Why Nick Fury just as an alliance reward?

Unknown

You need to realize you're refusing to participate in an entire part of the game, and then getting upset that you don't get the rewards. It's the same for any other game as well, if you don't want to run a certain dungeon, or grind for a weapon, yeah, you're never going to get it, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

TL; DR: Just join an alliance mang.

Puritas

Polares wrote:

I would like to ask the developers why they keep punishing the players like myself that don't want to join an Alliance?

VentureBeat Article wrote:

Because we believe that players who engage with the social mechanics in the game are inherently more valuable to us than those that don’t, we decided our KPI (Key Performance Indicator) for Alliances would be the percent of our active players who are in alliances.

Unknown

Well, let's see...

1) It's a "preview" of Nick Fury only, not the full release of him. As such, they're limiting the quantities of this uber four-star character.

2) Join an alliance. You don't have to be social. You don't have to talk to them. You just have to keep playing, and reap the benefits. It's kind of like joining the bacon of the month club - go about your life as per normal, and every so often you receive a package of tasty cured pig in the mail. Now, if the bacon of the month club (BotM going forward) gave away a bonus of ten bacon packages to a few of the more active memebers of the BotM club (those that provide the most feedback, etc) and you stood there saying "I want that delicious bacon, but I don't want to join no stinkin' club. That's unfair, there should be bacon for everybody!" it's kinda silly, don't you think? The biggest difference is that the BotM club costs money - joining an alliance costs nothing. So go out there and get your damn bacon!

daveomite

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.

maybe for you. You cannot speak for everyone that plays the game just because you like something. Just like the fact that not everyone posts their entire life on Facebook and Twitter.

I am in agreement that the game definitely seems more weighted to alliances at this point, and I mean full 20 person alliances with no dead weight players.

And how does one get a 20 person alliance? About $100.

Most of these things, the new scaling, the alliance only rewards that have been getting more and more constant...they're all "incentives" for people to be in a strong alliance, not to play without one. Which, in turn, means someone has to pay to play.

I'm not saying I'm against alliances, I'm not. I created one for the hell of it, only have 5 members. Even if we all played as much as I do, there is no way the alliance I'm in could catch up. That's a fact, period. The only way to get higher...I'd have to pay to add alliance slots, a lot of them. The only "advantage" I may have is that another alliance seems to be trying to recruit me, which they have closer to 12 members right now. But again, that just means more hp has to be spent, either by me or someone else. It's all moot who has to.

In my mind, there should be a strong redo of certain elements of the game. There really should be just as much emphasis put into the solo players, as there are full blown alliances. It doesn't have to be "equal" by any stretch, flat out, alliances SHOULD have some better bonuses/rewards...that's the incentive to be in one.

They just shouldn't subtract from a solo players game mechanic to make the alliances better.

daveomite

Dslyexic wrote:

You need to realize you're refusing to participate in an entire part of the game, and then getting upset that you don't get the rewards. It's the same for any other game as well, if you don't want to run a certain dungeon, or grind for a weapon, yeah, you're never going to get it, and you have no one to blame but yourself.

TL; DR: Just join an alliance mang.

"Just joining an alliance" is not the point, at least not mine as I cannot speak for the OP.

I'm not one of those people looking for an easy way, or a cheat, or trying to avoid a dungeon. I find every single thing I can, and going for every weapon. Those challenges are just part of the game, but they are things I can do individually.

There are clearly two sides we're talking about here. Solo vs Alliance. The point is, a solo player shouldn't be penalized for the sake of the alliance game mechanic. If that were true, how could you play something like COD if you lost your Internet connection?

Things like this are what I mean, and what is causing things like players in my bracket to somehow have lThor and HT fully maxed out to 141, not to mention fully maxed 4* wolvie and others. How? Strong alliances, or cheating. No other way. That is the only way they could have secured each color cover for each character. Sure, maybe they bought some covers too, but the point is they already have all color covers, and all are maxed.

I have a 5/0/5 HT, and that is only because I bought most of his covers. I have a lThor with no red at 0/2/3... why? Because again...I have not gotten the missing color covers for either one of them. Its not like i only play one or twice a week, I play for hours every single day. It's just the luck of the draw with any pulls.

HailMary

daveomite wrote:

There are clearly two sides we're talking about here. Solo vs Alliance. The point is, a solo player shouldn't be penalized for the sake of the alliance game mechanic. If that were true, how could you play something like COD if you lost your Internet connection?

Playing single-player in COD nets you zero advancement in the multiplayer side. It's actually less than the equivalent of only playing Prologue in MPQ.

daveomite wrote:

Things like this are what I mean, and what is causing things like players in my bracket to somehow have lThor and HT fully maxed out to 141, not to mention fully maxed 4* wolvie and others. How? Strong alliances, or cheating. No other way. That is the only way they could have secured each color cover for each character. Sure, maybe they bought some covers too, but the point is they already have all color covers, and all are maxed.

