Alliance injustice

Unknown

Hi everyone !!

I think there is an injustice in the fighting between alliances

I noticed It's always the same teams that finish first at the end of an event, and win the big rewards. We fight against alliances that have dozens of characters level 141. There are even times when I could continue to play but when I see the level of opponents ... I give up!

This results in those who are already very strong get stronger and the others remain unchanged.

There should be a separation between the alliances high / medium / low level.

kalex716

Don't give up. Thats the one thing all those guys in the top alliances have never been able to fathom. Putting the game down is your biggest mistake.

That is in fact, the biggest difference between you and them, and nothing else.

Copps

Just keep playing. To most of the people with high level characters it seems unfair that you get to waltz past low level pve nodes while we are getting wiped by level 350+ Dakens. The sheer number of people with lvl 85 max rosters coming top 5 in pvp tournaments is stunning and now if you just keep pushing for 500+ points in each event you can win a huge number of heroic tokens to round out your roster.

Unknown

Individual perseverance will not make you a member of a top performing alliance. Sorry it just wont. And without that you will not develop as fast as someone who is.

His complaint has some validity to it. It has been oft repeated and is unlikely to change any time soon but he is right.

Nighthawk81

Copps wrote:

Just keep playing. To most of the people with high level characters it seems unfair that you get to waltz past low level pve nodes while we are getting wiped by level 350+ Dakens. The sheer number of people with lvl 85 max rosters coming top 5 in pvp tournaments is stunning and now if you just keep pushing for 500+ points in each event you can win a huge number of heroic tokens to round out your roster.

I agree with you (even though I an working on maxing out a couple 2*) except that I have not gotten a useful heroic token pull in I don't know how long. Now I just cash it in like a standard token with a "bleh" factor added in.

HailMary

kalex716 wrote:

Don't give up. Thats the one thing all those guys in the top alliances have never been able to fathom. Putting the game down is your biggest mistake.

That is in fact, the biggest difference between you and them, and nothing else.

Uhhhh... wut? I think most of us do generally fathom that not playing... hinders progression.

Meto5000

HailMary wrote:

kalex716 wrote:

Don't give up. Thats the one thing all those guys in the top alliances have never been able to fathom. Putting the game down is your biggest mistake.

That is in fact, the biggest difference between you and them, and nothing else.

Uhhhh... wut? I think most of us do generally fathom that not playing... hinders progression.

Depends on what comes up when the dev's play "Wheel of PVE". Super high rubberbanding + community scaling = play as little as possible except for 1 hour before the event ends.

HailMary

Meto5000 wrote:

Depends on what comes up when the dev's play "Wheel of PVE". Super high rubberbanding + community scaling = play as little as possible except for 1 hour before the event ends.

Heh, true. The top alliances generally aren't in the dark about this, though. I don't think S.H.I.E.L.D is poring over the forums thinking "OMG WUT MEAN REFRESH?! IS LYK MINT FRESH?!"

Meto5000

HailMary wrote:

Meto5000 wrote:

Depends on what comes up when the dev's play "Wheel of PVE". Super high rubberbanding + community scaling = play as little as possible except for 1 hour before the event ends.

Heh, true. The top alliances generally aren't in the dark about this, though. I don't think S.H.I.E.L.D is poring over the forums thinking "OMG WUT MEAN REFRESH?! IS LYK MINT FRESH?!"

Obviously they aren't on the forums doing it. They have a team of statisticians running numbers in a level 7 data center. Everybody knows this.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Individual perseverance will not make you a member of a top performing alliance. Sorry it just wont. And without that you will not develop as fast as someone who is.

His complaint has some validity to it. It has been oft repeated and is unlikely to change any time soon but he is right.

I'm not so sure that this won't be addressed pretty quickly.

There are a lot of dev decisions that have been made that indicate that they're very concerned about making sure that the hardcore don't dominate everything in sight. Rubberbanding means that you don't have to play 7x24 to do well (although it's created a situation where you have to play at event end, and I'm sure they're trying to figure that one out.) Scaling means that you don't have to play a fully leveled 3* roster to do well either.

So I can't imagine that they're happy with the current state of alliances. The individual scores of alliance members are controlled to some degree by the above factors, but the one thing that no one can do anything about is participation by the entire alliance. Essentially, if your entire alliance doesn't play, you're out of luck, and I don't think D3P wants a game where people feel they have to play every single event for their alliance. That'll just lead to alliance drama and burnout.

