[BOSS EVENT] OMEGA RECKONING - 09/12/24 - 09/15/24

S0kun

Here's the latest info for the upcoming OMEGA RECKONING boss event!

We're also excited to announce that for this event, the Alliance top rewards have been expanded to a wider reward pool of Top 25 alliances. This was done to ease the pressure at the top of the leaderboards and remind our players that taking advantage of exploits to move up the leaderboards is something that we strongly discourage.

For all upcoming Boss Events, we'll be closely monitoring alliance sizes to ensure a level playing field for all participants and will take punitive measures if necessary so please pass along the memo.

09/12/24 - 09/15/24
[BOSS EVENT]
OMEGA RECKONING

[HEROIC]
Progression Rewards:
Sylvie | Loki (God of Mischief) ★★★★★

Top 25 Alliance Placement Rewards:
Ebony Maw (Children of Thanos) ★★★★★
Cull Obsidian (Children of Thanos) ★★★★★
Corvus Glaive (Children of Thanos) ★★★★★

[NORMAL]
Jubilee (Vampire) ★★★
Black King (Sebastian Shaw) ★★★★
Deadpool (Hotpool) ★★★★★

[REQUIRED CHARACTERS]
5-Star
Apocalypse (Classic) ★★★★★
Arcade (Edward Acra) ★★★★★
Archangel (Horseman of Death) ★★★★★
Big Wheele (Jackson Wheele) ★★★★★
Carnage (Prophet of Knull) ★★★★★
Chasm (Ben Reilly) ★★★★★
Doctor Doom (God Emperor) ★★★★★
Doctor Octopus (Classic) ★★★★★
Electro (Francine Frye) ★★★★★
Gargantos (Multiverse of Madness) ★★★★★
Green Goblin (Norman Osborn) ★★★★★
Hela (Goddess of Death) ★★★★★
High Evolutionary (Awesome Mix Vol. 3) ★★★★★
Kang (The Conqueror) ★★★★★
Killmonger (Erik Stevens) ★★★★★
Kingpin (Spider-Verse) ★★★★★
Knull (King in Black) ★★★★★
Loki (God of Mischief) ★★★★★
Miles Morales (Carnage Symbiote) ★★★★★
Mister Sinister (Nathaniel Essex) ★★★★★
Omega Red (Horseman of Pestilence) ★★★★★
Onslaught (Psionic Entity) ★★★★★
Ronan (The Accuser) ★★★★★
Thanos (The Mad Titan) ★★★★★
Ultron (Age of Ultron) ★★★★★
Venomsaurus Rex (Brockiosaurus) ★★★★★
Victor Mancha (Victorious) ★★★★★
Vulture (Armor Wars) ★★★★★
Yellowjacket (Darren Cross) ★★★★★

4-Star
Abomination (Emil Blonsky) ★★★★
Annihilus (Classic) ★★★★
Beast (Age of Apocalypse) ★★★★
Black Cat (Master Thief) ★★★★
Black King (Sebastian Shaw) ★★★★
Blob (Modern) ★★★★
Carnage (Cletus Kasady) ★★★★
Doc Ock (No Way Home) ★★★★
Doctor Bong (Lester Verde) ★★★★
Doctor Doom (Infamous Iron Man) ★★★★
Ghost (Quantum Thief) ★★★★
Gorr (The God Butcher) ★★★★
Juggernaut (Fear Itself) ★★★★
Kingpin (Wilson Fisk) ★★★★
Kraven the Hunter (Sergei Kravinoff) ★★★★
Lady Octopus (Carolyn Trainer) ★★★★
Lizard (Classic) ★★★★
Loki (Alligator of Mischief) ★★★★
M.O.D.O.K. (A.I.M. Overlord) ★★★★
Mister Negative (Martin Li) ★★★★
Morbius (The Living Vampire) ★★★★
Mordo (Master of the Mystic Arts) ★★★★
Mysterio (Quentin Beck) ★★★★
Nebula (Infinity War) ★★★★
Prowler (Aaron Davis) ★★★★
Red Hulk (Thunderbolt Ross) ★★★★
Rhino (Classic) ★★★★
Sabretooth (Victor Creed) ★★★★
Sandman (Flint Marko) ★★★★
Scorpion (Classic) ★★★★
Silver Samurai (Kenuichio Harada) ★★★★
Super Skrull (Classic) ★★★★
Talos (Skrull Warlord) ★★★★
Taskmaster (Tony Masters) ★★★★
Thanos (Endgame) ★★★★
Venom (Eddie Brock) ★★★★
Vulture (Adrian Toomes) ★★★★

