Why Nick Fury just as an alliance reward?

Polares

I would like to ask the developers why they keep punishing the players like myself that don't want to join an Alliance? I don't get it. I undestarnd that you want players to join alliances, becuase you think (know) players will play and spend more, and I get that you have to give good rewards to them. I get that, but I don't get why to do so you have to punish the rest of us.

I didn't like when you moved one of the covers to the Alliance reward, but this Nick Fury reward just for alliances is a really dirty trick. And it is very very unfair. I think there are a lot of ways of rewarding people who join alliances without punishing people who don't.

You see, I play this game because I like it, I love playing when I want and when I see fit, but I don't things to get more complicated than what they already are, so I don't want to join any Alliance. And I know there are people like me. I would like to ask too, what is the percentage of players in alliances?

After the last changes (lvl 400, alliance rewards punishing single player, new 4* without buffing existing 4*, easier PvE for new players, etc, etc.), I am in the brink of stopping playing the game. I am very pissed of because of this Fury move. And I now for sure that I woulnd't win him even if he was a single player reward too (becuase I will be on trip next weeks), but this Alliance above all policy is really unfair.

Bowgentle

It's not just an alliance reward - it's an alliance reward for the top 100 alliances only.
So just joining any alliance won't get you the cover either, you need a large, active one.

Tharos

IceIX posted that this cover it is more a teasing than the real character release. So nothing to worry about now.

As for alliance rewards, I don't see it a punishing non-alliance players. No rewards taken back to them. It is more a bonus for being in an aliance than a malus to be alone.
But as a member of a "no-top 100" alliance, I must admit it is frustrating to see covers knowing that there is no way for me to win. I see it as the 4* covers for top1: a beautiful dream out of reach for me.

Unknown

Giving something cool (which is not essential to the core game) to another doesn't take anything away from you. Just because others gets Fury doesn't make u poorer. The developer has mentioned this is a sneak peek. More importantly, if you want Fury and dun want to be in an alliance, you can wait for it to be listed as a prize for topping a PVE or PVP.

Polares

laoahpeh wrote:

Giving something cool (which is not essential to the core game) to another doesn't take anything away from you. Just because others gets Fury doesn't make u poorer. The developer has mentioned this is a sneak peek. More importantly, if you want Fury and dun want to be in an alliance, you can wait for it to be listed as a prize for topping a PVE or PVP.

Well it depends, if now the better rewards are for Alliances and I don't join one they are taking frome me, because I won't be able to compete the same way against other players, and this game is all about competition against other player teams. And why do I have to wait? Why do we players who are not in alliances the ones that have to wait?!?!? Don't you think this is unfair?

Why not give another cover for the single reward? Why tease just for Alliances ? What has changed is that the focus now is for Alliances, all the best rewards now seems that are just for alliances and this is what I don't like.

GumisK

Stop whining about Fury, for God's sake! He's a 4* character. Look again. Four-star. In case noone noticed, they are supposed to be incredibly rare and difficult to obtain. I've been playing since the very beginning, and I'm still far from completing X-Force Wolvie or Invisible Woman. Do you see a bunch of those running around in tournaments (yeah, I'm aware that X-Force is seriously underwhelming, that's another point though)? Do you encounter them in each player's roster? No, you don't. It will be the same with Nick. Only the most dedicated, succesful and lucky of us will be able to get him, because that's the way it works.

Unknown

Just an fyi..when iw was released it was via a pve where you could win up to one of each color for placing top 2 or something.

My assumption is either 1. The same will happen and they just wanted to hype the first season befoe the iron out details for later ones. Or 2. Expect fury yellow and fury blue to be rewards for the next 2 season's in a similar manner. If I had to guess, I'd take one over 2 though.

Regardless, for the time being, nobody is going to be running a 0/0/5 fury and winning (after dropping 10k on covers) so for the time being the point is rather moot.

@gumisk. I would def be running xforce at thus point if he had been any good. That said, it will takes months to finisha. 4**** regardless without dropping cash...so its not the end of the world in that regard. That said...for alliances that tend to get top 60 every event it will be pretty much guaranteed that they win him I would assume. Top 60-80 less guaranteed, and 80-150 will be fighting hard for those last 20 spots. I don't know how I feel about that. On the one hand, yay free 4****, on the other...I don't care nearly as much about the "season" as 10 pack heroics will likely just give me 2-4 3*** I already have and the rest 2** caps and hawkeyes.

