Home General Discussion
The Transformers Forged to Fight community has officially moved to Discord. For all the latest news and updates, join us here!
Options

5 days of Alliance Mission and better Rank rewards.The solution.

D3v1LD3v1L Posts: 65
edited February 2018 in General Discussion
So,while waiting for the Alliance Wars to be introduced,we want something done with the Alliance Missions.

I will tell you why they have become so stagnant and so many veteran players left.

1. Making the Alliance Mission last 4 days with 3 days of a cool down seemed like a great idea at first.
One more extra day to relax after the hard work we put in there,came like a blessing from the skies.
But not really.

Having 1 extra day to do nothing for the top players,cause AW are still in developement and all other game modes are easy and boring for us,made at least half of the top Alliances and players(most of them big,big spenders) to retire for the time being.
The Alliance Mission is the only hard content in the game which keeps the Alliances together.

The Solution is to bring back the old cycle of 5 days of Alliance Missions and 2 days of a break.
Keep us engaged and busy please.
We will earn a bit more gold with the extra day of AM as well, which will be most welcome.

2. But rank rewards need to change!
In order for the top 5-20 Alliances to be interested to push harder again,be commited and happy.
And we finally see happy players,some old players make a return and we start enjoying the game more.

3.To make better rank rewards,but not give too much you guys can do this:
Move the 100% Completion rewards to the Rank rewards instead.
Leave only a small percantage like 20-30% of the current rewards for 100% Completion.

Right now we get a lot of tier2 Alpha essence and small portions of tier3 class fragments from 100% Completion,but Map 3 is hard for some of the Alliances outside the top 10 and they can not push high d.levels to earn more tier3 class fragments.Rank rewards are also bad,so why push?
Also if they do,they do not 100% the Map and get no completion rewards.In the same time the players burn out,cause this is too hard for them.
This is a vicious circle and many players are leaving.

You can stop this by just making the Rank rewards worthy to play high d.levels and place in the top 10.

Rank 1: 2500 tier3 class fragments,full tier2 Alpha,2 tier3 basics
Rank 2: 2000 tier3 class fragments, 7500 tier2 Alpha essence,...
Rank 3: 1500 tier3 class fragments,5000 tier2 Alpha essence
Rank 4: 1250 tier3 class fragments,....
Rank 5: 1000 tier3 class fragments,....
Rank 6-10 : 750 tier3 class fragments,..
Rank 11-25 : 500 tier3 class fragments,....

This way the big potion of the rewards will be moved from 100% Completion into the final Rank rewards,how it had to be from the begining.Where everyone can see the Ranking in the end and the great rewards.

And all Alliances will be eager to play their best and reach their limit once again.Cause the Rank rewards matter something now.
We will finally have a Competition,some spending as well.
Cause if you are satisfied with the game and have something to strive for,you will be more than happy to spend, to achieve this goal.

Share your thoughts guys.Cheers.:)

Comments

  • Options
    JKLJKL Posts: 997
    D3v1L wrote: »

    1. Making the Alliance Mission last 4 days with 3 days of a cool down seemed like a great idea at first.
    One more extra day to relax after the hard work we put in there,came like a blessing from the skies.
    But not really.

    Please don’t bring back 5 days of AMs. Personally, 4 days is enough, in fact I wouldn’t even mind if it was 3 days with the rewards adjusted to account for the missing day. More time than recruit, do other modes and also take time off from the game.

    Some issues I find with the game is burnout and it taking up too much time. I know a certain portion of players would love an extra day off, not just from AMs but actually away from the game to do other things. It keeps the game from being too much of a chore/grind and more fun when you do play.


  • Options
    ManthroManthro Posts: 2,752
    edited February 2018
    Please no 5 day arena..

    Combined with the endless arena grind, raid dailies, spotlight, class spark farming.... Too much time needed out of the day to cover it all.