So I think they'll look for a solution for this. One possible one: when rosters go up to 25, only the top 20 scores count for the Alliance event score. That means that up to 20% of an alliance can 'take the event off,' without crippling the alliance. And make no mistake, when covers that aren't available elsewhere are at stake, it can be a serious handicap to lose out. I think a lot of the dissatisfaction with the current Hunt event comes from the fact that people feel they have to participate to get covers for their alliance. Alliance members don't want to feel that way, and alliance leaders don't want to try making people play.

Note that this doesn't address the disparity between small alliances and big alliances. Nor the unallied vs those in alliances. But I think the primary concern over at D3P is to get as many people as they can into big alliances (not least because there's a lot of money to be made in alliance slots.) And to do that, they need to make the big alliances competitive.

Unknown

Maybe things are different for SHIELD and 5DV for PvP, but hardly everyone in my alliance is some kind of super crazy hardcore guy in either PvP or PvE. If you look at the PvP scores for anyone but SHIELD and 5DV, and PvE scores for any alliance, you'll see there are plenty of people with rather humble scores. Now, just because you may have a better score than some of those guys doesn't mean you're guaranteed a spot in since there's obviously a good deal of luck involved (filled alliances usually have no reason to randomly replace someone unless that guy is AWOL).

Unknown

kalex716 wrote:

Don't give up. Thats the one thing all those guys in the top alliances have never been able to fathom. Putting the game down is your biggest mistake.

That is in fact, the biggest difference between you and them, and nothing else.

Don't pretend that the OP has a shot at top alliance rewards.

Meto5000

MikeHock wrote:

kalex716 wrote:

Don't give up. Thats the one thing all those guys in the top alliances have never been able to fathom. Putting the game down is your biggest mistake.

That is in fact, the biggest difference between you and them, and nothing else.

Don't pretend that the OP has a shot at top alliance rewards.

There's only one group for which significant things have changed with the addition of alliances. The Whale Solo Player. The WSP spends a huge amount of time and likely money on the game but only wants to play solo and not as part of a group. Before the alliances formed they consistently placed top 10 in most events and received 95% of all the top prizes available. Even though they still place top 10 in most events, they are now missing out on 1/3 of the covers they used to get (not to mention the buckets of iso that falls from the sky when you're in an alliance). Furthermore, because they didn't join an alliance right away, chances are slim that even if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to join a top 100 alliance.

Hardly anything at all has changed for the low level and mid level players without alliances. They didn't get the big rewards before, and they don't get them now. They can join just about any alliance and get payouts in line or better than their past reward structure. However, it sucks pretty bad for this high level solo player; they play just as hard as they used to, but now unless they choose to become part of a big 20 person Alliance, they can't reap the same benefits as they did before. There are plenty of reasons why this player may not want to join a top 100 Alliance but unless they do they're getting screwed. I have no idea how many of these types of players are out there, but I imagine it's a non-insignificant group. I run into players with multiple 141s and no alliance fairly regularly during PVP.

So I don't feel bad for casual players who whine about SHIELD placing top spot in just about every event, or whine that they don't have a chance to get Nick Fury cover who will be usable in 90+ days, and then only if you spend an inordinate amount of real money, something like $250 dollars, to max his covers, and like...a gabillion iso to max his level. Nick Fury is a TROPHY and nothing more. However, if you used to place top 10 in MOST events, and are unable to or don't want to join a top 100 Alliance, then yes, I feel bad for you, and I wish something could be done to allow this playstyle to continue.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Individual perseverance will not make you a member of a top performing alliance. Sorry it just wont. And without that you will not develop as fast as someone who is.

His complaint has some validity to it. It has been oft repeated and is unlikely to change any time soon but he is right.

On the contrary, a few months ago I was a no-name no-show, wondering how such legends like Nemek and Walkyourpath built such rosters. First time I saw the founder of S.H.I.E.L.D on pvp, I thought he was a cheater, he was so much more powerful than me.

What did it take? 3 months of effort. Playing daily and spending smart money. Cyber-Monday sale was the first time I spent money on the game. It's what helped me transition from a Thor, Wolverine, OBW team into 3 star team. Even now I don't have the best roster of my alliance but I still play daily. Now I have 99 Venoms working with me. Don't give up, who knows, you might be the next addition of a strong alliance!

Unknown

Meto5000 wrote:

HailMary wrote:

Meto5000 wrote:

Depends on what comes up when the dev's play "Wheel of PVE". Super high rubberbanding + community scaling = play as little as possible except for 1 hour before the event ends.

Heh, true. The top alliances generally aren't in the dark about this, though. I don't think S.H.I.E.L.D is poring over the forums thinking "OMG WUT MEAN REFRESH?! IS LYK MINT FRESH?!"

Obviously they aren't on the forums doing it. They have a team of statisticians running numbers in a level 7 data center. Everybody knows this.

Don't forget the guy over there playing Galaga, too.

Unknown

klingsor wrote:

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Individual perseverance will not make you a member of a top performing alliance. Sorry it just wont. And without that you will not develop as fast as someone who is.

His complaint has some validity to it. It has been oft repeated and is unlikely to change any time soon but he is right.

On the contrary, a few months ago I was a no-name no-show, wondering how such legends like Nemek and Walkyourpath built such rosters. First time I saw the founder of S.H.I.E.L.D on pvp, I thought he was a cheater, he was so much more powerful than me.

What did it take? 3 months of effort. Playing daily and spending smart money. Cyber-Monday sale was the first time I spent money on the game. It's what helped me transition from a Thor, Wolverine, OBW team into 3 star team. Even now I don't have the best roster of my alliance but I still play daily. Now I have 99 Venoms working with me. Don't give up, who knows, you might be the next addition of a strong alliance!

Been working on my alliance, we are up to 19 people now. Many of whom are good folks who bought one or more slots to expand but understandably play casually. We have come in top 100 sometimes, but not most of the time. I would argue that my roster and ability to play the game has very little to do with building an alliance, which you clearly excel at, klingsor. I refused to believe I needed to recruit based on roster or performance, and I doubly refuse to kick anyone out because we didn't make top 100. So I like the alliance I have built but as more and more alliances organize purely based on large rosters or dedicated performance The Lab will probably fall back to consistent ~120-150 finishes. I am not trying to complain, just illustrating my reality.

Saying don't give up you might be the next addition of a strong alliance, (and I am sure you knew nothing of my situation and meant no offense) is like saying your alliance is not good enough, if you want better, either start kicking people for stronger replacements or abandon them and find a new home. Which I have no intention of doing either. And thus myself and the other researchers of the lab will likely never place first or even top 50 on any alliance board and will not progress as quickly as those who will. Smaller alliances than us and solo players have this phenomenon compounded even further.

I did not mean to imply it was not possible for someone to join a strong alliance, just that there are many factors that can hinder this goal that are completely independent of one's roster, skill, time, or even cash spent.

Thanos

Meto5000 wrote:

HailMary wrote:

Meto5000 wrote:

Depends on what comes up when the dev's play "Wheel of PVE". Super high rubberbanding + community scaling = play as little as possible except for 1 hour before the event ends.

Heh, true. The top alliances generally aren't in the dark about this, though. I don't think S.H.I.E.L.D is poring over the forums thinking "OMG WUT MEAN REFRESH?! IS LYK MINT FRESH?!"

Obviously they aren't on the forums doing it. They have a team of statisticians running numbers in a level 7 data center. Everybody knows this.

The only reason S.H.I.E.l.D. does so well is cause they've been infiltrated by HYDRA. Everybody knows this.

Clintman

Skrulls. .

Unknown

The only problem I see with alliances is that the HP cost to expand them creates a huge barrier. If it was actually possible to pool an alliance's resources together like the MPQ article claims that wouldn't be a problem, but so far asking the last few guys to come up with 1500-2000 HP is pretty insane.

Now that tokens persist after events, I think it might be a good idea to move the rewards back to the way they are but give like 3 heroic token of whoever that character would've been. That is, if the 3* given out was Captain America then you get 3 Shield of Justice tokens. That averages out to be 42% of a Captain America, so it's still a pretty significant incentive to do well, but you obviously can't count on getting any particular color or even the cover at all. More (or less) tokens can be given out to achieve whatever % distribution D3 has in mind.

Droc76

I play this game to have fun not because I feel the need to "fight the power" aka make Shield come in 2nd. Lol

user311

Its true that most of the members on these top alliances are living in the 141s, but I can tell you that every time I look at their individual scores, they are top pretty top heavy. I mean that of 20 members usually 5-10 are doing all the work and the other 10 are generally moving along steadily. I know that my team with zero level 100+ is always about even with their 10th place guy. So Im confident that its more about having 20 members who consistently earn high scores. The scaling is "supposed" to make one 20 team equal to another 20 team. Of course thats not always the case but a team that fully contributes should be able to rank high. Maybe commanders need to be more cutthroat with the members who are not contributing.