A response to all the recent changes

_RiO_

Just to show everyone Nemek's brilliant rhetorical skills that might otherwise remain hidden under that little reputation counter on the opening post of this thread:

Nemek » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:54 pm +1
Comment:
Just to balance out Rio's dumb comments.

Here's a tip Nemek; if you don't agree with what is stated, provide actual reasoning instead of half-baked ad hominem. Not that it really would matter in this case, as this is not a matter of opinion but of fact. The publisher has gone on record as acknowledging that 'the rich getting richer' is a problem that has been exacerbated by alliances and their associated reward ladder. Period.

You can throw a tantrum all you want and you can insult people all you want, but that will only make you come off as a ****. Accept the fact that this has been acknowledged as a problem, accept that fact that people complaining about this had (and still have!) actual legitimate complaints, accept the fact that people playing at the top have been marginalizing this problem and last but not least; maybe you and everyone else that have honed the people championing these complaints, present parties included, should grow a pair and be man enough to apologize for that.

Unknown

the rich get richer is nonsense, just look at the top of shield simulator do you see the top alliances shielding this early or do you see madmen with hp to burn.. Talent and hard work outweighs what someone spends on the game to get a edge. You play the game, you exploit the loopholes and you play smart. You end up winning the prizes. The only advantage I have is that I played the game before a lot of other people and have built a decent roster over time. People need to stop whining and play the game if they want the rewards. I don't see anyone pushing and they accept that the top alliances will always be top.

_RiO_

beemand2g wrote:

the rich get richer is nonsense, just look at the top of shield simulator do you see the top alliances shielding this early or do you see madmen with hp to burn.. Talent and hard work outweighs what someone spends on the game to get a edge.

The expression "the rich getting richer" is used to indicate that awards needed for mid-tier players to improve their rosters get stuck with those people that already have far better rosters. Top player rosters get even better and even harder to challenge for future rewards, whereas mid-tier players come close to stagnating, which creates an ever further widening gap between the two. It has nothing to do with paying real world money to get an edge in the game. (I pity those with bad enough judgement to spend actual money on character packs that give you a 4~5% chance to even get the character you want...)

Unknown

I agree completely with Moon regarding alliances.

I think D3 has become more agressive with pushing iap lately. Not necessarily bad because they were extremely far left at the beginning. So I still think it's on the fair side.

They've also been pushing 3-stars a lot. Especially into the hands of newer players from what I can see. You say that the 3-star cover is easier to obtain, but for who? The right people who truly need them? I suppose this ties into iap because 3-stars are the money makers.

I would disagree that powercreep is good. At least not for releasing new heroes. Where was the balance changes that they seemed they would be more adamant about? Were they just saying things to apease those upset about Rags/stealth nerfs? Honestly, at this point, I've given up hope that they care about balancing old characters.

I am still overall happy with the game. The new seasons sounds really cool. I do like alliances even if the rewards structure needs work. Pve, I don't know what to say. The recent ones were major grindfests with unreachable rewards. Since the beginning, it's always been hit-or-miss. The next one could be amazing for all we know.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

We have continually asked to stop nerfing and start introducing stronger covers. They have listened. Black panther. Lazy Thor and cap. Falcon. Psylocke. Every1 they are giving out are good stronger covers. They have really been upping their game on character creation. The only thing missing here is fixing a few old characters like rag and Loki and others that need 3rd powers or other tweaks.

Um.... what do you mean "we," Kemosabe?

What nerfs shouldn't have happened? Rags and Thorverine really clearly needed nerfs, and Spidey and cMags clearly need nerfs.

And Black Panther and LazyThor aren't well designed characters imo. At least they aren't instant-win so I don't think they need nerfs, but I don't think "whoever gets to 12 yellow (or 12 black) first" matches are very fun.

Unknown

gamar wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

We have continually asked to stop nerfing and start introducing stronger covers. They have listened. Black panther. Lazy Thor and cap. Falcon. Psylocke. Every1 they are giving out are good stronger covers. They have really been upping their game on character creation. The only thing missing here is fixing a few old characters like rag and Loki and others that need 3rd powers or other tweaks.

