Season end rewards need a change!

LordXberk

Dear Devs and fellow players,
As we near the end of Season 30, I can only fret over the likely disappointment my season LT will likely provide from the alliance reward (and my t25 individual placement will likely give me a few 3*s and maybe a 4*). I know we get rewards per event and maybe the season end is supposed to be a bonus, but was it always like that?

I wasn't around for the early seasons, but I can remember seeing posts about Fury covers being awarded as alliance prizes for full seasons and that being the only way to grab one. What a great prize! The top star cover as the hardest prize to get (yes, maybe debatable if it was the "top" reward, if better than any other 4*s out at the time, but at least a 4*). Even if my recollection about early season end rewards is wrong, that doesn't make my point less valid.

And what do we get now? A 15% chance at a random 5*? A new season comes around 1x per month - one guaranteed 5* as a reward when they've been out for almost a year wouldn't break the game. And, it'd make me care about season-end rewards again. We should also discuss individual rewards, but at least the t20, t50, or t100 alliance reward should be desirable. Make MPQ season rewards great again!!!

Hopefully the mods won't move this into the barren wasteland of Suggestions before the devs can see it. And maybe the devs have something planned for the new Shield update, but as they're thinking about rolling that out, they undoubtedly need to upgrade the season end rewards - hopefully starting in Season 31.

If any devs or fellow players want to chime in on why this idea wouldn't work, please do.

Pylgrim

I remember there used to be lots of discussion around this. When the alliance top 100 rewards were guaranteed 4*s, alliances tore themselves up to get it. People who collaborated the whole season were let go in the last second to try to get into that select club and completely absurd requeriments of playing were imposed on members and so on. IIRC, the change came around precisely to stop that.

puppychow

Pyl is correct. Back when there were few 4s in the game, t100 alliance 4* covers were attractive enough for commanders to ruthlessly kick season long members out for mercs in order to stay t100.

LTs were offered in place of 4s when 5s were introduced into the game. What I enjoyed the most was doing a test drive with a fully covered Silver Surfer and going solo against a 4* team---and winning the match. That was definitely fun for the casual players but hellish for the super whales since the test drive showed how useless their 4s will be against 5* land. Sure enough, it became reality.

madok

puppychow wrote:

What I enjoyed the most was doing a test drive with a fully covered Silver Surfer and going solo against a 4* team---and winning the match. That was definitely fun for the casual players but hellish for the super whales since the test drive showed how useless their 4s will be against 5* land. Sure enough, it became reality.

Hey now. I've heard DP has gotten work as a gopher for some of the 5*s so they aren't entirely out of a job.

Mawtful

Pylgrim wrote:

I remember there used to be lots of discussion around this. When the alliance top 100 rewards were guaranteed 4*s, alliances tore themselves up to get it. People who collaborated the whole season were let go in the last second to try to get into that select club and completely absurd requeriments of playing were imposed on members and so on. IIRC, the change came around precisely to stop that.

It definitely worked.

LordXberk

Mawtful wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

I remember there used to be lots of discussion around this. When the alliance top 100 rewards were guaranteed 4*s, alliances tore themselves up to get it. People who collaborated the whole season were let go in the last second to try to get into that select club and completely absurd requeriments of playing were imposed on members and so on. IIRC, the change came around precisely to stop that.

It definitely worked.

Appreciate the feedback guys. Not being around for that time means I don't have the full perspective. But, as Mawtful appropriately states, the change definitely served to make alliances not give a rip about season end rewards (for the most part - obviously there is some jockeying for t10 for the sake of pride).

However, if alliances can manage to form around the Civil War and other Boss events where a certain score is expected/required, I don't know why they couldn't do it for the full season. Maybe we would have a bit more mercs out there, but as long as commanders set expectations about requirements, it shouldn't be a problem.

I just feel strongly that season prizes shouldn't be 1/6th of a random 5*. Maybe put a 5* as t100 (or t50, or whatever) prize for individual season scores if you're worried about alliance issues.

fight4thedream

I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue that the OP is on point. While I understand the concern that having "good" rewards will instigate "cut throat competition" the game and community has matured since those wild and crazy days. In fact, the lack of "good" rewards along with the current PvP design has created a competitive environment where the top alliances have found it more beneficial to hold hands and cooperate with each other rather than "compete" with each other.

It would seem the "Versus" title is a misnomer.

Additionally, after 30 seasons and with the introduction of the 5* tier there is greater stratification among the player base and greater regulation among alliances that didn't exist when Fury was introduced which I believe will reduce the likelihood of a repeat in cut-throat behavior that occurred when seasons were first introduced. Established alliances set clear point goals and rules for their members and are well within their rights to kick a player that does not meet those requirements.

Furthermore, there aren't enough mercs to meet the current demand with charity spots becoming a more common occurrence, even among top alliances.

Obviously, asking for a re-design of "Versus" events that suppresses the current backroom dealing that dominates the "Versus" meta is probably asking for too much. But considering that 5* characters, with the exception of the Civil War event, can only be acquired through a lottery rewards system, I believe that having them as a season end reward would be a good start to integrating them in a more meaningful and concrete manner into the reward system.

To be honest, I think the only alliances that will be affected by such an implementation are those that are on the borderline of the reward tier. So if they set 5* cover as a season end reward for say top 50, the top 20 alliances will remain largely unaffected but it will push pressure on those other alliances that believe they have a reasonable shot at T50. You will see some old alliances fall and new alliances rise but such is to be expected when any significant change occurs.

So I guess where you fall in this debate is how you feel about the current status quo of Versus events and the 5* reward system. For me personally, both leave much to be desired.

OneLastGambit

I'll play devil's advocate to devil's advocate...

Let's say this change occurred and d3 changes the season end reward to a 5* cover...how competitive is a season going to be when the prize is surfer black? There will be so many complaints about ruining an entire season. Really unless the prize is one of the top covers nobody will care and their engagement metric will be much lower.

Sometimes knowing what the reward is going to be is a bad thing. When you don't know you will compete because theres a chance you will get what you want, when you definitely know you won't get what you want you will be far less motivated. Look at how few people push for 1k in PvP when cho is the prize

Polares

LordXberk wrote:

Mawtful wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

I remember there used to be lots of discussion around this. When the alliance top 100 rewards were guaranteed 4*s, alliances tore themselves up to get it. People who collaborated the whole season were let go in the last second to try to get into that select club and completely absurd requeriments of playing were imposed on members and so on. IIRC, the change came around precisely to stop that.

It definitely worked.

Appreciate the feedback guys. Not being around for that time means I don't have the full perspective. But, as Mawtful appropriately states, the change definitely served to make alliances not give a rip about season end rewards (for the most part - obviously there is some jockeying for t10 for the sake of pride).

However, if alliances can manage to form around the Civil War and other Boss events where a certain score is expected/required, I don't know why they couldn't do it for the full season. Maybe we would have a bit more mercs out there, but as long as commanders set expectations about requirements, it shouldn't be a problem.

I just feel strongly that season prizes shouldn't be 1/6th of a random 5*. Maybe put a 5* as t100 (or t50, or whatever) prize for individual season scores if you're worried about alliance issues.

I think that a 5 reward would make things go back to the times Pylgrim mentions, the final reward is more like an extra for all your wrk during the season, but what can (and needs) to be improved is ISO.

We all agree everybody is in need of iso, and iso influx has barely been updated in PvP. As an example at the end of the season I got 500iso for my #128 position and another 500iso for the #97 of my alliance, 1000 iso in total !!!! This is nuts. Seriously, this needs to change ASAP. Top100 should be the LT and 10 - 20k iso. Top1 2 LTs and 25 - 50k iso!

This iso would be greatly appreciated and I doubt would break any alliance.

madsalad

fight4thedream wrote:

To be honest, I think the only alliances that will be affected by such an implementation are those that are on the borderline of the reward tier. So if they set 5* cover as a season end reward for say top 50, the top 20 alliances will remain largely unaffected but it will push pressure on those other alliances that believe they have a reasonable shot at T50. You will see some old alliances fall and new alliances rise but such is to be expected when any significant change occurs.

We're affected by this right now, coming from an alliance who was ranked 80th on Saturday and placed at 103 at end of season. Nobody in the alliance slouched at the end but we saw ourselves slowly sink in the rankings further and further down until within the last 2 hours of the season we got pushed out of the Top 100. This was after hitting Top 100 in almost every PVP this season.

I have some screenshots during the last few hours and I can see that an alliance a little bit under us took a 8-9k hit in the last few hours. I'm guessing someone leaving to go join another alliance to push them into another reward tier.

The only way we will ever really stop this nonsense from happening is if you get locked into an alliance at the start of a season (like when you play Galactus, Civil War, etc...). Even then I can see some alliances booting someone at the the last minute to pull in a "true" merc who hasn't played in an alliance all season.

Polares

madsalad wrote:

fight4thedream wrote:

To be honest, I think the only alliances that will be affected by such an implementation are those that are on the borderline of the reward tier. So if they set 5* cover as a season end reward for say top 50, the top 20 alliances will remain largely unaffected but it will push pressure on those other alliances that believe they have a reasonable shot at T50. You will see some old alliances fall and new alliances rise but such is to be expected when any significant change occurs.

We're affected by this right now, coming from an alliance who was ranked 80th on Saturday and placed at 103 at end of season. Nobody in the alliance slouched at the end but we saw ourselves slowly sink in the rankings further and further down until within the last 2 hours of the season we got pushed out of the Top 100. This was after hitting Top 100 in almost every PVP this season.

I have some screenshots during the last few hours and I can see that an alliance a little bit under us took a 8-9k hit in the last few hours. I'm guessing someone leaving to go join another alliance to push them into another reward tier.

The only way we will ever really stop this nonsense from happening is if you get locked into an alliance at the start of a season (like when you play Galactus, Civil War, etc...). Even then I can see some alliances booting someone at the the last minute to pull in a "true" merc who hasn't played in an alliance all season.

We were in #89 with 18k difference from the #95 like 9-10h before the end, and we finished #97. There was massive movement of people between alliances.

