The Death of the Solo Whale Player

_RiO_

Cryptobrancus wrote:

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...

And that sums up what is wrong with alliances.

I've said it before; in solo play you atleast tend to 'get lucky' in being bracketed with lower players every now and again, allowing you to pick up a 3* cover. As alliances are on one global ladder, that happy little moment does not exist. Add to that the fact that you need* a 20 heads strong alliance of dedicated members to even break into the top realm of the scoreboard where the covers reside, and well; frustrating becomes an understatement.

(* apart from a few statistical anomalies cited by certain other people on this board)

Unknown

Alliance rankings should have been average scores from the word go. Dropping the worst 5 scores still favors the very large alliances. OR, there should be alliance brackets where the top 10 get the cover, and some sort of average mmr of members is used to bracket 2000 alliances into the fight, causing the alliances performance to mirror that of its members. If most members got top 10, the alliance would get top 10 and a third cover. The way rewards are structured, if you don't make the top 100, you basically get 50 HP, down to something like 2500 alliances, with some scaling ISO but nothing too critical, so top 100 is everything. My alliance use to be about 80-90th in events, then we slowly starting moving down the list as alliances got larger and larger and larger. We've had no choice but to ramp up to 20/20, which is clearly D3's intent as alliances spend $$$ to stay competitive.

I wouldn't mind seeing only top 15 scores counted at this point, but the whole alliance implementation was a blatant money grab from the start.

As to the OP, the grind was always there buddy, you just resented it less when you could get all 3 covers without an alliance. That new character is still going to be featured in the next event and if you took a weekend off you still missed your opportunity to get it. What I hate most about the recent changes is you can't then buy your way into the cover with a guaranteed heropack anymore. The theme 10x hero packs need to go back to 1 guaranteed pull of the featured character, I have no idea why it was shifted away from this as it would seem having it would result in more purchases than not having it. (Sidenote, if the new 40x packs have guaranteed 3* feature heroes instead I may just quit this game).

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

Alliance rankings should have been average scores from the word go. Dropping the worst 5 scores still favors the very large alliances. OR, there should be alliance brackets where the top 10 get the cover, and some sort of average mmr of members is used to bracket 2000 alliances into the fight, causing the alliances performance to mirror that of its members. If most members got top 10, the alliance would get top 10 and a third cover. The way rewards are structured, if you don't make the top 100, you basically get 50 HP, down to something like 2500 alliances, with some scaling ISO but nothing too critical, so top 100 is everything. My alliance use to be about 80-90th in events, then we slowly starting moving down the list as alliances got larger and larger and larger. We've had no choice but to ramp up to 20/20, which is clearly D3's intent as alliances spend $$$ to stay competitive.

I wouldn't mind seeing only top 15 scores counted at this point, but the whole alliance implementation was a blatant money grab from the start.

As to the OP, the grind was always there buddy, you just resented it less when you could get all 3 covers without an alliance. That new character is still going to be featured in the next event and if you took a weekend off you still missed your opportunity to get it. What I hate most about the recent changes is you can't then buy your way into the cover with a guaranteed heropack anymore. The theme 10x hero packs need to go back to 1 guaranteed pull of the featured character, I have no idea why it was shifted away from this as it would seem having it would result in more purchases than not having it. (Sidenote, if the new 40x packs have guaranteed 3* feature heroes instead I may just quit this game).

A scoring average in my personal opinion is the worst idea possible. It brings on way too many negatives.

I could easily go into a alliance by myself and put up 1300-1400 every single time. That counteracts the devs trying to get people in the alliance and the while point if alliances in the 1st place. In other words, it highly benefits the alliances with small rosters. Exactly why should a roster with 5 people have a huge advantage over a roster with 20 people. Where does that make sense? It makes sense to people in small alliances who see the personal benefit but not the big picture.

On the other hand, only counting 15/20 top scores is a much better solution IMO. Getting to 15 members is much easier than getting to 20 so it would allow a lot more alliances to compete as well as giving members in 20 person alliances a chance to get an occasional breather. It has benefit to many more people.

