End the PvE Arms (Mercs) Race and Expand Alliance Rewards
Comments
-
What a horrible suggestion. After 1090 straight days of MPQ I pick and choose which events I play. I don't wanna burnout more than I already am.
Sometimes I think I'm not going to score, miss the first 1/3rd of an event. Then I have some free time and hit the last 2/3rds where most of the points are and fly past progression. Now because I wasn't sure of how I was going to play at the start I miss out on top alliance rewards?
Flipside, I plan on hitting an event hard but real life comes up and I can't play. They boot me or I drop. You suggestion, they can't so my alliance has to possibly miss top rewards?
This game already requires too much play on a schedule...you wanna add more scheduling requirements???0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong here but the underlying sentiment of the OP is that it is a lot of effort for commanders when story and versus events are ending at nearly the same time, ensuring that they know which player is where.
Why not introduce a 24 hour cool down from when you leave an alliance before being able to join a new one? That way commanders get a bit of respite from the constant need of shuffling folks around. A lot of other F2P games I play that have a clan system do this and it fosters a greater loyalty as there isn't a seemingly revolving door.0 -
Buy clubs.Linkster79 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here but the underlying sentiment of the OP is that it is a lot of effort for commanders when story and versus events are ending at nearly the same time, ensuring that they know which player is where.
Why not introduce a 24 hour cool down from when you leave an alliance before being able to join a new one? That way commanders get a bit of respite from the constant need of shuffling folks around. A lot of other F2P games I play that have a clan system do this and it fosters a greater loyalty as there isn't a seemingly revolving door.
Not going to work.0 -
For some reason it bothers me that a mobile match-3 game has a hardcore community that treats it as a part-time job. Actually it makes me sad.0
-
Bowgentle wrote:
Buy clubs.Linkster79 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here but the underlying sentiment of the OP is that it is a lot of effort for commanders when story and versus events are ending at nearly the same time, ensuring that they know which player is where.
Why not introduce a 24 hour cool down from when you leave an alliance before being able to join a new one? That way commanders get a bit of respite from the constant need of shuffling folks around. A lot of other F2P games I play that have a clan system do this and it fosters a greater loyalty as there isn't a seemingly revolving door.
Not going to work.
Alliances SHOULD be mostly static, that was their initial design goal, allow people to play together with their friends, so you have more reasons to come back to the game. Mercing should also not be allowed at all, because it is one of those things that happen outside the game.
Buuuut, for the reason Bowgentle said, this will never ever going to happen. Buy clubs is a really good source of money for them, so they have buried their own design goals for the Alliances and now they just care about the money.
In the current state Alliances really doesn't have any reason to exist, they are just a big source for burnout, you could get the rewards there and move those just to single player rewards, and just get the day rewards and rankings (but with no real reward), and people would probably be more happy.
In my particular case, being part of an Allianve that is close to t100, but we usually don't get there, I really hate when season is almost over and you think you accomplished t100 with a lot of hard work in your alliance but then you discover that you end up 110 or more because a lot of people jumped ship and moved to other alliances so they could get the reward (and it is obviously the same for new char PvEs).0 -
They could make it so every event is like a boss event, where you have to join an alliance to start. Once you start you are locked in to that alliance. That way, people cannot merc their scores out towards the end of the event and it will courage more loyalty within the alliance.0
-
I agree that the alliance rewards should go to T250. It makes no sense that the rewards have stayed the same for so long while they continue to add characters.The chance of getting all 13 covers in the time where that character is relevant is almost zero.
Touching the subject of all the work for the commanders, because that work is needed for alliances that want to get the rewards. To a certain extent it should be so that you need to 'work' for rewards. But we all know real life will sometimes happen. And to demand from all players in your alliance they can dedicate their entire lives around a release event to get to 1.3-1.5 progression is absolutely silly.
I know there will be many alliances who do this, same goes for PvP. But that people are doing it, is not justification for the fact that it's still silly.