    Co-op lanes in map 3 would be welcome, as maintaining a full alliance at the top tier of competition is nearly a full time job.
  • Options
    BigbowlrBigbowlr Posts: 121
    While I agree pushing for rank rewards outside the top 5 is not worth it, I disagree that if you're not a top 10 alliance you're struggling to complete map 3. I'm in a top 25 alliance, we breeze through map 3 at a difficulty high enough to obtain t3c shards and were pushing higher. Also the idea to move completion rewards to rank and cutting completions rewards by 70%(maybe I misread your post) is absolutely absurd. Without the completion rewards many alliances outside the top 10 would have absolutely no reason to do any AM other than maybe map 3 d1 for gold. Removing the t3c, t2a and t3b from those completion rewards and shifting it to rank rewards would kill the only competitive left in the game because at that point it's who can spend more to complete diff 60+ and outrank the others
  • Options
    D3v1LD3v1L Posts: 65
    I have my observations since Beta and this is why I think a 5-day AM is better than a 4-day one.

    1.Doing Map 2 till Map 3 was released and AM being 5-days,I saw very few players retire.
    And all Alliances had at least 3-4 other players eager to step in their shoes.There were not enough places free in the top Alliances.You can wait a month in order one single spot to be made free.
    Now after every AM we see the Alliances struggle to keep their members,some even fall apart.
    We did more days of AM,but was fun and we sticked together and the chats were active.
    The less we play,the more this turns into a single player game.
    3 days of doing nothing between AMs is too much.
    Everyone needs a break from time to time.
    But too much of doing nothing,makes you not want to jump in the loop again.This is how players retire.
    And the AM rewards were even worse back then.But we did not care,cause we want to compete against the other Alliances every day.

    2. Cause there is nothing else to do for the advanced players.
    3. The gold,tier3 class fragments,etc..will be higher with the extra day.
    4. We had a 5-day AM from the start (since Beta actually,before the global release).
    5. AM is the only competative mode in the game at this moment and why the Alliances are still together(barely).
    6. We play to win better rewards,but most importantly we are in an Alliance,cause we want to be with same-minded individuals,create friends,to share our success with them and this all to keep up busy.
    7. Play Arena less or do not do Raids guys.The AM takes the least time out of it all (only unless you do extreme high d.levels and time out a lot).
    Is the most fun and hard part of the game too.
    If you do over d.30-35 AM is harder than Expert Spotlight.

    8.Some guys are burned out in Transformers,but they play other games!What?
    So these guys are not burned out by playing too much, else they will not play other games instead.Will just leave their phones alone.

    A simple bump in AM rank rewards for all top 50 Alliances and an extra day of AM will be most welcomed.
  • Options
    JKLJKL Posts: 997
    The state of the game was much different back then compared to now. Everything was still new back then compared to now where everything feels repetitive. People are just tired of the same grind with not much pay back. I like the non-AM days and having nothing to do.

    For me, I don’t play any other games and just this one can burn me out. Of course I can control how much I play or not play. I can skip certain areas for a break. However, bringing back another day of AMs makes it mandatory to be around. Yeah, let’s not do that. It would probably have the opposite effect and cause more players to quit.
  • Options
    D3v1LD3v1L Posts: 65
    edited February 2018
    Ok then Dino.
    Then if Kabam introduces Alliance Wars which require more attention,coordination in an Alliance,what will happen?Everyone will quit?
    Cause the AM and AW can sometimes run at the same time.

    I know you are doing too much work cause you have to lead an Alliance and was an officer for such a long time.
    This is why i am a member.Too much work the officers have to do.
    But by saying 5-days of AM, I say that Kabam should also bump the Rewards big time to make it worth it.

    If so even the AM is too much for some peeps,why do you guys still play the game?

    We want new content cause some of us are bored,but we also do not want it,cause then we have to play more.Contradiction?

    I think everyone should make up his mind and Kabam should focus on the players who want to play more,have extra game modes and harder content to do.Cause it will require for us to spend to be competative.

    The ones of us,who want to take it easy will semi-retire or take a break for a while.
    Nothing wrong with that.

    But if the developers listen to the players,who want to play less,then should we all kind of retire?
    And the game alongside with us...

    No.Having more content is good for everyone.Some will chose to play it hard,others casually,others not at all.
    But by having very little new competative game modes,makes all of us semi-retired or not interested.
    How much we play depends on us alone.
    More players retire cause of boredom in my opinion.And if there is more to do,new peeps will fill their places.


  • Options
    that1guythat1guy Posts: 374
    edited February 2018
    Four days is enough, as it's already a pain to deal with map 3 for an alliance as a whole. Any more days added creates anxiety for players in the event something goes wrong in their play or another person in their bg. Overall, the map design is so frustrating that for any player it's just entirely unfun. Playing map 2 for a bit made me realize just how much engaging it actually was. The only challenging component was the difficulty of the bots and nothing else, if a player struggled you can assign a back up to help. It was way more dynamic and team oriented than map 3 ever was. Map 3 on the other hand is just straight up a huge steep in what is required from an alliance and it's players to complete it. Aside from bs mods that certain mini bosses have, if one player fails then the rest have to suffer for it.

    I understand Kabam wanted to create something challenging for the top alliances, but making a map straight up frustrating to play isnt intuitive, it just tires your players out. Kabiam still needs to address the issues while retaining its designed difficulty. As it stands now, map 3 is just another weekly expert spotlight mission, with no real incentive to push harder; just look at the rank rewards, it's pitiful.
  • Options
    D3v1LD3v1L Posts: 65
    Yup.
    And i agree 100% with you.
    Map 3 was the other factor that made AM not a fun place to be.
    But there is nothing else to do and doing Map2 is not a real option,cause Kabam will not undo Map3.

    They can change some of the hard nodes though and increase the member count to 21 or 24 members per Alliance.
    This way we will have at least one player as a backup in a Battlegroup like it was in Map 2.
    Then doing Map3 will be fun again and we all want to do AM for 5 days again hopefully.
  • Options
    ManthroManthro Posts: 2,752
    edited February 2018
    D3v1L wrote: »
    Yup.
    And i agree 100% with you.
    Map 3 was the other factor that made AM not a fun place to be.
    But there is nothing else to do and doing Map2 is not a real option,cause Kabam will not undo Map3.

    They can change some of the hard nodes though and increase the member count to 21 or 24 members per Alliance.
    This way we will have at least one player as a backup in a Battlegroup like it was in Map 2.
    Then doing Map3 will be fun again and we all want to do AM for 5 days again hopefully.

    I think you are the only player that wants to have 5 days of AM, judging by the responses thus far.

    The rewards are the same either way, they just divide the total across number days... So it just amounts to being glued to the phone more often, and it isn't a reason to play an extra day of AM.

  • Options
    D3v1LD3v1L Posts: 65
    Ok then guys.
    I thought that with 1 additional day all players will benefit, cause we will recieve 20-30k more gold from AM and a bit more completion rewards for the extra day.

    If 5 days of Am will be too much and 4 days is ideal for most players,what is the problem with the AM as of now?
    Is it Map 3 and how it was designed and the poor Rank rewards?
    Do you guys think if Kabam make changes to the above,that will keep the Alliances together?

    Do you have a solution for the bigger problem and it is how to have more competative Alliances and influx of fresh players (Maybe we should create more recruiting threads as well) ?

    I just started this,you guys share your thoughts now on how to make AM competative and fun again.
  • Options
    BOFADBOFAD Posts: 481
    I think a variable schedule like before is fine but I would rather have more members or make the map more co op like map2. Map3 is pretty lonely. The alliance is fun but In Map3 you don’t even have to communicate if you know where to go which is kind of lame. It also alienates the weakest links. So as you push up it gets harder and harder to find guys capable of running higher AM levels. That itself is an ongoing issue
  • Options
    BOFADBOFAD Posts: 481
    I don't know about useless suggestions and "empty" criticisms but everything else I agree with @Manthro even the moar polls lol
  • Options
    JKLJKL Posts: 997
    @D3v1L I’m not against new content. I liked things like the Bee challenge and even the monthly spotlights. Five day AM would just be repeating more of the same. I understand you’re just trying to get ideas out there to increase player interest and keeping existing players. I think AW would be a great addition as it would be a completely new mode.

