daveomite wrote: Now, if there was some magic pull system so I could get more covers that I need, instead of more cap, jugs, bw, hawkeye...I'd be in heaven, lol
Tannen wrote: daveomite wrote: Now, if there was some magic pull system so I could get more covers that I need, instead of more cap, jugs, bw, hawkeye...I'd be in heaven, lol Uhhhh... there is such a system in place... But it's powered by HP, not magic. Now, if there was a magic system that allowed people to get as much money as they wanted... So that I could buy as much hp as I needed... I'd be in on that. Actually, I take that back. If I was in on a magical money-making system, I'd be arrested for counterfeiting.
daveomite wrote: If I rob any banks and wind up with a pool of cash, I'll let you know. Maybe a thor/cstorm/punisher crew wouldn't be bad at a local branch...storm down the low health tellers with her blue, punisher reds and blacks his way through security, and Thor pummels the vault door with his hammer and an occasional thunder strike.
DaveyPitch wrote: daveomite wrote: If I rob any banks and wind up with a pool of cash, I'll let you know. Maybe a thor/cstorm/punisher crew wouldn't be bad at a local branch...storm down the low health tellers with her blue, punisher reds and blacks his way through security, and Thor pummels the vault door with his hammer and an occasional thunder strike. That's where you need Nightcrawler. He teleports in, grabs the money, and teleports out again. Easy!
KaioShinDE wrote: When I started getting into 3*s the selection was much much smaller. Villians were restricted to LRs so the only 3* that were offered as rewards were Punisher, IM40 or Spidey. That made it pretty easy to cover up and get started in high level play. Now that the covers are spread out over so many different characters, I can only imagine how much harder it is. I'm kinda feeling the frustrations of it, I want to level my Panther, but I can't do anything except wait until he is offered as reward again. Which might be weeks. Until then he is useless to me, even at Lv60 unless he is major buffed in an event. Judging from some conversations in my alliance with 2* players, that's pretty much their entire roster situation. Being flooded with new covers they can't use every week. I think the devs should just be more focused with the rewards. Have 4 events in a row with the same 3* as reward so new people have the chance to get covered up and use that character properly.
dlaw008 wrote: And they have rotated the colors of the covers if I'm not mistaken. So while you may miss the black hulk in one tourney alliance reward you will get it in a different one as a single player award. I honestly don't see why they shouldn't reward the hardest-core players. Casuals can convert to that crowd by figuring out how to create a bigger alliance or get into one.
IceIX wrote: Toxicadam wrote: I've never seen anyone from demiurge comment on giving the user the ability to tell which goon laid down a specific countdown tile? has it ever been discussed as being something that needs to be corrected, or is it intentional? It's probably been one of the most requested fixes since the game has begun. It's one of the many things on the QoL updates list of things to do when someone gets spare time. Problem with that list is that it's ever growing and that they're all "nice to have" upgrades of systems that are working "OK but not perfect", so it's hard to place weight on any of them versus adding something new or refining something with real rough edges that needs better functionality. So yes. It's been discussed. No, we don't have a timeline or even a "Yep! It'll get done most definitely" for it. It'd be great though.
Toxicadam wrote: I've never seen anyone from demiurge comment on giving the user the ability to tell which goon laid down a specific countdown tile? has it ever been discussed as being something that needs to be corrected, or is it intentional? It's probably been one of the most requested fixes since the game has begun.
DD-The-Mighty wrote: dlaw008 wrote: And they have rotated the colors of the covers if I'm not mistaken. So while you may miss the black hulk in one tourney alliance reward you will get it in a different one as a single player award. I honestly don't see why they shouldn't reward the hardest-core players. Casuals can convert to that crowd by figuring out how to create a bigger alliance or get into one. So far they seem to keep the more widely desired colours in alliances only now (blue 3* captain America, Black hulk) and the next desired in the top 10 and up. and as for rotation they have yet to rotate Psylocks blue into the lower rank spot in the last 2 or so opportunities that she has been available. I sure hope they plan on better rotating the colours so those who can't coast on the backs of their super-clans can eventually get all colours for their 3*s. Top ten PVP was never easy to begin with, but before, if you could squeak by at 15+ you could at least score 2/3 3* covers. Now that's impossible. The complete removal of all three covers from PVE is also a very sucky loss as no matter how well/lucky you are you will never get that 3rd colour unless you're in one of the "top alliances". AS Ice stated himself if only a few supersentai 5-man bands are cracking the cover tops, and even still they're outnumbered by the bigger clans, making it doable but hardly practical or viable to the mass of players. Non-top-tier alliance players and loners have been majorly cover blocked under this new reward system. I think they have every right to be dissatisfied and shouldn't be dismissed as mere "casuals". to end on a positive note:@Ice: With the drastic increase and -i'm guessing- continued increase of 3 star (and inevitably 4*) characters will we eventually see more implementations of 3* tokens?