3-Star
Arcade (King of PWN) ★★★
Bullseye (Classic) ★★★
Daken (Classic) ★★★
Doctor Doom (Classic) ★★★
Doctor Octopus (Otto Octavius) ★★★
High Evolutionary (Classic) ★★★
Jubilee (Vampire) ★★★
Kaine Parker (Trenchcoat) ★★★
Kang (Classic) ★★★
Loki (Dark Reign) ★★★
Magik (Darkchylde) ★★★
Magneto (Classic) ★★★
Mystique (Raven Darkholme) ★★★
Omega Red (Arkady Rossovich) ★★★
Ragnarok (Dark Avengers) ★★★
Sentry (Dark Avengers) ★★★
Thanos (Modern) ★★★
The Hood (Classic) ★★★
Vulture (Classic) ★★★

1 & 2 Star
Ares (Dark Avengers) ★★
Black Widow (Original) ★★
Bullseye (Dark Avengers) ★★
Daken (Dark Avengers) ★★
Electro (Maxwell Dillon) ★★
Moonstone (Dark Avengers) ★★
Juggernaut (Classic) ★
Venom (Dark Avengers) ★
Yelena Belova (Dark Avengers) ★

gamecat235

This was done to ease the pressure at the top of the leaderboards and remind our players that taking advantage of exploits to move up the leaderboards is something that we strongly discourage.

Is there anything being done to more actively prevent this? I know it’s caused a lot of consternation in the last couple of events.

In the semi-distant past once you joined a boss event with an alliance you were locked into that alliance, is that not possible to reimplement?

Theghouse

@gamecat235 said:

This was done to ease the pressure at the top of the leaderboards and remind our players that taking advantage of exploits to move up the leaderboards is something that we strongly discourage.

Is there anything being done to more actively prevent this? I know it’s caused a lot of consternation in the last couple of events.

Being able to move alliances to merc for alliance placement rewards or participate in buy clubs has been part of the competitive MPQ community for a long, long time.

You're free to have your own opinion of mercing or buy clubs, but let's not confuse either of them with exploiting the game. Normal mercing and buy clubs do not exploit the normal number of maximum players in an alliance at one time or the way scores count towards the final alliance score.

This is why the devs specifically said they're looking at alliance size (indicator for exploit) and not movement between alliances (not an indicator for exploit).

In the semi-distant past once you joined a boss event with an alliance you were locked into that alliance, is that not possible to reimplement?

When you join boss event, your scoring is locked into the progress that moves you through the the rounds for that alliance. That is very separate from the alliance total score on the leaderboard. It never mattered before heroic boss because there was never an alliance placement reward to compete for. But the way the scoreboard works has never changed.

Again, you're free to have your own opinion of how alliance placement works, but it's not a new thing.

JediJones77

There's a way to increase the size of your alliance? Never heard of such a thing.

gamecat235

I’m not sure how swapping players mid-event isn’t exactly what they are talking about.

I’m not worried about the general concept of merc’ing, I’ve been on many alliances that have taken advantage of mercs, and have done it myself between alliances.

I personally believe that they are talking about swapping players for flips, swapping players for end of event, etc.

But if your read of the behavior of what they are attempting to discourage is different than mine, that’s fine. I just don’t see how it isn’t players bouncing from alliance to alliance for competitive advantages.

BagPuss

@Theghouse said:
This is why the devs specifically said they're looking at alliance size (indicator for exploit) and not movement between alliances (not an indicator for exploit).

>

It's not "alliance size" in this case.
It's specifically starting members differing from the members at the end of the boss event.
The entire boss event is suppose to be locked, scores included, but the current game mechanics don't cater to that.

Regular PvP and PvE were designed with the current system in mind so don't have that "problem"
The uptick in alliances swapping members for boss event is the the problem especially when they originally announced "Team's are fixed/Locked"

Zarqa

@S0kun Seems there are lots of questions about what these exploits might be. Since you mention there might be punitive measures, I think it would be most helpful if you clarify what is and isn’t allowed. Your message is very cryptic.

Scenario 1:
Team thinks mercing and swapping is what you mean, so they stop doing it. But they find out afterwards that isn’t it, and now have a lower placement than those who still did it. Seems unfair…

Scenario 2:
Team thinks mercing and swapping is allowed and do it as usual. Then they are penalized because this is what you mean with your message, but that wasn’t clear to them. Seems unfair…

pepitedechocolat

@Zarqa said:
@S0kun Seems there are lots of questions about what these exploits might be. Since you mention there might be punitive measures, I think it would be most helpful if you clarify what is and isn’t allowed. Your message is very cryptic.

Scenario 1:
Team thinks mercing and swapping is what you mean, so they stop doing it. But they find out afterwards that isn’t it, and now have a lower placement than those who still did it. Seems unfair…

Scenario 2:
Team thinks mercing and swapping is allowed and do it as usual. Then they are penalized because this is what you mean with your message, but that wasn’t clear to them. Seems unfair…

the idea between alliances is to link players together so everyone grow up and get rewarded for it. The spirit of mercing is picking random guy to buffer the score, sometimes removing one of your guy, definitely against initial goal. Swapping is bracket manipulation afaik, not very fair play. It may be allowed, but these are 'hacks' not in the spirit of fair competition at all and go against the interest of the alliance system.

Having people worrying saying "hey we do these things that are shady, we are worrying that we may get caught and punished and this is unfair" is hilarious. (I know hacking is the "standard behavior" these days, does not make it sound)

DAZ0273

remind our players that taking advantage of exploits to move up the leaderboards is something that we strongly discourage.

I mean this is pretty self-explanatory, no? Moving up leaderboards involves scoring points, if you are therefore operating an Alliance which manipulates the amount of points it gets between the beginning and the end of the event beyond the scores of players who started that event, the Devs are saying DON'T DO IT! The Devs don't make any mention of what used to be allowed or not - from this Boss Event moving forwards the above rule counts and is all that matters! They also clearly say - Tell everyone!

bluewolf

I admittedly do not pay attention to top 25 scores typically, but my guess is that the 25th best is kind of far from the first and if everyone basically just limited shenanigans to swapping out a player who couldn’t/didn’t play that all of the usual suspects, the tryhard alliances, will get their cool prizes.

Like what’s the typical range here? Is the 26th most competitive alliance that close to breaking through?

My understanding is that it’s increasingly hard to find players who even care that much about top placement. I bet the game barely has enough to fill those top 25 alliances with 20 members each.

Sure there are more players than that who try hard sometimes, but the consistent, every event tryhards are decreasing and many who can place high don’t care to swap alliances etc. Lots of efffort for another token.

That said this is the only event in the game where there’s something significant on the line if you are missing a rewarded support at high rank. So maybe I’m off base, but honestly I don’t think so.

Also, also many top competitors already have a locked in perfected optimized pve set up, and these rewards won’t even be used. But you need something to chase to feel like it all matters.

entrailbucket

An alliance is 20 players.

Boss events, PvE events, PvP events, DDQ, welcome to shield, puzzle gauntlet... whatever event it is, they should all "lock."

If you choose to spend money in the game and generate alliance CP, that CP should go to the players in your alliance -- your actual group of 20 players that you play every event with.

The game was more fun when we were a community of 20s playing against other 20s, and not 1000 1s all out for ourselves.

Theghouse

@BagPuss said:

@Theghouse said:
This is why the devs specifically said they're looking at alliance size (indicator for exploit) and not movement between alliances (not an indicator for exploit).

