The Death of the Solo Whale Player

Unknown

ihearthawthats wrote:

I like alliances but I want to address the 3-star cover concern, in particular the exchange between Metro and Puritas. Imo, that 3-star cover is integral to progression. It isn't merely a complaint of solo vs alliance play, but how drastic it is.

There's also a 50 HP reward. The op didn't seem to complain about it and neither would I. Alliances get 200 bonus ISO daily--again, I don't care. Up it to 2000 if you want, but that 3-star is too vital to be missing out on.

I mean I still only have 1 FB friend (I had 3 but 2 have stopped playing). Is it hard to find another? Prolly not, but I'm not too bothered by it either which way. If they told me that I needed more FB friends in order to get 3-star covers, then I might get more concerned.

The 3* cover is vital yes, but you also have to remember the fact that there are now more being handed out. So yes, you have to be in an alliance to get it but more people are receiving it than before. The devs are handing out incentive after incentive to join an alliance. You can literally just go join 1 and never talk again if u don't want. If you are a serious player and your contributing there's not many alliances who would kick you. The devs obviously are trying to get everyone into alliances and make it worth their while to do so. Not joining can only be blamed on ones own stubbornness.

Unknown

Seems like the only thing that clearly needs to be done is that the "Alliance-only" cover (for lack of a better name) needs to rotate so all colours can be won both as solo, and as Alliance somehow (though not at the same time).

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

ihearthawthats wrote:

I like alliances but I want to address the 3-star cover concern, in particular the exchange between Metro and Puritas. Imo, that 3-star cover is integral to progression. It isn't merely a complaint of solo vs alliance play, but how drastic it is.

There's also a 50 HP reward. The op didn't seem to complain about it and neither would I. Alliances get 200 bonus ISO daily--again, I don't care. Up it to 2000 if you want, but that 3-star is too vital to be missing out on.

I mean I still only have 1 FB friend (I had 3 but 2 have stopped playing). Is it hard to find another? Prolly not, but I'm not too bothered by it either which way. If they told me that I needed more FB friends in order to get 3-star covers, then I might get more concerned.

The 3* cover is vital yes, but you also have to remember the fact that there are now more being handed out. So yes, you have to be in an alliance to get it but more people are receiving it than before. The devs are handing out incentive after incentive to join an alliance. You can literally just go join 1 and never talk again if u don't want. If you are a serious player and your contributing there's not many alliances who would kick you. The devs obviously are trying to get everyone into alliances and make it worth their while to do so. Not joining can only be blamed on ones own stubbornness.

Or maybe I just like the people in my current alliance and think it would be rude to leave.

Why make such a blanket statement and chalk it up to "stubbornness" when there are plenty of reasons why the entire player population isn't in a top alliance?

Unknown

MikeHock wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

ihearthawthats wrote:

I like alliances but I want to address the 3-star cover concern, in particular the exchange between Metro and Puritas. Imo, that 3-star cover is integral to progression. It isn't merely a complaint of solo vs alliance play, but how drastic it is.

There's also a 50 HP reward. The op didn't seem to complain about it and neither would I. Alliances get 200 bonus ISO daily--again, I don't care. Up it to 2000 if you want, but that 3-star is too vital to be missing out on.

I mean I still only have 1 FB friend (I had 3 but 2 have stopped playing). Is it hard to find another? Prolly not, but I'm not too bothered by it either which way. If they told me that I needed more FB friends in order to get 3-star covers, then I might get more concerned.

The 3* cover is vital yes, but you also have to remember the fact that there are now more being handed out. So yes, you have to be in an alliance to get it but more people are receiving it than before. The devs are handing out incentive after incentive to join an alliance. You can literally just go join 1 and never talk again if u don't want. If you are a serious player and your contributing there's not many alliances who would kick you. The devs obviously are trying to get everyone into alliances and make it worth their while to do so. Not joining can only be blamed on ones own stubbornness.

Or maybe I just like the people in my current alliance and think it would be rude to leave.

Why make such a blanket statement and chalk it up to "stubbornness" when there are plenty of reasons why the entire player population isn't in a top alliance?

The point being, you make that choice to stay in that alliance and you could just as easily leave and find a better 1. You don't want to yet you want the rewards = stubbornness in my book.