A possible solution could be to only count the top 15-17 scores of the alliance. This means 3 people can score 0 without affecting the rewards for the rest of the alliance.0 -
Daiches wrote:What about large alliance families swapping internally? Is that merc'ing or not?
Not every alliance can be hybrid. Some people like PVE, some like PVP, some like both, some are casual. Should you be punished for playing in an alliance with your friends? Choose between rewards?
Besides.. you are forgetting about buy clubs depending on alliances. Nothing will change to the biggest money maker this game has.
Of course it is merc'ing.
The 20 people I started the event with couldn't get it done, so we swapped people in. That's merc'ing, it doesn't matter where they came from.
And your second paragraph justification is the one everyone uses for merc'ing.
And yes of course you should be 'punished'. Here's why.
When you merc into the top 100 so you are not 'punished', you either 'punish' an individual whose alliance made the top 100 by replacing them, or by pulling an Alliance into the 100 you punish 20 other player whose Alliance made it into the top 100 without merc'ing.
It's a zero sum game, so you always 'punish' 20 other players so you can get yours.
That doesn't mean I think merc'ing should be banned, it's part of the meta, but Alliance families doesn't make it any more noble, nor does claiming victimhood.0 -
acescracked wrote:What a horrible suggestion. After 1090 straight days of MPQ I pick and choose which events I play. I don't wanna burnout more than I already am.
Sometimes I think I'm not going to score, miss the first 1/3rd of an event. Then I have some free time and hit the last 2/3rds where most of the points are and fly past progression. Now because I wasn't sure of how I was going to play at the start I miss out on top alliance rewards?
Flipside, I plan on hitting an event hard but real life comes up and I can't play. They boot me or I drop. You suggestion, they can't so my alliance has to possibly miss top rewards?
This game already requires too much play on a schedule...you wanna add more scheduling requirements???
Literally said none of those things.
Didn't say you can't merc, didn't say commanders can't boot people. Said that more alliances should be able to get the cover. If you're in a T5000 alliance and want to move to a T250, go nuts. But it shouldn't be the whole competitive player base fighting each other trying to squeeze into 2000 spots.
Further, if the alliance rewards are expanded, that means it would take alliances less overall work to get the cover, not more. The point is now that you basically have to have/recruit 20 people playing damn near optimal, and that's not healthy.0 -
Pongie wrote:They could make it so every event is like a boss event, where you have to join an alliance to start. Once you start you are locked in to that alliance. That way, people cannot merc their scores out towards the end of the event and it will courage more loyalty within the alliance.
I don't like this idea for a few reasons, not the least of which is that it would (I think) require a fairly significant code change to change all PvE events to function like boss events.
Changing the rewards should be a 5-minute fix. Based on past conversations about rewards, I'm fairly convinced those are already set manually anyway, so it could be even a 5-second fix.0 -
My alliance is awesome. We are T20 PvP, have lots of people that buy in-house, and only merc out for release events even though we are typically only T250 for non-release PvE. Our alliance loyalty has got to be on the high side as competitive alliances go......but I think a push toward static alliances would be really bad for this game - mainly because it's really hard to get a group of 20 people that all have similar levels of commitment toward PvP, PvE, and spending - and maintain those levels for at least a month at a time. The pressure to hit PvP and PvE minimums every single event causes burnout.Polares wrote:Bowgentle wrote:
Buy clubs.Linkster79 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong here but the underlying sentiment of the OP is that it is a lot of effort for commanders when story and versus events are ending at nearly the same time, ensuring that they know which player is where.
Why not introduce a 24 hour cool down from when you leave an alliance before being able to join a new one? That way commanders get a bit of respite from the constant need of shuffling folks around. A lot of other F2P games I play that have a clan system do this and it fosters a greater loyalty as there isn't a seemingly revolving door.
Not going to work.
