Potential Delay to v44.1 Launch
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
Options
Kabam we will need some information for season 2.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm not answering for Kabam. I'm expressing my thoughts on the subject. They've already answered it themselves, many times. They don't discuss actions taken on Accounts. That's not likely going to change.
But you still are.
I don't think anyone was saying that you aren't qualified to comment because you're not playing 'competitively". By using the word "implication" you're openly admitting that that was your interpretation of what someone said, and interpretations can be inaccurate.
There are times when your posts contain assumptions or generalizations that give the impression that you believe that you know things with regards to situations you are not a part of, or do not know anyone who is involved in such situations. Some examples from this thread are:
This is an assumption. You might be right, you might not be right.
This is an assumption. Kabam's decision to start AW Seasons is at odds with this assumption.
This is an assumption. If you were to elaborate as to what sort of "chances" support the notion that it is not difficult to determine which players commit TOS violations in AW, your assumption would be more credible.
This is an assumption. There is no way to know how hypothetical consequences would influence the behavior of other players.
This is an assumption. Doubting that something happens a certain way does not mean that something does not happen that certain way.
These are assumptions:
"It would be easy to deduce" - how do you know this?
"I'm not convinced those scenarios are what is occurring for the most part" - You previously stated this point of view, but you have not provided reasons that support this assumption.
"That would do more harm than good" - Another assumption. Can you explain why you think this would be the case?
This is an assumption. It is rare to find situations that are as black and white as this kind of reasoning.
Someone once said "Education makes you teachable, experience makes you knowledgeable". Without having experience with certain situations that are discussed on the forum it is easier than not to be misinformed about the experiences of others in MCOC.
This is just Word Soup.
I prefer real Soup,No thanks.
All good to disagree with the facts
It’s like you’re trying to get your own threads closed without a resolution because you can’t ignore the bait.
This isn't word soup it was actually very accurate and true.
So it appears that when someone, very politely, asks you what you mean and how you can back your statements up you dismiss it as “word soup”. (Whatever that means, it must be very important considering you capitalised both word and soup). How can you expect people to take your opinion seriously when you do this?
People have been complaining about mods and piloting for a long time. It is a more relevant topic with the changes to alliance war, but the increased pressure to compete in alliance war didn't start the conversation or create the problem in the first place.
In any event, I no longer hazard guesses as to what you mean when you type anything, I only reply to what the words would mean to any English speaking reader. "Clearly it's too competitive if people are cheating" expresses an idea, and regardless of unfathomable original intent it is a silly idea. The silly idea being that the goal of designing a competition is to reduce the incentives of competition until no one cheats. The only people thinking this thought should be preschool teachers.
@mutamatt Very true, and if you're the mutamatt who made the MCOC google docs tools thank you for your contributions!
@Riegel IMO Kabam takes action when they believe they have enough data to make a well thought out decision. Perhaps Kabam feels that given their means of collecting data on this issue they need more time to determine the best way to inform alliances that one/some of their members have broken TOS without comprising their stance on player's privacy?
@DNA3000 had commented in another thread about MMO penalties often being administered in waves. The recent loss of war rating points across top war rating alliances may support this notion, it seems more likely than ever that Kabam was aware of the extent of TOS violations in AW, and because of this they wanted to take a single action of great impact. I think players will receive an answer that will remedy this situation, we may just not receive as soon as we would like.
"Politely" replying that everything I say is an assumption is not serious.
If you'll remember, I've been among those speaking out against Account Sharing long before Seasons. I'm aware that it's been an issue commented on. Not as frequently by far.
I never implied the goal of designing the competition was to incentivize people to be less competitive. It is a competition, after all. You're taking one response and expanding it without looking at the context of the reply and what I was responding to. Being competitive is fine. The extremity of competitiveness is the problem I was pointing out, and it's all to common with this game. People are so competitive that they compete at any cost, and that includes breaking the rules. That has very little to do with the design, it's where people take it. It's not necessary to behave like that at all. It's too competitive, not by design, but by personal standards. If you refer back to my previous statement, I made the asserion that if compromising integrity and honesty is what is required to be competitive, then I'm perfectly fine not being "competitive".
The TL:DR of the comment, which was in response to someone else's comments, is:
"Don't come for me on not being a competitive Player when being overly-competitive is the reason people cheat.".
If you find recourse in debating that, I'm not sure I can put it more clearly.
It was serious and he raised very valid points which you just blatantly refused to address. Once more, people ask you genuine questions and you blank it or claim they aren’t being serious or they are personally attacking you.
Look through each one of the points he claims are assumptions. It’s plain to see that you make some potentially pretty wild assertions which you aren’t backing up. How do you know it’s easy to spot someone cheating, how do you know that someone would talk, or someone would brag? If your telltale sign is that someone doesn’t lose health while taking down a miniboss or a node, how would you explain a flawless fight?
You make bold claims and then use no evidence to back it up, in my school days that would have got me to the age of 5 before they told me I needed reasons to support my claims.
To be fair, I wouldn't call all of those things assumptions. Several of them are simply false.
Alliances need a way to know who to remove after a member has broken the TOS. It is the job of leadership to try to make the best possible alliance to win the most competitive aspect of the game. This cannot be done if alliance leadership has no way of knowing who to remove to remedy the situation.
Some alliance may know already, but some may not know and this is a huge problem.
Because they have incorrect priorities. They believe that discipline is an issue between the company and the individual player and that should be a private matter between them. That's not a weird idea in and of itself. They also believe that when an alliance benefits from the actions of a cheating player the entire alliance should be penalized for that. This is also not a weird idea. It is the way Kabam combines those two ideas that is both weird, and also not really standard in the gaming industry in my opinion. They penalize the alliance, and as a result penalize both the players who cheated and the ones that don't, without telling the ones that didn't cheat what they need to know to avoid the penalty in the future. That's intrinsically wrong.
You should never, ever penalize a player for something that a) they did not do, b) could not have prevented, and c) have no way to avoid in the future. To penalize an alliance for the actions of a single player (or even a small group of players) is literally no different than fining everyone driving on Friday because one person was caught speeding. Of all the priorities Kabam has - to protect the privacy of disciplinary action, to revoke the rewards from alliances that benefit from cheating - they somehow have completely failed to set the number one priority to be the obvious one: don't penalize players unfairly. Penalizing players for the behavior of others and giving those players no way to isolate themselves from that behavior is the very definition of capricious discipline.
MMOs have a term for this. It is called griefing. Creating an environment where players who cheat can bring down penalties on surrounding players, and those players have no way to know who's triggering those penalties, is a form of griefing. And the MMO industry as a whole learned long ago that players' right to privacy ends where griefing begins. If you allow privacy to trump griefing protection, in the long run that's extremely damaging to the player community. This is something every game company should simply know on day one given how axiomatic it is supposed to be nowadays. You shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel here.
And this is really alot of hubub about fears rather than facts. You don't know what comes after the first penalty incurred relating to specific players piloting; or how people want to paint cheating as “greifing” which gives leeway to cheaters who as a point of fact are not honest in the first place. For all you know the second infraction is just a flat out ban of the player with no change in war rating for the alliance as the first adjustment will have already done its damage in relation to war season.
I think the point is we need Kabam to tell us what to expect and not have other forum posters tell us what to expect. We don't want to have to guess how we are supposed to do things. We want to be able to correct the ship before it's too late.
If your alliance is penalized several hundred points of war rating, I wouldn't characterize that as a "warning." That's a penalty imposed upon every member of the alliance.
None of that is relevant. If alliances are being penalized but none of the members are being told specifically who generated the penalty, that's a problem regardless of what happens next. And calling the phenomenon griefing gives no leeway to cheaters: by definition if they are griefers they are a negative to the game that should be eliminated as a priority. There's no such thing as "acceptable griefing."
Yall are confusing guilt by association with benefiting from ill gotten gains. You dont get to keep the money your friend stole and then gifted to you.
I'm pretty sure at this point it is you that is confused. Yes war rating is a property of the alliance not the individual players, but alliance rewards are dependent on that rating and alliance rewards go to players. Reducing that rating very obviously negatively affects all of the members of the alliance.
And somehow you seem to be fixated on the notion that I am attempting to justify "ill gotten gains." As it seems trivially obvious that I've been saying the exact opposite thing, I don't have a clue what is directing you to think otherwise.