The era of mercs needs to end.

Scoregasms

Good lesson learned here is that for new 4* character release, adjust your expectations and have your 20 folks score a decent amount above just top progression if you really want to secure your T100 spot. Having all 20 above 65K for this event would have made you a lock and not terribly difficult to accomplish. For non new character releases, top progression is more than sufficient most likely but shouldn't be something even remotely considered when comparing to new character release PVEs. Especially this Unstable ISO PVE where the last sub is arguably the easiest to grind in MPQ History, lol.

Other posters have already commented on why replacements and swaps happen. Top 100 Alliances have all sorts in there, but trying to maintain a full 20 who do both PVP and PVE at a high level is really quite rare if you want to save folks from burning out on this game. A lot of the swaps will happen when the current PVP is over and you have just enough time to move into the PVE group. There's a lot of coordination and whatnot that is involved for the bigger alliances (like trying to get PVE scores for 100+ people and then organizing them all into different groups).

If you have a solid group of 20, it's actually way less work if you just put in a little extra during the event for new character releases and then you really can relax at the end.

babinro

fmftint wrote:

It's not mercs that caused your alliance to fall, it was not enough points from your members. The cut line for T100 in Unstable Iso was 56.5k/member, 135% of max progression. Your team can't stop playing because they think they're safe.

But it's easier to blame "mercs"

I'd definitely argue that mercs are the bigger 'problem' here. Assuming you choose to see it as a problem to begin with.

It's true that the most points are made available in the last sub and if people slack they'll fall behind. But a lot of players know this and will try to motivate people to grind as they watch their placement gradually slip.

That said, there's no denying the significant changes teams go through in new character pve's. You see a ton of new alliance names that you wouldn't see in PvP and they are a direct result of mercs or alliance's merging their best players. In either case, you have a new group of 20 people joined together for less than 24 hours.

If mercs TRULY made no meaningful difference than we could happily run new character pve's that end at the same time as pvp's and the season without any player complaints whatsoever.

Mercs make a huge difference. I can think of maybe one new character pve this YEAR where my current alliance would have finished in the top 100 without mercs. Even then it would have come down to the wire.

JVReal

locking alliance members in at the beginning of PVE would be fine and dandy, if they actually gave you time between events to rearrange your alliance. As it stands, you have one PVE starting as soon as the other one ends. If someone starts the event that you didn't plan to have on your team for that event, you'd be stuck with them.

I'm part of a bigger group of alliances, and yes we shuffle around. We have PVP alliances that need very little movement for PVP, and we have PVE alliances that need very little movement, but when a 4* release comes out, we tell all the alliances under our umbrella that we will take the top 40 scores and put them into 2 alliances for Top 100, and merc out any extra's. It's the fairest method we have for our group.

Personally, I would have liked X-23, but I had too much going on this weekend to put in the necessary time to help my alliance out so I didn't occupy a spot in either of our PVE alliances so that those that did have the ability, could all reap the rewards.

It is this cooperative spirit that also drives people to step aside if they can't perform to allow the rest to still reap some benefits from their work.

GrumpySmurf1002

JVReal wrote:

I'm part of a bigger group of alliances, and yes we shuffle around. We have PVP alliances that need very little movement for PVP, and we have PVE alliances that need very little movement, but when a 4* release comes out, we tell all the alliances under our umbrella that we will take the top 40 scores and put them into 2 alliances for Top 100, and merc out any extra's. It's the fairest method we have for our group.

Personally, I would have liked X-23, but I had too much going on this weekend to put in the necessary time to help my alliance out so I didn't occupy a spot in either of our PVE alliances so that those that did have the ability, could all reap the rewards.

It is this cooperative spirit that also drives people to step aside if they can't perform to allow the rest to still reap some benefits from their work.

To add, you don't even need a mega-alliance to do this. It is quite easy to build a working/mercing relationship with other (most likely PvP only) alliances just for new releases. In addition to the benefits of meeting your goals, it reduces the stress level of the whole process.

puppychow

Arphaxad wrote:

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.