Nemek

I would support top 15 players so hard.

Unknown

Nemek wrote:

I would support top 15 players so hard.

Same. I'm in an alliance that usually finishes top 50 for most stuff. And that's with a few members who take time off for things, or dislike playing in certain style events. I get that there are some alliances where the drama of who gets to take an event off might flare up, but for us I think it would be a way to remove any guilt people might feel about having to go to your cousin's wedding next weekend and worrying about if you'll find wi-fi there so as to not let the group down.
Besides, it might spur some of the bottom 5 in an alliance for any event to step it up so they know they're one of the ones adding to the point total. Could be cool.

_RiO_

Psykopathic wrote:

A scoring average in my personal opinion is the worst idea possible. It brings on way too many negatives.

I could easily go into a alliance by myself and put up 1300-1400 every single time. That counteracts the devs trying to get people in the alliance and the while point if alliances in the 1st place. In other words, it highly benefits the alliances with small rosters. Exactly why should a roster with 5 people have a huge advantage over a roster with 20 people. Where does that make sense? It makes sense to people in small alliances who see the personal benefit but not the big picture.

On the other hand, only counting 15/20 top scores is a much better solution IMO. Getting to 15 members is much easier than getting to 20 so it would allow a lot more alliances to compete as well as giving members in 20 person alliances a chance to get an occasional breather. It has benefit to many more people.

Agreed.

Would be interesting to see such a mechanic combined with bracketing alliances by size as well.
E.g. 'small' (5-10) , 'medium' (10-15) and 'large' (15-20) alliances where 'up to 8', 'up to 12' and 'up to 15' highest scores are counted.
Unsure of the logistic details for handling it correctly, but it'd still be nice to give smaller alliances room for a similar 'breather' as well.

Unknown

edit : nm bad idea

1 breather spot for every 5 members?

4 out of 5 count
8 out of 10 count
12 out of 15 count
16 out of 20 count

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

1 breather spot for every 5 members?

4 out of 5 count
8 out of 10 count
12 out of 15 count
16 out of 20 count

The reason this becomes an issue is say an alliance has 15 members. They are now being forced to only use 12 while 20
Member alliances have 16 still. So it still gives the slots for people to take breaks but it doesn't even things up for the 15-20 man alliances. It can be argued that the bigger alliances should have the advantage, they still do though. 15/15 member alliances have those 15 members to score. 20/20 members alliances automatically get their 15 best so it's still an advantage just not as big of 1.

Most alliances below like 10-12 members are typically casual anyways so the changes wouldn't effect them as much to begin with.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

Cryptobrancus wrote:

1 breather spot for every 5 members?

4 out of 5 count
8 out of 10 count
12 out of 15 count
16 out of 20 count

The reason this becomes an issue is say an alliance has 15 members. They are now being forced to only use 12 while 20
Member alliances have 16 still. So it still gives the slots for people to take breaks but it doesn't even things up for the 15-20 man alliances. It can be argued that the bigger alliances should have the advantage, they still do though. 15/15 member alliances have those 15 members to score. 20/20 members alliances automatically get their 15 best so it's still an advantage just not as big of 1.

Most alliances below like 10-12 members are typically casual anyways so the changes wouldn't effect them as much to begin with.

Oops, I obviously didn't think that one all the way through. I got excited about giving everyone a break but you are right, that system would be counterproductive, suggestion removed.

Unknown

A better take on that system: Only the top 5 scores count toward the alliance total. So if an alliance only has 5 members, all 5 members' scores count. In this way, alliances don't even need to have a member limit.

Copps

5 is too few I think it's very easy to get 5 high scores together as well as removing the need for 75% of the alliance to play each event. This would hamper any feeling of team in most cases as most scores don't matter.

Unknown

gobstopper wrote:

A better take on that system: Only the top 5 scores count toward the alliance total. So if an alliance only has 5 members, all 5 members' scores count. In this way, alliances don't even need to have a member limit.

That has the opposite problem of the previous suggestion.
Basically no advantage to adding members. Obviously another suggestion to benefit personal situation I assume as the flaws to this suggestion are extremely obvious, unlike the previous.

Unknown

Well, the advantage is you have 20 players from which to take your top 5 scores from, while an alliance of 5 members only has 5 members to choose from.

It doesn't have to be 5, I just chose it so the concept would be easier to understand. Could be 8, 10, 12, etc. Something that at least tries to engender a feeling of quality over quantity

Unknown

gobstopper wrote:

Well, the advantage is you have 20 players from which to take your top 5 scores from, while an alliance of 5 members only has 5 members to choose from.

It doesn't have to be 5, I just chose it so the concept would be easier to understand. Could be 8, 10, 12, etc. Something that at least tries to engender a feeling of quality over quantity

That's the same concept we were already discussing except with 15. It's just a matter of the devs deciding which # of people to count gives a proper balance between quantity and quality. Overall, your point is understood and I think the vast majority of players could probably agree that something of this nature is probably a good change for the game.

scottee

ihearthawthats wrote:

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?

Pve nodes only require one cover. PVP require none. I placed top 10 in the GSBW PVP mostly using the loaner BW, as my level 45 wasn't much more of a threat and her health didn't auto regenerate like the loaner.

You want a competitive 3* team? I do too. So work to build it. I don't have any illusions that I should be winning top tier awards. I only came into the game in late Jan.

This isn't a $5 Steam game where you should be able to complete all the content in 40 hours and have collected every item. Otherwise tons of players would have left. Building a 3* team isn't supposed to be a fast progression. You can't just read some internet walkthrough and then complete the game over the weekend.

People run into walls progressing in this game. And you're supposed to. Move up isn't supposed to be simple. But instead of complaining that you can't get past a wall and asking them to give you something easier, try working on your game instead. Figure out strategies to place higher in PVP's, or take less damage in PVE's. Learn how to beat 3* teams. This isn't arm-wrestling where the stronger team always wins. It's a strategy game. Work on improving strategies.

DD-The-Mighty

scottee wrote:

ihearthawthats wrote:

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?

Pve nodes only require one cover. PVP require none. I placed top 10 in the GSBW PVP mostly using the loaner BW, as my level 45 wasn't much more of a threat and her health didn't auto regenerate like the loaner.

You want a competitive 3* team? I do too. So work to build it. I don't have any illusions that I should be winning top tier awards. I only came into the game in late Jan.

This isn't a $5 Steam game where you should be able to complete all the content in 40 hours and have collected every item. Otherwise tons of players would have left. Building a 3* team isn't supposed to be a fast progression. You can't just read some internet walkthrough and then complete the game over the weekend.

People run into walls progressing in this game. And you're supposed to. Move up isn't supposed to be simple. But instead of complaining that you can't get past a wall and asking them to give you something easier, try working on your game instead. Figure out strategies to place higher in PVP's, or take less damage in PVE's. Learn how to beat 3* teams. This isn't arm-wrestling where the stronger team always wins. It's a strategy game. Work on improving strategies.

Settle down there Tough guy. We'll see how well you handle all this "intended hardness" when you hit the wall. Like how well the hardcore Pros took it when D3 turned its god eye to their shenanigans and Jacked up 230 enemies to 400.

scottee

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

Settle down there Tough guy. We'll see how well you handle all this "intended hardness" when you hit the wall. Like how well the hardcore Pros took it when D3 turned its god eye to their shenanigans and Jacked up 230 enemies to 400.

I didn't know I was a tough guy, but I'll take it as a compliment.

The reason they jacked up enemies to 400 is because the 230's were too easy for some of the hardcore pros. The top players needed more end-game content or they would eventually get bored and quit, with nothing left to accomplish in the game. The alliance dynamics give them something to work toward, and that will be ever-changing. There's people building up Invisible Woman because there's no one else for them to unlock/level up. (Plus I think she'll be viable at high level PVP.)

I'm not saying this as a high level player. I have a 115 Hulk, 89 Punisher, and a bunch of maxed 2*'s. It's taken me three months to get this far.

The devs make adjustments to the system and everyone acts like a child got murdered. It's a game. It changes. Part of the game is learning how to adapt.

DD-The-Mighty

scottee wrote:

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

Settle down there Tough guy. We'll see how well you handle all this "intended hardness" when you hit the wall. Like how well the hardcore Pros took it when D3 turned its god eye to their shenanigans and Jacked up 230 enemies to 400.

I didn't know I was a tough guy, but I'll take it as a compliment. -well you did butt in and tell everyone to "suck it up and deal wiih it" how else was it supposed to be taken?

The reason they jacked up enemies to 400 is because the 230's were too easy for some of the hardcore pros. The top players needed more end-game content or they would eventually get bored and quit, with nothing left to accomplish in the game. The alliance dynamics give them something to work toward, and that will be ever-changing. There's people building up Invisible Woman because there's no one else for them to unlock/level up. (Plus I think she'll be viable at high level PVP.)

The devs make adjustments to the system and everyone acts like a child got murdered. It's a game. It changes. Part of the game is learning how to adapt. -please see your above paragraph and look back at the thread related to that. that was not quietly dealt with. Nor should it have been.

You have yet to refute that at some level all players do this. and certain responses reinforce my point. I simply hope you have this stiff upper lip when one of these systems inevitably encroaches on your play, And that you will avoid higher-than-though crab mentality responses to valid criticisms.

But whatever. There's no point debating with with one who's sole argument is yelling at critics.

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.

Psykopathic wrote:

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

hahaha, I do appreciate a good sense of humor, but chalking up 85%-90% of the player population as "stubborn", because they aren't in the top 100 alliances, is just wrong.

You remind me of the unwavering, crazy, ,but fun Irish guy in Braveheart through this debate. You know, the guy who thought "It's my island".

Unknown

scottee wrote:

Pve nodes only require one cover. PVP require none. I placed top 10 in the GSBW PVP mostly using the loaner BW, as my level 45 wasn't much more of a threat and her health didn't auto regenerate like the loaner.

You want a competitive 3* team? I do too. So work to build it. I don't have any illusions that I should be winning top tier awards. I only came into the game in late Jan.

This isn't a $5 Steam game where you should be able to complete all the content in 40 hours and have collected every item. Otherwise tons of players would have left. Building a 3* team isn't supposed to be a fast progression. You can't just read some internet walkthrough and then complete the game over the weekend.

People run into walls progressing in this game. And you're supposed to. Move up isn't supposed to be simple. But instead of complaining that you can't get past a wall and asking them to give you something easier, try working on your game instead. Figure out strategies to place higher in PVP's, or take less damage in PVE's. Learn how to beat 3* teams. This isn't arm-wrestling where the stronger team always wins. It's a strategy game. Work on improving strategies.

I think you misunderstand me. Reread my post. I never said it was required for pvp nor did I say it was required to win.

Just because you can win doesn't mean the mechanic is good for the game. Also, just because I'm arguing against it, doesn't mean I'm incapable of winning. For reference, I am actually in a top 50 alliance so I'm not complaining for personal benefit here.

The argument is basically learn2adapt, but the counter is that adapting requires too much of a personal playstyle change. It's not about getting better as so much just changing to fit a mold.

I did say that I'm not complaining for personal benefit, however the topic still resonates with me. I started using an alliance sig. I didn't have one before because this is my 2nd alliance. Like you, I have a winners mentality that will adapt to any situation (i.e. my Falcon is 1/1/1 despite disliking level scaling mechanics). But honestly, I'm sad about having to leave my 1st alliance. I don't think people should have to do this. Prioritizing winning above all else.