And the rich keep getting richer!

reckless442

_RiO_ wrote:

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

If this game and its mechanics frustrate you like this then maybe its time to step back a little and enjoy something else. SHIELD will still be SHIELD no matter what happens.

No. What frustrates me is the holier-than-thou response from hardcore players that feel the disproportionate amount of work they put into the game somehow entitles them to having a dictatorial end-say over what is good for the game's playerbase as a whole. What frustrates me is the casual attitude with which real issues affecting the substantially larger lower tier of players are dismissed or otherwise drowned out by many a board-veteran complaining that it is a form of whining about the game's difficulty. You included, with the ad hominem you started.

I think all of us "hardcore" players have said quite clearly that there need to be better rewards and more delineation across the alliance tiers. There seems to be a pretty broad-based consensus about that, so there isn't a lot of debate past the first few pages of the thread.

But we also recognize that nerfing the top prize here was aimed directly at S.H.I.E.L.D and really only helps one other team -- 5DV. Those teams have usually been 2000 points ahead of the third-place alliance in PVPs, so it is reasonable to point out that devs could not have been looking at anyone else when they made that change. Now there really is nothing to gain from coming in first, other than bragging rights. We don't think there is anything wrong with saying that those of us who play more, work hard, and are more successful should get rewarded for that effort.

It also seems rather bizarre to me for new and low-level players to expect to be competing for top prizes. Most games involve some progression, where players have to work their way up the ladder reaching different levels of achievement before they can be competitive with veteran players. I think MPQ's scaling distorts player's expectations. When you place top-10 in an PVE with a 1* team, it becomes hard to accept that your 2* or low-level 3* team isn't going to win everything. The same happens with MMR matching in PVPs, where a player can get to a point easily with a low-level team and then suddenly find him- or herself facing 141 opponents. But ask yourself why a team of level 85s should be winning brackets over level 141s.

Yes, too, the devs could create some kind of different bracketing system based on average roster level, length of time in the game, or some other standard that tries to lump newbies together with newbies and vets with vets or separates low-level players from high-level players, but there are going to be problems with those systems also. Creating brackets based on joining times is simple and, while it means that some players are not likely to win the 4* for first, there are plenty of other rewards for low-level players to receive. (Also, as a practical matter, if you are fielding a 2* or low-level 3* team, that 4* is just going to be a waste of roster space.)

I have seen suggestions that the player who wins first should be able to bypass the 4* prize if they have the character fully covered. I think a lot of players would support that, because we recognize that we are pushing our points up to benefit our alliances. There should be some rule that the 4* cover be used by the next player, and not just cashed in for the ISO value, but that would be a way of sharing the wealth in the individual brackets.

Finally, there seems to be a misperception about S.H.I.E.L.D. Granted, we play the game a lot. But we all have lives, families, and jobs. One of our members was gone this weekend for a conference and didn't participate in the last PVP. Another is taking law school exams. I'm a practicing attorney. The notion that we are "pro" players who do nothing other than MPQ is just wrong.

reckless442

Emeryt wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

if your not in a competitive alliance, then join one and challenge them.

Easier said than done. A lot of top alliances place tight restrictions on rosters, which weaker players realistically cannot and will not have or are already at the cap of 20.

the only tight restrictions I can think of were in S.H.I.E.L.D and 5dv. That's far from "a lot".

Then how did I get into S.H.I.E.L.D? I posted that I was looking for an alliance and listed my roster. Beezer PM'd me to join Wrecking Crew, which he had formed. Then he was asked to join S.H.I.E.L.D, and suggested that a couple of the people who he had invited to Wrecking Crew come with him to S.H.I.E.L.D. I didn't know anyone in S.H.I.E.L.D other than from seeing their posts on the board and occasionally coming across them in PVPs. At the time, I generally was finishing top-10 in PVEs and PVPs, and had never scored above 800 in a PVP.

Unknown

I didn't have a single character above 121 (an IM40) when I joined SHIELD.

reckless442

jozier wrote:

I didn't have a single character above 121 (an IM40) when I joined SHIELD.

I think I was in the same boat. I had several over 100, but didn't max anyone until getting advice from alliance members.

Unknown

I'm not a "top" player. You can count the amount of events i've won on one hand, and i only have 3 fingers due to a previous MPQ accident. I don't play hardcore and i don't spend money on the game. Since joining an alliance, my game time has actually dwindled. I spend maybe an hour playing and the rest just chatting to the friends i've made here. BUT yet i still have a roster that i've earned, not by winning or by thousands of hours with a game but by playing smart and having fun that way.