I am speaking from experience as a former commander in 3 different alliances and merced for several more competitive pve alliances. If an alliance is serious about ensuring top 100 placement in a new character debut event, the commandership MUST have at least one commander taking the very last shard/time slot, AND be around to boot/recruit people to ensure that the alliance stays within top 100.

You simply cannot expect to remain in top 100 when there is 12 hours to go, because that is far too much time remaining for points to be added and high scorers recruited.

If D3 wants to discourage the mercenary system, they can simply lock events to the first 20 alliance member participants a la ultron/galactus events. The fact that D3 doesn't lock for every new character debut event should tell you something.

firethorne

In my opinion, there is just too much emphasis on the whole alliance concept itself. Here's a crazy idea, make rewards reflective of a players efforts actually playing the game, and not their ability to coordinate pools of employees, er players, for their desired metrics. More puzzle game, less middle management simulator.

TxMoose

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

To add, you don't even need a mega-alliance to do this. It is quite easy to build a working/mercing relationship with other (most likely PvP only) alliances just for new releases. In addition to the benefits of meeting your goals, it reduces the stress level of the whole process.

excellent point. I'm in a pvp alliance and we have no pve requirements at all. we have a partner alliance that is a pve alliance and they have no pvp requirements. there are some in each alliance that does both aspects of the game well and they go back and forth. not sure if you still call them mercs if they're the same few over and over again, but it works well for the 36 or so players in both alliances combined.

fmftint

firethorne wrote:

In my opinion, there is just too much emphasis on the whole alliance concept itself. Here's a crazy idea, make rewards reflective of a players efforts actually playing the game, and not their ability to coordinate pools of employees, er players, for their desired metrics. More puzzle game, less middle management simulator.

Alliance management is the ultimate puzzle, and the only true head to head PvP there is

Ducky

babinro wrote:

If mercs TRULY made no meaningful difference than we could happily run new character pve's that end at the same time as pvp's and the season without any player complaints whatsoever.

Um, no. I will still complain because trying to finish a sub/PvE event and make sure I maintain my PvP placement when both end at the same time is absolutely frustrating.

TxMoose

interesting concept. you'd have to merc somewhere at the beginning. get logged into the event in that alliance, but then you'd be free to return to your home alliance - like galactus or ultron. but like aes said, then any RL interruptions and one person could affect 19 others. this would be pretty hard for commanders to manage unknown mercs and partnerships like mentioned before would be even more valuable.

Unknown

Some say that mercenaries are unfair.

Injustice is: Have the obligation to dispute a pve or pvp being that you do not need any reward. I bet that more than 100 people disputing the tournament want the reward. While playing the tournament'm taking the cover of these people and I'll get just few of ISO.

Injustice is: Being forced to play the championships and make the minimum required being that you have to deliver reports to your boss, prepare papers and studying for tests in the same week. If you do not reach the minimum points or to stop playing any event you will be kicked out of the alliance. Already happened to me.

I'd rather stay without alliance and only play when I have time and have some that may be helpful. With that I can devote time and effort in addition to getting a good grade for the alliance.

If any alliance which is among the top 100 pvp accept me even me playing when I can and harming all other members is fair, I think I have to revise my concepts.

TxMoose

vinicius18 wrote:

Some say that mercenaries are unfair.

Injustice is: Have the obligation to dispute a pve or pvp being that you do not need any reward. I bet that more than 100 people disputing the tournament want the reward. While playing the tournament'm taking the cover of these people and I'll get just few of ISO.

Injustice is: Being forced to play the championships and make the minimum required being that you have to deliver reports to your boss, prepare papers and studying for tests in the same week. If you do not reach the minimum points or to stop playing any event you will be kicked out of the alliance. Already happened to me.

I'd rather stay without alliance and only play when I have time and have some that may be helpful. With that I can devote time and effort in addition to getting a good grade for the alliance.

