A few thoughts for your Monday -Alliances and rewards

Unknown

Okay we all know that Alliances are here to stay. Infact D3/Demiurge even said in their article series that they believe that Alliances are their best bet to keep players "sticky" and that they feel that more players will stay in the game because of them then that will leave.

What we keep seeing here is that the individual player keep feeling as if they are being left out in the cold and truthfully?
You are there isnt anyway around that you are no longer the Devs first priority.
Now please keep in mind this doesn't mean they dont care about your business and that you arent a priority at all. ( they'd be stupid to not care at all)
But generally its been proven that adding a social aspect to a game tends to keep players longer and according to their metrics alliances are apparently working.

Now comes into the problem of people feeling that they don't want to be in a competitive Alliance and still get competitive rewards.
This problem isn't new at all,in-fact it's something that exists in just about every game that has competition and that involves Alliances/clans/guilds ect.
It boils down that same thing it does with just about every game with a competitive guild system.
Do you want to try play competitively with your personal friends or do you have a more competitive nature then they do and would be better served by joining up with like minded people?
There is nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just how life works in competitive environments.

Loyalty is always a strange thing that makes people think about or do things they would never have before so it's completely understandable how someone might feel that if they were to play a game with others that they are somehow slighting those around them, When a game isn't your personal life and doesn't need to be.
Being the top in/of anything takes work this is no exception.

What I do give the developers huge credit for is finding,creating, and managing a system that allows people of all skill levels and most playstyles in this game to still be competitive.
That is no small feat! And frankly one I do not envy them being in even if I envy the fact that they have mostly accomplished it.
It has had the side benefit of creating a situation to which players believe that they should always be able to compete at the highest levels and obtain all the best rewards in the game regardless of how much effort they wish to put into it.
Unfortunately as with much of life this just isn't the case. If you want to have everything that someone or something has to offer you are very likely going to have to jump through some sort of hoops for it.
This game in that regard is no different.

I'm not saying that anyone who complains is a casual dirty scrub or needs to L2P, just that you need to figure out what your priorities are and be happy with what you can achieve within the scope of them is all.

Now to get into the original reason/thought I had to even make this thread.

A common complaint is that Alliances have had the 3rd 3* cover from the top 5 personal rewards allocated to the top 100 alliances.
It is also commonly known that the 4* covers from 1st place rewards are more or less just a trophy rather then a functional addition to anyone's teams.

I had began to wonder what if that was changed back to having that cover for the top 5 individuals for their brackets and then the 1st place could be changed to give some mix of Iso/HP while moving the 4* cover to the Top 100 Alliances?

How much of a stir do you think this would cause?
How long do you think it would be before people would then cry about not being able to obtain the 4*'s that most people never plan to use anyway?

Anyhow I am just a wacked out crazed Ferret so take my ramblings as you will and feel free to post your thoughts and comments below

Unknown

MTGOFerret wrote:

Anyhow I am just a wacked out crazed Ferret so take my ramblings as you will and feel free to post your thoughts and comments below

We're used to you Django people making crackpot threads, it's ok.

But I'd be ok with this change, but probably make it more like top 50 alliances. Otherwise, you'd have more 4* covers going out than the 3rd cover of the 3*.

Unknown

MTGOFerret wrote:

I had began to wonder what if that was changed back to having that cover for the top 5 individuals for their brackets and then the 1st place could be changed to give some mix of Iso/HP while moving the 4* cover to the Top 100 Alliances?

I think that would remove a large part of the incentive to being in a top 100 alliance, which is pretty much the opposite of what Demiurge wants.

Unknown

Demiurge wants all of us to be in top 100 alliances?

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Demiurge wants all of us to be in top 100 alliances?

No, Demiurge wants all of us to want to be in top 100 alliances.

Unknown

Demiurge wants to create a healthy game state that promotes copetition and raises profits.

They are using KPI's (Key Performance Indicators) to track their changes and the how it affects the game.

While I do find the current alliance system as a p2w model (since the cost of roster slots is ridiculously high), they really can't go back on that now. They can't lower the value per roster slot at this point without upsetting the large guilds.

So until they put a structure in place that is more of an average or count x out of 20 towards the top score, it will stay that way.

Either way, I am sure they are keeping an eye on it and working on improving the overall experience. Sure **** on the forums makes you feel good, but their numbers and reports will give them the real data on how alliances are effecting the player base.