As mentioned above, not many alliances have strict guidelines. Our alliance has only one rule, be chatty and you must be good looking.

Play casual and you still get rewards. Thats not a handicap. You still progress each day with tokens and iso and covers.That's how i and countless others have built our rosters which in turn leads us to take on better players, Heck i've even taken down a SHIELD member or two. Granted the rest of them then attacked me but thats a small victory for me No point getting angry at a game or angry at peoples responses. The game is meant to be fun, when people let it make them angry, thats when it stops.

_RiO_

Maybe you guys need to wake up to the reality that outside of high event placement, nowadays there is no reliable method to build a competitive three star roster anymore.

Ever since shields were introduced, placement rewards have been toned back down and progression rewards have been placed further and further out. HP awards have dwindled to the point of non-existence outside of alliances, which have also taken one of the colors of the 3* cover being rewarded, which is a third of the event capacity gone and committed directly to high-tier alliances. The odds of scoring a three star from a token? Tiny. The guaranteed 3* from a 10x pack? Shot to pieces.

To get hold of a 3* you need to either get extremely lucky, or be able to compete against other 3* rosters for the top placement rewards. The latter is not happening without a viable 3* team already on your roster. It's a chicken&egg problem and one that has to be solved if you don't want the game to end up in a situation where you get stagnation on the middle tier. The only way to make that happen is to distribute those 3* cover rewards over a wider range of the playerbase than just the high-ranked veterans. I'm sorry, but that is reality. If you want to maintain a healthy eco-system in the game you cannot avoid this, especially as more and more people are leveling up and creating bigger and better rosters and more and more of the rewards will continue to gravitate towards those high-ranked players.

Introducing a league system would allow lower level players to compete for the good rewards as well and once their roster improves far enough and they've trialed a bit against a few higher league entry matches, they can be promoted. Likewise; if they don't perform well there, they can be demoted again. Meanwhile, higher level players will compete against other higher level players, in very much the same way they are doing now. No difference and no disadvantage. You could make such a system fairly robust against high level players smurfing in lower leagues by scaling the ISO and HP rewards down (but not the covers; keep those available to everyone). Higher level players will need considerably more ISO to level and will also need more HP for roster slots. (Also; if they compete at their actual level, shields become a good HP sink warranting the increased HP rewards.)

In this way everyone will atleast have a shot at gaining the 3* covers, will have a shot at using the additional leg up on essential PvE nodes, but won't really be able to effectively use those 3* covers without pouring in lots of ISO, which means they'll level up as you naturally progress through league tiers. Added bonus: you can get rid of PvE scaling, since its main purpose is to serve as the great equator between low-level and high-level teams.

Really; how can anyone playing the game not think this is a good idea? This is literally a win-win situation for all players...

NorthernPolarity

_RiO_ wrote:

Maybe you guys need to wake up to the reality that outside of high event placement, nowadays there is no reliable method to build a competitive three star roster anymore.

Ever since shields were introduced, placement rewards have been toned back down and progression rewards have been placed further and further out. HP awards have dwindled to the point of non-existence outside of alliances, which have also taken one of the colors of the 3* cover being rewarded, which is a third of the event capacity gone and committed directly to high-tier alliances. The odds of scoring a three star from a token? Tiny. The guaranteed 3* from a 10x pack? Shot to pieces.

To get hold of a 3* you need to either get extremely lucky, or be able to compete against other 3* rosters for the top placement rewards. The latter is not happening without a viable 3* team already on your roster. It's a chicken&egg problem and one that has to be solved if you don't want the game to end up in a situation where you get stagnation on the middle tier. The only way to make that happen is to distribute those 3* cover rewards over a wider range of the playerbase than just the high-ranked veterans. I'm sorry, but that is reality. If you want to maintain a healthy eco-system in the game you cannot avoid this, especially as more and more people are leveling up and creating bigger and better rosters and more and more of the rewards will continue to gravitate towards those high-ranked players.

Introducing a league system would allow lower level players to compete for the good rewards as well and once their roster improves far enough and they've trialed a bit against a few higher league entry matches, they can be promoted. Likewise; if they don't perform well there, they can be demoted again. Meanwhile, higher level players will compete against other higher level players, in very much the same way they are doing now. No difference and no disadvantage. You could make such a system fairly robust against high level players smurfing in lower leagues by scaling the ISO and HP rewards down (but not the covers; keep those available to everyone). Higher level players will need considerably more ISO to level and will also need more HP for roster slots. (Also; if they compete at their actual level, shields become a good HP sink warranting the increased HP rewards.)

