A response to all the recent changes

Unknown

Emeryt wrote:

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.

OOOoOoOOOoO, things are working out for you so I guess everyone else who isn't as awesome as you is whining.

Unknown

MikeHock wrote:

OOOoOoOOOoO, things are working out for you so I guess everyone else who isn't as awesome as you is whining.

Ladies and Gentlemen, straight from MikeHock's own wikipedia:

Awesome adj.
Adjective used to describe a person who is able to join larger Alliance in the Marvel Puzzle Quest computer game.

_RiO_

Emeryt wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

OOOoOoOOOoO, things are working out for you so I guess everyone else who isn't as awesome as you is whining.

Ladies and Gentlemen, straight from MikeHock's own wikipedia:

Awesome adj.
Adjective used to describe a person who is able to join larger Alliance in the Marvel Puzzle Quest computer game.

The point he's trying to make is valid; one personal experience generally cannot prove non-existence of a problem, just as much as one personal experience generally cannot prove existence of a problem. You need more data for that. Which is why I'm glad the publisher now admits that there is a 'rich getting richer' problem with alliances, because they probably did get that from their aggregate statistical data.

Puritas

Play nice, next ad hominem in this thread gets a warning

Unknown

The saying "the rich getting richer" is gonna be nerfed into something else soon by IceIX by the amount of times its been written today.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

Emeryt wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

OOOoOoOOOoO, things are working out for you so I guess everyone else who isn't as awesome as you is whining.

Ladies and Gentlemen, straight from MikeHock's own wikipedia:

Awesome adj.
Adjective used to describe a person who is able to join larger Alliance in the Marvel Puzzle Quest computer game.

The point he's trying to make is valid; one personal experience generally cannot prove non-existence of a problem, just as much as one personal experience generally cannot prove existence of a problem. You need more data for that. Which is why I'm glad the publisher now admits that there is a 'rich getting richer' problem with alliances, because they probably did get that from their aggregate statistical data.

I understand the "third cover for top100 Alliances" problem. We all do.

The other problem, which people keep on whining about, is their own inability to join good alliance. It's like bearing grudges against other people that they got the job/ GF/ car and You don't, just because of Your own incompetence.

Puritas

Emeryt wrote:

It's like bearing grudges against other people that they got the job/ GF/ car and You don't, just because of Your own incompetence.

Hey this is one of the founding principles of America, don't knock it

_RiO_

Emeryt wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

Emeryt wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

OOOoOoOOOoO, things are working out for you so I guess everyone else who isn't as awesome as you is whining.

Ladies and Gentlemen, straight from MikeHock's own wikipedia:

Awesome adj.
Adjective used to describe a person who is able to join larger Alliance in the Marvel Puzzle Quest computer game.

The point he's trying to make is valid; one personal experience generally cannot prove non-existence of a problem, just as much as one personal experience generally cannot prove existence of a problem. You need more data for that. Which is why I'm glad the publisher now admits that there is a 'rich getting richer' problem with alliances, because they probably did get that from their aggregate statistical data.

I understand the "third cover for top100 Alliances" problem. We all do.

The other problem, which people keep on whining about, is their own inability to join good alliance. It's like bearing grudges against other people that they got the job/ GF/ car and You don't, just because of Your own incompetence.

If you want to make some serious progress, don't default to the "stop whining" mindset. You can taking this user's comment as whining brought on by inability or incompetence, as you are doing now. Or you can read things the other way around: maybe the game is incompetent at how it funnels people into good alliances that can compete viably?

Number one method in which you improve software: user stories.
This user's story boils down to not being able to get into a good alliance that can compete viably.
So, ... how do you fix that?

Maybe the way the game sets up the discovery of alliances should be looked at? It would seriously be awesome and totally in-theme to register yourself as a 'hero for hire' and let alliances come to you with an offer, for instance.
Maybe the way that alliances are pooled onto a global ladder should change, bracketing it by alliance size. (As there is no way a small alliance can reasonably compete with a big one) If this creates monetization problems w/ respect to people buying alliance slots, then downscale the ISO/HP rewards for small alliances to provide incentive to upgrade. Or take a page out of Gazillion's book of game design and upgrade it for bigger alliances, instead of nerfing it for smaller ones.

There; two possible venues to tackle this issue, one of which could be used to create an entire new angle to the game. (Namely; mercs)

Unknown

MikeHock wrote:

Emeryt wrote:

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.

OOOoOoOOOoO, things are working out for you so I guess everyone else who isn't as awesome as you is whining.

Emeryt wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

OOOoOoOOOoO, things are working out for you so I guess everyone else who isn't as awesome as you is whining.

Ladies and Gentlemen, straight from MikeHock's own wikipedia:

Awesome adj.
Adjective used to describe a person who is able to join larger Alliance in the Marvel Puzzle Quest computer game.

I have my own Wikipedia?

Wow, thanks for the update and for ignoring the point that Rio and other understand; your personal experience does not represent everyone.

Unknown

You can read my down for my opinion on your post.
-edit-
Actually I'll do one better.
Want a good alliance? Make one. I'll just use spider and the new S.T.E.A.L.T.H. alliance he just made and is already top 100.
Makes me wonder who they bumped into 101

Unknown

Emeryt wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

Emeryt wrote:

MikeHock wrote:

OOOoOoOOOoO, things are working out for you so I guess everyone else who isn't as awesome as you is whining.

Ladies and Gentlemen, straight from MikeHock's own wikipedia:

Awesome adj.
Adjective used to describe a person who is able to join larger Alliance in the Marvel Puzzle Quest computer game.

The point he's trying to make is valid; one personal experience generally cannot prove non-existence of a problem, just as much as one personal experience generally cannot prove existence of a problem. You need more data for that. Which is why I'm glad the publisher now admits that there is a 'rich getting richer' problem with alliances, because they probably did get that from their aggregate statistical data.