Deimos12

My problem with that cover being migrated to the alliance rewards is that it makes it so you have to be in a 20 person alliance to get that reward now.
I'm in a 5 person alliance with some friends. There's only 5 of us that play the game and we don't want to be in an alliance with internet strangers. I have placed in the top 5 in the past 5 pvp tournaments but my alliance has only made top 500 (which for a 5 person alliance I think is fairly impressive). So basically we either shell out a ton of HP (which none of us have because we don't spend a ton) or we're stuck not being able to get whatever third cover is offered as an alliance reward (and let's face it it's usually the same one).
I personally feel like cover rewards should stick as individual placements and larger iso/hp bonuses should be offered for top alliance rewards. Just my two cents!

grael23

Great idea, Ferret!

It definitely does need an overhaul.

But I feel the simplest and fairest solution is to simply rotate which cover is the Alliance reward. eg. For CMags, in Doctor's Orders you have Blue and Red as solo and Purple as Alliance. Next event they offer CMags you have Purple and Blue as solo and Red as Alliance. For the time after, Red and Purple as solo and Blue as Alliance.

This way, even as a solo player you will always have a chance at getting the reward/cover you want. But being in a top Alliance determines whether you get that cover sooner or later.

Unknown

grael23 wrote:

Great idea, Ferret!

It definitely does need an overhaul.

But I feel the simplest and fairest solution is to simply rotate which cover is the Alliance reward. eg. For CMags, in Doctor's Orders you have Blue and Red as solo and Purple as Alliance. Next event they offer CMags you have Purple and Blue as solo and Red as Alliance. For the time after, Red and Purple as solo and Blue as Alliance.

This way, even as a solo player you will always have a chance at getting the reward/cover you want. But being in a top Alliance determines whether you get that cover sooner or later.

IceIX has already stated that they plan to rotate the alliance cover color more often so hopefully at least that aspect of the problem will be solved.
I was tossing out a different idea out there and wanted to see what the reactions to said idea would have is all

Unknown

Deimos12 wrote:

My problem with that cover being migrated to the alliance rewards is that it makes it so you have to be in a 20 person alliance to get that reward now.
I'm in a 5 person alliance with some friends. There's only 5 of us that play the game and we don't want to be in an alliance with internet strangers. I have placed in the top 5 in the past 5 pvp tournaments but my alliance has only made top 500 (which for a 5 person alliance I think is fairly impressive). So basically we either shell out a ton of HP (which none of us have because we don't spend a ton) or we're stuck not being able to get whatever third cover is offered as an alliance reward (and let's face it it's usually the same one).
I personally feel like cover rewards should stick as individual placements and larger iso/hp bonuses should be offered for top alliance rewards. Just my two cents!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubw5N8iVDHI

William Butler Yeats wrote:

There are no strangers here; Only friends you haven't yet met.

_RiO_

MTGOFerret wrote:

I had began to wonder what if that was changed back to having that cover for the top 5 individuals for their brackets and then the 1st place could be changed to give some mix of Iso/HP while moving the 4* cover to the Top 100 Alliances?

How much of a stir do you think this would cause?
How long do you think it would be before people would then cry about not being able to obtain the 4*'s that most people never plan to use anyway?

I'd seriously consider that as a good option to improve the quality of the game climate.

4* covers are, until you've pumped a tremendous amount of ISO into them, functionally indeed trophies. However, they do represent the final leg of play for the game, which is why the fit perfectly as top tier alliance rewards. High-tier players can flaunt them and can set a goal to complete them. Lower tier players that happen to sit in a top alliance can opt to sell for more ISO to raise their 3 stars on, or they can save up a bit of HP for a roster slot to keep them on the shelf until they start working on them. It also gives alliances something unique to work for, that has low impact on lower tiers of play or on the game climate as a whole.

Meanwhile, with the 3rd cover color restored to single player ranking rewards, the top ranges of cover rewards can be expanded slightly to incorporate a few more players. This accommodates for the changed climate of the game: lower HP offerings on progression rewards, the loss of guaranteed covers from 10x packs, the increased value of atleast obtaining a single 3* for a slightly easier time farming the essential PvE nodes, etc. Especially for people around the 2* -> 3* transition mark, the latter is important. Scaling pretty much stonewalls you half-way into the event, if all you can counter with are 2* characters that max out at lv85. Getting even a single 3* cover and opening up the essential nodes for play helps immensely as those nodes scale far far slower than the normal ones.

Unknown

Deimos12 wrote:

My problem with that cover being migrated to the alliance rewards is that it makes it so you have to be in a 20 person alliance to get that reward now.
I'm in a 5 person alliance with some friends. There's only 5 of us that play the game and we don't want to be in an alliance with internet strangers. I have placed in the top 5 in the past 5 pvp tournaments but my alliance has only made top 500 (which for a 5 person alliance I think is fairly impressive). So basically we either shell out a ton of HP (which none of us have because we don't spend a ton) or we're stuck not being able to get whatever third cover is offered as an alliance reward (and let's face it it's usually the same one).
I personally feel like cover rewards should stick as individual placements and larger iso/hp bonuses should be offered for top alliance rewards. Just my two cents!