Alliances SHOULD be mostly static, that was their initial design goal, allow people to play together with their friends, so you have more reasons to come back to the game. Mercing should also not be allowed at all, because it is one of those things that happen outside the game.
Buuuut, for the reason Bowgentle said, this will never ever going to happen. Buy clubs is a really good source of money for them, so they have buried their own design goals for the Alliances and now they just care about the money.
In the current state Alliances really doesn't have any reason to exist, they are just a big source for burnout, you could get the rewards there and move those just to single player rewards, and just get the day rewards and rankings (but with no real reward), and people would probably be more happy.
In my particular case, being part of an Allianve that is close to t100, but we usually don't get there, I really hate when season is almost over and you think you accomplished t100 with a lot of hard work in your alliance but then you discover that you end up 110 or more because a lot of people jumped ship and moved to other alliances so they could get the reward (and it is obviously the same for new char PvEs).
They should promote alliance loyalty through increased rewards, not by restricting movement.0 -
I don't like any idea of being tied to an alliance for a set duration. I remember my early days before I found a good and stable alliance where it would be full of a bunch of tools spamming the in-game chat with derogatory comments. I didn't want to see that, so I left in order to find a more like-minded and successful alliance. Sometimes this took a few attempts between events.
Yes, the new-release merc scene is kind of crazy. It's why I refuse to be a commander in an alliance anymore (unless I'm temporarily helping out). You are going to hurt somebody's feelings, make somebody mad, and drive yourself crazy. Maybe that isn't the case for many commanders, but it was for me, so I now dedicate myself to being as good of a point contributor as I can make time for and leave the stress to someone who wants it (or is better able to manage it).
Alliance families that are stable are always going to have T100 scores. They are filled with what I mentioned above, like-minded individuals who are working towards that goal and contain people that know the rules and will step out if they can't contribute. Nobody holds it against them. We've all gone on vacation or have had real life intervene. With that mentality, there is usually nobody within that alliance that won't get rewards on their own and that just makes the alliance reward the icing on the cake.
Should alliance rewards be better? Sure. How much better? That is a moving target, due to different tier levels of players. A 2*player can be almost as successful as myself due to scaling differences, but does that 2* player need the billion iso that I do? Not at this point of their game. The devs made progress in this area with the introduction of CLs. The CL rewards need to be expanded to further aide personal progression for the appropriate roster tier of the individual. Alliance rewards, while nice, should never be relied on as the sole route to a new release character.
Unless they change the Alliance reward to a CL like system, it's unlikely to change and that's ok. (However, maybe the alliance reward could be scaled to the duration of the event, like 2x rewards for 7-days, 1.6x for 5 days.)0 -
Linkster79 wrote:Why not introduce a 24 hour cool down from when you leave an alliance before being able to join a new one?
I don't know if people remember, but I'm pretty sure that the original cooldown was 1 day if you left an alliance. If you were kicked it was something crazy like 7 days. They decreased them for a reason. I doubt they will revert them.0 -
aesthetocyst wrote:He wanted to keep a newer player in, a player too new to make the score target, because he was playing as well as he could. In the end, the only way they could have possibly made top 100, despite having 19 members with what would normally be considered very good scores, was to cut that new player and replace him.
Not to sound cruel but if the player is new then how is 1 4* cover going to help him? When I came back from retirement I constantly did not have the 4* essential for the new character release (e.g. Strange, Gwenpool) but I busted my **** to score as high as I could and if my score was preventing our entire alliance from finishing T100 then yes I would want them to merc me out. It would not be fair to the other 19 players. While I agree that every player should have a better opportunity to receive a new character, as long as you have a mutual understanding with your alliancemates on what's needed, we've never had any problems.