I understand the "third cover for top100 Alliances" problem. We all do.

The other problem, which people keep on whining about, is their own inability to join good alliance. It's like bearing grudges against other people that they got the job/ GF/ car and You don't, just because of Your own incompetence.

How about those that don't want to be mandated to be in an alliance (or a top alliance)? Those people should stop "whining" too, huh?

Most of my recent posts are about the scaling back of covers as rewards. And it's ties directly into alliances. I was under the impression that alliances were likely not going to be anything more than complimentary to this game and that is certainly not how it is or the direction D3 said they are going.

_RiO_

MTGOFerret wrote:

You can read my down for my opinion on your post

First off; rather than reciprocating and downing your reputation again and continuing this silly and childish attack, I think I'll call in the mods. I warned before. This has gone on long enough and I'm drawing the line here and now for how much personal abuse I'm willing to take.


Quoting in the content of your reputation comment to give everyone some context

MTGOFerret » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:41 pm -1
Comment:
Blaming the game for not giving you a good alliance?!? Really now?

It can take a surprising amount of meta-game effort to find a good alliance (esp. with the piss-poor search UI in the game right now), so tackling this as an issue of discoverability is a very valid point that should cross the mind of any UX designer worth his or her salt. This has nothing to do with the game handing you stuff on a silver platter; you're still making the judgement call yourself. Just removing a lot of the slog. Having an ingame 'for hire' board is one way to also raise discoverability the other way around; for alliances that are still looking to recruit players.

Unknown

Emeryt wrote:

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?

Just for sake of clarity please state the amount of real $ you spent on that account as it is probably a relevant factor.

Unknown

Uh you might notice that I'm not part of S.H.I.E.L.D
so that down vote was completely all me. Sorry that you find it offensive that I thought your point about how its the games fault that someone can't get into a good alliance completely ludicrous.

Puritas

Emeryt wrote:

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?

Wellllll
just before alliance came in, new players were getting first place in everything effortlessly, so you'd actually probably have some fully covered three stars and 7-8 four star covers in those 25 days
if you're comparing it to the beginning of this year before that silliness took place though, your point is valid ;P

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

MTGOFerret wrote:

You can read my down for my opinion on your post

First off; rather than reciprocating and downing your reputation again and continuing this silly and childish attack, I think I'll call in the mods. I warned before. This has gone on long enough and I'm drawing the line here and now for how much personal abuse I'm willing to take.


Quoting in the content of your reputation comment to give everyone some context

MTGOFerret » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:41 pm -1
Comment:
Blaming the game for not giving you a good alliance?!? Really now?

It can take a surprising amount of meta-game effort to find a good alliance (esp. with the piss-poor search UI in the game right now), so tackling this as an issue of discoverability is a very valid point that should cross the mind of any UX designer worth his or her salt. This has nothing to do with the game handing you stuff on a silver platter; you're still making the judgement call yourself. Just removing a lot of the slog. Having an ingame 'for hire' board is one way to also raise discoverability the other way around; for alliances that are still looking to recruit players.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5309

Wow. Finding a decent alliance is so hard.
Anything to say you can actually back up with facts instead of nonsense please?

_RiO_

Psykopathic wrote:

http://www.d3pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5309

Wow. Finding a decent alliance is so hard.
Anything to say you can actually back up with facts instead of nonsense please?

You'd need to know about these forums and that thread first. Anything you can make accessible directly from the game is almost always better for discoverability as it reduces the number of hoops to jump through.

Would it surprise you to learn there are people playing that do not even know of the existence of the D3P forums? I wonder how many, let alone that also feel like signing up for a forum account once they've been made privvy to these forums' existence.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

http://www.d3pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5309

Wow. Finding a decent alliance is so hard.
Anything to say you can actually back up with facts instead of nonsense please?

You'd need to know about these forums and that thread first. Anything you can make accessible directly from the game is almost always better for discoverability as it reduces the number of hoops to jump through.
(Would it surprise you to learn there are plenty of people playing that do not even know of the existence of the D3P forums? Let alone that feel like signing up for a forum account once they've been made privvy to these forums' existence.)

It doesn't surprise me at all. I'm pretty sure any1 taking part in or reading this conversation are well aware of the forums though and since those are the people I'm talking to, I believe you are just coming at me with more nonsense, still no solid evidence to support your claims. Good try though.

Unknown

I honestly see Alliances as free stuff regardless at this point in time. Ho-hum.

Also: If an overwhelming number of posters does not agree with a point, perhaps it is time to reevaluate the point itself.

Unknown

_RiO_ wrote:

Number one method in which you improve software: user stories.
This user's story boils down to not being able to get into a good alliance that can compete viably.

New 20people alliances from last week, which I already see in top10/ top25 of subs and tourneys:
S.T.E.A.L.T.H
2x 5DeadlySomething

If a person who is active on forums can't go to the Alliance subforum and check it, then where lies the problem? In the Alliances or in this very person?

Not to mention that S.T.E.A.L.T.H wasn't a pay-per-place alliance, as Spider bought all the slots by himself. Seriously, how difficult it was to just drop Him a line?

MikeHock wrote:

Wow, thanks for the update and for ignoring the point that Rio and other understand; your personal experience does not represent everyone.

Wow, thanks for the update and for ignoring the point that me and 1999people from top100 Alliances understand: Your personal experience does not represent everyone.

pasa_ wrote:

Just for sake of clarity please state the amount of real $ you spent on that account as it is probably a relevant factor.

35euros, thanks to which I bought 3-4 Alliance spots and the rest went for roster slots. I don't see how me spending $ is relevant to the discussion about Alliances.