What makes a coalition?

System
System Posts: 1,032 Chairperson of the Boards
in MtGPQ General Discussion
This discussion was created from comments split from: A plea regarding events.
«1

Comments

  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    babar3355 said:
    Gunmix25 said:
    That is more of an issue with coalitions who insist on this kind of be dedicated or be gone involvement rather than D3 or Oktagon.

     I love the fact that we have all these events. The golden rule is this. You don't have to play them all. The only one who pushes you is you.

     In two weeks I have collected over 350 jewels. Did I grind? yeah I certainly did. I never would have hit that score without the additional events. But once I hit 400 Jewels I plan to chill and play more casually. Luckily my coalition is very relaxed and prefers strategic instuctions and ideas to meeting coalition minimums. But to each their own. Sorry that you're feeling burnt out friend. This should be fun to play, not a chore. Peace brother
    This is a frustrating argument.  The developers created a game where coalition play is a focal point.  Inevitably, many players will desire to be on coalitions that compete for the top of the leader board.  This was clearly the developers INTENT when they created competitions with coalition rankings/prizes.  Then when players complain about it everyone who doesn't care about coalitions claims they are "doing this to themselves".  Is @Thedragonhermit supposed to quit his coalition?  What about the friends he has made who are also trying to grind out victories for the team? Can he at least plea with Oktagon to make the weekend schedule less onerous?

    The fact of the matter is the focus of the game should be to provide the player with a fun experience without them having to augment their schedule, create self-inflicted constraints, etc.

    All anyone is asking for is to spread out the content.  Why did we kill a midweek event so that we could double up the weekend load?

    Friends don't make friends play when they don't want to. 

    If you're ready to kick someone out if your circle for not playing a mobile game, you're not friends. 
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Then those players chose to play both. I don't get it.

    Either you're all a victim of this :

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

    Or you're all pretending to be understanding when you're not.


    When my friends can't make a meeting, I don't guilt trip them for not making it. That's not what friends do.

    The option is really simple. I've said it before. Are you really friends? Then what price friendship? A coalition reward? Really? 
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited November 2017
    Houdin said:
    Ohboy said:
    Then those players chose to play both. I don't get it.

    Either you're all a victim of this :

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

    Or you're all pretending to be understanding when you're not.


    When my friends can't make a meeting, I don't guilt trip them for not making it. That's not what friends do.

    The option is really simple. I've said it before. Are you really friends? Then what price friendship? A coalition reward? Really? 
    I really have to ask. To this point I have kept my mouth shut rather than start a rebuttal, that I'm sure will ultimately degrade to school yard name calling.
    Is the only valid opinion about this game your own?
    It's actually a serious question. It's not in any way meant as a slight.
    I say this because time and time again I have watched as you argue against any post on these forums that asks for any possible change to the game unless you have been the first to coin it.
    Now, in all fairness, I'm sure somewhere in the hundreds of times this has occurred there are sure to be the odd exception to this rule, So you needn't bother pointing them out.
    Sometimes I even agree with your point of view. However, having said that it seems to me, that many times the rebuttals are based on twisted facts to foster a view of the so called toxic elite.
    This post especially. Simply because a coalition player asked that coalition events be scheduled to be a little more real life friendly, suddenly his meaning is that he and any other coalition player doesn't treat their friends right? I mean really come on. This is a stretch no matter how you try to spin it.
    I realize there is some "Bad blood" at play here, but please try to take a step back and realize that many times these posts "are" in the best interest of all players. Competitive and causal. 
    If we could all focus on that, rather than disagreeing simply because of a posts author, we will be more able to present a United front to the developers and d3, and hopefully help to guide them towards the long term sustainability of this wonderful game we all love so much.

    Peace
    Houdin 

    I literally didn't coin the term toxic elite. The only people using that term are the ones calling themselves that in a sarcastic manner.

    Of course my opinion isn't the only valid one. As babar pointed out, everyone's entitled to their opinion. 

    My problem isn't that I hate coalition events and want less(or more). It's that the justification for arguments to further the cause is deeply flawed.

    Yes, I like more events. They give us the luxury of choice. If they're both coalition events, I really don't care either way.

    But when people are talking about blaming someone else for their own self made problems, that's where I chime in. If you've joined a coalition that doesn't want you because you play too little, they aren't your friends, so don't say you want to play with friends but can't.

    I really don't mind either way of they spread coalition events out, or give us one daily. Notice I didn't chime in until someone brought up the stupid argument of friends who love you so much they give you a quota. That's what I'm against. This disingenuous argument. How come babar is allowed to make hers but I'm not?