Iso-maxed L230 XWolv? That's probably cheating, because that's a monumental waste of Iso. However, Django has a guy (maybe two?) who had max-covered his XWolv before he even joined us -- no HP spent. We have at least one member who did the same for IW. I only have a couple covers in each, so I can relate to your "Whooooa" reaction, but getting max covers in a 4* is completely doable without cheating and without buying any covers. Maxing out HT, OTOH, is almost certainly the result of buying some covers.

daveomite wrote:

I have a 5/0/5 HT, and that is only because I bought most of his covers. I have a lThor with no red at 0/2/3... why? Because again...I have not gotten the missing color covers for either one of them. Its not like i only play one or twice a week, I play for hours every single day. It's just the luck of the draw with any pulls.

You could've gotten 3/3/3 LThor from event placement -- the first 1/1/1 was given out to the top 1000 individual players in the most recent Hulk PVE. That's how I built up my LThor. Two lucky token pulls since then have bumped my LThor up to 3/5/3. I still have not bought a single LThor cover. Heck, I know one forumite got very lucky token pulls in Heroic Juggs, and had a 2/4/5 LThor before it even ended.

scottee

Everyone complaining about Fury is essentially expected to be able to get every bit of content released as soon as it comes out.

The release of Fury doesn't harm you in any way. If you had a maxed 2* roster and couldn't compete with 3* rosters, then nothing's changed. You don't lose levels because of Fury. You didn't lose any covers you already had. It's more content, yes, but that's more content that you can now work towards. It hasn't taken any content away from what you've earned.

The comparison argument doesn't hold weight either. Every single player in the game is in a progression of unlocking and acquiring new covers and levels in the game. No one that isn't sandboxed has every single cover and every hero maxed. Everyone has people they are ahead of in terms of content, and everyone has someone behind them. This will always hold true. Even amongst the players who have been around since day one have players ahead of or behind them, because some made more purchases or played more hours or made different strategic choices.

None of this changes by them releasing Fury as a preview to alliances only. It's like a high school giving a free pizza party to the campus club that raises the most funds. Only one's going to get it, and they're going to get it because they have more resources and worked harder.

You don't automatically deserve what other people are getting just because you want it.

KaioShinDE

Also keep in mind that event is still running for 25 days. Ice said that the cover reward was a tease. It is very possible that the PvE event where he'll be officially released and everyone has a shot at him individually could be even sooner than that or at the same time.

Unknown

daveomite wrote:

.
They just shouldn't subtract from a solo players game mechanic to make the alliances better.

I don't think they really are. So far the only thing that's really changed is that one of the covers is an alliance prize for most tournaments. I think the number of people in the community who were consistently placing in the top 5 to get all 3 covers and who aren't in top 100 alliances now is probably pretty low. The biggest issue, which they seem to have fixed for the most part, was 1 color being consistently alliance only.
Aside from Nick Fury, solo players have access to all of the content alliance players have. It might take longer to get all the covers you want if you're in that small subgroup of alliance-less top 5 players, but as long as there are fewer than 400,000 people playing MPQ, shifting that cover to alliances is giving out more covers than ever before.

Not to mention that if you're complaining about the ISO and other rewards alliances get, it's kinda like complaning you didn't get prizes for a tournament you didn't enter. You're choosing not to participate in some of the content they've released, but don't want other people getting the rewards for using that content.

daveomite

AethD wrote:

daveomite wrote:

.
They just shouldn't subtract from a solo players game mechanic to make the alliances better.

I don't think they really are. So far the only thing that's really changed is that one of the covers is an alliance prize for most tournaments. I think the number of people in the community who were consistently placing in the top 5 to get all 3 covers and who aren't in top 100 alliances now is probably pretty low. The biggest issue, which they seem to have fixed for the most part, was 1 color being consistently alliance only.
Aside from Nick Fury, solo players have access to all of the content alliance players have. It might take longer to get all the covers you want if you're in that small subgroup of alliance-less top 5 players, but as long as there are fewer than 400,000 people playing MPQ, shifting that cover to alliances is giving out more covers than ever before.

Not to mention that if you're complaining about the ISO and other rewards alliances get, it's kinda like complaning you didn't get prizes for a tournament you didn't enter. You're choosing not to participate in some of the content they've released, but don't want other people getting the rewards for using that content.