If any alliance which is among the top 100 pvp accept me even me playing when I can and harming all other members is fair, I think I have to revise my concepts.

vin - talk to some pvp alliance commanders with openings. I know we absorb a low score every now and then (400-600). we had one who had a daughter this weekend and didn't perform normally. he didn't get booted. it can't happen early/often, but many t100 alliances out there are not run by gestapo commanders. if it is happening more than 10-20% of the time, you might be better in a less rigid group, but I still recommend a group. a t250 group still gets 50hp and 1Kiso - that adds up.

Dauthi

DuckyV wrote:

Secondly, mercs actually help keep alliances together by not forcing people who don't want to burn out by playing PvE the option to skip it and just sub out of the event instead of being kicked permanently.

I disagree. Mercing itself forces everyone to Merc. If it stopped it would be tremendously easier to get into top 100 because alliances would have to go PVP or PVE, or go hardcore and do both. This is why it is frustrating for hardcore alliances, they get a great bunch of guys together and work hard but it is still nothing compared to mercing people who grinded like crazy.

Sure, it is great for those who like to Merc as it gives more freedom. However I feel like if you don't want to dedicate yourself to a group of people (you know, the literal definition of "Alliance"), you shouldn't be getting the rewards for one anyways...

wymtime

Dauthi wrote:

DuckyV wrote:

Secondly, mercs actually help keep alliances together by not forcing people who don't want to burn out by playing PvE the option to skip it and just sub out of the event instead of being kicked permanently.

I disagree. Mercing itself forces everyone to Merc. If it stopped it would be tremendously easier to get into top 100 because alliances would have to go PVP or PVE, or go hardcore and do both. This is why it is frustrating for hardcore alliances, they get a great bunch of guys together and work hard but it is still nothing compared to mercing people who grinded like crazy.

Sure, it is great for those who like to Merc as it gives more freedom. However I feel like if you don't want to dedicate yourself to a group of people (you know, the literal definition of "Alliance"), you shouldn't be getting the rewards for one anyways...

This topic comes up every couple new characters and is always interesting to me. In PVE if you locked the alliances when you joined it would cause players to merc in the beginning of the event instead of at the end. A problem with this is do you extend it to seasons and PVP? It might work for an individual PVP but the season could kill an alliance. There have been many time players have quite the game mid season.
I personally think bringing on a merc is good for the game. It allows players to run events with other alliances and sometimes they decide to stay in that alliance. More players get to know more players.
I also don't like mercing because as a co-comander I have had to find mercs and remove a player for an event so 19 other players can win the reward. Both sides have valid points to make and if you look at Ultron and Galactus events they can be very fun and get your alliance ramped up to play.
I say the Devs should experiment a little more with more alliance progression rewards in general for the season or PVE or PVP. There is room for both in the game

Arphaxad

To address this one last time, my alliance did not rest on it's laurels, take off the last 12 hours, or slack. We had a majority of the alliance working hard to get points down to the last second. I'm proud of the amazing alliance we have.

If you take a look at my OP and get your emotions out of it you see that my complaint is that an alliance of 20 players can not compete against an alliance of 10-15 who then take on mercs in the hours of a story event.

I agree that locking alliances would lend to a lot of unforeseen consequences that would hurt alliances. I think the better solution is that player points only count when earned as a member of the alliance.

If an alliance is not supposed to be 20 players that work together for the ENTIRE event, then why have alliances?

Omega Red

Arphaxad wrote:

an alliance of 20 players can not compete against an alliance of 10-15 who then take on mercs in the hours of a story event.

Why not? It's still 20 guys vs. 20 guys. Just make sure everyone in your alliance scores 1.5 above progression and you'll win your reward. There's nothing unfair or dishonest about alliances that employ mercs. You want to beat them? Outscore them. Simple.

Arphaxad wrote:

If an alliance is not supposed to be 20 players that work together for the ENTIRE event, then why have alliances?

Who told you it's supposed to be like that? That's just your assumption. Alliances exist to promote engagement and reward those who get more involved with the game, but the only events that are truly designed to reward actual teamwork are Ultron and Galactus. For everything else alliances work simply as compilers of individual efforts.

BearVenger

I see this brought up as a rhetorical question often, but never with a consensus answer:

What is the purpose of Alliances in MPQ?

How one answers that question says a lot about what you think of the game and what are your standards of "fair play."

I think I might just start a separate thread on this tomorrow to see what everyone's answer is, and by extension, to see what their standards are.

(FWIW, I agree very much with Omega: I believe the devs' intention with Alliances was the social-interaction carrot/peer-pressure stick to keep folks wanting to come back for another day. If it leads to more HP sales, it sticks; if it leads to less revenue and fewer engaged players, it goes.)

jimstarooney

A lot of good reasons for mercs Op gives u a lot to think about.as a commander of several top alliances and now a commander of a t25 alliance i will say this:if i never had any need for mercs i would never have met some of the crazy and wonderful ppl i have in my contact list through mpq.there is a world outside the game and the players u already know in your alliance.as one pretty well known player remarked on marvels facebook room,there is whats like an underground scene outside the game.get on line,make contacts and through these contacts make more.if i never had any need for mercs i would have only known the game,and not the social aspects of mpq and the scene and history behind it.

Der_Lex

Arphaxad wrote:

If you take a look at my OP and get your emotions out of it

That's pretty rich coming from a guy who started out with

Arphaxad wrote:

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.

Dauthi

wymtime wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

DuckyV wrote:

Secondly, mercs actually help keep alliances together by not forcing people who don't want to burn out by playing PvE the option to skip it and just sub out of the event instead of being kicked permanently.

I disagree. Mercing itself forces everyone to Merc. If it stopped it would be tremendously easier to get into top 100 because alliances would have to go PVP or PVE, or go hardcore and do both. This is why it is frustrating for hardcore alliances, they get a great bunch of guys together and work hard but it is still nothing compared to mercing people who grinded like crazy.

Sure, it is great for those who like to Merc as it gives more freedom. However I feel like if you don't want to dedicate yourself to a group of people (you know, the literal definition of "Alliance"), you shouldn't be getting the rewards for one anyways...

This topic comes up every couple new characters and is always interesting to me. In PVE if you locked the alliances when you joined it would cause players to merc in the beginning of the event instead of at the end. A problem with this is do you extend it to seasons and PVP? It might work for an individual PVP but the season could kill an alliance. There have been many time players have quite the game mid season.
I personally think bringing on a merc is good for the game. It allows players to run events with other alliances and sometimes they decide to stay in that alliance. More players get to know more players.
I also don't like mercing because as a co-comander I have had to find mercs and remove a player for an event so 19 other players can win the reward. Both sides have valid points to make and if you look at Ultron and Galactus events they can be very fun and get your alliance ramped up to play.
I say the Devs should experiment a little more with more alliance progression rewards in general for the season or PVE or PVP. There is room for both in the game

It's definitely not an easy problem to solve, but I also feel like it should be looked into. Incentives would definitely be the way to go, the larger the better. Galactus/ultron events feel more exciting because you are alone in this event with just your friends/allies. Any other event you can simply bail yourself out with Mercs worst case scenario.

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...

I can sympathize, my alliance tried to do it all only to realize an "alliance of all trades" is no longer realistic due to mercing/swapping. After losing a few 4* covers, we made a change:

Shake N Bake started ChickenTonight to have a player base who would eventually join us, while it still retains this status today, it is mostly a PVE alliance. When 4* PVEs roll out, we take the best of both (20/40) players and put them together, as neither alliance will make it anyways. We went from an iffy top 100 to top 10 or top 25 every 4* event. Swapping makes a huge impact because you have hardcore players in any alliance, and they carry the lower scores. However when you put hardcore players all together it's a home-run.

You used to have to pay HP for slots in alliances to make it a 20 man alliance, D3 removed this because it wasn't fair as 20 man alliances had a enormous advantage over anything below it. The current system is no different, a 40, 60, 80, etc man alliance has a huge advantage over every other alliance currently. Instead of a pay wall, you just have to know about it, and manage it.