Upcoming Patch Preview - R49 Discussion

DD-The-Mighty

IceIX wrote:

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

A bit off topic but what was the reasoning behind the recent changes in the PVP reward structure? Or is this just for the hood and divine tournaments only? -as i also noticed the removing of shields in those as well-
Will we see a return of the old reward structure or will this be an experiment?

Part experiment, part rebalancing. One of the things that we noted for most players is that players tend to be cover constrained at start, then become Iso-8 constrained at transition from 1*->2*, then go back to being cover constrained when they're starting up to 3*s but not at the same amount as 1*->2*. Players that are transitioning from 1 to 2 almost without fail end up getting a very good stock of 2* characters that aren't leveled up for a long while because they're doing just fine with their 1*s, while they have enough ability comics to hit above a 1* level. This then causes a lot of those players to never really see the potential in 2*s since they haven't leveled them up as much. We've increased the Iso-8 outflow rate recently through cover sales which allows players across the board to be less Iso-8 constrained. This *should* bring those transitioning players more into parity with the 2*->3* players in that they'll level 2*s as they get covers instead of sitting on full abilitied unleveled 2*s.

Long story short: Players get 2*s fairly commonly as-is through pack draws and some rewards. Giving tons more out through all mid-tier prizes maxes those 2*s out very quickly ability-wise long before most players ever have the Iso to level them. Changing the cover distribution rate means that players will level their characters more in line with gaining covers for those characters. At least, that's the idea. We may have it set right at the moment, we may not. Luckily, Tourney rewards are something that are fairly easy to tweak.

I think i get it for the most part. Would keeping all three colours (2*s) but increasing the number of spots-to-win help? As i noticed its now one colour but more leaderboard places to get them -a bitter sweet of sorts-. I mostly noticed people having a hard time getting the second 3* colour as there were only 10 spots (6-15) versus the 30(?) spots to get the lower 3* cover. and making top 15 can be quite a bear. though im guessing pve will be the new main source of getting 3*s.

Unknown

Is this the reason for the recent change of pve rewards to heroics instead of specified *** or event tokens?
This is under the assumption that most heroics are more generous ( to put it mildly ) with handing out **, thus skewing transitioning * players to participate in pve events more as well as discouraging *** with cover maxed ** characters from desiring to place well in PvE since rubberbanding will take care of overall event placement for the new cover in the end?
ergo, you guys expect * to gather covers from pve benefiting from scaling. While later on, due to scaling, once their comfortable in their ** teams, move on to pvp like lighting rounds for ISO to max the covers(due to wall of 150-230s eventually).
Some master plan to gently push *** roosters out of grinding hard for pve(since they can still do it even with a wall of 230s) in order to get scaling down to an acceptable level for mid level players?

SunCrusher

jozier wrote:

I think high HP costs for slots is a good thing. It will alleviate some of the concern people have about the necessity of alliances.

If alliances are around 5-8 players typically, that's not going to be as big a deal as if you had a 20 person alliance rolling around.

I read through the Alliance forum before this announcement went live and what you said was/is part of my exact concern

All the hardcore players are all grouped together and so it's guaranteed that they will dominate and continue to dominate ad nauseum if there is a strong Alliance-geared reward system. Not only will they reap the best individual rewards but they will reap the best Alliance rewards, too.

Then, while they grow and reap the double rewards, everyone else struggles to play catch-up and the gap between the strong players in strong Alliances and everyone else starts widening faster than it can be closed.

Already, there is more than enough competition regarding recruitment (must have blah blah blah requirements - all high 3 star roster etc) and it will only get more intense the more strongly Alliances play a part in gameplay.

If this is where this game is going (and yes, I know - too soon to tell) I would like to know before I sink any more money into it, but that's just me and my personal thoughts on the matter.

(Just to be clear, it isn't that I think Alliances and even Alliance-based rewards in general are a bad idea because that isn't it. I have just seen things go a little crazy in games where GvG becomes the dominating thing in both gameplay and how a player progresses in the game.)

Unknown

How dominate 1 alliance will be rests on 1 thing. Nick Fury's wallet. Hopefully Stark isn't backing him in this endeavor.

Unknown

Wouldn't it be smarter, from a recruitment side, to actively recruit obsessive compulsive starters and hope that their low-scaling and MMR values allow them to totally dominate their first few events? Then you kick them unless they pony up the HP for a new roster slot, so that you're always exploiting the meteoric early game rise without being bogged down by the mid-level slump.

There is a lot of concern over alliance members falling into a "rich get richer" feedback loop and dominating the competition, but I'm not sure that that sort of thing is possible in this game. There is a very real power ceiling in this game (level 141 3* teams right now, at least until any 4* characters are worth developing), and once you start approaching it you're still more or less competitive with all of the other players. Unless powerful alliance members are getting totally new covers that other players aren't, the advantage they gain from winning will be quantitative rather than qualitative (and not necessarily a source of game-breaking imbalance).

It is conceivably a problem that dominant guilds might always win alliance competitions, thus denying top prizes to any other alliances. This concern, while a real possibility, could be easily alleviated by either increasing the top ranks for prizes (top 3 or 5 alliances for top prizes instead of top 1) or by putting the emphasis in alliance rewards on progression rather than outright competition (in which case the dominant alliances will get their prizes more quickly but everyone will have a chance) or both.

Nothing terrifying or insurmountable enough to quell rightful pre-alliance excitement.

Unknown

Don't see anything like 'pm/chat with people in alliance'. AAMOF there's not even a note/description on the alliance, just a name.

Unknown

I think I would have zero issue with the cost of each alliance roster slot if there was an alliance treasury that members could donate to. And as mentioned earlier, alliance progression rewards could also have an HP reward that would get added to the treasury.

Overall an excellent foundational patch. I'm happy to see things getting set up for future releases.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

No, we're not expecting many, if any, Alliances to rush to 20. That's 19,500 HP to go to max at the moment. But what it *does* do is let us see at a high level what people value Alliance slots at and when they stop valuing them. This is very much a "vote with your wallet" situation. We're not expecting Alliance leaders to want to drop 20K Hero Points. But it's easier to dial down as needed than it is to find out that we've undervalued slots and knock the prices upwards post release.

No one think it's sad that alliances are not good for anything yet, no communication, no resource pooling, no allied fights, no nothing -- but are already primed for money grab. Would be so nice to do stuff in "proper" order.

No one there heard about the idea to first create fun, make people WANT to spend money because it feels good -- then allow (or enforce) it? Or that the more you concentrate efforts on chasing money the more it slips away?

Unknown

I would advise giving options to recruit into Alliances.

- Commander pays full price, slot permanent, Commander can kick member
- New member pays full price for slot, slot disappears if member leaves, Commander cannot kick that member

Or something along those lines...

Unknown

I don't see a problem, really.
We have paypal, we have steam wallet. Plenty of options to give the leader ways to buy more space.

Unknown

Emeryt wrote:

I don't see a problem, really.
We have paypal, we have steam wallet. Plenty of options to give the leader ways to buy more space.

Or iTunes gift cards I suppose.

Unknown

I would agree about the 2-stars only for certain characters that have been given out frequently. Characters haven't been rotated well enough imo. I have maxed 3-stars at roughly the same rate as 2-stars. I still need to complete mn.Mags for example; meanwhile, I've sold a ton of excess c.Mags.

My problem with the 1 cover reward is the colour. I need obw black. If obw purple is rewarded, it's useless. Whereas if all 3 are rewarded, I can use black then throw out the other 2. This may be somewhat remedied by better rotations, but you haven't been rotating that well in the past.

Unknown

ihearthawthats wrote:

My problem with the 1 cover reward is the colour. I need obw black. If obw purple is rewarded, it's useless. Whereas if all 3 are rewarded, I can use black then throw out the other 2. This may be somewhat remedied by better rotations, but you haven't been rotating that well in the past.

If they only going to do one color 2* rewards maybe it should be "multi-colored" ie you can add it to any color you want. Or maybe just replace the slot where you got all 3 rewards with a multi-colored one.

Unknown

Re: Alliance

I think it would be more fun if people in the Alliance can generate some sort of "Alliance Points" that can be used as currency to upgrade the Alliance. The amount of AlP can be linked to member's placement during PvE/PvP events then you can use said points to purchase more player slots or time-based, Alliance-wide boosts or whatever you guys can come up with. The AlP cost of upgrades should scale with the amount of players in the Alliance too so small Alliances can still compete with large ones. The point is, players would be working together for the betterment of the Alliance which would promote camaraderie and IMO be more fun.

Unknown

Neokarasu wrote:

Re: Alliance

I think it would be more fun if people in the Alliance can generate some sort of "Alliance Points" that can be used as currency to upgrade the Alliance. The amount of AlP can be linked to member's placement during PvE/PvP events then you can use said points to purchase more player slots or time-based, Alliance-wide boosts or whatever you guys can come up with. The AlP cost of upgrades should scale with the amount of players in the Alliance too so small Alliances can still compete with large ones. The point is, players would be working together for the betterment of the Alliance which would promote camaraderie and IMO be more fun.

Depending on the nature of the competition, I'm not sure small alliances should be able to compete with larger ones, especially given the cost of expanding the alliance size. It would be the same argument as "low-level rosters shouldn't be winning events" except on a macro scale.

To your other point, I've seen in other games individual currencies for each aspect of the game. I wouldn't mind seeing an alliance currency that can be generated through alliance-related activities. However, larger alliances should be able to access the higher tier benefits faster. If all of that scaled as well, then one of the reasons for building a larger alliance diminish.

Unknown

Suggest that rather than making the organizer buy slots you make the people that want to join pay the HP if accepted into the alliance. This way the burden is not on the organizer and the people who join would not do so lightly.

Unknown

greggray24 wrote:

Suggest that rather than making the organizer buy slots you make the people that want to join pay the HP if accepted into the alliance. This way the burden is not on the organizer and the people who join would not do so lightly.

+1

Unknown

greggray24 wrote:

Suggest that rather than making the organizer buy slots you make the people that want to join pay the HP if accepted into the alliance. This way the burden is not on the organizer and the people who join would not do so lightly.

Oof. That would suck to be the 20th person to join.

Unknown

Riggy wrote:

greggray24 wrote:

Suggest that rather than making the organizer buy slots you make the people that want to join pay the HP if accepted into the alliance. This way the burden is not on the organizer and the people who join would not do so lightly.

Oof. That would suck to be the 20th person to join.

And great for the first 4 members who dont have to pay

Unknown

I like the idea of small alliances. I have zero intention of being part of one that would ~require~ certain amounts of time performance ect.
I guess I have no desire to 'be the best' I merely want to enjoy playing the game and earn rewards that help me advance and continue enjoying to play the game.
If they add in alliance rewards, awesome more rewards. Thanks. So what if someone else gets more, more rewards... good for them, well done