Best Ultron solution?

MarvelMan

This is NOT about the event almost over, it is about how to improve the next one.

Ive seen a few solutions bantered around and wanted to see what people think is the best of the bunch. I probably missed some suggestions, but I wont redo the options since it wipes past votes. If you do pick the "Other" one, please provide detail on how you think it should be addressed.

Dragon_Nexus

I think both the alliance-rewards idea and the punching-bag Ultron idea have merit.

I was puzzled to hear Ultron went away at all when round 8 was completed. Why not just leave him up? A few extra rewards and such, really good way to get the progression rewards if you're a little short.
But also alliance progression rewards would make sense too, that way you hit a target and everyone benefits, instead of the chosen few who put in the uber hours.

I know some in my alliance haven't been able to help out as much as they otherwise would have due to a lack of Quicksilver.

Unknown

They offered ~17.5 million points, for an alliance to all get the 1mil progression that needs to be slightly higher than 20 mil total to account for rounding. Most alliances can decide for themselves if they need heavy hitters to keep going or to stop at 1 mil points so others can get their progressions. Making the ultron prime nodes worth 15k more should be just enough points in the system to make room for everyone without tweaking anything else weird.

Unknown

Reduce required points and make more points available are essentially the same thing. Comes down to "are there enough points for 20 people to hit the top progress reward?". More points available would also mean more QS Essentials rewards for more tokens and more Ultron fights for more tokens.

MarvelMan

Cryptobrancus wrote:

They offered ~17.5 million points, for an alliance to all get the 1mil progression that needs to be slightly higher than 20 mil total to account for rounding. Most alliances can decide for themselves if they need heavy hitters to keep going or to stop at 1 mil points so others can get their progressions. Making the ultron prime nodes worth 15k more should be just enough points in the system to make room for everyone without tweaking anything else weird.

Interesting suggestion. That would put ~120k points entirely on the individual and their ability to finish each Prime node. I think it would have to be a bit higher (20k?) to account for the rounding concern but I kind of like that because if you cant finish all of those....maybe you shouldnt get the final progression.

Unknown

You forgot the option of "leave it alone, there's no problem to solve". Why do we always have to dumb things down for the LCD community?

Unknown

shade_tree wrote:

You forgot the option of "leave it alone, there's no problem to solve". Why do we always have to dumb things down for the LCD community?

You mean besides there clearly being a problem to solve? Or do you just not care about 3/20ths of your alliance (minimum) being unable to hit 1 million points?

Unknown

There needs to be an unlimited opportunity to continue battling and scoring until the final day of competition. At that point, the final node should open (if you have enough points to qualify) and everyone has one day to finish him off when he then disappears. Along with this small change there should be a separate alliance progression or (alliance rank prize tree) and possibly bonus points for consecutive victories within the alliance. That being said, tokens were everywhere this event already so what do I know....

emaker27

If this is truly a team event, then the rewards should be team based. When the Avengers assemble to defeat Ultron, they work together and win the same thing. They don't have individual goals! Unless..... Maybe this is setting up the Civil War storyline!

"Alliances bicker over Quicksilver rewards. This fractures the alliance in 2 where they compete against only each other. One gets all the rewards, while the other gets 20 . Civil War! (Coming in 2016)"

Malcrof

emaker27 wrote:

If this is truly a team event, then the rewards should be team based. When the Avengers assemble to defeat Ultron, they work together and win the same thing. They don't have individual goals! Unless..... Maybe this is setting up the Civil War storyline!

"Alliances bicker over Quicksilver rewards. This fractures the alliance in 2 where they compete against only each other. One gets all the rewards, while the other gets 20 . Civil War! (Coming in 2016)"

being the top scorer in a casual alliance (we will not finish round 6), i probably killed Ultron 30 or more times for 20iso each time..

that needs to be fixed.

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

shade_tree wrote:

You forgot the option of "leave it alone, there's no problem to solve". Why do we always have to dumb things down for the LCD community?