Sorry, but that last statement is complete ****. We're just on different ends of the spectrum it seems. Maybe you can't remember focusing more on solo achievements, not alliance ones. I focus on mainly solo, but also alliance now too. I just see both sides of the issue, not just one. Simple fact, the game the changing, which is good...but part of that change is mainly focused to one side, alliances.

Unknown

You would have a point if all 3 Nick Fury covers were released to an alliance at once. It's a single purple cover of Nick Fury. It's a tease and a reward for the players that generate more revenue for D3.

That's it.

Not to mention that 2000 Nick Furies will be given out. If he was given out at the end of a standard 1000 person PVP event, that would mean 2000 brackets, or the equivalent of 2,000,000 total players playing in a PVP event.

It actually makes a lot more sense to give out to an alliance as a teaser than to individual players: why shouldn't a team of the best players each get the best reward? Why should they have to compete against one another and let someone not nearly as good sneak their way to a Nick Fury because they got lucky with a bracket full of fellow "not great" players?

Katai

Even moreso, it's a Purple alliance cover that won't be awarded until 24 days from now!

My guess is that D3 is gonna release him as a regular award throughout the month.

HailMary

daveomite wrote:

Sorry, but that last statement is complete ****. We're just on different ends of the spectrum it seems. Maybe you can't remember focusing more on solo achievements, not alliance ones. I focus on mainly solo, but also alliance now too.

<looks at alliance rewards>

<looks at individual rewards>

<looks back at alliance rewards>

Yeah, I'm gonna say that almost no one who can actually use a given set of individual rewards (i.e. just about everyone) focuses more on alliance rewards than individual rewards.

daveomite wrote:

I just see both sides of the issue, not just one. Simple fact, the game the changing, which is good...but part of that change is mainly focused to one side, alliances.

So, you "see both sides of the issue," but believe that adding a single trophy cover to alliance rewards three weeks from now is "subtracting" something from the individual experience (never mind the nonsensical COD analogy), and declare that everyone who has a maxed LThor/HT must be a cheater or in a strong alliance? Right, that's what objectivity sounds like.

daveomite

HailMary wrote:

daveomite wrote:

Sorry, but that last statement is complete ****. We're just on different ends of the spectrum it seems. Maybe you can't remember focusing more on solo achievements, not alliance ones. I focus on mainly solo, but also alliance now too.

<looks at alliance rewards>

<looks at individual rewards>

<looks back at alliance rewards>

Yeah, I'm gonna say that almost no one who can actually use a given set of individual rewards (i.e. just about everyone) focuses more on alliance rewards than individual rewards.

daveomite wrote:

I just see both sides of the issue, not just one. Simple fact, the game the changing, which is good...but part of that change is mainly focused to one side, alliances.

So, you "see both sides of the issue," but believe that adding a single trophy cover to alliance rewards three weeks from now is "subtracting" something from the individual experience (never mind the nonsensical COD analogy), and declare that everyone who has a maxed LThor/HT must be a cheater or in a strong alliance? Right, that's what objectivity sounds like.

I'm not trying to start a war here. Not at all.

I never said anyone with a maxed Thor or HT cheated, just said it was one of two possible options most likely due to color covers.

I don't personally care if Fury is an alliance only reward right now. That is what the OP posted, not me.

my point had less to do with any of that, and more to do with the apparent direction of the game.

My perspective is obviously different from some others on here, I know and understand that.

and my COD "nonsensical analogy", really isn't as nonsensical as you may think. Interchange it with any other game with social aspects. You know what, I love Fallout games, and there really isn't social aspects to it. I love other games with them, but I have a choice to play socially or individually. I am not the type to have an xbox live account so I can play other people, I'm more about the replay value of the games that I choose to play.

I've seen many people on this forum complain when a color cover was taken away from solo players. I've seen many people comment on how there are fewer good rewards on different pve's and pvp's now that even they think it would be harder for newer people to get all the characters they needed.

All of those things have happened, they are a part of what the game is now. I'm not saying that's bad or good, but saying it's better for alliances than for solo players.

more than anything else, community scaling is the worst culprit over anything else. If that were fixed, then maybe everything else would work itself out. I've already invested my 200+ into the game now, I'm just not planning on investing anymore on it just to try to keep up with those that do, and those that have been a bit more fortunate with their pulls.

This particular shield season 1 thing, quite a bit different from most of the pvp and pve rewards setup, and it's much better. Hopefully things will continue to progress that way, which would help everyone.

Unknown

daveomite wrote:

Sorry, but that last statement is complete ****. We're just on different ends of the spectrum it seems. Maybe you can't remember focusing more on solo achievements, not alliance ones. I focus on mainly solo, but also alliance now too. I just see both sides of the issue, not just one. Simple fact, the game the changing, which is good...but part of that change is mainly focused to one side, alliances.