Um.... what do you mean "we," Kemosabe?

What nerfs shouldn't have happened? Rags and Thorverine really clearly needed nerfs, and Spidey and cMags clearly need nerfs.

And Black Panther and LazyThor aren't well designed characters imo. At least they aren't instant-win so I don't think they need nerfs, but I don't think "whoever gets to 12 yellow (or 12 black) first" matches are very fun.

By "we" I was simply stating that from my observations on the forums the majority of the forum community has been rallying to stop nerfing every1 and just introduce stronger characters or make old characters stronger. I was not stating L Thor or BP or any1 needed a nerf, just that they are strong, but not pre nerf rag strong, and that I personally am very happy with all the most recent characters. They definitely don't need a nerf, I think you may have misinterpreted me there.

As for the alliance covers that every1 thinks I seem to be full of **** about being more abundant or that they are easier to get, this isn't an opinion, it's fact. There were x amount of the 3rd cover being given. Now there is more. I don't know the exacts right off hand but there are more.

Whoever it was that told me to go join a **** alliance and try to get the 100 cover reward, my entire point went right over your head there. The entire point was that there are many strong alliances out there and many of them are always recruiting. If you are in a 5-10ish person alliance and not getting the rewards, yet you are in the phase of the game where you are transitioning to 3* and need more covers, then this is how I see it, you CHOSE to join that alliance. There are others that will take you where you can get the reward. If they won't then you probably aren't ready. 5deadlys require 3x 85's and 300 point minimum. Many top 100 alliances aren't even that strict. If you can't manage 300-500+ per pvp you don't need the 3* because you aren't a serious player. With tanking and all the other little glitches even our 5deadlymembers with below minimum roster can put up 600+ without too much trouble.

TL:DR - try to worry more about playing the game and grinding, and less time spent whining and worrying about forum reputation and you'll most likely do better.

I know this is probably gonna get some hate but that's just the way things are. Stop blaming every1 else for your short comings and put some work in because that's how people like Shield and 5deadlys got where they are at. Time and effort.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

Just to show everyone Nemek's brilliant rhetorical skills that might otherwise remain hidden under that little reputation counter on the opening post of this thread:

Nemek » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:54 pm +1
Comment:
Just to balance out Rio's dumb comments.

Here's a tip Nemek; if you don't agree with what is stated, provide actual reasoning instead of half-baked ad hominem. Not that it really would matter in this case, as this is not a matter of opinion but of fact. The publisher has gone on record as acknowledging that 'the rich getting richer' is a problem that has been exacerbated by alliances and their associated reward ladder. Period.

You can throw a tantrum all you want and you can insult people all you want, but that will only make you come off as a ****. Accept the fact that this has been acknowledged as a problem, accept that fact that people complaining about this had (and still have!) actual legitimate complaints, accept the fact that people playing at the top have been marginalizing this problem and last but not least; maybe you and everyone else that have honed the people championing these complaints, present parties included, should grow a pair and be man enough to apologize for that.

Wow, where to even begin with this. You're more than happy to call out Nemek's reputation comment as ad hominem, while conveniently neglecting that your own reputation downvote began with "****". Hardly a reasoned, friendly, or civil opening to discussion on a topic.

A couple of points you're either unaware of or consciously omitting:

1. Players at the "top" haven't been marginalizing the problem the way you claim. Many (most) of us have spoken out quite vocally about things like covers awards being divided into alliance rewards. Attacking every post that doesn't agree with ALL of your points adds nothing to the overall debate. A casual view of your recent post history shows that you aren't looking to engage in any actual dialogue with people about it - you're looking for people to agree with you. That's your prerogative, of course, but when you lash out at other's opinions and then play the one who's above the fray when someone comes back at you, it's more than a little disingenuous.

2. Players at the "top" have gone wildly out of their way to help out other players in this forum community. Northern Polarity maintains an extensive resource to help out new and mid-tier players make the transition to the end game. Nemek maintains a start to finish explanation of optimal PvE strategy to help out other players. I've made post detailing my tournament strategy, and all of our alliance members are constantly posting advice here for players of all levels.

