The era of mercs needs to end.

GothicKratos

Malcrof wrote:

As a merc, because i cannot commit to every event, i sit in a casual alliance, and merc out when i want rewards from something.. let me say this..

85%+ of all merc'ing is done long before the 12hour mark is left in an event. the T50 alliance i was in (didn't have to merc for this particular event) had 5 or 6 of us over 65k.. and 3 or 4 who did not get the legendary, the rest were all 55-60k.

I like mercing, i like not having to commit to an event, unless it is a reward i want... i like that the game is not a job. Merc'ing needs to stay.

This works the other way around too, sometimes a player in a big Alliance can't play (holidays, college exams, etc) so mercing allows the Alliance as a whole to not have to suffer because life is intervening with a video game.

acescracked

Monochromize wrote:

I love how many people in here don't think Merc'ing is a prob - oh wait, that's because 90% of forum goers are those people. ..

90%????? Where the heck did you find this data point?

I'm a 10 percenter!

Daiches

The salt is real.

You can't expect to t100 4* releases with just getting max progression and top 100 performances. That may fly in regular events where half the heavy hitters take a break/tank, but certainly not in a new character release.

If you want to earn t100 rewards, you need to put up t100 results. So scoring 50% of the available points is not going to cut it. Step up your game. Everyone else does.

Unknown

Merc'ing can be unfair yet required. Uncontrolled swapping of people multiple times during the last hour is a little overdoing it but is done.

Implementing a 24h (or any shorter time frame) non-removal of new members and 24h (as before) before you can remove yourself from a new alliance might help ease some fluctuation.

Or just run more gauntlet, antman, galactus type events that give useful covers and people would overlook these flaws.

Huatimus

How about those big family of alliances where they swap members around so that XXX1 and XXX2 are top 100, XXX3 top 250 and so on? Does that fall under your definition of mercs, or are you actually more concerned about how easy it is for people to leave and join alliances?

GurlBYE

I just agree with alliance progression. It's already done for the galactus. guantlet and ultron.

Couldn't hurt.

Don't care about anything else.

You guys who can handle doing above and beyond max progressions must not get burned out easily or must have rosters that can clear overly easily. On most pve events lately after 2 clears I'm just over a game that asks me to progress when it feels like it instead of when I'm free, but thats not a discussion for now.

Lemminkäinen

I was missing HBuster (one of the three 4-stars I'm missing) so couldn't get good points. I got the Legendary easy, and got quite a bit higher still, but didn't even make T150 in my bracket! So yeah, getting the Legendary is nowhere near enough in 4* launches.

Orion wrote:

One point is still valid though. It's ridiculous for someone to join an alliance with 3 hours to go and have all of his previously earned points count towards the alliance total. It should only be points earned while a member of the alliance. If you want to merc for an event, sign up before the event starts, a la Galactus.

As usual, Orion is wise.

OneLastGambit

I read all of this thread out of curiosity, I'm not big on alliance play and my alliance is a group of casual players (I think I may even be the highest scoring member of mine - I'm not sure). I think once you glean out the sourness of the original post there are some points which are valid and which are expanded upon in later posts.

I think that the following are true :

Leaving your play for 12 hours (at any point whether at the end or not) is asking for you to be overtaken. On the rare occasions I do attempt to place (this is solo) I have to play pretty much non-stop until the event finishes, no matter what my points are, to just about scrape the position I'm aiming for. OP should really be aware of this and the fact his entire alliance all seemed to think the event finishes with 12 hours to go seems like an error on their part.

I do also agree that for every single event (not just galactus or ultron) you should sign up with an alliance before the event and any points gained should go to that alliance only. This seems like an obvious and fair idea even without mercs and makes more sense than not implementing the idea.

Some posters have commented that the idea of merc'ing (is there a way to write that word as a verb?) is for when an alliance member cannot commit to an event due to life restraints - while I can understand this idea I also don't agree with it. I recently posted about the fact that I missed a leg token by 13 points because of end of game cascades which postponed my finish. Other posters, rightly, pointed out that I missed the leg token because I did not commit enough time to the event (due to life restraints) and not because of that cascade. I don't see how this situation is any different - if an alliance member cannot commit the time then that's the fault of the alliance for recruiting a member who could not commit the time required.
Switching alliances should be fine, no arguments if people want to do that. But doing it mid event? Nope sorry but it's the job of the alliance to make sure their members can commit to said event BEFORE the start of said event.

Sorry if a life issue prevents a member during the event but that's the breaks we all go through. Better luck next time.

jimstarooney

Arphaxad wrote:

This has been my experience for the last several new character story events. I am the commander of an alliance where everyone gets top progression reward and we finish in the top 100, if not top 50, in most events. We focus on story mode while doing some verses.

It has gotten out of hand that we where 53rd ranked alliance on the final day of Unstable ISO-8 to get X-23 with about 12 hours to go. Everyone in the alliance played past progression.. all 20 players. When the event ended we were 107. 54 alliances did not score more than we did in the last 12 hours. We were jumped over by alliances full of mercs. This really is not what alliance rank should reward. The prizes shouldn't go to who ever can beg enough mercs to join and pad their numbers in the last hours.

There should be a change on how alliances gain points. The alliance should only get credit for the points earned by a player while a member of that alliance. This makes it a honest reward system for the alliances that participate in story mode as an alliance.

Another solution that was mentioned by someone else is to do story mode alliance progression. No more ranking. Give alliances a progression to climb to reach the top rewards.

Yes, I know this will tick off some of you that play versus but want the story alliance rewards to pad your rosters even more. Frankly, you get enough in versus mode that you don't need to take from story mode. This game attracts several types of gamers and if D3 wants to maximize their earning potential they should look to satisfy the large number of players that don't want to play versus and prefer to play story mode. If they focus on making one group happy they will loose many others. I am speaking up for those that like story mode to be player versus environment, and would enjoy it more if you remove some of the PvP aspects that have muddied that game play.

This is where a commander earns his salt,there are many recruiting rooms available on line u should use them.it is inevitable that there is swapping and changing towards the end of an event and u will have to do the same.you may want to up your requirements too

Der_Lex

There really is no good reason to change the current system, since it works for both the top tier players and the vast majority of the players that don't have a shot at the alliance cover anyway. The only people complaining are a handful of players that are on the wrong end of the top 100 cutoff, but there will always be players that just miss that top 100, even without mercs.

Besides, the nice thing about mercs is that everybody has access to them. As jimstarooney pointed out before me, ensuring that you have the right merc when you need one (for whatever reason) is part if the commander's job.

Malcrof

aesthetocyst wrote:

"Mercing is unfair!"

Another forum classic that belongs over in the Unfairness is unfair thread.

Been rehashed many times. No workable "solution" that's an improvement on the status quo.

Make all events alliance locked? No problem. No difference with the current system really, just time shifts when mercing would happen. With come friends we created an alliance for Galactus 1, and beat it. "Restocked" for Galactus 2, and beat it, too (kinda disappointed that one wasn't as impressive!). Could be a lot of fun keeping track which alliance you are in for which event.

On the event in which the OP had his troubles, we had 17 people playing and 3 that could not play the whole event. It's rough, but to redeem the effort of the 17, I had to replace the 3. After doing so, with 16hrs to go, the alliance was 57th. At the end, because everyone, including the mercs, busted their butts to put up another 300K pts, the alliance finished 45th.

The difference from 45th and 100th was a mere 56K pts. Had all members not played to the end of their slices, the group would have dropped like a stone.

In a hotly contested event, it's sink or swim together. You have to motivate your team to play through. Or find 20 players that are already motivated. Mercing ensures those who play can win, and save those who don't from hurting others / feeling forced to play hard.

Going to use Dead Casual/Dead Serious as an example, because i am part of it. as is ^^ .. We are a casual group of mercs.. that is what we do.. if an event comes around that we all want (Galactus, 4* release).. Dead Serious gathers the sell swords and we take the keep ourselves.. If it is just another day.. play whatever, whenever, however.. if you want big alliance rewards.. the commander finds you a spot (he gets paid in thanks, not spoils unfortunately) , but over time.. out of the chaos of heroes for hire, came an alliance..

An alliance of people who chat on Line, have a good time, share info, send team ups, help each other out with tips and strats. This is what an alliance is for. If someone wants something that the group is not after/doesn't need, they get help getting it. Most competitive alliances have used mercs at one point or another, possibly even one of us.. But, if we need to take a break, or semi-retire, or, using myself here, have surgery in 2 weeks, we pop on over to Dead Casual, to sit and take up space, knowing that when we are rdy, there is a spot for us, or, a commander to find a spot for us somewhere else if we need something.

I do agree on ending Mercs though.. the word anyway, it's not the right word.. i say Heroes For Hire (HFH's) or Reinforcements.

uberhamster

It's pretty crazy to play a game format where success depends on twenty people setting aside 20-30 minutes every 8 hours for 3-7 days.



I wonder if MPQ will ever move to a less abusive system. Mercing is a symptom of the underlying disease.

Crowl

uberhamster wrote:

It's pretty crazy to play a game format where success depends on twenty people setting aside 20-30 minutes every 8 hours for 3-7 days.

I made some suggestions on how they could change pve to be less restrictive and more flexible in the suggestions forum, if people have their own suggestions, they should put them up there too, maybe the devs will introduce some of them.

GrumpySmurf1002

As someone said, bigger alliances should not really be thought of as 20 man teams. They're 40-60-100-200 man teams. At least some of the last minute shuffling is these alliances combining their scores. In our case, it was three top 150ish alliances combining into one top 20, with (limited) spillover then going to other alliances to help out friends.

Asking to lock alliances at event start won't change a whole lot. Most of the top alliances communicate well enough that the end result would be the same. They'd get answers on participation, they'd shuffle people around and you can rest assured the average required will still be ~55k (or 1.25 x max progression more generally). Especially if it's the same mechanic as Galactus, where you just have to register in one alliance and then go back to the normal alliance.

Whether or not you agree with the practice, the bigger point is that it's exists now, and it's not new. Understanding where final scores will end up is important. If you're trying to be competitive, then it's a mandatory part of the job. One hurt feeling from swapping out isn't worth the other 19 people missing out.

simonsez

Monochromize wrote:

I love how many people in here don't think Merc'ing is a prob - oh wait, that's because 90% of forum goers are those people.

And I love how people will try to bolster their whining via hyperbolic comments with absolutely no basis in fact, rather than just accept that lack of effort was to blame.

slidecage

jackstar0 wrote:

Progressions tied to alliance are a fine idea (I enjoy it greatly in Ultron/Galactus), but it really punishes new players and casual alliances beyond the rewards for serious alliances.

not really if they would tune it where it ranks on how many people are in a group.. say like he has 20,000 first round it would be 1k per member. so if your alone your first round would be 1000 health.

find a better alliance. They already pushed it from top 50 to top 100 no reason to group it more.

what was the final progression 45k.. people in my team were putting up 70 to 80K. no wonder your team did not make top 100 if they quit as soon as they get their final reward. Maybe your new or something but your going to need 1.5x final progression to even make top 100

if the poster thinks Mercing is bad for PVE stick around to the end of the season and see how bad mering gets. Few months back 8k would get you a top 100 team now its more like 12 to 13K

Der_Lex

simonsez wrote:

Monochromize wrote:

I love how many people in here don't think Merc'ing is a prob - oh wait, that's because 90% of forum goers are those people.

And I love how people will try to bolster their whining via hyperbolic comments with absolutely no basis in fact, rather than just accept that lack of effort was to blame.

But that would require actual effort on their part to improve, rather than just complain about those mean old mercs and pvp alliances coming into what they perceive as 'their' playground and taking their prizes away.

slidecage

simonsez wrote:

Monochromize wrote:

I love how many people in here don't think Merc'ing is a prob - oh wait, that's because 90% of forum goers are those people.

And I love how people will try to bolster their whining via hyperbolic comments with absolutely no basis in fact, rather than just accept that lack of effort was to blame.

maybe they put in the effort but cant keep up.. Ie my tablet account i had to find a new home for it since we were at top 250 PVP team but many merc out pushing us many times under 500 meaning no coins... cant really blame the mercers cause they have to the the same just to get the covers they need for top 100.

love how people think final progression should = top 100. best of luck there your going to need 1.5x that number or better on a 4 star

Ruinate

Crowl wrote:

uberhamster wrote:

It's pretty crazy to play a game format where success depends on twenty people setting aside 20-30 minutes every 8 hours for 3-7 days.

I made some suggestions on how they could change pve to be less restrictive and more flexible in the suggestions forum, if people have their own suggestions, they should put them up there too, maybe the devs will introduce some of them.

Haha, have you ever played Wow? A group of 40 people getting together for 4 hours, 4 days a week with perfect coordination to take down a big bad dragon.

I get made fun of for saying this, but I don't care. No vacation, party, or girl has ever brought me more joy than Wow did. The 3 years of Wow that I played was some of the best times of my life. Ah I miss my youth.

TxMoose

op - your target for 4* releases should be about 40-50% past LT progressions. here I'd say about 60K should have been what you should have expected from most of your players. 42K was passed on my first clear of the last sub, and I ground sub2 a day early leaving many points out there and I was still well into the 60ks.