>

It's not "alliance size" in this case.
It's specifically starting members differing from the members at the end of the boss event.
The entire boss event is suppose to be locked, scores included, but the current game mechanics don't cater to that.

Regular PvP and PvE were designed with the current system in mind so don't have that "problem"
The uptick in alliances swapping members for boss event is the the problem especially when they originally announced "Team's are fixed/Locked"

That's an interesting thought, but not at all what was said by the devs in their statement.
Monitoring "alliance size" for potential exploit in no way gives the impression having a different 20 players in your alliance at starting time vs. ending time is exploitative, as it doesn't manipulate "alliance size".

@gamecat235 said:
I personally believe that they are talking about swapping players for flips, swapping players for end of event, etc.

Players moving alliances in the middle of an event for boss flips, as mentioned above, sounds to me like an attempt to manipulate or circumvent the game scoring mechanics.

Players moving alliances in the middle of an event to purchase deals with alliance CP is regular buy club activity. Players moving alliances with legitimately earned scores at the end of an event is regular merc activity.

Seems pretty clear to me what the devs are speaking out against and what they would take punitive actions against, even though none of these situations seem to involve exploiting "alliance size" as they so clearly stated.

Theghouse

@entrailbucket said:
An alliance is 20 players.

Boss events, PvE events, PvP events, DDQ, welcome to shield, puzzle gauntlet... whatever event it is, they should all "lock."

The game was more fun when we were a community of 20s playing against other 20s, and not 1000 1s all out for ourselves.

Interesting thoughts, but I don't see it that way.

There are many alliances today, from top competitors to ultra casual alliances, many times a mix of both competitive and casual, that are made up of 5, 10, or even more alliances playing together as one big alliance family. These alliance families become tight-knit communities of their own, inside the MPQ community as a whole, and are no doubt a big reason why this game has had such long running success and hasn't been shuttered.

As a player who's spent time in both types of alliances, a single home-grown alliance started from 4-5 like-minded players, and as part of a bigger alliance family, I can tell you that at no time have I ever feel like it was 1000 players out there in a free for all.

What I have seen is a number of players that are only hanging on to this game, and spending money on it, because of those communities that they are a part of, and spend a lot of time and energy to keep those communities alive for others to enjoy as well. I have found myself in this area several times, where I enjoy the community I've become a part of MORE than the actual puzzle game we play. I'd be truly worried for the future of the game without it.

If you choose to spend money in the game and generate alliance CP, that CP should go to the players in your alliance -- your actual group of 20 players that you play every event with.

This is certainly a valid point of view, but in reality I don't see the devs taking issue with where the huge portion of big spenders choose to buy their Stark salaries and full chain combo deals, another huge reason why the game is still running successfully.

entrailbucket

@Theghouse said:

@entrailbucket said:
An alliance is 20 players.

Boss events, PvE events, PvP events, DDQ, welcome to shield, puzzle gauntlet... whatever event it is, they should all "lock."

The game was more fun when we were a community of 20s playing against other 20s, and not 1000 1s all out for ourselves.

Interesting thoughts, but I don't see it that way.

There are many alliances today, from top competitors to ultra casual alliances, many times a mix of both competitive and casual, that are made up of 5, 10, or even more alliances playing together as one big alliance family. These alliance families become tight-knit communities of their own, inside the MPQ community as a whole, and are no doubt a big reason why this game has had such long running success and hasn't been shuttered.

As a player who's spent time in both types of alliances, a single home-grown alliance started from 4-5 like-minded players, and as part of a bigger alliance family, I can tell you that at no time have I ever feel like it was 1000 players out there in a free for all.

What I have seen is a number of players that are only hanging on to this game, and spending money on it, because of those communities that they are a part of, and spend a lot of time and energy to keep those communities alive for others to enjoy as well. I have found myself in this area several times, where I enjoy the community I've become a part of MORE than the actual puzzle game we play. I'd be truly worried for the future of the game without it.

If you choose to spend money in the game and generate alliance CP, that CP should go to the players in your alliance -- your actual group of 20 players that you play every event with.

This is certainly a valid point of view, but in reality I don't see the devs taking issue with where the huge portion of big spenders choose to buy their Stark salaries and full chain combo deals, another huge reason why the game is still running successfully.