As I stated earlier, we still have the 4* in the progression next PVE. What is needed is an extended Individual placement for new characters.. enough of the T100 for Individual rewards. The players who do 6 clears and still have difficulty finishing T100 deserve it much more than potential alliance members that are receiving a cover they may not have fought hard for. 2 covers for T50 and 1 cover for T51-150/2500 -
Hate to break it to you but even if your friends alliance made T100 it wouldn't have helped the new player. A new player presumably in a low CL needs a T50 or better alliance.aesthetocyst wrote:
A friend of ours wanted to make his alliance top 100 on this last new release. He told his members what score they needed to make. He booted members that weren't making it all day, adding mercs. He wanted to keep a newer player in, a player too new to make the score target, because he was playing as well as he could. In the end, the only way they could have possibly made top 100, despite having 19 members with what would normally be considered very good scores, was to cut that new player and replace him.
That's miserable. New events should be more like a party, a celebration. Not a grueling exercise in heartless cannibalism.
CL6 requires a T50 alliance for the extra cover, CL5 requires T250 -
Fightmastermpq wrote:They should promote alliance loyalty through increased rewards, not by restricting movement.
This last event was a nightmare, and as OP says shows some serious problems that should be addressed by a VAST JUMP in number of folks that get rewards (next scl) and/or more rewards on progression tree rather than placement!
Agree with Fightmastermpq here as well. Pax has started to do the "let's all merge for sub rewards!" thing often - I feel bad leaving behind my team-mates that don't want to do the PVE-thing. I've been in the PVE "merc" alliance more days than the PVP "real" alliance lately!
Shoot, same issue came up here (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25557#p315385 March 2015!) and I just quote myself from a year and a half ago on solutions:SnowcaTT wrote:One: Only take the top 18 players of each alliance score (for every event, PVP and PVE). This allows for alliances to give their mates a life, rather than the boot.
Two: make covers tradeable among alliances: but only if both partners have been in the alliance for 30 days. Jumps still possible, but a big downside for doing it.
Even if the downside was "in alliance 7 days", if we could trade covers as an incentive to stay, I for one would rarely/never jump out for PVE's. I don't think it would harm buy-club attendance either: those folks don't care to much about trading covers (?). Now you might have to limit it to "uncovered characters" or something...just to not stack the power on champ characters.0 -
Alliance rewards avgs should just be tied to some multiple of the progression. Shooting for an avg alliance score of 1.1x prog is a reasonable expectation. If more players are earning the 1.1x multiple its not unreasonable that the alliance awards be expanded to accomodate those players.
I don't think the OP is saying end mercing at all. I think he saying that the alliance awards aren't alligned with how the game has grown over the last year and 1/2.
In that context, even if they don't adjust a single prize, the spread and the tiers should be re examined0 -
aesthetocyst wrote:Linkster is suggesting players be left out in the cold if they leave any alliance. 24hrs to join any alliance after leaving any alliance.
Pretty awful idea, IMO. Alliance need to reorganize, change name, lose an idle comm? Well, break up and re-form .... 24hrs later. Yikes.
Oooh yea, that would be terrible. Especially for all those newbies who wouldn't know any better trying to find an alliance with at least active members. A lot of people forget those players exist and make up majority of the player base.0 -
Phumade wrote:Alliance rewards avgs should just be tied to some multiple of the progression. Shooting for an avg alliance score of 1.1x prog is a reasonable expectation. If more players are earning the 1.1x multiple its not unreasonable that the alliance awards be expanded to accomodate those players.
This might work as a long term solution, but current infrastructure wouldn't allow it, because an alliance score isn't accumulated. This would lead to mercs dying, and I don't think that's good either, because as has been said, not everyone wants to be competitive all the time.I don't think the OP is saying end mercing at all.
I'll just confirm it here again. You're right, I'm not calling for the end of mercenaries.
I am calling for a change in the alliance reward structure such that you don't have 50+ alliances fighting each other to fit in those mercenaries at the expense of their loyal alliance members.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.6K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.2K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.5K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 498 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.3K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 98 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 419 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 295 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements