Alliance Covers Need to be Adjusted Again

Vhailorx

beyonderbub wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

I don't understand why players are offended by the idea that somebody might get a 4* cover that they didn't "earn."

V, I may not go so far as being offended, and if you guys can coordinate the necessary machinations to recruit the mercs for a cover then, kudos to you all. But just consider:

If I join at the start of the event (choice I made bc I value the opportunities at ISO over trying to "game" the placement system with no certainty that I'll end up sniping a baby bracket by joining late), and it's a 4-day event with 24 hr subevents, that's 5 hours daily grinding on PVE to complete each node/pin 6-7 times to place top 100 to earn my 1 new release cover.

I wouldn't say that a single new release cover is "nothing in this game" because of the considerable time spent to "earn" it. I also wouldn't use the ways people get the cover easily (late bracket joins, lucky event token pulls) to justify why covers should be made available bc those ways are not guaranteed methods of acquiring new covers. Other than anecdotal recollections of forumites, these methods' results are not consistently reproducible.

If you are playing 5+ hours a day just to finish in top 100 then I think you should adjust your play tactics. That much grinding should get you top 20 at the least. And more to the point, by own admission you are choosing to start right at the beginning to maximize you iso flow. So you are prioritizing iso over cover. That's fine. Other players may feel differently. And you are wrong, sir or madam, about the reproduceability of late bracket joins. Anyone here on the forums has access to bracket info that will reliably let one join a late bracket and compete for placement. And there are plenty of vets here who do it all the time.

As to the value of a single 4* cover, we can disagree over my use of the word "nothing." But the game now gives out new release characters as progression reward covers. Just about anyone can grind for them (if they have a deep enough roster to get the 2* and 3* essential characters). That doesn't seem commensurate with a reward for .5% of alliances.

Omega Red

So, once again here we are discussing the matter.

Mercs are not a problem. If every member in every alliance played and earned his covers I wouldn't have a place to sit my dirty merc **** on. Mercs are not your enemies. They're your best friends, the ones that actually make possible for your bubble alliance to win that extra cover.

Real issue is that too many players are able to play optimally in too few brackets during too short events with too few clears. That's the actual problem. There's no way to establish proper separation. PVE is now more competitive because it's also easier to play optimally. Too many guys able to reach 1.5x progression. THAT'S the real issue.

Underestimating score requirements and not enforcing those requirements on your alliance mates is what ultimately leaves you out of top 100. Mercs are called only because Joe Casual couldn't play this event and thus his alliance needs to sub him. The top ten alliances rarely call in for a merc, why? Because they play. They don't speculate as to what's the minimum needed and stop at that. They play hard, see it through to the end and earn their covers. They go to sleep early.

I understand the general sentiment regarding the issue but man, it's hard for me to sympathize more with a guy who wants to put less effort than I do. Just hit the 1.5x mark and you'll get your cover, merc or not. Is the 1.5x mark too demanding? Absolutely, but too much people are able to hit that mark and above so they're making this ultra-competitive and that's the reality we currently live in.

See ya in two weeks when we rehash this discussion once again.

Vhailorx

alaeth wrote:

Interesting no-one addressed the elephant in the room (I skimmed the posts, sorry if I missed you).

Merc'ing is flawed.

The concept of an Alliance is a group of people that work together to complete a goal (or goals). I'm pretty sure the idea of mercing goes against what the developers intended.


THAT is the problem we should be addressing... not how many points are required, but the idea that I can play all the way through an event, only to leave that last hour to benefit someone else.


In my opinion, events should lock in when you join (like Galactus, Ultron, and others)...

I mentioned merc'ing several times in the first post. I even mentioned locking alliance rosters. But I don't think that's a superior solution because some alliances will get screwed because a player can't play on short notice (sometime RL happens). I would rather demi give out a few extra rewards than switch to a system that just punishes a different group of alliances for a different, but equally arbitrary failure.

Pongie

Omega Red wrote:

The only elephant in the room is that there are too few brackets which makes character releases a little too much competitive. That, and the less grindy PVE events they've been using lately which produces less separation among players and promotes more reshuffling at the end. Do next release with Enemy of the state and you won't see this amount of reshuffling.

Will increasing the number of brackets but keep the reward ratio the same actually change anything? At the moment, it's top 100 of 1000. What if it was top 10 of 100? Top 10 prize gets shrunk down to top 1. Top 50 is top 5 etc. would this be any better? Would competition drop off knowing they can't make top 10?

GrumpySmurf1002

Omega Red wrote:

Too many guys able to reach 1.5x progression. THAT'S the real issue.

Yes it is. And that's exactly why the alliance rewards should be expanded.

The rampant reshuffling/mercing is just a symptom of it. Treat the cause, the symptoms go away.