Thanks -- sometimes when I say that stuff, folks get mad. The "1000 1s" stuff isn't meant as a dig, it's just what it is.

I don't think very many people have played in a tight-knit, competitive 20, that PvP and PvE together every single event. Mostly when folks today think about those 20s, they're thinking about very casual groups that don't complete.

A 20 that competes is able to support and assist each other in PvP in a way that a 500-person "family" simply can't. A 20 can spread out over brackets to make sure everyone places. They can snipe to guarantee placement for their members. They can dump at the last second to push someone ahead. There's just no way you can do that for 500 or 1000 people.

In the big PvP groups, ostensibly folks are all friendly. In reality, some folks are friendly, and others are "friendly." There's a subgroup in there that always wins everything, because they're in some other secret bc somewhere that has all the good qs.

Giving your alliance CP is a way to keep your group dominance. In the 20-vs-20 model, I want my 20 to be as strong as possible and the other 20s to be as weak as possible. Giving CP to my 20 makes them stronger, and I'd never give CP to someone outside my 20 -- I want them to be weak!

It's just a different way of thinking about things. It's also basically extinct, so I'm not sure new players are aware it ever existed. If folks feel the way they're playing now is boring or stagnant, the competitive model they're being forced into might be a reason why.

LavaManLee

I think part of the biggest problem with the old model is that there was no room for real life. Vacations, work overload, school tests, etc. It was a burden to leave for a week or two and have the alliance keep at the same place. The alliance had to try to find someone, which could be a pain, because anyone playing at a high level was probably already in a good alliance. So, the alliance would suffer because of real life.

The mega alliances allow for real life without affecting the overall standing of the alliance. People can drop out, someone can shift in, and then reset. The old "one alliance against every other one" just didn't work well as things happened to people.

DAZ0273

I doubt they are talking about the odd player shifting/replacement due to real life. I think they would appear to have hard evidence of high level player movement during a specific event which is raising red flags over score manipulation. I image players can go on and form buy clubs to their hearts content the rest of the time.

entrailbucket

@LavaManLee said:
I think part of the biggest problem with the old model is that there was no room for real life. Vacations, work overload, school tests, etc. It was a burden to leave for a week or two and have the alliance keep at the same place. The alliance had to try to find someone, which could be a pain, because anyone playing at a high level was probably already in a good alliance. So, the alliance would suffer because of real life.

The mega alliances allow for real life without affecting the overall standing of the alliance. People can drop out, someone can shift in, and then reset. The old "one alliance against every other one" just didn't work well as things happened to people.

I lived the old model, for many, many years -- well past the time when most high level players stopped.

When someone left for a week or two, we placed somewhat lower as an alliance. It was fine. Nobody died. The difference in rewards just wasn't that big a deal. It was more important for us to be together than it was to get the best rewards.

We (mostly) never considered bringing in some outsider to make up our rank, because that outsider would get the benefit of our rewards, alliance CP, help with ranking, etc.

When I talk about "1000 1s," that's what I'm talking about. If someone had to take a break, it was important for us to make sure they kept getting decent rewards, even if I personally got less. The important thing was the team, far, far ahead of the individual.

LavaManLee

@entrailbucket said:

@LavaManLee said:
I think part of the biggest problem with the old model is that there was no room for real life. Vacations, work overload, school tests, etc. It was a burden to leave for a week or two and have the alliance keep at the same place. The alliance had to try to find someone, which could be a pain, because anyone playing at a high level was probably already in a good alliance. So, the alliance would suffer because of real life.

The mega alliances allow for real life without affecting the overall standing of the alliance. People can drop out, someone can shift in, and then reset. The old "one alliance against every other one" just didn't work well as things happened to people.

I lived the old model, for many, many years -- well past the time when most high level players stopped.

When someone left for a week or two, we placed somewhat lower as an alliance. It was fine. Nobody died. The difference in rewards just wasn't that big a deal. It was more important for us to be together than it was to get the best rewards.