And don't get me wrong, I was against alliances and am still against how they have handled a lot of it... But there are two sides to every coin though, and I do enjoy doing well in an event just to help somebody else out. It's as close to gifting covers as you can get in the game. If they take route 2 I mentioned in my first sentence or two...then I say it is time to complain....in the words of Mitsurugi "not yet."

Polares

GumisK wrote:

Stop whining about Fury, for God's sake! He's a 4* character. Look again. Four-star. In case noone noticed, they are supposed to be incredibly rare and difficult to obtain. I've been playing since the very beginning, and I'm still far from completing X-Force Wolvie or Invisible Woman. Do you see a bunch of those running around in tournaments (yeah, I'm aware that X-Force is seriously underwhelming, that's another point though)? Do you encounter them in each player's roster? No, you don't. It will be the same with Nick. Only the most dedicated, succesful and lucky of us will be able to get him, because that's the way it works.

Well If we don't see more 4* in tournaments is because 4* are underwhelming, but a lot of people has a lot of 4* covers, I have allmost all Wolvie covers (all but one), and a lot of IW covers. This is another reason I am a little bit pissed of, because this new tendency to create new characters before sorting the old ones. So, I don't see your point. What I see is a game that I like a lot that is focusing on a lot on things I don't think are good for the game, like Alliances first and creating new characters without sorting the old ones.

And I wasn't whinning about Fury, I was whinning about Alliances.

Come on this is a one player game! This is no CoD or WoW, I am not against some cooperative or social element in the game, but I don't want it to be mandatory. And each passing day Alliances are more and more important.

Unknown

Polares wrote:

Come on this is a one player game! This is no CoD or WoW, I am not against some cooperative or social element in the game, but I don't want it to be mandatory. And each passing day Alliances are more and more important.

cooperative and social elements are what tend to keep people more interested in a game.

Unknown

Polares wrote:

laoahpeh wrote:

Giving something cool (which is not essential to the core game) to another doesn't take anything away from you. Just because others gets Fury doesn't make u poorer. The developer has mentioned this is a sneak peek. More importantly, if you want Fury and dun want to be in an alliance, you can wait for it to be listed as a prize for topping a PVE or PVP.

Well it depends, if now the better rewards are for Alliances and I don't join one they are taking frome me, because I won't be able to compete the same way against other players, and this game is all about competition against other player teams. And why do I have to wait? Why do we players who are not in alliances the ones that have to wait?!?!? Don't you think this is unfair?

Why not give another cover for the single reward? Why tease just for Alliances ? What has changed is that the focus now is for Alliances, all the best rewards now seems that are just for alliances and this is what I don't like.

you seem to be under the impression that you are entitled. its a free game with the option of in app purchases, they don't owe you anything.

you say that they are punishing you for not being in alliance - all i hear is you whining about not getting what you want.

GumisK

Polares wrote:

Well If we don't see more 4* in tournaments is because 4* are underwhelming, but a lot of people has a lot of 4* covers, I have allmost all Wolvie covers (all but one), and a lot of IW covers. This is another reason I am a little bit pissed of, because this new tendency to create new characters before sorting the old ones. So, I don't see your point. What I see is a game that I like a lot that is focusing on a lot on things I don't think are good for the game, like Alliances first and creating new characters without sorting the old ones.

And I wasn't whinning about Fury, I was whinning about Alliances.

Well, then you're whining off-topic

Jokes aside, the fact that you have plenty four-star covers, doesn't mean everybody does. You're an established player, with a lot of playtime on your back, but if you check, out of curiosity, the rosters of mid-tier players, you'll see my point. Most of them won't own a playable 4*. I know noone in my Alliance does, despite us having 20 faces on the squad and getting very decent tournament results, too. On the community scale, a completed 4* is an anomaly.

Polares

L45TN7 wrote:

Polares wrote:

laoahpeh wrote:

Giving something cool (which is not essential to the core game) to another doesn't take anything away from you. Just because others gets Fury doesn't make u poorer. The developer has mentioned this is a sneak peek. More importantly, if you want Fury and dun want to be in an alliance, you can wait for it to be listed as a prize for topping a PVE or PVP.

Well it depends, if now the better rewards are for Alliances and I don't join one they are taking frome me, because I won't be able to compete the same way against other players, and this game is all about competition against other player teams. And why do I have to wait? Why do we players who are not in alliances the ones that have to wait?!?!? Don't you think this is unfair?

Why not give another cover for the single reward? Why tease just for Alliances ? What has changed is that the focus now is for Alliances, all the best rewards now seems that are just for alliances and this is what I don't like.

you seem to be under the impression that you are entitled. its a free game with the option of in app purchases, they don't owe you anything.

you say that they are punishing you for not being in alliance - all i hear is you whining about not getting what you want.

Of course I feel entitled! I have been playing this game for more than 5 months! And I love the game, I love the characters and I think this is a great game. And maybe they don't owe ME nothing, but I think they owe a lot to US, all the players that have been playing this game ( you know, the people who pay their salaries, and has made this a great game ).

And of course I am whinning for not getting what I want, did I say anything different? This is a forum and I express my differences in criteria of what the developers are doing and what I think they should be doing, and I know that they will probably not listen to anything I am saying, and maybe I am wrong in everything I am saying, but well this is life, at least I have to try. As I said I AM ENTITLED to this game, I want this game to be great, this is why I am registered in this forum and I play everyday. Why are you registered If you are not entitled?!?!?!?

GumisK wrote:

Polares wrote:

Well If we don't see more 4* in tournaments is because 4* are underwhelming, but a lot of people has a lot of 4* covers, I have allmost all Wolvie covers (all but one), and a lot of IW covers. This is another reason I am a little bit pissed of, because this new tendency to create new characters before sorting the old ones. So, I don't see your point. What I see is a game that I like a lot that is focusing on a lot on things I don't think are good for the game, like Alliances first and creating new characters without sorting the old ones.

And I wasn't whinning about Fury, I was whinning about Alliances.

Well, then you're whining off-topic

Jokes aside, the fact that you have plenty four-star covers, doesn't mean everybody does. You're an established player, with a lot of playtime on your back, but if you check, out of curiosity, the rosters of mid-tier players, you'll see my point. Most of them won't own a playable 4*. I know noone in my Alliance does, despite us having 20 faces on the squad and getting very decent tournament results, too. On the community scale, a completed 4* is an anomaly.

Well maybe the tittle is a bit misleading, you are right

I would love to play with 4* Wolvie, I have 'completed' the transition to 3* (3+ 141 characters) so I was hoping soon I could start leveling XWolvie. Now, I have to wait until I can get Fury to a playable level

Unknown

You are, in fact, technically correct: you are entitled to the game. Good thing they gave it to you for free.

You are not, in fact, entitled to all the content therein - that's sort of why you have to play the game. And you are entitled to play by your own rules or with your own style. Don't expect the devs to compensate you for that though. They're entitled too, I guess.

Polares

Riggy wrote:

You are, in fact, technically correct: you are entitled to the game. Good thing they gave it to you for free.

You are not, in fact, entitled to all the content therein - that's sort of why you have to play the game. And you are entitled to play by your own rules or with your own style. Don't expect the devs to compensate you for that though. They're entitled too, I guess.

Jejeje I know, but it is too late for me, I have already spend a good amount of dollars in it

And as I said I am just voicing my opinion, and I could be wrong of course (we didn't have a real debate, most people just said I was whining ), but I am concerned that the game is worse If they keep doing this changes, and that I will stop playing they game soon if things keep going this path... Well maybe it is the best I can do, shut up and stop playing

Unknown

I'll say this - existing players with a 4* Wolverine are entitled to have him in a playable state, and rightly so. Abilities that cost more and do less than 3* characters is not a playable state. Patch is strictly better than X-Force in all regards except health and tile match damage, and that's if you put him on a bad team. On a good team, he will 1-shot a 141 Hulk with his red (IM40, Punisher, and Magneto are some allies that let Patch achieve these numbers). I'd like to see X-Force at least useable in some fashion, god knows the players who currently have him have earned him. They at least pushed IW into a playable state, although she fills an incredibly niche role (late game explosive damage and AP ramp), I'd be happy if we could see Logan in at least the same boat, if not filling that role that is practically screaming at you when you look at the X-Force: Sex & Violence cover.

Unknown

Polares wrote:

Riggy wrote:

You are, in fact, technically correct: you are entitled to the game. Good thing they gave it to you for free.

You are not, in fact, entitled to all the content therein - that's sort of why you have to play the game. And you are entitled to play by your own rules or with your own style. Don't expect the devs to compensate you for that though. They're entitled too, I guess.

Jejeje I know, but it is too late for me, I have already spend a good amount of dollars in it

And as I said I am just voicing my opinion, and I could be wrong of course (we didn't have a real debate, most people just said I was whining ), but I am concerned that the game is worse If they keep doing this changes, and that I will stop playing they game soon if things keep going this path... Well maybe it is the best I can do, shut up and stop playing

There is a weird sort of dichotomy b/w competitive and non-competitive aspects of the design. They're trying to manage that, but I think this forum shows there's a lot of frustration over how they're trying to manage it and everyone has different ideas on how that should work.

However, stepping back from the fact that Nick is a 4* cover, I think the biggest concern is that large alliances are somehow getting a competitive edge b/c they get 1 more cover than non-alliances. I think this is patently false, mostly b/c I suspect only a small fraction of the player-base actually buys covers for their newly acquired heroes. My Human Torch is still sitting at 1/1/1, but he'd have been just as much of a non-factor in his required node if he was 1/1/0 instead (or whichever cover was alliance-only). My level 20 isn't an uber-powerhouse compared to someone else's level 18, and I'm still cleaning up his exclusive node fairly handily (my scaling is starting to kick in, but that's a different discussion - I'd need at least 6-7 more covers and levels to make him relevant).

So the competitive edge gained by 1 more cover (in PVE) is near-zero regardless of whether it's the 2nd or 3rd cover; whereas the competitive edge for that first cover (compared to those who don't get it at all) is much larger (and that itself has multiple design arguments in it).

By all means, engage in a debate. I love game theory and design and while my green name doesn't give me some mystical insight into the developer's minds, we can always theorize in public discourse (and Ice has shown up in these discussions before, such as in the recent AI discussion thread comparing MPQ to PQ1). But as far as debates go, your OP really did sound more like whining about alliances being given rewards at all as opposed to this design unfairly gives an advantage to one segment of the population.

Polares

Riggy wrote:

...

There is a weird sort of dichotomy b/w competitive and non-competitive aspects of the design. They're trying to manage that, but I think this forum shows there's a lot of frustration over how they're trying to manage it and everyone has different ideas on how that should work.

However, stepping back from the fact taht Nick is a 4* cover, I think the biggest concern is that large alliances are somehow getting a competitive edge b/c they get 1 more cover than non-alliances. I think this is patently false, mostly b/c I suspect only a small fraction of the player-base actually buys covers for their newly acquired heroes. My Human Torch is still sitting at 1/1/1, but he'd have been just as much of a non-factor in his required node if he was 1/1/0 instead (or whichever cover was alliance-only). My level 20 isn't an uber-powerhouse compared to someone else's level 18, and I'm still cleaning up his exclusive node fairly handily (my scaling is starting to kick in, but that's a different discussion - I'd need at least 6-7 more covers and levels to make him relevant).

So the competitive edge gained by 1 more cover (in PVE) is near-zero regardless of whether it's the 2nd or 3rd cover; whereas the competitive edge for that first cover (compared to those who don't get it at all) is much larger (and that itself has multiple design arguments in it).

By all means, engage in a debate. I love game theory and design and while my green name doesn't give me some mystical insight into the developer's minds, we can always theorize in public discourse (and Ice has shown up in these discussions before, such as in the recent AI discussion thread comparing MPQ to PQ1). But as far as debates go, your OP really did sound more like whining about alliances being given rewards at all as opposed to this design unfairly gives an advantage to one segment of the population.

It is very difficult to really know the implications of the difference in rewards some players get when they are in a good alliance or when they are not, but of course, everything is easier if you are in a good alliance. It is not just the extra cover, they get also hp and iso. And maybe the problem it is not with the reward you get from one event, but when you get extra covers, extra hp and extra iso for each event the implications are way more important. Right now it is a big disavantage not being in a good Alliance, so why make thing worse awarding the first new 4* in a while just as an alliance reward?

When a new 4* is released, and more when seems this could be the very first 4* powerhouse, you should be more carefull than ever. So if you give this new character as a reward for alliances you should give it to single players too. I think this is the fairest thing to do.

In the end, I think it is very important to try not to force people to play the game in a way they don't feel comfortable with. As I said, it is good if you reward someone for doing something, but it is better if you do it in a way people who don't do that doesn't feel punished ( now you just get two covers when before you could win 3 so you are being punished for not joining alliances). I think the best would be to reward covers in single player and iso and hp for alliances. If you do that a player always gets the chance to win the covers he needs and alliances get an extra for their cooperative work.

Meto5000

Emeryt wrote:

Polares wrote:

Come on this is a one player game! This is no CoD or WoW, I am not against some cooperative or social element in the game, but I don't want it to be mandatory. And each passing day Alliances are more and more important.

cooperative and social elements are what tend to keep people more interested in a game.

Emeryt, even in WoW back when I used to play you didn't have to be in a top tier guild to get the good rewards. If you were good you could easily merc your way into a Raid on a case by case basis.

You can't really join a top 100 Alliance "casually" in order to continue getting the covers you used to get as a solo player. Being a top 10 solo player a month ago means you're only a top 25 player now since you can only ever hope to receive 2 out of the 3 covers. Hardcore Solo players like these have a legitimate complaint about the way Alliances work. It would be cool if there was some kind of "Overall Top 100" reward regardless of Alliance status that was identical to the top 100 Alliance Reward which was available for players not in the top 100 Alliance standings. That way these solo players could still compete for covers without being forced to join an alliance.

HailMary

Polares wrote:

I think there are a lot of ways of rewarding people who join alliances without punishing people who don't.

Like what? Literally every possible thing that an alliance can get for you can easily be recast into a "punishment" for anti-alliance players.

Polares wrote:

And I now for sure that I woulnd't win him even if he was a single player reward too (becuase I will be on trip next weeks), but this Alliance above all policy is really unfair.

So, "I wouldn't win him even if he was an individual reward, but the specific way in which I'm not winning him now is sooooo unfair"? That about right?

Polares wrote:

Come on this is a one player game! This is no CoD or WoW, I am not against some cooperative or social element in the game, but I don't want it to be mandatory. And each passing day Alliances are more and more important.

It's a single-player game with a social component. Alliances are not mandatory. You're complaining that you want to reap the benefits of high-level alliance membership while personally choosing, for whatever reason, to eschew alliance membership. Yeah, that's not silly at all.

Polares wrote:

And of course I am whinning for not getting what I want, did I say anything different?

Generally, people who use words like "fairness" and "punishment" are trying to make a slightly bigger point than "I just don't like so-and-so."

Unknown

It's all about perception, just like the change from 25 to 10 IS0 per alliance member reward. One person might say: "Free ISO! I'm getting X ISO more than I did a couple weeks ago". Another person might say: "They're reducing my ISO income! Compared to yesterday, I'm earning Y ISO less". They're both right in their own way.

Same thing here. On one hand, people get rewarded with one 4* cover for being part of an active alliance that must consistently do well over a month period. On the other hand, non-alliance people are being punished by not having the opportunity to earn a 4* cover no matter how well they do individually.

Unknown

This is just the first time he's being awarded. He is a 4*. Every event has a 4* cover awarded for top ranks. I'm sure he will get into usual cycle of 4* cover rewards later. It's not a problem if getting it for the first time is really hard. I don't care if I get it or not. I haven't even made my transition from 2* to 3* yet. I had one IW I pulled from tutorial way back when I started which I sold for roster space. Later I got a red X-Force from another random cover. It's like a collector's edition action figure or something.