Unknown

I'm gonna drop out of this debate ATM though. I've made my points and don't feel like being drawn into another verbal shoot out. Haha.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

ihearthawthats wrote:

I like alliances but I want to address the 3-star cover concern, in particular the exchange between Metro and Puritas. Imo, that 3-star cover is integral to progression. It isn't merely a complaint of solo vs alliance play, but how drastic it is.

There's also a 50 HP reward. The op didn't seem to complain about it and neither would I. Alliances get 200 bonus ISO daily--again, I don't care. Up it to 2000 if you want, but that 3-star is too vital to be missing out on.

I mean I still only have 1 FB friend (I had 3 but 2 have stopped playing). Is it hard to find another? Prolly not, but I'm not too bothered by it either which way. If they told me that I needed more FB friends in order to get 3-star covers, then I might get more concerned.

The 3* cover is vital yes, but you also have to remember the fact that there are now more being handed out. So yes, you have to be in an alliance to get it but more people are receiving it than before. The devs are handing out incentive after incentive to join an alliance. You can literally just go join 1 and never talk again if u don't want. If you are a serious player and your contributing there's not many alliances who would kick you. The devs obviously are trying to get everyone into alliances and make it worth their while to do so. Not joining can only be blamed on ones own stubbornness.

Or maybe I just like the people in my current alliance and think it would be rude to leave.

Why make such a blanket statement and chalk it up to "stubbornness" when there are plenty of reasons why the entire player population isn't in a top alliance?

The point being, you make that choice to stay in that alliance and you could just as easily leave and find a better 1. You don't want to yet you want the rewards = stubbornness in my book.

The stubbornness is all on your side of the table buddy. God forbid anyone disagee with you.

Unknown

People can disagree with me all they want, unless they are wrong.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

The point being, you make that choice to stay in that alliance and you could just as easily leave and find a better 1. You don't want to yet you want the rewards = stubbornness in my book.

Unfortunately, a "better" alliance currently just means more active members. So basically you have two choices:
1. Play super casually with friends and get left out of top alliance rewards
2. Join 20-person alliance to brute force your way to top alliance rewards

Unknown

gobstopper wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The point being, you make that choice to stay in that alliance and you could just as easily leave and find a better 1. You don't want to yet you want the rewards = stubbornness in my book.

Unfortunately, a "better" alliance currently just means more active members. So basically you have two choices:
1. Play super casually with friends and get left out of top alliance rewards
2. Join 20-person alliance to brute force your way to top alliance rewards

I suppose I'm still in the convo for a lil bit. Haha. So bored today.

That's all semi-true. Roster does matter to an extent in pvp because lower lvls hit a wall at higher points.
Also though, you don't have to be in an alliance with friends to chill and talk about the game. You can be in separate alliances and still have fun with the game together.

DD-The-Mighty

Psykopathic wrote:

gobstopper wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The point being, you make that choice to stay in that alliance and you could just as easily leave and find a better 1. You don't want to yet you want the rewards = stubbornness in my book.

Unfortunately, a "better" alliance currently just means more active members. So basically you have two choices:
1. Play super casually with friends and get left out of top alliance rewards
2. Join 20-person alliance to brute force your way to top alliance rewards

I suppose I'm still in the convo for a lil bit. Haha. So bored today.

That's all semi-true. Roster does matter to an extent in pvp because lower lvls hit a wall at higher points.
Also though, you don't have to be in an alliance with friends to chill and talk about the game. You can be in separate alliances and still have fun with the game together.

well well well, Check you out. You've been on quite a roll the last few days. Shilling Alliances, marginalizing others issues with the game, farmin up all those likes.
Quite fascinating to behold...

Unknown

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

gobstopper wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The point being, you make that choice to stay in that alliance and you could just as easily leave and find a better 1. You don't want to yet you want the rewards = stubbornness in my book.

Unfortunately, a "better" alliance currently just means more active members. So basically you have two choices:
1. Play super casually with friends and get left out of top alliance rewards
2. Join 20-person alliance to brute force your way to top alliance rewards

I suppose I'm still in the convo for a lil bit. Haha. So bored today.

That's all semi-true. Roster does matter to an extent in pvp because lower lvls hit a wall at higher points.
Also though, you don't have to be in an alliance with friends to chill and talk about the game. You can be in separate alliances and still have fun with the game together.

well well well, Check you out. You've been on quite a roll the last few days. Shilling Alliances, marginalizing others issues with the game, farmin up all those likes.
Quite fascinating to behold...