We (mostly) never considered bringing in some outsider to make up our rank, because that outsider would get the benefit of our rewards, alliance CP, help with ranking, etc.

When I talk about "1000 1s," that's what I'm talking about. If someone had to take a break, it was important for us to make sure they kept getting decent rewards, even if I personally got less. The important thing was the team, far, far ahead of the individual.

I wish I had been in your alliance, then. I have been in alliances since they started and never played in one that didn't try to replace me (or anyone) when there were vacations or other events going on in life.

entrailbucket

@LavaManLee said:

@entrailbucket said:

@LavaManLee said:
I think part of the biggest problem with the old model is that there was no room for real life. Vacations, work overload, school tests, etc. It was a burden to leave for a week or two and have the alliance keep at the same place. The alliance had to try to find someone, which could be a pain, because anyone playing at a high level was probably already in a good alliance. So, the alliance would suffer because of real life.

The mega alliances allow for real life without affecting the overall standing of the alliance. People can drop out, someone can shift in, and then reset. The old "one alliance against every other one" just didn't work well as things happened to people.

I lived the old model, for many, many years -- well past the time when most high level players stopped.

When someone left for a week or two, we placed somewhat lower as an alliance. It was fine. Nobody died. The difference in rewards just wasn't that big a deal. It was more important for us to be together than it was to get the best rewards.

We (mostly) never considered bringing in some outsider to make up our rank, because that outsider would get the benefit of our rewards, alliance CP, help with ranking, etc.

When I talk about "1000 1s," that's what I'm talking about. If someone had to take a break, it was important for us to make sure they kept getting decent rewards, even if I personally got less. The important thing was the team, far, far ahead of the individual.

I wish I had been in your alliance, then. I have been in alliances since they started and never played in one that didn't try to replace me (or anyone) when there were vacations or other events going on in life.

When everyone is fully on the team, and focused ONLY on the team, it's easy for commanders to run it this way. Nobody demands that their teammates get kicked. Individuals give up rewards to help the team. The team's success is all that matters.

Some folks can't do that. "It's unfair -- I did my part. Why should I take less because that guy went on vacation?" Eventually that turns into "I did my part -- why should I ever take less than I deserve, under any circumstances?" That's fine! It's another way to approach the game.

What's happened in MPQ is that every competitive player is in that second group now. Our alliance couldn't recruit competitive players in the first group anymore, so now we're a few old people and some noncompetitive players. I'd rather be that than get top placements by using outsiders.

JediJones77

@pepitedechocolat said:

the idea between alliances is to link players together so everyone grow up and get rewarded for it. The spirit of mercing is picking random guy to buffer the score, sometimes removing one of your guy, definitely against initial goal.

You make it sound like a nefarious thing. How about the scenario where someone has an emergency in the middle of the event and can't continue playing, then you temporarily bring in a friend who doesn't have time to play the game on a daily basis, but will work hard in the boss event? If you can't do that, then it inspires resentment among the entire alliance towards the one person who couldn't play it through and kept them from ranking higher. That's not a healthy thing for an alliance. Most likely that person will get kicked out so that it doesn't happen again, whereas they could've stayed if they were allowed to be swapped out temporarily with someone else.

DAZ0273

@JediJones77 said:

@pepitedechocolat said:

the idea between alliances is to link players together so everyone grow up and get rewarded for it. The spirit of mercing is picking random guy to buffer the score, sometimes removing one of your guy, definitely against initial goal.

You make it sound like a nefarious thing. How about the scenario where someone has an emergency in the middle of the event and can't continue playing, then you temporarily bring in a friend who doesn't have time to play the game on a daily basis, but will work hard in the boss event? If you can't do that, then it inspires resentment among the entire alliance towards the one person who couldn't play it through and kept them from ranking higher. That's not a healthy thing for an alliance. Most likely that person will get kicked out so that it doesn't happen again, whereas they could've stayed if they were allowed to be swapped out temporarily with someone else.

Christ if someone suffering a real life emergency ends up in the rest of the Alliance having so little empathy that they resent missing out on a few digital rewards I have to question what the hell is wrong with those people. They sound like total arseholes!