In this way everyone will atleast have a shot at gaining the 3* covers, will have a shot at using the additional leg up on essential PvE nodes, but won't really be able to effectively use those 3* covers without pouring in lots of ISO, which means they'll level up as you naturally progress through league tiers. Added bonus: you can get rid of PvE scaling, since its main purpose is to serve as the great equator between low-level and high-level teams.

Really; how can anyone playing the game not think this is a good idea? This is literally a win-win situation for all players...

Doesitgoboom in the tips/guide section seems to have a 2/4/5 lazycap and his roster just consists of 3 almost maxed out 2*s otherwise. It doesnt seem like these alliances changes are affecting his transition, so i would imagine that the plight of a 2->3* player isnt as bad as you make it out to be.

Copps

If you can't compete in tournaments with a full two star roster you are doing something wrong. While I have been pushing to get my four stars covered most of my competition has come from people with two star rosters. With judicious tanking you should be able to easily get 800 ish points with a two star roster. That will usually place you in the top 10 and is also way above the average needed to place an alliance in the top 50 let alone the top 100.

If you can't find a good alliance start one buy a few slots and start getting people to buy there own after that. Ask emery about starting scavengers we are definitely not hardcore although we seem to do well in pve and reasonably in pvp.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

To get hold of a 3* you need to either get extremely lucky, or be able to compete against other 3* rosters for the top placement rewards. The latter is not happening without a viable 3* team already on your roster.

I'm not against the idea of including more events that cater to the low and mid tier players, but what you've said here is categorically false. In every bracket I've played for months, the Top 10 has consisted of 70-80% low to mid tier players (2* and even 1* teams). There are tons of comments and threads from other players at all levels who have noticed the same concentration in their brackets. The way matchmaking is tweaked actually gives a leg up to those who haven't fully upgraded their rosters.

I get how it feels tough to progress, and when you read the forums and hear long-time players talking about their high-level rosters it can get frustrating while you're still making the climb. I experienced that myself early on.

There have been plenty of top players advocating for more rewards below 1st-2nd, and joining the chorus of those who felt that splitting the 3rd cover into alliance rewards was a bad move for the game as well. So, when you call people out as "holier-than-thou" for stating the facts it's a little off-putting. The truth is yes, it's hard to build a roster. It's also true that the game has many mechanisms in place to make it possible. Again, look at the rosters of the Top 10 in your PvP/PvE brackets for the next 2 weeks, and if you don't see a ton of mid-tier players there, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Unknown

I think people overestimate the importance of 3* characters for success. I remember people telling me it was impossible to win a Villain LR with a 2* team a couple months back and I switched from my 3*s to 2* ThorVerine and had no issues in the next LR.

I bet I could place top 10 in PVP now with a 2* team as well but can't test this since I sold my ThorVerine and haven't leveled anyone to replace them.

HailMary

_RiO_ wrote:

The same "git gud or git out" argument again? Please stop parroting baseless arguments. "Number 1 gets the goods" is not how everything else in life works, in particular in formal sports competitions: minor and major leagues, pro and amateur, weight classes, etc. etc.

I'm pretty sure winning Wimbledon, the Super Bowl, or the World Series gets your more lucrative endorsement deals than whatever the minor-league equivalents are. You seem to be utterly blind to the fact that you wish to represent the casual masses, yet view the rewards from high event placement as somehow necessary for "casual" play. You might want to sit down for this bombshell, but, ummm... ya kinda sound hardcore. Deep breaths.

_RiO_ wrote:

That's funny. You pretty much claim the opposite. Want a chance at proper roster progression? You need to be hardcore. Spending forever on the infinitesimaly small odds of scoring 3-star cards from tokens does not qualify as 'proper progression'. Going hardcore is mandatory to obtain your cover sets. You are competing directly with other hardcore players no matter if you choose to go casual or hardcore.

So, you choose to define "proper roster progression" as "consistently top-tier individual and alliance event placement," then complain that "proper roster progression" requires "going hardcore"? See above.

_RiO_ wrote:

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

If this game and its mechanics frustrate you like this then maybe its time to step back a little and enjoy something else. SHIELD will still be SHIELD no matter what happens.

No. What frustrates me is the holier-than-thou response from hardcore players that feel the disproportionate amount of work they put into the game somehow entitles them to having a dictatorial end-say over what is good for the game's playerbase as a whole. What frustrates me is the casual attitude with which real issues affecting the substantially larger lower tier of players are dismissed or otherwise drowned out by many a board-veteran complaining that it is a form of whining about the game's difficulty. You included, with the ad hominem you started.

Yes, "dictatorial end-say" is exactly right: the hardcores are not only censoring your grand populist appeal, but are directly pulling the devs' puppet strings. That's why, for example, max PVE scaling just got bumped up to L400: 90% of members in top-50 alliances love being completely scaled out of later nodes.

I'm sorry that some people happen not to agree with your complaints. On behalf of the Hardcore Cabal, I say unto you: I feelz ur hurtz. Fighting the good fight on behalf on all the emphatically casual players who demand consistent top-tier event placement is a tough job, but someone's gotta do it, right?

Unknown

Prior to joining SHIELD i won a total of 2 tournaments by accident because I was trying for second (before first place got the second place prize too). I had a single 141 and maybe 5 characters over 100. I have played hard and won almost every tourney since joinin SHIELD because of the 500 hp carrot and it's more fun to play hard when you are working with a group of friends. I joined SHIELD because 5DV took their time in getting me a spot that I was willing to pay for. I'm glad klingsor is slow or I'd have far less HP.

Unknown

Shamusyeah wrote:

Prior to joining SHIELD i won a total of 2 tournaments by accident because I was trying for second (before first place got the second place prize too). I had a single 141 and maybe 5 characters over 100. I have played hard and won almost every tourney since joinin SHIELD because of the 500 hp carrot and it's more fun to play hard when you are working with a group of friends. I joined SHIELD because 5DV took their time in getting me a spot that I was willing to pay for. I'm glad klingsor is slow or I'd have far less HP.

Give yourself some credit - (or SHIELD might have far less HP

Unknown

getting to a decent 3* roster takes time and patience - I've been playing since December (fairly casual but daily) and only got there about 3 weeks ago. And that includes spending a bit of real money on roster slots, shields and a few critical covers, e.g. spidey blue, LT green. For the first 2-3 months I just shot for top 50's or so and didn't even try to take on half the PVE nodes. In the last ten days I've got my first #1 and 1000+ in PVPs.

I do sympathise with the re-distribution to alliances and reduction in quality of tokens - which should be rebalanced - but I'm not certain it has really got more difficult or whether newer players simply expect to get there more quickly

Arogntbastrd

I remember when I was starting I'd see the leader boards and the rewards they'd get. I'd picture these titans of industry running through flowers and think "hey... I want to run through flowers"

I also remember thinking it was kinda hopeless and that I'd never get those rewards. Then I started creeping the forum! I saw who was good, started learning about builds, and then there came the patch event. I was able to get lots of covers for patch despite only having a 2* team and sold Thorverine to feed this stallion. Then came more wins and more covers.

Now I have a couple 141s. I can get top 10 pretty easily. The 3* covers are just rollin in and I don't need any 2*s. I don't feel shield or any of the elite are taking anything from me. I'm earning more iso, covers, and hp than ever. It's awesome

I guess I just don't get the perspective. There's a system in place to try to increase the rewards for the masses and instead of using the system people complain because THE BEST TEAM GETS THE BEST PRIZES?!

While I understand all the arguments and views about how hard it is for new/intermediate players I can't give anymore support than "yeah that sucks" people that play more and dedicate more time get better rewards. What's the problem?

I was new and sub pat at one point. Now I run through flowers. Join me

Unknown

Careful with this flower. she's still pissed that her best friends dad got shot.

Copps

The biggest problem with the current alliance reward breakdown is once I finish my 4 stars I'm not going to feel a huge need to shield my 1k+ scores unless I need the 3 star and there aren't many of them I need. So without a better reward system so I care if we are 4th or 49th I'm going to be spending less hp.

over_clocked

Flower is a boy!!!
And the mom was shot, not the dad.

over_clocked

Copps wrote:

The biggest problem with the current alliance reward breakdown is once I finish my 4 stars I'm not going to feel a huge need to shield my 1k+ scores unless I need the 3 star and there aren't many of them I need. So without a better reward system so I care if we are 4th or 49th I'm going to be spending less hp.

Would you try for 1st if the rewards were 'defensive boosts', '3-tourney usage shields', 'PvP shields'? (Lol my imagination has run wild.)
Ooh and roster slots, can't forget those. There are 38 characters in the game right now, Falcon will be 39th, and a roster slot costs 500 HP at this point.

Unknown

locked wrote:

Flower is a boy!!!
And the mom was shot, not the dad.

well i guess that shows you how long its been since i seen Bambi
(seriously its been 20+yrs at this point)