Really you should play with "strangers". This is a great community and you can learn a lot from other people, I sure did lol. Many alliances have high turn over rates and if you can't join all at once you should join and talk to the alliance leader about adding your friends when the alliance losses people. It's basically a system that rewards you, and your alliance, for communicating and being social. What's not to love?! In my alliance I don't really chat, that's my choice, but I pop into to ask strategies and to see what event we're focusing on. After not playing for months, I downloaded the game again and joined a 20 person alliance. Within 3 days I had 2 new covers from alliance rewards and when the events ended, and someone quit, I asked the leader to bring my friend in. Although I might've just got lucky it's worth trying . Worst case scenario the people are not cool and you leave. No harm, no foul.

Unknown

r0cky143 wrote:

Demiurge wants to create a healthy game state that promotes copetition and raises profits.

Are they really? Doesn't show much -- or they have their special meaning of "healthy" what others would call more like braindead. A strategy game with supposed progression makes negligible-roster guys skyrocket to top and provide benefit for intentional losing, generally lousy play while putting harsh penalty on ideal play?

Or turning the game into WORK and one many say less fun than their daily robot? Healthy indeed.

r0cky143 wrote:

They can't lower the value per roster slot at this point without upsetting the large guilds.

And why is that? How hard it is to refund the HP difference using the history of slot purchases? Why use phony rationalization -- they don;t do it because simply not want to do it.

As for the OP, I see the current idea of alliance scoring as another act of strip mining. Every member should play every event every time -- that is just nuts. There should be ability to bench. Like in a 20 member alliance allow 5-10 players to sit out events without impact on the alliance score. That way it really would be sustainable, some subset of members is likely interested in each event or they can sort out who is supposed to grind in rotation.

With the current system if I want to cut back a bit I drag my alliance down. So am encouraged to leave it.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

Are they really? Doesn't show much -- or they have their special meaning of "healthy" what others would call more like braindead.

Do these "others" actually run successful games?

There's a business aphorism "Customer satisfaction is worthless, customer loyalty is priceless." In MPQ terms, Demiurge doesn't care if you like the game, they only care if you continue playing and will bring others into the game. This is why things like the post-Hunt survey are unlikely to have much impact. I'm sure that Demiurge will consider the feedback, but at the end of the day, they'll look at hours played and currency spent, and probably consider the event a resounding success. (I obviously don't know this for sure, I have no inside access to metrics. But it certainly seemed like people were playing it a lot, even as they complained about it.)

A strategy game with supposed progression makes negligible-roster guys skyrocket to top

Except they couldn't stay there without playing. A lot. Which is what Demiurge cares about.

and provide benefit for intentional losing,

For PvP, at least, tanking seems to be increasingly meaningless for mmr.

Or turning the game into WORK and one many say less fun than their daily robot? Healthy indeed.

You're mixing two different definitions of healthy. What is healthy for a corporation is not necessarily healthy for a consumer. This should be obvious, no?

As for the OP, I see the current idea of alliance scoring as another act of strip mining. Every member should play every event every time -- that is just nuts. There should be ability to bench. Like in a 20 member alliance allow 5-10 players to sit out events without impact on the alliance score. That way it really would be sustainable, some subset of members is likely interested in each event or they can sort out who is supposed to grind in rotation.

You should read the VentureBeat article. It seems like Demiurge doesn't see Alliances as fixed, static entities, but rather as ad-hoc creations that are continuously in flux. It may well be that the 5D meta-alliance has it right from the start.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

As for the OP, I see the current idea of alliance scoring as another act of strip mining. Every member should play every event every time -- that is just nuts. There should be ability to bench. Like in a 20 member alliance allow 5-10 players to sit out events without impact on the alliance score. That way it really would be sustainable, some subset of members is likely interested in each event or they can sort out who is supposed to grind in rotation.

With the current system if I want to cut back a bit I drag my alliance down. So am encouraged to leave it.

The alliance system is intended to increase player retention, but seems like it's been designed to induce burnout. It's definitely wierd. I guess we're going to see how it shakes out. Or not see, if we burn out and leave.

Social elements definitely form the glue that keep people playing a lot of games. But those games also tend to be about multiplayer. Adding scores together feels a lot less like teamwork than defending a base or what have you. Multiplayer is a wierd graft onto this game, and I'd be surprised if the limited social interactions it's added counter the always playing direction gameplay is taking.