  • Options
    Manthro wrote: »
    Individual BG difficulty selection (within a limited high/low range) would be of serious interest to many alliances.

    Purchaseable single bot revives instead of only team revives.

    Revamp of daily exploration rewards, expansion of rank rewards to include meaningful rewards to a wider range of alliances... as well as a restructure of the AS Crystal loot table and associated rarity for each prize.

    Group energy for each BG instead of individual energy. 1 group energy per 10 minutes instead of one individual energy per hour.

    And of course... MOAR polls! No, seriously... The dev team could put out polls on potential future changes without giving away too much detail, to see where player interest and engagement would be strongest. The reason being... If you engage the player base, then they have some stake in the direction of the game. We will know "Hey... We ASKED for this to happen."

    It would cut down on useless suggestions and empty criticisms tenfold

    I dislike the idea of having individual BG difficulty selection. If I'm in BG that is doing high difficulty while the other two are doing low difficulty. Just because they don't want to spend items or do higher difficulty. It going to start feeling like waist of time doing AM. It may make me quit the game. Anyway, I like how AM BG it is everyone is doing the same difficulty and they are pulling their weight.
  • Options
    KingChris2 wrote: »
    Manthro wrote: »
    Individual BG difficulty selection (within a limited high/low range) would be of serious interest to many alliances.

    Purchaseable single bot revives instead of only team revives.

    Revamp of daily exploration rewards, expansion of rank rewards to include meaningful rewards to a wider range of alliances... as well as a restructure of the AS Crystal loot table and associated rarity for each prize.

    Group energy for each BG instead of individual energy. 1 group energy per 10 minutes instead of one individual energy per hour.

    And of course... MOAR polls! No, seriously... The dev team could put out polls on potential future changes without giving away too much detail, to see where player interest and engagement would be strongest. The reason being... If you engage the player base, then they have some stake in the direction of the game. We will know "Hey... We ASKED for this to happen."

    It would cut down on useless suggestions and empty criticisms tenfold

    I dislike the idea of having individual BG difficulty selection. If I'm in BG that is doing high difficulty while the other two are doing low difficulty. Just because they don't want to spend items or do higher difficulty. It going to start feeling like waist of time doing AM. It may make me quit the game. Anyway, I like how AM BG it is everyone is doing the same difficulty and they are pulling their weight.

    I would love to see scalable battle groups. Would let the people that can run a higher level stay in an alliance with their weaker friends. Let's face it, some people grind harder than others and have stronger rosters.

    If you're worried they'll get better loot from your effort, or cost you loot with theirs, all kabam needs to do is have each bg get their level's rewards multiplied by how many bg's reach 100%.
  • Options
    KingChris2 wrote: »
    Manthro wrote: »
    Individual BG difficulty selection (within a limited high/low range) would be of serious interest to many alliances.

    Purchaseable single bot revives instead of only team revives.

    Revamp of daily exploration rewards, expansion of rank rewards to include meaningful rewards to a wider range of alliances... as well as a restructure of the AS Crystal loot table and associated rarity for each prize.

    Group energy for each BG instead of individual energy. 1 group energy per 10 minutes instead of one individual energy per hour.

    And of course... MOAR polls! No, seriously... The dev team could put out polls on potential future changes without giving away too much detail, to see where player interest and engagement would be strongest. The reason being... If you engage the player base, then they have some stake in the direction of the game. We will know "Hey... We ASKED for this to happen."

    It would cut down on useless suggestions and empty criticisms tenfold

    I dislike the idea of having individual BG difficulty selection. If I'm in BG that is doing high difficulty while the other two are doing low difficulty. Just because they don't want to spend items or do higher difficulty. It going to start feeling like waist of time doing AM. It may make me quit the game. Anyway, I like how AM BG it is everyone is doing the same difficulty and they are pulling their weight.

