Why Alliances Are Creating "MPQ: Survivor"

Unknown

I've been running an alliance since they began, and I've noticed that it's becoming more of a headache than ever.

Here's why:

1. It's all about making the Top 100. The disparity between the prizes for those that make the 100 top alliances and those that don't are huge. A 3-star character cover is worth 1,200 HP. So, if we were to boil this down to strictly monetary terms, it's worth at least $10 in MPQ currency every couple of days to be in a top alliance.

2. The mutual self-interest thing isn't easy. MPQ alliances aren't like a football or basketball team where we need to use coordinated teamwork to succeed. It's more like a bowling league where our individual scores are counted together. Yet, it's also like a bowling team where you can play as many games as you want, and every score will count. So, ideally your team would be composed of people who play almost exactly the same amount and have similar rosters, but that's difficult and time consuming to organize.What happens instead is that players at the top of alliances get frustrated at the lower level members for not "doing their share" and want them kicked out or leave themselves to go to a more powerful alliance.

3. It's becoming more a game of haves and have nots. Because the top alliances are all reaping much more in the ways of rewards, there seems to be a widening gap between the Top 100-ish alliances and all the rest. It creates a lot of turnover and a lot of unstability within an alliance. It makes me as an alliance leader feel more like a task master than a teammate.

I hate feeling like I'm in "Marvel Puzzle Quest: Survivor" where alliances constantly are formed and crumble based on competitiveness.

Bacon Pants

The doing their share issue could be easily rectified if they only took the top 15 scores from the alliance. That way players can take an event or two off...or if vacation or something else comes up. This would go a long way In preventing player burnout and alliance frustration.

But, that is a logical idea and it will never be implemented.

I am aware that not all alliances are at 20 members, and they don't need to be for this to work. If it's not the top 15, then make it a percentage of the alliance, say 80% or something like that.

Unknown

its not that hard to get a 2star team of OBW and ares/thor/wolverine which is all you need to get into a top 100 alliance, at that point you just need to find one that aligns with your goals, I managed to get in my alliance after 37 days so most people should be able to do it after 45

Unknown

Ideologically we can all join top 100 alliances, and be happy.
Mathematically maybe not so much.

Heaka75

I know for me it has been kinda like Goldilocks trying to find one that fits just right. I have been in alliances that didn't perform very well and I have been in a top 20 alliance where I put so much pressure on myself to do well that I wasn't having fun anymore After traveling around, I have found that the best place for me is an alliance that places between 100 and 50. I can get the newest covers and play with people I can get to know and have fun with without the stress of wondering if I am doing well enough.

Dauthi

I am a leader of a top 100/50 alliance, and here is some personal insight:

Sasquatchkid wrote:

1. It's all about making the Top 100. The disparity between the prizes for those that make the 100 top alliances and those that don't are huge. A 3-star character cover is worth 1,200 HP. So, if we were to boil this down to strictly monetary terms, it's worth at least $10 in MPQ currency every couple of days to be in a top alliance.

I think pretty soon they will have to increase cover rewards for alliances due to many alliances finally reaching 20. Then again, it will always come down to those alliances that are well coordinated and/or play the most.

2. The mutual self-interest thing isn't easy. MPQ alliances aren't like a football or basketball team where we need to use coordinated teamwork to succeed. It's more like a bowling league where our individual scores are counted together. Yet, it's also like a bowling team where you can play as many games as you want, and every score will count. So, ideally your team would be composed of people who play almost exactly the same amount and have similar rosters, but that's difficult and time consuming to organize.What happens instead is that players at the top of alliances get frustrated at the lower level members for not "doing their share" and want them kicked out or leave themselves to go to a more powerful alliance.

It is difficult and time consuming, but the pay off is the rewards to you and all your members. Weaker rosters will do worse in PVP, but it is up to leadership to make sure they recruit rosters that are competent at their alliance's objectives.

3. It's becoming more a game of haves and have nots. Because the top alliances are all reaping much more in the ways of rewards, there seems to be a widening gap between the Top 100-ish alliances and all the rest. It creates a lot of turnover and a lot of unstability within an alliance. It makes me as an alliance leader feel more like a task master than a teammate.

I hate feeling like I'm in "Marvel Puzzle Quest: Survivor" where alliances constantly are formed and crumble based on competitiveness.

If your problem is with the size of alliances, not the ability, then you have a point. You have to have a 20 man alliance to consistently reach top 100. The sheer HP for that is no laughing matter, and to make a decent alliance only a few people (best scenario only one) can be alliance leaders. This means that HP cost is all on their shoulders.

Even if you have a 20 person alliance the final step is making sure everyone is moderately active. This simply takes responsible leadership. Being a leader is in part being a taskmaster. It is your responsibility to protect the needs of everyone in your alliance, and if somebody is not performing they should find an alliance more comfortable to their play style. In most cases alliances crumble based on leadership, not competitiveness. It isn't easy, but being a leader never is.

noobprime

fact is the user base increases and the rewards thusfar have stayed the same in terms of the alliances. so at some point, people are going to be pushed out. the grouping of the participants into events (200, 1000 or 5000) does help this with the rewards increasing with player participation, the alliance one not so much.

flat out the rich always get richer, but now the poor are falling behind at a faster rate.

Unknown

noobprime wrote:

fact is the user base increases and the rewards thusfar have stayed the same in terms of the alliances. so at some point, people are going to be pushed out. the grouping of the participants into events (200, 1000 or 5000) does help this with the rewards increasing with player participation, the alliance one not so much.

flat out the rich always get richer, but now the poor are falling behind at a faster rate.

Maybe a solution is to do something that we have already seen on a player-level: Bracketing. It would require a change to the rewards structure Im sure (there probably shouldnt be top 100 alliances getting 3* covers in EVERY bracket), but if you realign those rewards then I think it would work well - why not, it already works on a player level!

The issue that people are getting to is scaling. The rewards structure was good at first, but as alliances increase in number and size and the game population increases you get into an issue of scaling. Braceting solves this scaling issue - you can, from a dev perspective, guarantee that X% of alliances will get reward Y. The current system has X decreasing every single event

noobprime

kermitk50 wrote:

The issue that people are getting to is scaling. The rewards structure was good at first, but as alliances increase in number and size and the game population increases you get into an issue of scaling. Braceting solves this scaling issue - you can, from a dev perspective, guarantee that X% of alliances will get reward Y. The current system has X decreasing every single event

It doesn't matter. Like when they removed the guaranteed heroes from packs, people bought *more* since they didn't get the heroes that they needed/wanted. People are buying more as they are given less, the current system *works* from the devs perspective.