The 5DV crew has gone out of their way to create additional alliances to help new and mid-tier players get a respectable shot at alliance only rewards. From what I've seen, their efforts are helping 80 additional players get those rewards, and that's awesome. They don't get any extra rewards for putting in all that extra time to organize them. They do it for the love of the game and the community. So when you try to paint those who disagree with you slightly as "marginalizing" you, it's preposterous. Even, dare I say it, ****?

3. Is it harder to make the transition out of mid-tier now? I'd agree with that. Are there tweaks to be made to the reward structure that would smooth out that difficulty curve? I'd agree with and support that too. Is it impossible to make the transition now? Absolutely not. And that's the point you're getting pushback on.

If it makes you feel better to paint yourself as a man of the people and us as mustache-twirling robber barons, more power to you. But it's nothing resembling reality. These are people who give extra time outside of the game to help other players, receiving nothing in return. So, feel free to discard other opinions all you like, but it isn't Nemek who is coming off like a ****.

Unknown

Well said, WYP. Rio has a few good points but going about them semi-obnoxiously. Then again, I'm sure I come off that way too sometimes so all good. Haha!

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

The expression "the rich getting richer" is used to indicate that awards needed for mid-tier players to improve their rosters get stuck with those people that already have far better rosters. Top player rosters get even better and even harder to challenge for future rewards, whereas mid-tier players come close to stagnating, which creates an ever further widening gap between the two. It has nothing to do with paying real world money to get an edge in the game. (I pity those with bad enough judgement to spend actual money on character packs that give you a 4~5% chance to even get the character you want...)

In this regard the latest changes are really bad -- before season and alliances people having all the *** covers in a tournament were happy to stay off -- now they are incited to go high and take the prizes they not really need.

That part should really be addressed and soon.

Unknown

To all the people who can only whine about alliances:

I have a second MPQ account on my phone. Day 25 currently. I play 1-5 battles per day, when I'm waiting in a queue or having a bio break. I joined a very casual alliance - X-Poles. We have people who can be absent for a couple of days. We have people who are still in their 1* phase. We place top100 or top250. We reached 20people around 1week ago.

And now please check my roster:
Page 1
Page 2

See the amount of 3* covers? It's all from the Alliance rewards (including tokens as alliance rewards, vide events). And now tell me - would I be able to get that far in 25days time back in the times when there were no alliances? Playing let's say 2-3x more than I play on this account?

...

That's what I thought.

So could You please now stop complaining that one needs to be in a strong alliance to get all the shiny stuff?

And yeah - look at the 2 newest 5DeadlyAlliances. Take screeshots of their rosters, mostly 2*. And come back after a month and see where they are individually and as a team.

_RiO_

walkyourpath wrote:

Wow, where to even begin with this. You're more than happy to call out Nemek's reputation comment as ad hominem, while conveniently neglecting that your own reputation downvote began with "****". Hardly a reasoned, friendly, or civil opening to discussion on a topic.

It may not have been the politest way to open a discusion, but then again; it didn't open the discussion. I made a post mentioning the follow-up -1 in this actual thread and it houses the bulk of the reasoning. Reputation comments are not the nicest format for entire dissertations or discussions, so you got the short summary there. And while it may not have been the nicest way to state it; it was a bunch of ****. Simply by the fact that word of god exists that there is a problem (undoubtedly revealed by player statistics as well), the entire premise that there is would not be a problem and only a few bad players burned out on the game whining on the forums --- is ****.

Nemek though, doesn't give any argument whatsoever and writes something that comes close to a personal attack on my intelligence, which is not cool.
Furthermore, do you see anything in this thread where Nemek actually contributed to this discussion?
[...]
No, didn't think so.

walkyourpath wrote:

1. Players at the "top" haven't been marginalizing the problem the way you claim. Many (most) of us have spoken out quite vocally about things like covers awards being divided into alliance rewards. Attacking every post that doesn't agree with ALL of your points adds nothing to the overall debate. A casual view of your recent post history shows that you aren't looking to engage in any actual dialogue with people about it - you're looking for people to agree with you. That's your prerogative, of course, but when you lash out at other's opinions and then play the one who's above the fray when someone comes back at you, it's more than a little disingenuous.