You're right that the game is changing and they've been releasing more changes to alliances, but that's because it's their hot new feature.

daveomite wrote:

Maybe you can't remember focusing more on solo achievements, not alliance ones.

Now that's a complete **** statement lol. As of now, all alliance achievements are based off of solo achievements. Do better in solo and as a side effect your alliance does better. There is no Alliance v. Alliance event (and I hope there never is). Of course personally, there's only like 4 3* covers I can't use, so I'm 100% into solo awards and have been since I was strong enough to compete decently.

HailMary

daveomite wrote:

I never said anyone with a maxed Thor or HT cheated, just said it was one of two possible options most likely due to color covers.

Actually, you said "How? Strong alliances, or cheating. No other way. That is the only way they could have secured each color cover for each character."

Your statement is simply pure, uncut bulls---. That's not a personal assessment. That's a statement of fact.

Even if we completely ignore lucky token pulls, token purchases, and 10-pack purchases, LThor 1/1/1 was given out as the Hulk PVE individual reward for Top 1000 placement.

daveomite wrote:

and my COD "nonsensical analogy", really isn't as nonsensical as you may think. Interchange it with any other game with social aspects. You know what, I love Fallout games, and there really isn't social aspects to it. I love other games with them, but I have a choice to play socially or individually. I am not the type to have an xbox live account so I can play other people, I'm more about the replay value of the games that I choose to play.

I get that general point. But, in that analogy, Prologue = COD single-player, Events = COD MP. COD is extremely focused on MP, and COD SP provides zero benefit for MP progression, unlike MPQ's Prologue. MPQ is actually better in that respect. Prologue, not non-alliance PVE/PVP, is the "offline" experience. All Events (PVP & PVE) are fundamentally multiplayer by design. It just doesn't feel as multiplayer because it's asynchronous, and you're essentially playing bot stand-ins for human players. But, if you play any Events at all, you're still directly and actively competing against other real players.

You seem to be implying that you've been denied the choice to play MPQ socially or not-so-socially. Nothing of the sort has happened. If you're a top PVP contender, you do get fewer placement-reward covers than those who build up alliances, but that hardly prevents you from not participating in the alliance system.

daveomite wrote:

more than anything else, community scaling is the worst culprit over anything else. If that were fixed, then maybe everything else would work itself out. I've already invested my 200+ into the game now, I'm just not planning on investing anymore on it just to try to keep up with those that do, and those that have been a bit more fortunate with their pulls.

I agree that community scaling is a megakitty, but I don't see what that has to do with alliances.

Zifna

How unfair the alliance-only nature of this reward is depends on D3[s future plans.

That is, do they plan to boost or require Fury prior to offering him to the general game population? If they do, that's going to make a lot of people rightfully very upset, because they said originally alliances would not be "required" and that would be going very clearly against that.

Unknown

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.

But it might take something away. Fury seems toi be the first usable ****, depending how it works his summon Avengers could be a Very nasty attack and his purple is also a game changer at higher levels. Therefore If you have him you have an advantage right off the bat That helps you place near the top and knock everybody else down possibly taking away rewards. Also, you only get him for being in S.H.I.E.L.D., 5deadlyeverything, scavengers, Django, or 90 some other alliances out of how many thousands? I get rewarding the best, but even if you are the best player in your bracket you might not pull a Fury if your alliance is under 20 strong. It's not explicitly p2w, but it is the rich getting richer. (And yes I am speaking out of bitterness that my current alliance has 12 slots, 9 members, and no chance at top 100.)

Unknown

bob_irwin wrote:

Fury seems toi be the first usable ****, depending how it works his summon Avengers could be a Very nasty attack and his purple is also a game changer at higher levels. Therefore If you have him you have an advantage right off the bat

Ahem.
A) Only 1 cover will be awarded - purple. That means no one will know how yellow works. It might be very useless attack.
Higher levels? And how you will level 1 cover? Oh, you want to buy him to 5 purple with HP? And how much it will cost? That's not 3*, that's 4*. Doesn't look like "rich gets richier", more like poorer.
C) And even then - he won't be at max level, you will need to spend GIANT amount of iso to level him, and even then he will be less useful than, say, fully covered Hood. That means his purple won't be game-chenger for long, long LONG time.

Sure, he looks and sounds like very potent character to have and use - at least cover-capped and at good 141+ level. One cover is abysmal part of that. Do you remember how useful 1 cover of Baglady? Of XF Wolvie? Or 1 cover of cMag? Or 1 cover of Spidey? Yeah, extremely useful. Not.
And I'm pretty sure his covers will be later given out as top 1 reward for single players. So even if I will have him earlier than you, I won't be able to use him properly for very long time - maybe even long after he will come in general rotation.