don't lose out if they give us fair warning. Time limits and flagging would basically prevent our mercs from coming back for the PVP event end times.

LXSandman

Why over think it? Easiest solution is that any points you gain while in an alliance stay with the alliance...

Done, Problem solved.

Unknown

I'm telling you.

PVE can't be competitive.

It causes way too many problems.

They need to just make PVE 100% gauntlet and no longer incorporate alliances or individual placement rewards. Beef up progression rewards to capture the 5% of people who are supposed to get the single cover etc. I'm sure they can do a metric to determine how high is too high for most people, hence carving out that same 5%/2%/1% distribution and adjust them accordingly.

Literally the only way to prevent all the nonsense that goes along with PVE.

PVP is self regulating. The players with good rosters will carve out their spot. There is some minor mercing right around the boundaries of top 10/25/50/100. But for the most part, people stick in their alliances for PVP. Mainly because PVP is not time regulated, it's roster regulated.

Flare808

LXSandman wrote:

Why over think it? Easiest solution is that any points you gain while in an alliance stay with the alliance...

Done, Problem solved.

Yes, it's an easy solution, but it is also abusable. Hypothetically, a commander could have a group of hardcore grinders for 90% of the PvE. In the last few hours, they kick everyone and invite their friends. The grinders are left in the cold with no value to any other alliance since their points are tied to the other alliance. The friends of the commander get rewards for doing nothing. While this probably won't happen on a whole alliance level, I can almost guarantee that it will happen to isolated players if instituted in this manner.

Unknown

I do think Mercing has its place and uses in MPQ, and as others said it is the too narrow rewards causing rampant alliance redistribution that is the actual problem.

Preventing all alliance shuffling removes all flexibility, and forces people to be wedded to their current alliance no matter how well or poorly the rest of that alliance is doing.

NighteyesGrisu

lukewin wrote:

If you don't want players to merc, then have your alliance have a PVE minimum/goal. Scores should speak for themselves, and players should be able to do what they want with them. I don't think the amount of work required from the devs, regarding alliance points, etc, would be worth the time or effort they'd have to put into it. They have enough problems they should focus on.

If that having a PVE minimum/goal sounds unreasonable, maybe the thought of having every 4* alliance cover is also unreasonable.

sure thing, that works in most normal PVEs. But PVEs where the Alliance has to score top 50 are much tighter because you're not combatting 'normal' alliances but a bunch of meta/super/whatever alliances shuffle around until they got enough points. that's not what an alliance should be IMO. That way, 'normal' alliances stand nearly no chance (unless they merc as well) because in every given PVE there's a bunch of guys who just can't grind full force. With stable alliances this would even itself out, because all alliances would be affected by this (except the hanful or so crazy-grinder-alliances). So 'normal' alliances would have a shot at top 50 as well.

NighteyesGrisu

Cryptobrancus wrote:

I do think Mercing has its place and uses in MPQ, and as others said it is the too narrow rewards causing rampant alliance redistribution that is the actual problem.

Preventing all alliance shuffling removes all flexibility, and forces people to be wedded to their current alliance no matter how well or poorly the rest of that alliance is doing.

Oh, I don't disagree with that. But mercing, IMHO, should be getting a guy in for a full event to fill a free spot, etc. Not switching half your alliance around in the last few hours of the event. As for being wedded to your alliance....that's kinda what it's all about, isn't it? If a member consistently is not fulfilling the requirements then separate for good. I just don't like these friends with benefits type of alliances

lukewin

It's hard to have alliances that require PVP and PVE, so there would likely be less people/alliances getting covers both ways. Merc'ing allows for players to choose one, the other, or both, and not have to find 19 similar people to join an alliance. It might even out, because low PVP / high PVE scorers could balance out each other, but then it would drag the problem over into the PVP side, which wouldn't be a side effect anyone would want to see.

Unknown

Just one caveat to keep in mind for those pushing for cool down periods: If any sort of alliance switching cool down period is enacted (excluding the existing 15 min wait time to rejoin your alliance), then they really need to also add the option button for alliance co-commander's to demote themselves to regular player status without having to quit the alliance then rejoin. Alliance commanders often have to do this in case they are out of town for the end of an event or something so that the other commander can swap them out temporarily for a merc if needed. Co-commanders wanting to simply go back to regular status shouldn't have to be punished and wait for a cooldown period just because the only way to demote is to quit the alliance.

simonsez

lukewin wrote:

It's hard to have alliances that require PVP and PVE, so there would likely be less people/alliances getting covers both ways. Merc'ing allows for players to choose one, the other, or both, and not have to find 19 similar people to join an alliance

I'm all in favor of letting people do whatever the hell they want, but in these 4* PvEs, it's gotten far, far out of hand. It's really not any fun at all to spend 6 days grinding the **** out of the event, and then as soon as my shard is over, spending the rest of the night "grinding" to find mercs. The extreme level of movement can't be something the devs intend to be part of the meta.

And speaking philosophically, how exactly is the alliance reward an "alliance" reward, when you can just put together a collection of 20 people who had a good score, and then disband them an hour later? That's not an "alliance" reward... it's just an extra individual reward for people for people who don't mind coordinating and communicating. I really don't think that's the point of having separate alliance awards.

JVReal

simonsez wrote:

lukewin wrote:

It's hard to have alliances that require PVP and PVE, so there would likely be less people/alliances getting covers both ways. Merc'ing allows for players to choose one, the other, or both, and not have to find 19 similar people to join an alliance

I'm all in favor of letting people do whatever the hell they want, but in these 4* PvEs, it's gotten far, far out of hand. It's really not any fun at all to spend 6 days grinding the **** out of the event, and then as soon as my shard is over, spending the rest of the night "grinding" to find mercs. The extreme level of movement can't be something the devs intend to be part of the meta.

And speaking philosophically, how exactly is the alliance reward an "alliance" reward, when you can just put together a collection of 20 people who had a good score, and then disband them an hour later? That's not an "alliance" reward... it's just an extra individual reward for people for people who don't mind coordinating and communicating. I really don't think that's the point of having separate alliance awards.

This right here! ^^^

To me an Alliance is a group of people you are playing regularly with. You banter, you encourage, you are a group of players that have bunched together with common interests and goals to stand as a whole unit. Alliances are strong and weak members helping each other out, some grind PVE and suck at PVP, some blast PVP but can't grind PVE, some do both. An Alliance is a union of all different strengths to create one strong unit that will stand or fall together.

The Alliance I am part of was scoring well, and we were just under top 25, when 8 hours before event ended... when mercing started... we dropped to low 40's. 7 of our alliance members were eventually replaced with mercenaries and we ended up #50. It was close. I wasn't in that group, my score closed at 68K, I knew it wouldn't be enough to keep my alliance in top 50 with all the mercenary jumping, so I stepped down to make room and merc'd out just to get a top 100 reward.

This is an event where had they locked the alliances 24 hours before the last slice ended, our alliance would be sitting in top 25 and I'd have a ProfX, because individually I didn't get it, ranked #69 in my bracket. The Alliance was my shot at getting a 4*, but it's currently a broken system.

I agree that increasing the rewards to top 100 for 4* would be ideal, 50 more 4* floating around will not break the game. If they choose to keep the reward structure as is, they need to do something about Alliance hopping even if the restrictions are only for the 4* release PVE's.

I like the idea of locking Alliances at 24 hours before the close of the last slice, it forces an Alliance to put faith in their people. An Alliance is like a family, you take the members for their strengths and their weaknesses. There's pride in placing as an alliance without needing to bring in Mercenaries.

When 35% of your alliance has to be mercenaries to place 50th, and you know the % is greater the higher up you go in the ranking, there's something wrong with the system, not the alliance. I have no hard feelings for my alliance having to work within the existing game mechanics, I just am not a fan of the game mechanics.

SnowcaTT

We had to replace to many people two of these T50's in a row, it almost killed the alliance - only about half of the originals remain from when the T50's started.

Last time we merged with an alliance to get the T10 in so we wouldn't do the hard feeling "kicks", and everyone was back in the next day. This time up front we said we'd be doing the same - didn't find a merge so seven of our members went out and all are already back. Our alliance of comrades is back intact, it's a shame we had to break it up for a day to keep it that way though.

Here's another problem: It's not as if the usual T100 alliances are suddenly competing with thousands of others. As some of ours merc'd out I watched, with 15 we almost certainly would have ended T250. With only 13 people who -were not trying that hard- we hit 365. The only thing this did is made the T100 squish down to T50 - and cannibalize themselves.

As some have suggested, the problem isn't mercing - the problem is stingy rewards. D3: all you are doing is destroying the long-time alliances who are already hard-core, to make them further fight amongst themselves. This is NOT the way to run these events.