Time to lock event scores for seasons

ZeroKarma

First, this post is born out of sour grapes. The season end carousel is in full swing and it looks like, barring a miracle, my alliance will just miss out on 4Pool.

I understand event mercing happens, and it can be a good thing for people to get covers they might not otherwise grab, but I see no reason that those scores aren't tied to the Alliance permanently in some way.

Instead, we end up with the case that mercs contribute their entire score at season end when they may finish only a single event with that alliance.

This would reward stable alliances which is what the season rewards should be. Rewarding consistent performance in multiple events over the course of the season instead of forcing commanders to kick people who have put in the time.

Edit: we made it, but we had to merc at the last minute and let someone go. Not what we wanted to do, but no one wanted to miss the season cover.

Linkster79

Time to hate the players and not the game. For once this is not a developer issue but a player issue.

Why are commanders kicking stable, regular members at the end of the season after being consistent and posting acceptable scores all season?

Why are players come season end looking for a top 100/50/25 alliance instead of being in a steady alliance?

Why are both players and commanders not willing to accept that sometimes life happens and yeah sometimes both individuals and alliance may just miss out on that next reward bracket?

Why do alliances not accept that the members who got top 100/50/25 one season may not be able to do so next season?

The answer to all the above questions is greed! Both by individual players (i.e mercenaries) and other alliance members who aren't willing to accept that this might not just be their turn to finish top 100/50/25.

Every season end it is the same merry go round, it is the system the players craved for and it is the system that has been delivered!

Daiches

Why are players come season end looking for a top 100/50/25 alliance instead of being in a steady alliance?



Because some of us are in steady PVE alliances all season, while also scoring well in PVP, and we would like PVP rewards as well without sacrificing PVE.
Been merc'ing 2 days for season's end and those top 2000 placements instead of top 50 for Hulk subs hurt a lot though. I'm basically trading 2 tokens for a guaranteed 4 at the moment.

ZeroKarma

Daiches wrote:

Because some of us are in steady PVE alliances all season, while also scoring well in PVP, and we would like PVP rewards as well without sacrificing PVE.
Been merc'ing 2 days for season's end and those top 2000 placements instead of top 50 for Hulk subs hurt a lot though. I'm basically trading 2 tokens for a guaranteed 4 at the moment.

So the answer is PvE seasons!

Really, you bring up a good point there and it sucks having to choose one or the other for the course of the season. It would be nice if there were some sort of reward for a strong PvE season in addition to PvP. It requires more time overall and the prizes don't match the PvP structure even remotely.

acescracked

What a horrible suggestion. Since you find it hard to compete just change the rules?

Since a season lasts 30 days alot can happen with players. Is it more fair to lock 20 players together giving nobody a way out if something happens?

Let's do a hypothetical and say alliances were locked each season. And let's say ZeroKarma you are in an alliance where two players just quit playing mid season. This alliance in now 105 and you can't boot the quitters for season score...No hypothetical; you would be opening a thread asking why are alliances locked for season punishing 18 other players.

ZeroKarma

acescracked wrote:

What a horrible suggestion. Since you find it hard to compete just change the rules?

Since a season lasts 30 days alot can happen with players. Is it more fair to lock 20 players together giving nobody a way out if something happens?

Let's do a hypothetical and say alliances were locked each season. And let's say ZeroKarma you are in an alliance where two players just quit playing mid season. This alliance in now 105 and you can't boot the quitters for season score...No hypothetical; you would be opening a thread asking why are alliances locked for season punishing 18 other players.

I'm not saying you wouldn't boot the quitters. But let's say you finish Blue Shift with x number of points as an alliance, that tally stays with the alliance. The only mercing that you do would be for Sim scores and for the last PvP.

Keep in mind there is now precedent with Ultron. You're right that over the course of a season you would have a problems, but if scores were locked on an event by event basis you decrease the dramatic swings at the end of the year and you wouldn't be forced to cut regular players to match what everyone else does.

I edited the top. We cut a person, who willingly left, so we could add a merc. We can play the game within its rules and succeed. But it doesn't really promote the idea of an alliance fighting and working together towards that season goal.

jimstarooney

Thats why u set out minimums,for the season and the event.our minimum was 850 per event 10k for the season.most made both but i had to kick 1 that started late and 1 that picked and chose his events.as far as i know it wasnt a problem 4 both.if u make it clear that bottom gets kicked 1st then there should be no problem.

Buret0

MPQ must institute a trade deadline.

Unknown

Am i confused or did you end up doing the exact thing you are complaining about???

ZeroKarma

I suggest a bidding process be instituted for any player transfers.

Then let's say that Jamie Madrox wants to switch alliances. Other teams can make a bid to his alliance commanders in ISO not less than enough to max a Silver Surfer in a sealed envelope.

If I want to switch alliances bidding starts at a standard token and a 50% damage against goons boost.

Malcrof

for some of us, merc'ing is a way of life.. leave things along.

nwman

erbalist wrote:

Am i confused or did you end up doing the exact thing you are complaining about???

Hello pot. Meet kettle.

ZeroKarma

erbalist wrote:

Am i confused or did you end up doing the exact thing you are complaining about???

Nope. I edited the original post that we did just that. Not much of a choice if we wanted the cover. Up until the last couple of days we were comfortably in the top 100 until the shifting began.

It's either play the game or miss out.

Unknown

ZeroKarma wrote:

erbalist wrote:

Am i confused or did you end up doing the exact thing you are complaining about???

Nope. I edited the original post that we did just that. Not much of a choice if we wanted the cover. Up until the last couple of days we were comfortably in the top 100 until the shifting began.

It's either play the game or miss out.

I see, sorry. So you bowed down to the darkside lol

PeterGibbons316

I agree, the "alliances" in MPQ are a joke. There is hardly any benefit to consistently being in an alliance when mercing in and out at the end of events is so easy. They should institute cool-downs that prevents people from coming/going within a 48-hour window. And/or for individual events make it so you have to be in your alliance when you start the event to qualify for alliance rewards. And/or for season events make it so you have to have finished 2+ events with an alliance to qualify for rewards. The shuffling at the end of events/season defeats the spirit of team play, and fosters a lot of needless resentment.

acescracked

I just don't get the rub. Either system is wrought with problems and I think the current system less so. This only really affects the few alliances near reward tiers. Make a massive change that hits all alliances to address a personal view of fair play? Nah.

Look at the thread title - "Time to lock event scores for season". Season 18 just finished... After 18 seasons and now is the time? Lol. Nothing to see here, move along.

GrumpySmurf1002

ZeroKarma wrote:

I'm not saying you wouldn't boot the quitters. But let's say you finish Blue Shift with x number of points as an alliance, that tally stays with the alliance. The only mercing that you do would be for Sim scores and for the last PvP.

So then the mad dash for mercs would happen before the end of event 9. Or 8 if you move the cutoff. Or 7.

Eventually you'd just have to build an alliance strong enough to withstand the entire season. Kinda like you can now.

mohio

Daiches wrote:

Why are players come season end looking for a top 100/50/25 alliance instead of being in a steady alliance?



Because some of us are in steady PVE alliances all season, while also scoring well in PVP, and we would like PVP rewards as well without sacrificing PVE.
Been merc'ing 2 days for season's end and those top 2000 placements instead of top 50 for Hulk subs hurt a lot though. I'm basically trading 2 tokens for a guaranteed 4 at the moment.

Not sure what stage of the game you're in, but a guaranteed 4* is WAY better than 2 tokens in the long run. That said, you can have your cake and eat it too. My alliance has maybe half of us play pve for any given event so the sub rewards aren't great, but with commanders on basically all the time anyone can merc out for a sub reward and come back for PvP rewards. Might take making a few connections but things like this are possible. Personally I think it's great the game allows such flexibility, but I can see how it leads to stress for the alliances near the cutoffs, unsure what score will be required since it keeps changing on them.

PeterGibbons316

aesthetocyst wrote:

Been discussed many, many times. Too many downsides to all suggested "remedies". Starting with: How does a system know which players belong to which alliances? Lock them in at season join, like Ultron? Seems to be the only way, right? It's either that or let commanders manually attach/detach ... which is basically what happens now.

So, your players are locked in, great ... until one leaves mid-season, or decides to slack, or even worse go rogue. Or multiple players do so. Now the alliance is stuck with these anchors. Loyal players fates are in their hands. Or the alliance implodes, but the players are joined at he hip for the duration anyway.

Humans will be human. A season is a looooong time in the life of a mobile game. Alliances as they are are flexible and allow for a lot of flexibilty and means of redressing imbalances.

Careful what you ask for.

Why not do it like the Ultron event? Was that so bad?

PeterGibbons316

acescracked wrote:

I just don't get the rub. Either system is wrought with problems and I think the current system less so. This only really affects the few alliances near reward tiers. Make a massive change that hits all alliances to address a personal view of fair play? Nah.

It's incredibly frustrating to finish Top100 in every single PvP event as both a player and an alliance, finish your last event of the season with your alliance in the top 70, and then watch as your alliance slowly drops out of the top 100 because other alliances are mercing.

Consider this - with perfect communication the top 2,000 players would merc into the top 100 alliances at the end of the season to earn the 4* reward. So the current system operated perfectly rewards the top 2,000 players. So why have alliance rewards? Get rid of the brackets, give the top 2,000 people the cover, and just call it a day. As it is your "alliance rank" means nothing, because it fluctuates so drastically at the end of events. At least with a top 2k you would have a much better idea of where you really stood.

jimstarooney

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

Been discussed many, many times. Too many downsides to all suggested "remedies". Starting with: How does a system know which players belong to which alliances? Lock them in at season join, like Ultron? Seems to be the only way, right? It's either that or let commanders manually attach/detach ... which is basically what happens now.


So, your players are locked in, great ... until one leaves mid-season, or decides to slack, or even worse go rogue. Or multiple players do so. Now the alliance is stuck with these anchors. Loyal players fates are in their hands. Or the alliance implodes, but the players are joined at he hip for the duration anyway.

Humans will be human. A season is a looooong time in the life of a mobile game. Alliances as they are are flexible and allow for a lot of flexibilty and means of redressing imbalances.

Careful what you ask for.

Why not do it like the Ultron event? Was that so bad?

Seasons are a month long it would be carnage.i actually like the idea of alliance pts stayin with the alliance but then all mercs would be able to barter with are their sim scores.