I don't like this, and I agree alliances should be locked (sorry mercs). I don't think this is what the alliances are for (at least in devs minds). This doesn't encourage at all camaraderie and 'making friends', etc. so you come back to the game because of your alliance, which is why devs introduced alliances in the first place.

Fightmastermpq

Desirable season rewards would have the unintended consequence of driving everyone to S4. Currently anyone with a couple 400+ 5*s can play pretty casually in just about any slice and hit max progression and easily find a spot in a T100 alliance with a 15k season score. The top alliances have average season scores that are almost twice that though, and if season rewards become desirable those inflated scores would be required to get them, and really S4 is the only place to consistently score that high.

The other negative (for some) is that external communication would almost be a necessity. That 15k season score can be attained without colluding with others, but 20k+ scores are much harder to come by without coordinating with others each event.

I agree that the season end rewards don't come close to matching the effort, but I'm not sure I am interested in ramping up the competitiveness of what is already a pretty competitive experience.

amusingfoo1

puppychow wrote:

Pyl is correct. Back when there were few 4s in the game, t100 alliance 4* covers were attractive enough for commanders to ruthlessly kick season long members out for mercs in order to stay t100.

LTs were offered in place of 4s when 5s were introduced into the game. What I enjoyed the most was doing a test drive with a fully covered Silver Surfer and going solo against a 4* team---and winning the match. That was definitely fun for the casual players but hellish for the super whales since the test drive showed how useless their 4s will be against 5* land. Sure enough, it became reality.

That Surfer match was fun. Versus Jean, Hulkbuster, and Carnage, IIRC. Hard to lose, though. The one the season after made me a bit meh on OML, actually. Had him (1/1/1) with Bobby and Cyclops, versus Thoress, Flaptain, and... another Avenger that I forget. I was a bit disappointed with it, because OML didn't look that great. But then, he was 1/1/1, and pretty low level (270, maybe?).

To get back to OP, I stopped caring about season placement quite a while ago, because the rewards aren't nearly worth the effort required.

Bowgentle

aesthetocyst wrote:

With 5* progress being sooo slow, there'd be a proliferation of 1-cover 5*s. I think most players would be hoping for older 5* covers....that is, for help in finishing one.

Start with Phoenix green.
No particular reason.
None at all.

mindsuckr

madsalad wrote:

We're affected by this right now, coming from an alliance who was ranked 80th on Saturday and placed at 103 at end of season. Nobody in the alliance slouched at the end but we saw ourselves slowly sink in the rankings further and further down until within the last 2 hours of the season we got pushed out of the Top 100. This was after hitting Top 100 in almost every PVP this season.

No one may have slouched in the end, but obviously some did worse than others. If you would have removed the lowest one (or two people) and replaced them with a merc then only one (or two) people would have missed out on the reward rather than all twenty. Is it cutthroat? Kinda, but I think it's better for only a few to suffer rather than everyone. As long as you communicate things from the start, then everyone is on the same page.

kenshohmer2

Like AMF said, season rewards don't match effort, but I'm pretty sure it isn't going to change anytime soon. Something maybe easier to implement, would be a 1.5k, 1.8K, 2K and (let's be crazy ) a 2.5K rewards for each pvp. Imagine a 2.5K LT! 10 more chance to get a chulk (or an OML for those with poor luck) every season!

pheregas

I've always viewed alliance season rewards as icing on the cake. The real rewards are the in-event individual progression.

FaustianDeal

making the reward a specific 5* cover is tricky business. I still feel like the developers missed a golden opportunity to create more token tiers here tho.

Standard: 1* - 4*
Heroic: 2* - 4*
Exalted: 3* - 4*
Legendary: 4* - 5*
Cosmic: 5*

Names don't matter. the point is how is there not a 3/4 token? And how is there still not a token that would only be awarded for season ends that drops a guaranteed 5* cover?

Jarvind

kenshohmer2 wrote:

Like AMF said, season rewards don't match effort, but I'm pretty sure it isn't going to change anytime soon. Something maybe easier to implement, would be a 1.5k, 1.8K, 2K and (let's be crazy ) a 2.5K rewards for each pvp. Imagine a 2.5K LT! 10 more chance to get a chulk (or an OML for those with poor luck) every season!

I think it'd make more sense to stick something in that 1k to 1300 void before implementing any of these.

stochasticism

FaustianDeal wrote:

making the reward a specific 5* cover is tricky business. I still feel like the developers missed a golden opportunity to create more token tiers here tho.

Standard: 1* - 4*
Heroic: 2* - 4*
Exalted: 3* - 4*
Legendary: 4* - 5*
Cosmic: 5*

Names don't matter. the point is how is there not a 3/4 token? And how is there still not a token that would only be awarded for season ends that drops a guaranteed 5* cover?

I would trade all 5 heroic 10 packs from winning a season bracket for one of those tokens.

LordXberk

Easily would support a 'Cosmic' token that guarantees a 5* as a t20-t100 individual and/or alliance reward at season end.

Also like the idea of a 3/4 token.

And, agree that the 1000 to 1300 gap would be a great spot to add ISO rewards - 2000 ISO at 1150? Yes, please. Maybe 5000 ISO at 1500? Most definitely!