IceIX wrote: Psykopathic wrote: thatguy13 wrote: How long is the focus on Alliances going to continue and how much more are you going to cater to alliances? If alliances were merely an added bonus I'd have no issue but every day it seems more like a rich get richer pyramid scheme. I may be missing something but how do alliances benefit casual players? You know that 3* alliance reward? Top 250 alliances are getting it in current tourney. That's potentially 250x20 people getting a 3*. Before you had to place like top 2 to get all 3x covers. It's much easier to acquire all 3 or a single cover in general now. Pretty much this. Numbers are a bit higher now, but let's go with the end of January The Hunt run since it was a nearly nice even 100K and thus easy math. Before: 100K total users, 2000 user brackets, so 50 brackets total. Top 10 got the third cover. 50x10 = 500 covers handed out for the event. Now: 100K total users. Top 250 Alliances get the cover, no Alliance brackets. Let's play conservatively and say that across all Top 250, the average Alliance size is 6. 250x6 = 1500 covers handed out.
Psykopathic wrote: thatguy13 wrote: How long is the focus on Alliances going to continue and how much more are you going to cater to alliances? If alliances were merely an added bonus I'd have no issue but every day it seems more like a rich get richer pyramid scheme. I may be missing something but how do alliances benefit casual players? You know that 3* alliance reward? Top 250 alliances are getting it in current tourney. That's potentially 250x20 people getting a 3*. Before you had to place like top 2 to get all 3x covers. It's much easier to acquire all 3 or a single cover in general now.
thatguy13 wrote: How long is the focus on Alliances going to continue and how much more are you going to cater to alliances? If alliances were merely an added bonus I'd have no issue but every day it seems more like a rich get richer pyramid scheme. I may be missing something but how do alliances benefit casual players?
daveomite wrote: Thanks HailMary. I agree that scaling isn't directly related to alliances, but I'm assuming it is supposed to be due to how many grinders you may have in your particular bracket, and possibly your own stats/mmr, which I have no idea where that would place me.
daveomite wrote: And I see where you were, similar here I guess. Though, I don't have iron man 35 maxed, I don't own iron man 40 either. IM35 and MStorm both 45+ level, and BW is maxed. I have both Thor and obw at 85. Psylocke at 80. Punisher at around 66, ares at 61, magsMN/c storm/astonishing wolvie all just under 60. 3* Thor at 51, X force wolvie at around 45.
daveomite wrote: So, I may not have the best, strongest roster yet. But working on it. Now, if there was some magic pull system so I could get more covers that I need, instead of more cap, jugs, bw, hawkeye...I'd be in heaven, lol
Fluffyudders wrote: IceIX wrote: pasa_ wrote: IceIX, please disclose some data: in the last tournament how many 5-people alliances appeared in the top250? My guess is less than 3. Far more than 3. If you want to get into Top 20-50 positions as a 5 man Alliance then sure, that's rough. But the median score across all users for the last Tourney was under 75K and across all Alliance members not much higher. 5 users in an Alliance that scored 100K each (which wasn't difficult) would push them pretty high up in the alliance rankings. Now, as Alliances get more entrenched for users as something to do in-game and the competition gets fiercer that may change. But a 5 man Alliance is *perfectly* viable right now. Just to weigh in on this current debate, I was running a very high scoring 5-man alliance for the last PVE event, and fell out of the top 250. The only way I managed to get back up there was by using up my HP stash, buying two member slots and hiring 'freelancers' to push our score up. I'd be very interested to know how other 5-man alliances managed to maintain their spot in the top 250 without some kind of shadiness... I think we all scored around 250k each (did anyone hit 300k?) and needed around another 300k to break into the top 250. How does that match up with the figures??
IceIX wrote: pasa_ wrote: IceIX, please disclose some data: in the last tournament how many 5-people alliances appeared in the top250? My guess is less than 3. Far more than 3. If you want to get into Top 20-50 positions as a 5 man Alliance then sure, that's rough. But the median score across all users for the last Tourney was under 75K and across all Alliance members not much higher. 5 users in an Alliance that scored 100K each (which wasn't difficult) would push them pretty high up in the alliance rankings. Now, as Alliances get more entrenched for users as something to do in-game and the competition gets fiercer that may change. But a 5 man Alliance is *perfectly* viable right now.
pasa_ wrote: IceIX, please disclose some data: in the last tournament how many 5-people alliances appeared in the top250? My guess is less than 3.
thatguy13 wrote: This is still rich get richer. That rewards manage to hit a few more people doesn't change that. You still have all the super hardcore players all in the same alliances collecting all the top prizes only further ensuring that they take home all of the individual prizes too. The effect will be additive too I think as the hardcores get even further ahead of everyone else. I'm not saying those that play the most shouldn't win events, just that they shouldn't get what seems like double the rewards for doing really nothing extra.
thatguy13 wrote: My alliance is super casual with some of the players playing a few matches once a day, during the last alliance event we were in the 5000s. The current ISO event, I have over half of our points and I only usually play once a day. Yeah I could go hardcore and join a hardcore guild...err alliance but that's MMO all over again.
thatguy13 wrote: Anyhow here are some possible solutions I will make that would make at least me happier are: 1) Change the individual rewards back to the way they were and make the alliance rewards significantly less valuable. ie Equivalent to winning a sub or something. 2) Cap the number of people you can have in an alliance. Being able to buy your way to prizes shouldn't be an option. 3) Bracket the alliances according to playtime.
thatguy13 wrote: IceIX wrote: Psykopathic wrote: thatguy13 wrote: How long is the focus on Alliances going to continue and how much more are you going to cater to alliances? If alliances were merely an added bonus I'd have no issue but every day it seems more like a rich get richer pyramid scheme. I may be missing something but how do alliances benefit casual players? You know that 3* alliance reward? Top 250 alliances are getting it in current tourney. That's potentially 250x20 people getting a 3*. Before you had to place like top 2 to get all 3x covers. It's much easier to acquire all 3 or a single cover in general now. Pretty much this. Numbers are a bit higher now, but let's go with the end of January The Hunt run since it was a nearly nice even 100K and thus easy math. Before: 100K total users, 2000 user brackets, so 50 brackets total. Top 10 got the third cover. 50x10 = 500 covers handed out for the event. Now: 100K total users. Top 250 Alliances get the cover, no Alliance brackets. Let's play conservatively and say that across all Top 250, the average Alliance size is 6. 250x6 = 1500 covers handed out. This is still rich get richer. That rewards manage to hit a few more people doesn't change that. You still have all the super hardcore players all in the same alliances collecting all the top prizes only further ensuring that they take home all of the individual prizes too. The effect will be additive too I think as the hardcores get even further ahead of everyone else. I'm not saying those that play the most shouldn't win events, just that they shouldn't get what seems like double the rewards for doing really nothing extra. My alliance is super casual with some of the players playing a few matches once a day, during the last alliance event we were in the 5000s. The current ISO event, I have over half of our points and I only usually play once a day. Yeah I could go hardcore and join a hardcore guild...err alliance but that's MMO all over again. Anyhow here are some possible solutions I will make that would make at least me happier are: 1) Change the individual rewards back to the way they were and make the alliance rewards significantly less valuable. ie Equivalent to winning a sub or something. 2) Cap the number of people you can have in an alliance. Being able to buy your way to prizes shouldn't be an option. 3) Bracket the alliances according to playtime.
NorthernPolarity wrote: thatguy13 wrote: This is still rich get richer. That rewards manage to hit a few more people doesn't change that. You still have all the super hardcore players all in the same alliances collecting all the top prizes only further ensuring that they take home all of the individual prizes too. The effect will be additive too I think as the hardcores get even further ahead of everyone else. I'm not saying those that play the most shouldn't win events, just that they shouldn't get what seems like double the rewards for doing really nothing extra. My alliance is super casual with some of the players playing a few matches once a day, during the last alliance event we were in the 5000s. The current ISO event, I have over half of our points and I only usually play once a day. Yeah I could go hardcore and join a hardcore guild...err alliance but that's MMO all over again. Anyhow here are some possible solutions I will make that would make at least me happier are: 1) Change the individual rewards back to the way they were and make the alliance rewards significantly less valuable. ie Equivalent to winning a sub or something. 2) Cap the number of people you can have in an alliance. Being able to buy your way to prizes shouldn't be an option. 3) Bracket the alliances according to playtime. I don't see how this is rich get richer at all: the alliance rewards were taken out of the top 2-5 positions of the individual awards, which is a lot harder to obtain for the majority of people than being in an alliance that can place high enough to get the covers. If anything, the ORIGINAL system was rich get richer since the only chance you had at a 3* cover was if you were high enough leveled to place in the top 5. Having alliances gives people who can't place in the top 5 but are in a good alliance a chance to get a 3* cover. This is obviously a change in playstyle as it forces lone wolfs to join an alliance to maximize rewards, but don't play it off as a "rich get richer, poor get poorer" scheme when it clearly isn't.
thatguy13 wrote: This is still rich get richer. That rewards manage to hit a few more people doesn't change that. You still have all the super hardcore players all in the same alliances collecting all the top prizes only further ensuring that they take home all of the individual prizes too. The effect will be additive too I think as the hardcores get even further ahead of everyone else. I'm not saying those that play the most shouldn't win events, just that they shouldn't get what seems like double the rewards for doing really nothing extra. My alliance is super casual with some of the players playing a few matches once a day, during the last alliance event we were in the 5000s. The current ISO event, I have over half of our points and I only usually play once a day. Yeah I could go hardcore and join a hardcore guild...err alliance but that's MMO all over again. Anyhow here are some possible solutions I will make that would make at least me happier are: 1) Change the individual rewards back to the way they were and make the alliance rewards significantly less valuable. ie Equivalent to winning a sub or something. 2) Cap the number of people you can have in an alliance. Being able to buy your way to prizes shouldn't be an option. 3) Bracket the alliances according to playtime.
Dormammu wrote: The poor are getting rich in our alliance. We have several new-to-mid tier players who all got a Lazy Cap cover in the Simulator event as an alliance reward, something few of them had a chance at getting on their own (and didn't).