I have tried to venture into discussions regarding solutions numerous times. The problem is; to discuss solutions, you need people that acknowledge there is a problem in the first place. If the other party does nothing but reiterate "I don't see a problem." "There is no problem, it's you." "Works fine for me." "What are you complaining about?" then any attempt at discussion goes out the window. In that sense the top alliance players have been marginalizing.

walkyourpath wrote:

2. Players at the "top" have gone wildly out of their way to help out other players in this forum community. Northern Polarity maintains an extensive resource to help out new and mid-tier players make the transition to the end game. Nemek maintains a start to finish explanation of optimal PvE strategy to help out other players. I've made post detailing my tournament strategy, and all of our alliance members are constantly posting advice here for players of all levels.

The 5DV crew has gone out of their way to create additional alliances to help new and mid-tier players get a respectable shot at alliance only rewards. From what I've seen, their efforts are helping 80 additional players get those rewards, and that's awesome. They don't get any extra rewards for putting in all that extra time to organize them. They do it for the love of the game and the community. So when you try to paint those who disagree with you slightly as "marginalizing" you, it's preposterous. Even, dare I say it, ****?

I appreciate the fact that the top players are doing what they can to help lower ranked players. Make no mistake there: I really do. However, that help offered is help within the bounds of the game's current rules and power dynamic. And at every turn many of those same people show up to state that those rules and power dynamic do not have problems, when the reality is that they do have problems. Lots of problems, in fact. And recently introduced stuff like seasons is going to create more problems rather than less problems...

walkyourpath wrote:

3. Is it harder to make the transition out of mid-tier now? I'd agree with that. Are there tweaks to be made to the reward structure that would smooth out that difficulty curve? I'd agree with and support that too. Is it impossible to make the transition now? Absolutely not. And that's the point you're getting pushback on.

I never said it was impossible. Closest I came to that is stating that it has become "all but impossible", in the sense that it is getting dangerously close to becoming impossible if things don't change soon.

walkyourpath wrote:

If it makes you feel better to paint yourself as a man of the people and us as mustache-twirling robber barons, more power to you. But it's nothing resembling reality. These are people who give extra time outside of the game to help other players, receiving nothing in return. So, feel free to discard other opinions all you like, but it isn't Nemek who is coming off like a ****.

I don't see you as mustache-twirling robber barons. If anything, I see you as old fogeys with ridiculously cartoony horns for hearing aid telling us to "speak up sonny, 'cause I can't hear you", while rattling off on a lifetime of sagely advice we weren't really looking for.

Talahamut

I've been a regular player since ~October...started doing well once I joined the forums and got to l2p. Over months, I worked my way to some maxed 2*s in solo play and then working to some good finishes and some lucky pulls got me a start on 3*s (5-Blue Spidey being the most valuable at the time).

Once alliances started I didn't join one right away, then was in a casual 5-man that unavoidably placed low. Once they moved the 3rd cover prize over to alliance prizes, I definitely felt like I was missing out since all the solo effort in the world wasn't gonna get me that prize (hence my 0/5/1 LazyCap). So I got accepted into one of the new 5DV subs and now multiple 3*s rain down upon me and it feels like the game is rewarding me in line with the effort I put into playing.

Alliances were a change in the structure of the game and players that care about placement and rewards need to adapt to that new structure.

So yes, casual players shouldn't expect to be winning all the things regardless. But if you play at all regularly and care about getting those Top 10/50 finishes in events, you have to join/start a 20-man with other similar players to maximize your rewards. And that's pretty much standard for all of this type of f2p game.

I think MPQ has made it easier to do this than many other f2p games, where you're lucky if valuable prizes are given to more than the top couple alliances (and even those need to spend mega-$$$$ every event to get their top placement). Hell, even not having a maxed-out 3* roster doesn't make you less valuable to the top alliances - you're just as valuable as long as you play regularly!

Unknown

Rio you're a cry baby and a whiner. Enjoy a multitude of downvotes as you post stupid ****.

Linkster79

I want to go on record as saying alliances are great. I love the alliance I am in No More Heroes. We regulary place either top 50 or 100. It is a casual alliance and that is what I like and we chat a lot on Facebook.

What I do not like is that to place that high you really need to be in a 20 person alliance but the alliance spots have to be paid for individually. Pooling alliance resources is surely a must if D3P really want to keep aggressively pushing alliances the way they have been and seem to plan to.

Other than a slight tweak in alliance awards rankings (2-50 or now 3-50 too big a bracket) the alliance system is just gravy.

reckless442

Why can't alliances work it out so that one person buys HP to get the slots and then the other members paypal a few dollars to that member to defray the cost? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to share the expense.

Unknown

I've figured it out.

Rio is MechGouki in disguise. Possibly.

Seriously though just looking at your posts is enough to show everyone that you complain and moan about everything and hate people disagreeing with you. People have a right to express their own opinions but you don't seem to realize that and have stated on many occasions that they are "wrong".

Who exactly are you to tell people how they feel about the game? Your making yourself sound stupid and whiny with your responces to people here. If the game pisses you off that much then find something else to pass the time instead of attacking peoples opinions cause others will just give it back as you can see.

Unknown

reckless442 wrote:

Why can't alliances work it out so that one person buys HP to get the slots and then the other members paypal a few dollars to that member to defray the cost? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to share the expense.

I already offered to buy dlaw a beer but he denied the offer
I think be believes I was trying bamboozle him into a untimely demise so I could take his commdaner seat over...
Well a actually..he might be right but that's a story for another time

Unknown

reckless442 wrote:

Why can't alliances work it out so that one person buys HP to get the slots and then the other members paypal a few dollars to that member to defray the cost? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to share the expense.

It's not hard to pool resources and fill 20 slots. Prolly at least 60 of our members purchased their own slot.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

It may not have been the politest way to open a discusion, but then again; it didn't open the discussion.

Sure it did. Someone reading the OP who then clicked on the reputation number would see your "****" post before anything else. Why would you blame them for responding to that in kind? You made an inflammatory comment, and then got butthurt when someone made one in return. Pretty much the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

_RiO_ wrote:

Furthermore, do you see anything in this thread where Nemek actually contributed to this discussion?

No, but he's also advocated for redistribution of alliance rewards in other threads. Whereas you are beating the same drum in thread after thread, after he, I, and others at all levels have already acknowledged that a change to alliance rewards would be welcome.

_RiO_ wrote:

I appreciate the fact that the top players are doing what they can to help lower ranked players. Make no mistake there: I really do. However, that help offered is help within the bounds of the game's current rules and power dynamic. And at every turn many of those same people show up to state that those rules and power dynamic do not have problems, when the reality is that they do have problems. Lots of problems, in fact. And recently introduced stuff like seasons is going to create more problems rather than less problems...

Since we are not the developers, the offered help is necessarily within the bounds of the game's current rules - how could it be otherwise??? The reason you're seeing such caustic replies to your repeated complaints is two-fold:

1. Even with the current system, it's still possible to achieve your goals within the game given time and effort - you admit as much in your response. The fact that after having voiced your beef you continue to repeat the same points ad nauseam means that you're not focusing on the possible route still in front of you. This smacks of entitlement. They're not saying there aren't problems, they're saying you can still succeed despite those problems.

There have been problems and barriers at all phases of this game's development. When I first started playing, pre-nerf Ragnarok dominated all aspects of the game, and I didn't have one. The Lightning Round that offered him as a reward was nearly monopolized by people who already had him maxed. It took me two or three months of leveling up other villains and heroes just to claw my way up to where I could compete for his covers. But I did it, because it could be done, and I wanted to get there despite the barriers.

