Good Thing or Bad Thing: Buyer's Alliances

IamTheBiggs

Let's have a chat about a concept that has arisen known as "Buyer's Alliances".

For those unaware, this is the idea that a group of disparate people agree to temporarily leave their normal alliances to form a temporary alliance. Members agree to make a purchase at about the same time so that everyone gains the residual Command Points from each other's purchases. Once all the purchases are made, members dissipate and return to their normal alliance.

Does this sound like a good thing for everyone? Is it being disloyal to one's normal alliance or just "par for the course"? Is this the best option for mercenaries maybe?

I really want to know your thoughts before I weigh in personally (I don't want to influence anyone with my bias).

Malcrof

how people spend their money is really no-one else's business actually.

thanos8587

seriously, if youre going to drop a stark salary, why wouldnt you do this? it would be absolutely stupid not to.

and ice acknowledged it would happen and they didnt care. mo money, mo money mo money.

mjh

Malcrof wrote:

how people spend their money is really no-one else's business actually.

this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP question and has become the knee-jerk reply when someone brings this up.

I'm kind of split as to what to think of this.

One the one hand, you are being a bit disingenuous to your alliance.

On the other hand if there are people in the alliance that never purchase (and rightfully so) then it makes sense to leave to distribute CP rewards to others that can reciprocate.

CT1888

I think it depends on the Alliance to a degree; if someone is in an alliance where hardly anyone makes purchases, I think there should be no issue. If there are a number of folk who make purchases, then one who nips out to join a buyers alliance whenever they want to make a purchase, then that's a **** manoeuvre and poor form not returning the favour.

I've had 2 or 3 Cp from alliance purchases since they started, and I don't really expect many, and if someone said they were wanting to nip out and buy a Stark's Salary, and get an extra 133 CP points from a buyers alliance, I'd say crack on, and hopefully those extra 5 tokens will help you score higher for the alliance.
I say this as a F2p player.

Unknown

You are mentioning the ethical issue. It depends on each situation.

IMO:

1 If members of an alliance have played several seasons together I think it's fair buyers divide the prizes with everyone. If there are any free player in the alliance he also deserves because it will improve your rooster. If the free player was bad, the alliance would have kicked.

2 ° There alliances with several developments: Team A, Team B, Team C, Team D. In these cases it is acceptable for the most spenders members come together in a separate alliance and divide the greatest rewards, but communicating to the other members of the alliance. As are all the same matrix is like a unique alliance.

3rd Alliances with high turnover of members (mercenaries, casual, bad) can combine with other alliances to the spenders more members join in a separate alliance to divide the rewards. In these cases, non-rewards recipients do not deserve it. Reasons: Mercenary play a time and probably never will again. CASUAL often hinder the alliance because they score below the target for lack of time. BAD, they need neither comment.

Konman

I'd say change alliances for real if this is your plan, not just a brief interlude for some Command Points on the side, like an MPQ Key Party. And what's to stop the Buyers from making it a permanent relationship anyway? Call your new alliance "Whales-R-Us" or some such. 20 Players, each buying a Stark Salary every week? That's a lot of Command Points, a lot of 40-packs, a lot of Legendary Tokens.

XandorXerxes

You liked MPQ enough to make a purchase before CP came with purchases. You liked your alliance enough to stick with them until now. To quit to get maximum CP by essentially merc'ing together with people is entirely selfish. If you are doing this to your alliance or someone is doing it to your alliance, drop that person/alliance immediately. You either don't respect them enough or they don't respect you enough.

Especially if you're at an alliance-scoring threshold - say you're barely top-100 - if a member is quitting, joining up with a bunch of guys and gals above and slightly below you and giving them all CP while stiffing you for it, then find someone else who makes just as many points. (S)he is already helping out your competitors by feeding them legendary tokens, it's not like you're losing anything.

Jarvind

If your alliance has a problem with it, they won't take you back. If they don't, they will. I don't see how this is anything other than an imagined problem that resolves itself.

Dauthi

XandorXerxes wrote:

You liked MPQ enough to make a purchase before CP came with purchases. You liked your alliance enough to stick with them until now. To quit to get maximum CP by essentially merc'ing together with people is entirely selfish.

I agree that it is selfish. I am also curious how efficient it is though. If these ad hoc alliances aren't reaching a maximum of 20 people, it is throwing CP into the toilet on top of being selfish. Do they wait for a full 20? That seems like a lot of work.

Pongie

Similar things is happening with the pve family of alliances. At the end of the season, they will pool the pvp players from their family to reap the alliance rewards.