    I would love to see scalable battle groups. Would let the people that can run a higher level stay in an alliance with their weaker friends. Let's face it, some people grind harder than others and have stronger rosters.

    If you're worried they'll get better loot from your effort, or cost you loot with theirs, all kabam needs to do is have each bg get their level's rewards multiplied by how many bg's reach 100%.

    Personally weaker players should join weak alliances, but that me. If they introduce BG difficulty selection, they should give them lower rewards for does BG for running difficulty. For BG that are running higher difficulty should have better rewards than other BG. They need to have pro and con for BG that decides to run different difficulty in AM.
  • Options
    ManthroManthro Posts: 2,752
    edited February 2018
    KingChris2 wrote: »
    Manthro wrote: »
    Individual BG difficulty selection (within a limited high/low range) would be of serious interest to many alliances.

    Purchaseable single bot revives instead of only team revives.

    Revamp of daily exploration rewards, expansion of rank rewards to include meaningful rewards to a wider range of alliances... as well as a restructure of the AS Crystal loot table and associated rarity for each prize.

    Group energy for each BG instead of individual energy. 1 group energy per 10 minutes instead of one individual energy per hour.

    And of course... MOAR polls! No, seriously... The dev team could put out polls on potential future changes without giving away too much detail, to see where player interest and engagement would be strongest. The reason being... If you engage the player base, then they have some stake in the direction of the game. We will know "Hey... We ASKED for this to happen."

    It would cut down on useless suggestions and empty criticisms tenfold

    I dislike the idea of having individual BG difficulty selection. If I'm in BG that is doing high difficulty while the other two are doing low difficulty. Just because they don't want to spend items or do higher difficulty. It going to start feeling like waist of time doing AM. It may make me quit the game. Anyway, I like how AM BG it is everyone is doing the same difficulty and they are pulling their weight.

    I would love to see scalable battle groups. Would let the people that can run a higher level stay in an alliance with their weaker friends. Let's face it, some people grind harder than others and have stronger rosters.

    If you're worried they'll get better loot from your effort, or cost you loot with theirs, all kabam needs to do is have each bg get their level's rewards multiplied by how many bg's reach 100%.

    This is a great way to keep a lid on alliances trying to abuse the system. You have to remember, the main reason top alliances want this, is because recruiting is a massive time sink.. Leaders and officers just wanna play the game instead of looking for 1-3 new players every week. The elite player pool is extremely thin at the top.

    To add to this, I'd like to reiterate that scalable BG difficulty would need to have a limitation set, to prevent alt farm accounts getting a huge helping hand from their primary, which would ruin the game economy and competition in the long run.

    Something like no more than a 5-10 D level differential between the highest and lowest difficulty across all three groups.
  • Options
    Manthro wrote: »
    KingChris2 wrote: »
    Manthro wrote: »
    Individual BG difficulty selection (within a limited high/low range) would be of serious interest to many alliances.

    Purchaseable single bot revives instead of only team revives.

    Revamp of daily exploration rewards, expansion of rank rewards to include meaningful rewards to a wider range of alliances... as well as a restructure of the AS Crystal loot table and associated rarity for each prize.

    Group energy for each BG instead of individual energy. 1 group energy per 10 minutes instead of one individual energy per hour.

    And of course... MOAR polls! No, seriously... The dev team could put out polls on potential future changes without giving away too much detail, to see where player interest and engagement would be strongest. The reason being... If you engage the player base, then they have some stake in the direction of the game. We will know "Hey... We ASKED for this to happen."

    It would cut down on useless suggestions and empty criticisms tenfold

    I dislike the idea of having individual BG difficulty selection. If I'm in BG that is doing high difficulty while the other two are doing low difficulty. Just because they don't want to spend items or do higher difficulty. It going to start feeling like waist of time doing AM. It may make me quit the game. Anyway, I like how AM BG it is everyone is doing the same difficulty and they are pulling their weight.

    I would love to see scalable battle groups. Would let the people that can run a higher level stay in an alliance with their weaker friends. Let's face it, some people grind harder than others and have stronger rosters.

    If you're worried they'll get better loot from your effort, or cost you loot with theirs, all kabam needs to do is have each bg get their level's rewards multiplied by how many bg's reach 100%.

    This is a great way to keep a lid on alliances trying to abuse the system. You have to remember, the main reason top alliances want this, is because recruiting is a massive time sink.. Leaders and officers just wanna play the game instead of looking for 1-3 new players every week. The elite player pool is extremely thin at the top.

    To add to this, I'd like to reiterate that scalable BG difficulty would need to have a limitation set, to prevent alt farm accounts getting a huge helping hand from their primary, which would ruin the game economy and competition in the long run.

    Something like no more than a 5-10 D level differential between the highest and lowest difficulty across all three groups.

    They don't even need to limit the difference in levels. Let's assume all 3 battle groups hit 100%...

    Bg1 runs level 41 and gets rewards of 3x the earned reward.

    Bg2 runs level 37 and gets 3x the reward for level 37.

    Bg3 runs level 2 (even if it is all alt farm accounts) and they get 3x the rewards of level 2.

    Actually I'd like to see the ability to mix maps. That way if someone can't get on (Chinese New Year this week comes to mind) or if 6 people don't want the work of map 3, they can run map 2 while the rest can do map 3. Or bg1 run map 3 and the other two do map 2 for weaker alliances.
  • Options
    D3v1L wrote: »
    Ok then guys.
    I thought that with 1 additional day all players will benefit, cause we will recieve 20-30k more gold from AM and a bit more completion rewards for the extra day.

    Personally I do not want anything to do with 5 days of AM at this point, but that is largely because the game seems to be going nowhere. I don't care much about the rewards as long as they cycle in to sustaining competitive growth and limit how much I have to grind. 20-30k gold is certainly not enough to con me in to another day of AM.

    You are correct that many players were ok with 5 days of AM before, but I think they were smart to reduce it to 4, because excitement in the game was waning around that point. The bottom line is, they don't just need us to remain engaged, they need us to remain excited, and right now that isn't really happening. It's more like the opposite direction as changes are being made without consideration for how they will make AM worse and not better, and it just feels like they don't have the staff to fix these problems swiftly (or maybe even catch them before they go live).

    What I think really mucked things up was when they locked the days down to being the same every week. The one good thing from the 5 day rotation was that the days that AM began and ended were different every week. This meant that no one was 100% happy every single week, but everyone got what they wanted a couple weeks out of each month. Locking it down to always having AM on the weekend means you either love it or you hate it, and it seems to be about 50/50 based on word of mouth and whenever someone takes a poll. To me, the idea that 50% of your player base hates the way a core element works like that, is when you need to figure out a better solution.
  • Options
    Darm0kDarm0k Posts: 2,485
    They don't even need to limit the difference in levels. Let's assume all 3 battle groups hit 100%...

    Bg1 runs level 41 and gets rewards of 3x the earned reward.

    Bg2 runs level 37 and gets 3x the reward for level 37.

    Bg3 runs level 2 (even if it is all alt farm accounts) and they get 3x the rewards of level 2.

    Actually I'd like to see the ability to mix maps. That way if someone can't get on (Chinese New Year this week comes to mind) or if 6 people don't want the work of map 3, they can run map 2 while the rest can do map 3. Or bg1 run map 3 and the other two do map 2 for weaker alliances.

    I think in this scenario, everyone should get 1x rewards of level 41, 1x rewards of level 37, and 1x rewards of level 2. This will help the lower tier players improve so the alliance can start doing higher levels on average overall. Which would be the point of being in a higher alliance. If not, why not just run a low level in a lower alliance.

    Weaker players can strengthen their roster and stronger players don’t have to worry about finding someone just like them while knowing they’re building someone else to their level.
Sign In or Register to comment.