    Ps : I also didn't argue against change here. What the hell? 
  • TheDragonHermit
    TheDragonHermit Posts: 465 Mover and Shaker
    I don't think anyone is blaming anyone else @Ohboy this is simply a thing that I feel the Devs could address to give us a more accessible and fun gaming experience for the more competitive coalitions. There already seems to be a spreading out of events happening, and that is a step in the right direction in my opinion. And I am looking forward to seeing where the new devs go next, but as players we really ought to advocate for ourselves when we find issues.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    I can sort of see both sides of the arguments happening here. On the one hand, it is your own choosing to participate in a coalition that is highly competitive, and that requires you to participate in all the events and score as much as you can to keep yourself in good standing.

    On the other hand, how much is too much? What if for some reason they decided to run the whole week's schedule on a weekend, and made them all coalition events? Sure, there might be a very small handful of people who play this game with no outside life who could actually pull that off, but would anyone want to? Could you even find 20 people to fill a roster? That is the extreme, but where is the breaking point? I think a 3rd concurrent coalition event is likely too much even for the most hardcore group.

    I would think that the top coalitions are all doing some version of deciding which coalition events take higher priority over others (I would assume it's the one that gives bigger prizes) and sorting out between their A and B teams who has the ability and inclination to score highest amongst their rosters. By making the coalition events run simultaneously, it becomes an issue because it forces teams to find players who can either a) find the players who can play to full points on both events, b) prioritize one event over the other, and leave prizes on the table or c) forget about trying to coordinate and leave it to individuals, which will also likely lead to losing out on prizes. This doesn't even have to be an issue if they didn't run coalition events concurrently. You know, like how they have always done prior to 2 weeks ago??

    Yeah, we make ourselves play this game, but when did spacing out coalition events over the weekend become an out-of-the-ordinary request?
  • Gunmix25
    Gunmix25 Posts: 1,442 Chairperson of the Boards
    shteev said:
    I don't get it. I really don't.

    Who here actually wants 2 coalition events at the same time? This thread seems to contain 2 groups:
    1. Hardcore players who don't want 2 coalition events running at the same time, and
    2. Casual players who aren't going to play 2 coalition events at the same time because it's not 
    Eh... I played both,  completed both.  Was not expected of me to do so from my coalition. Am I hardcore? Far from it. Casual? Maybe a little. I like earning the crystals and jewels.  If it helps my coalition,  then awesome.  I don't expect my co- members to meet me match for match.   
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Only took a year but yay we're finally in consensus! 

    Are coalition mates your friends? You don't need weekly quota events to solidify your friendship. Normal events allow for chatter in channels and cooperation just the same, stress and commitment free. 

    More events are always better than less events. It's when people feel compelled to play certain events that stress kicks in. If they can't unchain themselves, then putting an end of coalition events will unchain them by force. A monthly coalition brawl for top spot bragging rights should be sufficient.

    Unless of course people feel that your friendships are reliant on being paid to play together every week. 
  • luckyvulpi
    luckyvulpi Posts: 40 Just Dropped In
    Probably not a popular opinion, but I agree with ohboy in some way.

    When a coalition values results over physical and mental health to the point where an underperforming player can immediatly get cut off then that really sets an atmosphere of temporaryness where anyone can get replaced and while it's true friends can be made, coalitions as a whole would see each player as a worker that's disposable more than a friend.

    I'm not saying this applies to all competitive coalitions as a whole, but rather to those where the scale of results vs health is far to the left that player health is of little concern.  There is a difference between setting a goal that players should aim for and setting a marker where reprocusions happen when a player doesn't reach it.  And there is a difference between trying to improve an underperforming player's score and immediately replacing that player for someone whos better.

    There are different levels of competativeness and while I think it's impossible to make friends in that highest level, the other levels can certainly be full of friends.  Ohboy was just grouping them all together.
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    There's a lot of double think going on for anyone who thinks a habit of kicking people off the coalition for underperforming and a coalition having quotas at all aren't very closely related, if not the exact same thing. 

    You must be this tall to enjoy the ride. 

    No we don't reject people for being short. Who told you that? That's slander! 
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited November 2017
    There's a lot of double think going on for anyone who thinks a habit of kicking people off the coalition for underperforming and a coalition having quotas at all aren't very closely related, if not the exact same thing. 

    You must be this tall to enjoy the ride. 

    No we don't reject people for being short. Who told you that? That's slander! 

    Since you apppear not to know how any other coalition other than your own functions, I'll use the two top-10 coalitions I've been a part of as an example. 

    Typically if someone is underperforming, we look to see what's going on. If it's a personal issue, then we look to see if a temporary solution can be found while IRL issues get sorted out. If it's a matter of not being able to score as well as the coalition mates then they are moved to a team that suits them better until they improve, and choose to move up. This would be impossible if not for Discord/Slack. Nobody is "banished away". If someone leaves the channel, it's because they want to, or just not interested in playing the game anymore.

    If it's unfair to boot a player from a highly competitive coalition for underperforming, it's also unfair of that player to act like a dead weight and reap the rewards without earning them. 
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Mainloop25 said:
     If it's a matter of not being able to score as well as the coalition mates then they are moved to a team that suits them better until they improve, and choose to move up. This would be impossible if not for Discord/Slack. Nobody is "banished away". If someone leaves the channel, it's because they want to, or just not interested in playing the game anymore.


