The Death of the Solo Whale Player

Unknown

I really don't understand the frequent rage against _Rio_ and MikeHock

There's a lot of players who would prefer to be in alliances with their friends instead of competitive alliances, or who don't feel like pushing in every tournament. For those players it's not about whether they're "good enough" to get top covers, and it's not about the overall total of covers being given out - maybe they CAN place top 10 or top 5 when they push and shield, but they don't want to do that in every tournament. The reward structure doesn't support that kind of play.

Sure, they COULD change their playstyle to get more rewards, but why would they NOT give feedback ("whining" ) that "hey - I would prefer a reward structure that better supports the way I like to play the game." Especially when it seems that the "Alliance cover" for a character is nearly always the same cover.

That... isn't being an idiot or trolling.

Unknown

MikeHock 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.

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".

That guy is **** awesome!

Unknown

gamar wrote:

I really don't understand the frequent rage against _Rio_ and MikeHock

There's a lot of players who would prefer to be in alliances with their friends instead of competitive alliances, or who don't feel like pushing in every tournament. For those players it's not about whether they're "good enough" to get top covers, and it's not about the overall total of covers being given out - maybe they CAN place top 10 or top 5 when they push and shield, but they don't want to do that in every tournament. The reward structure doesn't support that kind of play.

Sure, they COULD change their playstyle to get more rewards, but why would they NOT give feedback ("whining" ) that "hey - I would prefer a reward structure that better supports the way I like to play the game." Especially when it seems that the "Alliance cover" for a character is nearly always the same cover.

That... isn't being an idiot or trolling.

Thanks, but only females can rage on Mike Hock

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

MikeHock 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.

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".

That guy is tinykitty awesome!

My favorite quote of his is appropriate for this game as well. "The Almighty tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're ****."

scottee

ihearthawthats wrote:

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.

That makes sense. I guess the question comes down to how high of level of rewards they should give to casual players. On D3's part, it's a matter of how quickly they want players to progress. They're apparently decided that they want alliances to be important enough that they're trying to incentivize them with a 3* cover. Would a diabolical token be better? A heroic? Just HP? Because I also don't think it should be so easy to get 3* covers that it demotivates top players to try hard.

Dauthi

Forgive me if anyone has already explained the hypocrisy of this thread, but here it is:

Meto5000 wrote:

You feel like you're playing just as much as the people in the top tier Alliances but you just don't want to join up because it's not your style.
You start feeling that even though you've invested quite a bit of time and money into the game that it might be time to look for greener pastures.

Any game that involves social groups is going to be an uphill battle if you refuse to join one. Play an MMORPG then complain your PUG can't complete a difficult dungeon for the best loot and see how many people feel sorry for you. It sounds like social gaming isn't your thing.

With a high level MPQ Alliance I am finding that to stay in the top 100 I'm having to invest at least an hour or two EVERY DAY to keep my position.

You have to play video games 1 - 2 hours a day? Perhaps video games are not your thing if this is a bad thing for you. Any competition of a high level will force you to spend this much time or more, granted the only difference is it doesn't have to be somewhat daily like MPQ.

A grindy event was fine when it was my own choice. Now we're forced to grind every event because if we don't we'll either get kicked from an alliance, or feel like we let people down.

You complain about how you can't stay competitive working hard solo, you get an alliance, then complain you have to work hard to stay competitive in an alliance too? Maybe you should find an alliance that is as competative as you are. You reap benefits from others also having to play events they don't need that you need. It is a two way street.

DD-The-Mighty

scottee wrote:

ihearthawthats wrote:

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.

That makes sense. I guess the question comes down to how high of level of rewards they should give to casual players. On D3's part, it's a matter of how quickly they want players to progress. They're apparently decided that they want alliances to be important enough that they're trying to incentivize them with a 3* cover. Would a diabolical token be better? A heroic? Just HP? Because I also don't think it should be so easy to get 3* covers that it demotivates top players to try hard.

Top players have proven that they need little incentive to do their best. Go read the alliance/S.H.I.E.L.D. 1st place alliance HP Nerf thread. Not a single top player F was given that day.
Under the old 3* system they can still get 3/3 covers. We have far too many 3*'s, that need at least 10 or so covers to be viable to treat them as holy grails of progress. A minor easing up will not "kill this game".

Stretching out minimal content, delayed character balances and constantly recycled events will.