The era of mercs needs to end.

simonsez

Dauthi wrote:

It's definitely not an easy problem to solve

I kinda think it is. You remove all alliance awards from PvP and PvE, bolster the individual rewards to compensate, and run more frequent Ultron/Galactus events as the events where we get alliance awards.

PeterGibbons316

simonsez wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

It's definitely not an easy problem to solve

I kinda think it is. You remove all alliance awards from PvP and PvE, bolster the individual rewards to compensate, and run more frequent Ultron/Galactus events as the events where we get alliance awards.

I agree. I think this is the best and easiest solution.

Omega Red

I would love it if all the new character releases were done via Ultron/Galactus. Those events are much more fun, easier to play and more socially rewarding than your standard PVE.

But then of course you would see the same people who hate mercs complaining over how just a handful of elite alliances can win all three covers.

It doesn't matter how you do new character releases, it doesn't matter whether there are alliances or not, mercs or not. You'll always find people blaming a scapegoat for their failures, instead of admitting that they simply have been outscored by better, more dedicated players.

Unknown

Omega Red wrote:

I would love it if all the new character releases were done via Ultron/Galactus. Those events are much more fun, easier to play and more socially rewarding than your standard PVE.

But then of course you would see the same people who hate mercs complaining over how just a handful of elite alliances can win all three covers.

It doesn't matter how you do new character releases, it doesn't matter whether there are alliances or not, mercs or not. You'll always find people blaming a scapegoat for their failures, instead of admitting that they simply have been outscored by better, more dedicated players.

I don't know, galactus seemed to be a solid hit (round 2) for getting PVE covers. I saw multiple postings on the forums about alliances that got to round 7 and knew that was their ceiling (or 6 or 5 etc). It seemed like your alliance could only progress to it's limit and people understood that.

Plus, it made hitting round 8 and getting all the rewards more enjoyable since you felt like you accomplished something that wasn't available to everyone (and it wasn't just because you put in a billion hours of game play, it was literally your roster and ability to select teams that could win).

Also, galactus theoretically did not have a limit on how many alliances could get all the covers. If every alliance was strong enough, they could get the covers. Current PVE has a limit, which is why merc's are so helpful to get.

BearVenger

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

It's definitely not an easy problem to solve

I kinda think it is. You remove all alliance awards from PvP and PvE, bolster the individual rewards to compensate, and run more frequent Ultron/Galactus events as the events where we get alliance awards.

I agree. I think this is the best and easiest solution.

I don't like moves that would make the game more individualistic.

Granted, I almost always place outside the top 100 in most PvP and PvE events, individually and in alliance, so I wouldn't be too much affected by that kind of change.

I like the mercs when it's a way to give alliancepeeps a breather. I started playing before alliances were created and burned out after Season 3 (I think). I like the idea of getting team-score rewards, even if it means someone less-developed or less-dedicated than I occasionally gets the same l00t I do. I don't know how many players can grind nonstop, season after season. In fact, my lack of commitment has been the only thing that keeps me from mercing.

MPQ players are a crafty bunch, and any "simple, easy" changes are going to get exploited to Wakanda and back, and we'll mine all the Vibranium before we're done.

So for that, and to please the diversity of players, I like having a smattering of setups for events: PvP, PvE, gauntlets, simulators, large brackets, small-brackets, lock-in alliances, team scores, no alliances, HP buy-ins, non-season-scoring tourneys, top tiers, and score thresholds.

Pretty much everything, except 7-day-events, I'm excited for. Plus, fluctuating the setups keeps a few of us from super-exploiting the rules.

Omega Red

barrok wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

I would love it if all the new character releases were done via Ultron/Galactus. Those events are much more fun, easier to play and more socially rewarding than your standard PVE.

But then of course you would see the same people who hate mercs complaining over how just a handful of elite alliances can win all three covers.

It doesn't matter how you do new character releases, it doesn't matter whether there are alliances or not, mercs or not. You'll always find people blaming a scapegoat for their failures, instead of admitting that they simply have been outscored by better, more dedicated players.

I don't know, galactus seemed to be a solid hit (round 2) for getting PVE covers. I saw multiple postings on the forums about alliances that got to round 7 and knew that was their ceiling (or 6 or 5 etc). It seemed like your alliance could only progress to it's limit and people understood that.

Plus, it made hitting round 8 and getting all the rewards more enjoyable since you felt like you accomplished something that wasn't available to everyone (and it wasn't just because you put in a billion hours of game play, it was literally your roster and ability to select teams that could win).

Also, galactus theoretically did not have a limit on how many alliances could get all the covers. If every alliance was strong enough, they could get the covers. Current PVE has a limit, which is why merc's are so helpful to get.

There is never going to be another character release as easy as Galactus 2. Mark my words. That event was just the devs doing damage control.

simonsez

BearVenger wrote:

I don't like moves that would make the game more individualistic.

If there's always an Ultron/Galactus event going, doesn't that make the game less individualistic? My experience is that alliances are way more engaged in that than they are with the alliance ranking in PvE/PvP... probably because for most, the alliance rank tier you end up in is a foregone conclusion.

Pwuz_

Well, one idea for encouraging fewer mercs would be to add some benefit for staying in the same alliance for a certain time frame (say a bonus for every season a player stayed in the same alliance.)

That would encourage players to stay in the same alliance, not mercing; it would also encourage alliances to keep the same players for longer periods and be more forgiving when players occasionally have real life things that keep them from achieving certain scores or such.

I'm not sure how easy this would be to implement retroactively, but I know a large part of my alliance have been with me since last year.

WelcomeDeath

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.

Not necessarily true. You may have had alliances with several players that choose slice 5, not earlier slices, that just caught up. May be a case of less than optimal grinding. Your rank (personal and alliance) 12 hours out has nothing to do with final rank unless you're all s5 and all grinding optimally (though this would mean you'd place much higher.)

Arphaxad wrote:

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.

Why is the current system dishonest? Best 20 players that FINISH the event together, best rewards. Also, how do you know that groups with multiple alliances aren't switching players out to reward the players that score high in pve when their main focus is pvp? They're not in the same exact alliance, no, but they're in the same group.
Furthermore, some alliances encourage their members to merchandise for non-focus events OR find places FOR them to merc. I used to do this regularly when I was in pvp alliances but still played pve. Why shouldn't players that do both have an opportunity to be rewarded if their alliance does not?

Arphaxad wrote:

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.

Torn on this one. Special events, yes. But every event? I don't know. While I believe my alliance would rake it in every time since we regularly place top 25 in pve including new character releases AND completed r8 both galactic runs, sign up at start of every event could be tricky. Things come up, and alliances shouldn't be punished if players stop playing, whether by choice or real life events.

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

Not a good argument if you actually are looking for a change. If you're saying players that play in pvp alliances shouldn't also be able to be rewarded for pve events they play, that would discourage some pvp players from playing pve at all, which would mean less revenue for d3, which could mean the end of pve. Then what would your pve alliance do?
If, on the other hand, you're suggesting that pvp alliances are just stealing all kinds of mercs to place in pve, you're just wrong. Many pvp alliances don't have any pve requirements whatsoever. They have no interest in it. Some only do pve for new releases, which makes the competition harder as more groups are aiming for top 100, which means your group needs to step it up.

Arphaxad wrote:

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.

I don't understand this at all. How does the game cater to pvp only? New character releases ONLY happen in pve, no road to do that in pvp other than individual score of 1000 in new character featured pvp OR 1st place in future events that character us rewarded. Top 100 in pve is MUCH easier. Legendary tokens...how many people complete final progression in pve vs 1300 in pvp? The numbers aren't even close. Also, there is no way a 2-3* transitioned could do it in pvp, but it happens all the time in pve (see the 7 million-probably merged-threads about 2* players roster in a 5*. How do you think they got it?) Placement rewards are easier as most stop playing after progression instead of pvp format where people try to get as much as possible. So...where is the catering?
Finally, how does anyone know how much of the switching prior to end of events is due to mercing vs due to having to legitimately replace a player because they just left? You speak of mercing as if it is a terrible thing, but a lot of times it's just finding the best possible person to fill a position...also known as "recruiting"

PeterGibbons316

BearVenger wrote:

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

It's definitely not an easy problem to solve

I kinda think it is. You remove all alliance awards from PvP and PvE, bolster the individual rewards to compensate, and run more frequent Ultron/Galactus events as the events where we get alliance awards.

I agree. I think this is the best and easiest solution.

I don't like moves that would make the game more individualistic.

Because nothing says "teamwork" like always booting the lowest scorers to place top 100.

The current alliance rewards are ALREADY individualistic because of mercs. Individuals play without an alliance, score well, and then **** themselves out to whoever they can to grab an alliance reward and are gone as soon as they came.

Pongie

I used to be a commander of a top 100 PVE alliance and let me tell you that it's never fun to merc. The pain and problems it cause by bumping lowest scores caused way too much problems. People get bitter if they are booted, and if you don't, the rest of the alliance does. It's a no win situation. While I was in a top 10 PVE alliance, this was less of an issue as the core team would be strong enough to always make it over top 100. However, after spending 5 months in that alliance, I find myself not needing most of the 3* rewards anymore. Instead of dragging the team down on those events, I decided to move down to the top 100 team. After two months, I got fed up with having to deal with mercs and people being bitter for not playing well and demanding alliance rewards. In the end I left that alliance and joined another with a no merc policy. Much happier here and it does feel more like a family. If you can't play, communication is key and we try our best to carry them through the tough\busy times.

slidecage

would not have to boot people if people Knew 1.5 over the last reward was needed to make a top 100 team. Just like 1000 + is now needed for a top 100 PVP reward.

if you have 15 people playing for 100,000 (say 1.5 needed) and got 5 that stop at 60k why allow those people to drag you down

Der_Lex

Mercs are not all about getting booted, though. For us it's the other way around, getting a good merc on board helps us secure top 100 or even top 50 in a way that allows for one or two members who have real life obligations to get a cover they never would have gotten otherwise, since the rest of us can make up for their lower scores. And since we've been a 19 man alliance for the past couple of seasons, nobody needs to leave.