Not 100% what shilling means but sure.

Unknown

I don't see why stubborness is bad here. It's a matter of playstyle. You might as well be saying that if you prefer to play solo/with friends you might as well not play at all.

Even someone who prefers to only play pve or only play pvp can be seen a liability to a top 100 alliance. As pointed out earlier, you can't have a playstyle preference anymore. You have to join an alliance and compete in every single event whether you want to or not. I'd rather be stubborn than unwillingly grind a boring event.

I actually prefer multiplayer, but as mentioned by someone else earlier, I'm also not a big a fan of the responsibility/stress that comes from maintaining a top alliance.

Unknown

gobstopper wrote:

Unfortunately, a "better" alliance currently just means more active members. So basically you have two choices:
1. Play super casually with friends and get left out of top alliance rewards
2. Join 20-person alliance to brute force your way to top alliance rewards

Your argument might have more force if you could avoid injecting biased language into it.

That said, it's still quite possible to gain top 100 rewards while playing casually. It's not possible to do it while not playing at all. It's not possible to do it if the entire alliance is playing casually. And I don't see the problem with that.

You get to choose what you want out of the alliance system. And no matter how you try to disguise it, it is your choice. You can choose to prioritize socialization, or you can choose to prioritize rewards. To complain that you can't have your cake and eat is too is just unreasonable.

scottee

I still don't understand this. No one's making anyone do anything. You can play this game for 5 minutes a week if you want. No one's making you do more than that. No one's making anyone join an alliance. No one's making you compete for top prizes. No one says your roster has to have maxed out 3*'s.

It's a game. It's as much as you want to make it. You can spend every waking moment playing it if you want. Or you could play a couple matches a day. Or you could play once a week. It's a game. Don't let it take over your life.

Do you need to examine the cost of what you want? Yes. If you want a 3* cover from a tournament, you'll have to invest some time and energy building up a competitive roster and then spend some hours on said tournament. Want two 3* covers in that tourney? More time/energy investment. Want the third cover? More investment, in the form of alliances. Don't want to put in that much investment? That's ok, no one's making you.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being in the stage of building up a 2* roster. I enjoyed that stage of the game. My brother is in that stage of the game, and taking it slowly, and he's having fun. Learn to be content with where you are and what you're striving for next, instead of coveting what your neighbor has that you're not in a position to attain yet.

This isn't school. No one is going to flunk you out if you're not in a certain percentile of the player base. In fact, you don't hear anyone on here complaining to try to help out the people who finish place 200-500 in those PVP tourneys. That's over HALF the player base. No one's fighting for the 1* roster who struggles to even win a recruit token.

Some people want to play casually, and that's fine. But you can't play casually, or even semi-committedly, and expect to gain top tier rewards. You want to compete for 3* covers, but you haven't put in the time to build a fully stocked 2* roster? Then why do you deserve it? You have a 2* roster but haven't been able to win any 3* covers? Work on your game. Look to improve. Keep reading around the forums. I know this is the internet age, but there are no shortcuts in this game. No instant gratification. I just got my first 3* over 100 this week. It took a lot of development. A lot of getting better at the nuances of the game. A lot of investment in my 2* roster. And without joining a big alliance.

Keep progressing steadily. It's a marathon, yet some people want to win the race after sprinting for a few hundred yards.

Unknown

The only problem with the alliance system is that no system exists to reasonably pool your resources together. It's asking a lot for a guy to pay 1500 or more HP for the last 5 slots. This is not someone an average person would have sitting around, and a casual player would need a pretty long time to save up that much even if he wanted to. Even though when you work out the cost-benefit analysis it's clearly worth it to save up a month for 2000 HP to join an alliance, in reality it doesn't work because you don't even know if that last spot is still even there by the time you have that much.

If, like the MPQ article claims, that you can just have everyone spend 100 HP toward some community fund (and less if someone feels extra generous and pitched in more), then there won't be a problem, but as far as I know that functionality doesn't exist yet.

There shouldn't be a third cover in the alliance reward, but currently anyone who would've a reasonable shot at getting 3 covers can easily find an alliance anyway, so while this is pretty unfair it doesn't change the distribution of covers in any meaningful way. In the long run I'd like to see event tokens replace the cover rewards and have the third cover restored, but even if that's done, you'd likely only have the third cover available to the top 1% so it'd still be pretty elusive to most players. By the way, that'd likely result in a net nerf in the quality of the covers obtained, since tokens are not the same thing as colored covers, though I think it's needed because I don't think D3 will want to give out more quality covers (see the nerf of LR from guaranteed covers to tokens, for example).

reckless442

Phantron wrote:

The only problem with the alliance system is that no system exists to reasonably pool your resources together. It's asking a lot for a guy to pay 1500 or more HP for the last 5 slots. This is not someone an average person would have sitting around, and a casual player would need a pretty long time to save up that much even if he wanted to. Even though when you work out the cost-benefit analysis it's clearly worth it to save up a month for 2000 HP to join an alliance, in reality it doesn't work because you don't even know if that last spot is still even there by the time you have that much.

If, like the MPQ article claims, that you can just have everyone spend 100 HP toward some community fund (and less if someone feels extra generous and pitched in more), then there won't be a problem, but as far as I know that functionality doesn't exist yet.

I addressed this earlier. How hard is it for one person in the alliance to pay for a Stark's Salary -- 22,000 HP for $99 -- and buy all the alliance slots with those HP. Then every member of the alliance sends $5 by PayPal or via iTunes to that person. That allows everyone to pay the same amount. It really isn't that difficult.

Unknown

reckless442 wrote:

I addressed this earlier. How hard is it for one person in the alliance to pay for a Stark's Salary -- 22,000 HP for $99 -- and buy all the alliance slots with those HP. Then every member of the alliance sends $5 by PayPal or via iTunes to that person. That allows everyone to pay the same amount. It really isn't that difficult.

There could be a trust issue with a proposal like that, and what if some of the guy who agreed on this decided to bail for other reasons before paying? Do you advertise 'send XYZ $5 for a spot in our alliance?' Anything that involves coordinating transfer of funds with 20 guys is just asking for problems. It'd be easier to find 5 guys with 3000 HP that pays for the last 10 slots (15500 HP for slot 11 to slot 20), but even that isn't that easy. Remember the statistics from the MPQ article shows only 8% of the people pay, and 3000 HP is something that you most likely have to pay to get, since that's not an amount an average person will just have sitting around, as HP generally should be used for shields or cover upgrades once you have over 2000 HP anyway.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

People can disagree with me all they want, unless they are wrong.

So, if I'm parsing this right, you just said when people are wrong is when they agree with you.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

The only problem with the alliance system is that no system exists to reasonably pool your resources together. It's asking a lot for a guy to pay 1500 or more HP for the last 5 slots. This is not someone an average person would have sitting around, and a casual player would need a pretty long time to save up that much even if he wanted to. Even though when you work out the cost-benefit analysis it's clearly worth it to save up a month for 2000 HP to join an alliance, in reality it doesn't work because you don't even know if that last spot is still even there by the time you have that much.

Yeah I am trying to save up for our alliance's 20th spot. Been trying for weeks to find a person (from within or outside the alliance) who can justify that 2000 hp expenditure. Is it worth the cost. That depends is our alliance competitive enough that the 20th person will push us all into covers? If so absolutely. If I spend the 2k HP and it moves us up to an average of rank 105 then I would feel I wasted it. And all the opportunities I denied myself by selling existing heroes to make room for 3*s because I have to save, not using shields to place better because I have to save.

Yes I have already purchased currency to expand our alliance, and wiped out any previous HP saving I had doing so. The rewards from being in an alliance are quite good but psychologically sometimes all I want to say is keep the iso, and HP those mean nothing without the cover. It makes me feel that consistently being just shy of getting a cover then we are failing at the game. How long do you keep trying and failing before you get frustrated and upset over something that is supposed to be fun...

Unknown

scottee wrote:

I still don't understand this. [...] No one says your roster has to have maxed out 3*'s.

The game kind of does. Certain pve missions require 3-stars. Pvp events often feature 3-stars. And when was the last time we got a new character that wasn't a 3-star?

The Doom pvp was the 1st in a while to break a recent chain. HT allowed you to win Punisher. Punisher allowed you to win GSBW. GSBW allowed you to win Thor. PVE was similar.

If you're not in a top alliance, it will be hard to keep up. You can only run obw + ares + lvl23 guest 3-star for so long until it gets tiring. You can certainly win 2vs3, but is it really as fun as having a fully functional team?