You mean besides there clearly being a problem to solve? Or do you just not care about 3/20ths of your alliance (minimum) being unable to hit 1 million points?

If the SW covers were denied by the point total, I would have an issue, but I don't see failing to earn one or two QS covers as a problem. The idea that everyone is entitled to everything is one of the worst ideas to come out of the '80s.

wirius

shade_tree wrote:

Lerysh wrote:

shade_tree wrote:

You forgot the option of "leave it alone, there's no problem to solve". Why do we always have to dumb things down for the LCD community?

You mean besides there clearly being a problem to solve? Or do you just not care about 3/20ths of your alliance (minimum) being unable to hit 1 million points?

I don't see not getting one or two QS covers as a problem. The idea that everyone is entitled to everything is one of the worst ideas to come out of the '80s.

I don't see everyone in the alliance getting one or two QS covers as a problem. The idea that only a few in a cooperative group are entitled to the rewards is one of the worst ideas to come out of the 80's.

Unknown

wirius wrote:

I don't see everyone in the alliance getting one or two QS covers as a problem.

Exactly. Everyone wins one or two and some win three, perfectly reasonable in a competitive game.

Unknown

shade_tree wrote:

wirius wrote:

I don't see everyone in the alliance getting one or two QS covers as a problem.

Exactly. Everyone wins one or two and some win three, perfectly reasonable in a competitive game.

The problem is that you have to specifically create a 15-17 person alliance or have 3-4 slackers on your team for all the real competitors to be able to work for full progression. When you have a system where you want to intentionally **** your alliance, doesn't it lead you to believe that something is wrong with the core system?

JVReal

The progression is the individual, the Prime Nodes are the Alliance rewards. I don't see problem with the structure... just that there was no way to earn more points after beating level 8.

Those that got locked out of top progression because their alliance beat level 8, now get a shot at the 3rd SW cover without ever having to hit 1 million points... that's alliance rewards. You benefit directly from the work of your alliance as a whole even though you couldn't hit the progression for personal achievement reward.

If your alliance did not beat level 8 due to lack of participation, and you personally got 1 million points, you deserve your personal achievement cover, because you did your work, others didn't so they don't. Now if you beat levels 6, and everyone in your alliance got the first SW cover from beating 6 prime nodes, then the event worked as intended.

Again, reward structure is fine. They need to address being able to continue to score points after level 8.

Quick fix could be lowering progression to actually coincide with Ultron's total combined health of ~17 million divided by 20 members.

I would also recommend redistributing the health between the 8 levels so that the early levels of Ultron last longer so that weaker rosters have more participation time.

dkffiv

emaker27 wrote:

If this is truly a team event, then the rewards should be team based. When the Avengers assemble to defeat Ultron, they work together and win the same thing. They don't have individual goals! Unless..... Maybe this is setting up the Civil War storyline!

"Alliances bicker over Quicksilver rewards. This fractures the alliance in 2 where they compete against only each other. One gets all the rewards, while the other gets 20 . Civil War! (Coming in 2016)"

I don't think it should be moved to alliance based progression because people who aren't pulling their weight would get all 3 progression as well as shots at the 3 node covers. I like the "work as a team to unlock the 3 new most desirable covers, work hard on your own to get the 3 essential covers" philosophy, I think a round 9 that never ended would be the best solution. It would also let the hardcore PvE'ers get an added bonus by getting more tokens/ISO/HP for getting to round 9 faster. If I had the option to do more battles after round 8 I probably would've done a few of the QS ones for cracks at tokens but not stress too hard (and use b-teams) to conserve kits for other events. It would also theoretically let stronger members carry weaker team members to cross the round 8 threshold faster so everyone can get their third (SW/Hulkbuster) without sweating it down to crunch time.

Phumade

shade_tree wrote:

Lerysh wrote:

shade_tree wrote:

You forgot the option of "leave it alone, there's no problem to solve". Why do we always have to dumb things down for the LCD community?

You mean besides there clearly being a problem to solve? Or do you just not care about 3/20ths of your alliance (minimum) being unable to hit 1 million points?

If the SW covers were denied by the point total, I would have an issue, but I don't see failing to earn one or two QS covers as a problem. The idea that everyone is entitled to everything is one of the worst ideas to come out of the '80s.

Its not the covers, its the fact that your denying an alliance teammate a chance at the award. As a commander, I would rather they not have covers than be put into a position to tell one member to:

a: Stop playing so other people can get awards or
b: Sorry you didn't get a chance to play for an award, we decided that person c was closer to the point totals and had a more realistic chance of crossing the threshold
c: Person D didn't mean to gobble all the points and that's why your 20K short.

If this was a competition between us and outside competitors, I would be fine with people being blocked or not achieving a specific award. But when we work hard to build a good alliance that communicates and enjoys chatting with each other, events that effectively pit member against member need to be scrapped.

Coordinating a team of individuals that live across the world, for the purposes of a match 3 game is difficult enough. Why create a system that potentially causes ill will and hard feelings among people who are trying to help each other?

Unknown

daibar wrote:

shade_tree wrote:

wirius wrote:

I don't see everyone in the alliance getting one or two QS covers as a problem.

Exactly. Everyone wins one or two and some win three, perfectly reasonable in a competitive game.

The problem is that you have to specifically create a 15-17 person alliance or have 3-4 slackers on your team for all the real competitors to be able to work for full progression. When you have a system where you want to intentionally **** your alliance, doesn't it lead you to believe that something is wrong with the core system?

If failing to earn one QS cover **** your alliance I seriously doubt that your alliance would even be in the hunt for that final progression let alone the SW covers. But to answer your question, no it doesn't lead me to think there's something wrong, I like competition - why do you believe that everyone deserves to win everything?

Unknown

Phumade wrote:

Why create a system that potentially causes ill will and hard feelings among people who are trying to help each other?

I guess my alliance is composed of more mature and practical members than some because no one had an issue with slowing down play at the 1M mark, or expressed any hard feelings for not getting one lousy QS cover, but everyone was quite happy to get all three SW covers.

Phumade

shade_tree wrote:

Phumade wrote:

Why create a system that potentially causes ill will and hard feelings among people who are trying to help each other?

I guess my alliance is composed of more mature and practical members than some because no one had an issue with slowing down play at the 1M mark, or expressed any hard feelings for not getting one lousy QS cover, but everyone was quite happy to get all three SW covers.

Thanks! Your actually are making my point for me. The bottom line is there were not enough points in this event for everyone to be successful and that ultimately someone had to make a decision about winners and losers.

In your specific alliance, you had alliance members who made a conscious decision to slow down play after the 1M mark to enable other members of your alliance to achieve an award. Thats great! and is no different than a commander working with alliance members to coordinate who gets to 1M points.

I would argue a counter scenario, how you have felt if your alliance colleague had decided not to stop playing at 1M and keep going on to play the QS nodes for the enhanced tokens.

Ultimately, someone in both alliances made a conscious decision to alter play to enable other people to achieve certain awards. Good Event design should continue to encourage people to make cooperative decisions that benefit the entire alliance. This was a bad progression table because people could make a decision that would hurt other members of the alliance.

Thanks for making my point!!!!

Unknown

Phumade wrote:

shade_tree wrote:

Phumade wrote:

Why create a system that potentially causes ill will and hard feelings among people who are trying to help each other?

I guess my alliance is composed of more mature and practical members than some because no one had an issue with slowing down play at the 1M mark, or expressed any hard feelings for not getting one lousy QS cover, but everyone was quite happy to get all three SW covers.

Thanks! Your actually are making my point for me. The bottom line is there were not enough points in this event for everyone to be successful and that ultimately someone had to make a decision about winners and losers.

I totally agree that there weren't enough points available for everyone to win every cover; it is after all a simple fact and therefore not a "point" you can make, only an observation. Where we differ in opinion is that you think this is a bad thing and I don't have a problem with it.