I would say good on them and give credit to the commanders for managing it. A lot of behind the scene communication and coordination.

puppychow

I won't mention names, but today I came across one guy who currently has 69 covers on his roster, and apparently joined a buyers' club. Every member in that group is a commander, meaning that the members cannot be kicked out.

If all twenty members are willing to spend major $$$$, then more power to them. Of course, if even one member refuses to spend $$$, then it becomes an issue.

Lee T

I'm a bit surprised by this. I expected as a result of this system to see the big whales agregate in pod alliances. I did not expect temporary arrangements, but the rules of humankind says a game will be gamed.

That being said I understand them. Not because I spend money but because I do not (anymore). As a result whenever I get a few CPs because another alliance members bought stuff, I feel like a freeloader. I do not feel guilty to the point of buying stuff again, but I feel like I do not deserve it.

If someone in my alliance temporry left to do his CP business with other buying guys before returning (or not), I would'nt blame him.

El Satanno

I'm a team loyalty kind of guy. This sort of behavior really rubs me the wrong way. This quote pretty much nails my stance:

XandorXerxes wrote:

You liked MPQ enough to make a purchase before CP came with purchases. You liked your alliance enough to stick with them until now. To quit to get maximum CP by essentially merc'ing together with people is entirely selfish. If you are doing this to your alliance or someone is doing it to your alliance, drop that person/alliance immediately. You either don't respect them enough or they don't respect you enough.

I suppose if it was all done above board, that is clearly stated "Hey, I want to do one of these whale pod things to get more CoPs, is that cool?" then I might be more receptive. Odds are good, I'd still be all "**** you, we're not good enough now that there's freebies? Piss off."

dr tinykittylove

If/when I spend again, I'd keep it in my alliance, but that's just me.

However, I don't see how it is different from mercing for a pvp/pve for extra covers/hp?

franckynight

There are a lot of buyers clubs of any kind.. Cross alliances.. Others in alliances..As a teamate, When/if ppl want to spend money and maximise it i dont see why i will hold a grudge about that.. The real problem is lying more in the 5* meta who is clearly becoming a p2w stuff.

evil panda

Neither good nor bad. If people moving to these alliances piss others off, it's likely because they are being **** about it, and a **** is going to find some way to piss other people off regardless.

I'm in one of those alliances that "rides or dies" together so I don't think we'd be in this situation...but I don't fault anyone from engaging in profit maximizing behavior. Again, unless they are a jerk about it

Kjeldbjerg

My alliance is mixed between paying players and f2p, and being one of the f2p players, I don't mind one bit if the paying players get together in a temp alliance to get the most out of their spending.

It's a win/win actually. Either the stronger players get stronger, being able to score more for the alliance or make more cupcakes for the lower players. Or the lower players get stronger, again increasing the overall potential points for the alliance.

JVReal

I believe it should be up to the spender of the actual money.

If they feel generous enough to spend it and share it with their current alliance regardless of whether others are buying too, great! That is much more philanthropic.

If they want to maximize their CP gains, since plopping down a Stark Salary is no small thing (in my opinion), I think that is very good for getting the most bang for your buck.

As a F2P individual, anytime an alliance mate shares CP from a purchase with me, I am very much appreciative of that. I understand that they spend money and therefore are entitled to maximize the amount of value they get from their purchase. If they decide to share that with other non-purchasers, that's just extra cool.

We didn't get stuff before they introduced CP when they purchased, so it's no loss at all getting nothing after they introduced CP. I think that the ones being greedy or selfish are the ones that feel entitled to another person's CP.

simonsez

People are 100% free to spend their money however they want. The only thing I don't like about this is that it speeds up how quickly this game is going down the toilet, by enabling more people to get usable 5*s faster.

puppychow

simonsez wrote:

People are 100% free to spend their money however they want. The only thing I don't like about this is that it speeds up how quickly this game is going down the toilet, by enabling more people to get usable 5*s faster.

Yes and no. With the buyers club that I mentioned in a post on the first page of this thread, I took a look at every member roster, and most of them do not have well covered . Even for the guy with 69 covers, he's in my season bracket and STILL not in first place (and has no shot realistically b/c the first place guy is a virtual pvp demon). So having multiple max 450s on your roster, by itself, doesn't buy you a spot on the podium (for first, second, or third) for the season.

I'm sure D3 WANTS more players to have covers, but dang that 10% draw rate keeps getting in the way of their grand master plan.

Add: If the game developer ever decides to up the draw rate to something like 50%, THEN I will be concerned.