2. You say you're engaging in a discussion about solutions, but I have yet to see your proposed solution. Is it get rid of alliances and seasons? If the solution was as simple as all that it would have already happened, since as you're so fond of pointing out, the developers acknowledge it is a concern. But just doing a U-turn on these features doesn't solve the original problem that those features were intended to address, which is "why should I keep playing and giving money to the game over time?"

If players don't see that there is meaningful endgame content, then there's no reason to make the transition to the endgame, barriers or no. This hurts both players and the bottom line of the developers. The long-term viability of the game necessarily outweighs the short-term frustrations, which is why you haven't seen a direct action from the developers yet. It's not a simple problem, and therefore does not have a simple solution. So, a more constructive approach than your current one might be to discuss what seasons/alliances might be replaced with or how they might be altered to be both fair and still compelling enough to draw people in.

_RiO_ wrote:

I see you as old fogeys with ridiculously cartoony horns for hearing aid telling us to "speak up sonny, 'cause I can't hear you", while rattling off on a lifetime of sagely advice we weren't really looking for.

The reason that we rattle off our "sagely advice" is that we're asked for it repeatedly by many new and existing players. So, you personally aren't looking for advice to overcome the current obstacles in your way, and again, that's your prerogative. But it's hard to fathom how you can't see you repeating the same point ad nauseam as grating given that the problems you've outlined have already been acknowledged by all involved in the discussion. So, find a way out (it's there), or wait for the devs to fix it, or vote with your time/money and quit, but don't thumb your nose at people who have pushed past it all and want to help you do the same. Or if you do, don't expect any meaningful discussion to come from it.

In short, unless you're taking action in the current system to improve your lot, or offering more cogent and constructive ways to tweak the system, then yes, "I'm sorry, sonny. I can't hear you."

_RiO_

jozier wrote:

Rio you're a cry baby and a whiner. Enjoy a multitude of downvotes as you post stupid ****.

And you're an unsociable **** that doesn't like to be challenged and everyone knows it. So, big whoop.
If you're trying to get a rise out of me; tough luck, you'll find that this is all you're getting. ::raises middle finger::

TheUnwiseOne wrote:

I've figured it out.

Rio is MechGouki in disguise. Possibly.

Seriously though just looking at your posts is enough to show everyone that you complain and moan about everything and hate people disagreeing with you. People have a right to express their own opinions but you don't seem to realize that and have stated on many occasions that they are "wrong".

Who exactly are you to tell people how they feel about the game? Your making yourself sound stupid and whiny with your responces to people here. If the game pisses you off that much then find something else to pass the time instead of attacking peoples opinions cause others will just give it back as you can see.

I do not complain and moan about everything. There are places where I give a thumbs up for ideas suggested by other board members. There are also a few posts with a bit of banter. If I complain that much and it is that unwarranted, then would you mind explaining why I have had a 50+ positive reputation built up over the last few months of active post on this forum, half of which came over the course of the last week while I was 'complaining'? Up to the silly and, quite honestly; childish downvote spree that is being orchestrated in this thread right now, I have had nary a downvote on my profile. So I'd say generally people agree with what I'm saying.

And for the record: no, I'm not MechGouki. Heavens no...

Tell you what though; if I can correlate those downvotes to all of you guys mobilizing your alliance to smash downvotes on me, just because, then a call will be going out to the mods. Because that kind of thing would sound suspiciously a lot like trying to tell people how to feel about the game, wouldn't you agree?

walkyourpath wrote:

2. You say you're engaging in a discussion about solutions, but I have yet to see your proposed solution. Is it get rid of alliances and seasons? If the solution was as simple as all that it would have already happened, since as you're so fond of pointing out, the developers acknowledge it is a concern. But just doing a U-turn on these features doesn't solve the original problem that those features were intended to address, which is "why should I keep playing and giving money to the game over time?"

The answer to that question is : "because it is a fun game." The issues surrounding the reward structure and power dynamic and, heck I might as well go for broke and mention it here: the blatant increase in money grabbing from the publisher, make it substantially less fun as a game than it used to be.
And as for proposed solutions to 3* cover availablity