    What a wonderful way of saying you just kicked them out of a coalition. 

    I don't know why you're up at arms over this. I'm not even saying this is a wrong thing to do as a coalition. I'm saying this is a wrong thing to do to a friend. I'm saying this excuse about letting friends down is ridiculous. If coalition events are all about the magic of friendship, then surely this cannot happen. But they aren't. They're competitive teams that just happen to contain some friends. There's an overlap, but friendship obviously isn't the top priority here.


  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited November 2017
    Ohboy said:
    Mainloop25 said:
     If it's a matter of not being able to score as well as the coalition mates then they are moved to a team that suits them better until they improve, and choose to move up. This would be impossible if not for Discord/Slack. Nobody is "banished away". If someone leaves the channel, it's because they want to, or just not interested in playing the game anymore.


    What a wonderful way of saying you just kicked them out of a coalition. 

    I don't know why you're up at arms over this. I'm not even saying this is a wrong thing to do as a coalition. I'm saying this is a wrong thing to do to a friend. I'm saying this excuse about letting friends down is ridiculous. If coalition events are all about the magic of friendship, then surely this cannot happen. But they aren't. They're competitive teams that just happen to contain some friends. There's an overlap, but friendship obviously isn't the top priority here.



    I can't speak for everyone in my coalition, but I'm not friends with them in such that I couldn't call them if I was stranded on the side of the road or anything. But I am sure that there are people who have made actual friends out of coalition mates. Even so far as met up with them in real life.

    But we care enough about each other not to wreck the dynamic of the group by being uncommunicative or selfish. Those aren't very friendly things to do either. If a friend stops talking to me for no reason or gets in the way of my goals being achieved, I don't really think they are a very good friend of mine. 
  • luckyvulpi
    luckyvulpi Posts: 40 Just Dropped In
    @Mainloop25

    Honestly it sounds like people are only your friend in the coalition while they meet some arbitrary standards and when they don't they arn't friends and then its understandable to cut them away.  This type of behavior is exactly what I was referring to about coalitions valuing results far greater than personal health and while its okay for coalitions to function like that, the fact that you can't see how unfriendly that behavior is makes me scared that there are other people like you who think their coalition are nice and friendly and advertise them as so, but do things that contradict that.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    If that's what it sounds like then come join us and see how far from the case it actually is.

    People come and go all the time for various reasons. Least of which is because of it being  a hostile environment. 
  • span_argoman
    span_argoman Posts: 751 Critical Contributor
    I think there needs to be a distinction between the coalition as defined within the game (max 20 members), and the mega-coalition social structures formed by the alliance of/feeder structure between multiple in-game coalitions.

    If people were booted out of the mega-coalition entirely I guess that would be closer to what @Ohboy describes. But since what is happening is people moving within the mega-coalition to other in-game coalitions, that's not a total severing of social ties based on game performance or lack thereof.

    I don't see the social ties as being broken since they are all still communicating within the mega-coalition through the various means employed (Slack / Discord / etc.). It's just that rewards are being allocated according to what players are willing to commit each event.

    So I don't really see a conflict in opinion. More like a conflict in definitions, lest I be mistaken.
  • span_argoman
    span_argoman Posts: 751 Critical Contributor
    shteev said:
    Volrak said:

    Much of the argumentative energy here seems to have been spent on things which weren't anyone's actual point.  (What a waste.)
    That's because nobody actually wants to be having this discussion at all... it's only ever brought up as a way of shutting down the feedback of other forum members.
    I for one am actually rather interested in this discussion really. So don't be jumping the gun claiming no one is. The issue was to defuse the existing debate points before moving on to talk about the role of coalitions in the game.

    For one, no one has ever gotten round to disputing the point about coalitions being a focal point for this game / core focus of MtGPQ.

    I get that it is a big part of why so many people are still hanging onto this game despite the various issues we've had with the game. I don't see how it is a key focus of the game.

    There are people who play this game to compete for prizes and enjoy that banding together with like-minded players gives them an extra benefit in-game.

    There are players who just enjoy having a group of people to hang out with and share their experience of the game with.

    There are players who enjoy playing the game, love improving their own game and care little for cooperative play (who have largely been driven away by the termination of QB).

    There are players who play just because they enjoy the game mechanics and wish for more solo content. Rewards of any type are just there to give them greater access to the experience which the game has to offer.

    And the official forums being a social platform, is more likely to attract and retain players who come from the first group. Especially if we consider that this is one of the primary recruiting grounds of these mega coalitions. So a lot of people here fighting to prioritise coalition play and rewards isn't surprising.

    But don't let that mislead people into thinking that coalition play should be the one to be promoted over all else. They're just over-represented here.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories