AW - Alliance Swap Strategy, AW Rating, and Competitive Balance

12357

Comments

  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 7,041 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    Neither of you are addressing the point that there is an alternative to your identified problem. It is 100% neater than trying to draw some arbitrary lines.

    Your reply betrays the fact that you have no answer to the problem. So how about if 29 people swap into an alliance? Should that be penalised? By saying "if it turns out that there is some way to game the system", you are effectively saying "this doesn't bother me yet, so I can live with it. But if i start losing to such alliances, then it is unfair". That is entirely unprincipled and not at all how rules should be made.

    As for the getting pulverised point - let me tell you that the cold hard truth is that smaller alliances will increasingly face stacked rosters and increasingly get pulverised because more and more top players are getting burnt out in higher tier wars. I have seen players with a Sig 200 R5 Korg going down into 1800 war rating alliances - what do you think that does to the other team? I've seen 3 - 4 players item out on him at that tier. Is that fun? Not for the other team. But is that fair? Of course it is, the player earned that r5 sig 200 Korg and is entitled to use it wherever he pleases. The reality is you just need 1 or 2 of these monster defenders or accounts at that low tier, and it will completely crush the other team. So this problem of getting pulverised, alone, is not going away. It is the nature of AW and how Kabam has set up certain defenders/nodes to be nearly impossible unless you have the right combination of roster +skill - both of which tend to be lacking at the lower tiers.

    Not bothered by the cold hard truth lol. There is an identifiable problem that can be fixed. I don't have a problem with lower alliances losing to groups with a guy that has a road block defense per se. I don't have a problem with 30 guys getting together and forming a new alliance and working their way up (which will also result in mismatches). There will always be some mismatches. The problem is groups intentionally creating mismatches because they want to win wars and get high tier rewards while facing lower competition. Did an alliance break up and 15 guys joined another group that was active and had some people leave? No problem. Did 25 guys leave a perfectly viable alliance and join a group that had a few placeholders but a reasonable war rating? Different story. Might you find a gray area that would be hard to identify? Sure. Should we then throw our hands up in the air and say welp, guess we can't do anything when we all know what is going on? Not so much.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 7,041 ★★★★★
    edited December 2018
    Ultra8529 wrote: »

    But if i start losing to such alliances, then it is unfair". .

    None of this has anything to do with me losing to these groups or not losing to them. I think Kabam should put a stop to the manipulation of war rating by alliances. Personally I've been far more affected by facing groups who were piloting and later penalized for it.

  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    The system is the issue. That has been the point I have been trying to get across since the beginning. I'm not saying that the inevitability excuses the behaviour. I am saying that the inevitability means that we need a better solution, and not simply trying to prohibit top players from playing in lower alliances. It is going to happen all the same, and lower alliances will continue to get pulverised increasingly.

    Up till now, nobody has even engaged me on my suggestion that the root of the problem is the scoring and matchmaking system.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 6,123 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    Neither of you are addressing the point that there is an alternative to your identified problem. It is 100% neater than trying to draw some arbitrary lines.

    Your reply betrays the fact that you have no answer to the problem. So how about if 29 people swap into an alliance? Should that be penalised? By saying "if it turns out that there is some way to game the system", you are effectively saying "this doesn't bother me yet, so I can live with it. But if i start losing to such alliances, then it is unfair". That is entirely unprincipled and not at all how rules should be made.

    As for the getting pulverised point - let me tell you that the cold hard truth is that smaller alliances will increasingly face stacked rosters and increasingly get pulverised because more and more top players are getting burnt out in higher tier wars. I have seen players with a Sig 200 R5 Korg going down into 1800 war rating alliances - what do you think that does to the other team? I've seen 3 - 4 players item out on him at that tier. Is that fun? Not for the other team. But is that fair? Of course it is, the player earned that r5 sig 200 Korg and is entitled to use it wherever he pleases. The reality is you just need 1 or 2 of these monster defenders or accounts at that low tier, and it will completely crush the other team. So this problem of getting pulverised, alone, is not going away. It is the nature of AW and how Kabam has set up certain defenders/nodes to be nearly impossible unless you have the right combination of roster +skill - both of which tend to be lacking at the lower tiers.

    There is a solution. Tag individual players with a war rating based on the last 20 wars they have done. An alliance’s war rating is the average of all members’.

    So no matter what Alliance such members are swapped into, the average war rating remains true to serve as an indication of war ability.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 7,041 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    The system is the issue. That has been the point I have been trying to get across since the beginning. I'm not saying that the inevitability excuses the behaviour. I am saying that the inevitability means that we need a better solution, and not simply trying to prohibit top players from playing in lower alliances. It is going to happen all the same, and lower alliances will continue to get pulverised increasingly.

    Up till now, nobody has even engaged me on my suggestion that the root of the problem is the scoring and matchmaking system.

    Did you suggest an alternative? If so I missed it.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »

    I am not. I am using "Gold Tier" as a shorthand for spelling out the specific war rating of alliances. I understand that it is war rating swapping that is in issue. Nonetheless my point is simply that if you start at a certain rating, say, 2000 for instance, that is roughly the war rating of Gold tier alliances.

    So what you're saying is, "an alliance that starts at a certain war rating that will most probably end up ranking in Gold". Is that right?

    Do you roughly know where an alliance will rank if it wins all 12 wars starting at 2,000 war rating?

    Atleast 2750 rating with huge 5* shards plus 4* shards plus loyalty and without spending pots and ending almost in Platinum1
    Little bit guess work

    Yup. Close. Either Plat 2 or 3.

    From a "Gold" alliance. See the problem @Ultra8529 ?

    My point is that the problem is not in alliances choosing to start at 2000 war rating. The problem instead is that it seems unfair, to some, that an alliance starting at 2000 war rating can eventually get the rewards it does if it wins all 12 matches. That is a value judgment. If that is deemed to be unfair, then the problem is one of scoring and of rewards. Put differently, if Kabam thinks that it is unfair for an alliance starting at 2000 war rating and winning 12 matches in a row in season to get Plat 2 or 3 rewards, then do something to the multiplier to make that impossible. It is entirely within Kabam's hands to limit, by tweaking the relevant multipliers, the maximum attainable rewards from any given starting point. It can easily be backwards calculated what multipliers should be applied in order to ensure, say, that any alliance starting at 2000 has a ceiling of Platinum 3 rewards even if they win 12 matches in a row. @xNig

    My suggested solution to the problem, which I identify as one of scoring. @LeNoirFaineant
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »

    I am not. I am using "Gold Tier" as a shorthand for spelling out the specific war rating of alliances. I understand that it is war rating swapping that is in issue. Nonetheless my point is simply that if you start at a certain rating, say, 2000 for instance, that is roughly the war rating of Gold tier alliances.

    So what you're saying is, "an alliance that starts at a certain war rating that will most probably end up ranking in Gold". Is that right?

    Do you roughly know where an alliance will rank if it wins all 12 wars starting at 2,000 war rating?

    Atleast 2750 rating with huge 5* shards plus 4* shards plus loyalty and without spending pots and ending almost in Platinum1
    Little bit guess work

    Yup. Close. Either Plat 2 or 3.

    From a "Gold" alliance. See the problem @Ultra8529 ?

    My point is that the problem is not in alliances choosing to start at 2000 war rating. The problem instead is that it seems unfair, to some, that an alliance starting at 2000 war rating can eventually get the rewards it does if it wins all 12 matches. That is a value judgment. If that is deemed to be unfair, then the problem is one of scoring and of rewards. Put differently, if Kabam thinks that it is unfair for an alliance starting at 2000 war rating and winning 12 matches in a row in season to get Plat 2 or 3 rewards, then do something to the multiplier to make that impossible. It is entirely within Kabam's hands to limit, by tweaking the relevant multipliers, the maximum attainable rewards from any given starting point. It can easily be backwards calculated what multipliers should be applied in order to ensure, say, that any alliance starting at 2000 has a ceiling of Platinum 3 rewards even if they win 12 matches in a row. @xNig

    My suggested solution to the problem, which I identify as one of scoring. @LeNoirFaineant
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    Neither of you are addressing the point that there is an alternative to your identified problem. It is 100% neater than trying to draw some arbitrary lines.

    Your reply betrays the fact that you have no answer to the problem. So how about if 29 people swap into an alliance? Should that be penalised? By saying "if it turns out that there is some way to game the system", you are effectively saying "this doesn't bother me yet, so I can live with it. But if i start losing to such alliances, then it is unfair". That is entirely unprincipled and not at all how rules should be made.

    As for the getting pulverised point - let me tell you that the cold hard truth is that smaller alliances will increasingly face stacked rosters and increasingly get pulverised because more and more top players are getting burnt out in higher tier wars. I have seen players with a Sig 200 R5 Korg going down into 1800 war rating alliances - what do you think that does to the other team? I've seen 3 - 4 players item out on him at that tier. Is that fun? Not for the other team. But is that fair? Of course it is, the player earned that r5 sig 200 Korg and is entitled to use it wherever he pleases. The reality is you just need 1 or 2 of these monster defenders or accounts at that low tier, and it will completely crush the other team. So this problem of getting pulverised, alone, is not going away. It is the nature of AW and how Kabam has set up certain defenders/nodes to be nearly impossible unless you have the right combination of roster +skill - both of which tend to be lacking at the lower tiers.

    Not bothered by the cold hard truth lol. There is an identifiable problem that can be fixed. I don't have a problem with lower alliances losing to groups with a guy that has a road block defense per se. I don't have a problem with 30 guys getting together and forming a new alliance and working their way up (which will also result in mismatches). There will always be some mismatches. The problem is groups intentionally creating mismatches because they want to win wars and get high tier rewards while facing lower competition. Did an alliance break up and 15 guys joined another group that was active and had some people leave? No problem. Did 25 guys leave a perfectly viable alliance and join a group that had a few placeholders but a reasonable war rating? Different story. Might you find a gray area that would be hard to identify? Sure. Should we then throw our hands up in the air and say welp, guess we can't do anything when we all know what is going on? Not so much.

    Your suggestion is entirely unprincipled. You are ok with 30 master guys dropping down to 0 war rating, but not 2000 war rating. There is no principled basis. It is simply because on situation does not affect you (0 war rating), but the other does (2000 war rating). As you mentioned, your problem lies in the alliance managing to still get "high tier rewards while facing lower competition", and not in mismatches or dropping down per se. If that is the problem, then the obvious choice is to fix the scoring/rewards system as per my post above. Rather than try to limit players' freedom to move where they want to with arbitrary rules.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 7,041 ★★★★★
    Seems like that would create the problem of teams being somewhat locked in their brackets. It would also make it really hard to start a new competitive alliance.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 7,041 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »

    I am not. I am using "Gold Tier" as a shorthand for spelling out the specific war rating of alliances. I understand that it is war rating swapping that is in issue. Nonetheless my point is simply that if you start at a certain rating, say, 2000 for instance, that is roughly the war rating of Gold tier alliances.

    So what you're saying is, "an alliance that starts at a certain war rating that will most probably end up ranking in Gold". Is that right?

    Do you roughly know where an alliance will rank if it wins all 12 wars starting at 2,000 war rating?

    Atleast 2750 rating with huge 5* shards plus 4* shards plus loyalty and without spending pots and ending almost in Platinum1
    Little bit guess work

    Yup. Close. Either Plat 2 or 3.

    From a "Gold" alliance. See the problem @Ultra8529 ?

    My point is that the problem is not in alliances choosing to start at 2000 war rating. The problem instead is that it seems unfair, to some, that an alliance starting at 2000 war rating can eventually get the rewards it does if it wins all 12 matches. That is a value judgment. If that is deemed to be unfair, then the problem is one of scoring and of rewards. Put differently, if Kabam thinks that it is unfair for an alliance starting at 2000 war rating and winning 12 matches in a row in season to get Plat 2 or 3 rewards, then do something to the multiplier to make that impossible. It is entirely within Kabam's hands to limit, by tweaking the relevant multipliers, the maximum attainable rewards from any given starting point. It can easily be backwards calculated what multipliers should be applied in order to ensure, say, that any alliance starting at 2000 has a ceiling of Platinum 3 rewards even if they win 12 matches in a row. @xNig

    My suggested solution to the problem, which I identify as one of scoring. @LeNoirFaineant
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    Neither of you are addressing the point that there is an alternative to your identified problem. It is 100% neater than trying to draw some arbitrary lines.

    Your reply betrays the fact that you have no answer to the problem. So how about if 29 people swap into an alliance? Should that be penalised? By saying "if it turns out that there is some way to game the system", you are effectively saying "this doesn't bother me yet, so I can live with it. But if i start losing to such alliances, then it is unfair". That is entirely unprincipled and not at all how rules should be made.

    As for the getting pulverised point - let me tell you that the cold hard truth is that smaller alliances will increasingly face stacked rosters and increasingly get pulverised because more and more top players are getting burnt out in higher tier wars. I have seen players with a Sig 200 R5 Korg going down into 1800 war rating alliances - what do you think that does to the other team? I've seen 3 - 4 players item out on him at that tier. Is that fun? Not for the other team. But is that fair? Of course it is, the player earned that r5 sig 200 Korg and is entitled to use it wherever he pleases. The reality is you just need 1 or 2 of these monster defenders or accounts at that low tier, and it will completely crush the other team. So this problem of getting pulverised, alone, is not going away. It is the nature of AW and how Kabam has set up certain defenders/nodes to be nearly impossible unless you have the right combination of roster +skill - both of which tend to be lacking at the lower tiers.

    Not bothered by the cold hard truth lol. There is an identifiable problem that can be fixed. I don't have a problem with lower alliances losing to groups with a guy that has a road block defense per se. I don't have a problem with 30 guys getting together and forming a new alliance and working their way up (which will also result in mismatches). There will always be some mismatches. The problem is groups intentionally creating mismatches because they want to win wars and get high tier rewards while facing lower competition. Did an alliance break up and 15 guys joined another group that was active and had some people leave? No problem. Did 25 guys leave a perfectly viable alliance and join a group that had a few placeholders but a reasonable war rating? Different story. Might you find a gray area that would be hard to identify? Sure. Should we then throw our hands up in the air and say welp, guess we can't do anything when we all know what is going on? Not so much.

    Your suggestion is entirely unprincipled. You are ok with 30 master guys dropping down to 0 war rating, but not 2000 war rating. There is no principled basis. It is simply because on situation does not affect you (0 war rating), but the other does (2000 war rating). As you mentioned, your problem lies in the alliance managing to still get "high tier rewards while facing lower competition", and not in mismatches or dropping down per se. If that is the problem, then the obvious choice is to fix the scoring/rewards system as per my post above. Rather than try to limit players' freedom to move where they want to with arbitrary rules.

    No, it isn’t. Starting a new competitive alliance is fine, and the people that do it sacrifice rewards for awhile building it. Totally different from joining a war rating manipulated shell alliance. One is legit gaming, the other is gaming the system. You really can’t see the difference? Also, 2k war rating alliances don’t affect me lol and nothing we are discussing has anything to do with trying to stop something because it affects me or my alliance personally. The repeated suggestion that I’m objecting to something simply because it affects me is a little insulting and in this case entirely untrue
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 7,041 ★★★★★
    Also the new alliance is generally not 30 guys from one alliance leaving their treasury and starting over. It’s a group with stacked accounts starting a new alliance and recruiting other stacked accounts. No manipulation
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    Also the new alliance is generally not 30 guys from one alliance leaving their treasury and starting over. It’s a group with stacked accounts starting a new alliance and recruiting other stacked accounts. No manipulation

    So would you object to 30 guys leaving their alliance and starting a brand new one from scratch? What about finding and joining one that has 100 war rating?
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    Seems like that would create the problem of teams being somewhat locked in their brackets. It would also make it really hard to start a new competitive alliance.

    No, because the next season they may start with 2500 and that could, depending on the scoring system again, put them in range for Platinum 1 rewards or so.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,331 ★★★★★
    edited December 2018
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 7,041 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    Also the new alliance is generally not 30 guys from one alliance leaving their treasury and starting over. It’s a group with stacked accounts starting a new alliance and recruiting other stacked accounts. No manipulation

    So would you object to 30 guys leaving their alliance and starting a brand new one from scratch? What about finding and joining one that has 100 war rating?

    Can’t think of a legit reason why 30 would leave and start over. But all your slippery slope arguments are irrelevant. Whatever system is put in place I’m sure some will still push the boundaries. That’s not a reason to not stop the current abuses.

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 27,524 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?

    There is, as I've suggested. Prestige.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 27,524 ★★★★★
    It's already employed within the game, and a Player is not likely to manipulate that. If we can incorporate it into the Matchmaking with roundabout parameters for proximity, that would give a base for more equal Matches. A Player, no matter how skilled, is only as good as their Roster in a mode like War. Equally, there's only a certain amount an Ally is capable of doing based on what they're working with.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    Also the new alliance is generally not 30 guys from one alliance leaving their treasury and starting over. It’s a group with stacked accounts starting a new alliance and recruiting other stacked accounts. No manipulation

    So would you object to 30 guys leaving their alliance and starting a brand new one from scratch? What about finding and joining one that has 100 war rating?

    Can’t think of a legit reason why 30 would leave and start over. But all your slippery slope arguments are irrelevant. Whatever system is put in place I’m sure some will still push the boundaries. That’s not a reason to not stop the current abuses.

    It is a huge reason not to implement a system that will be extremely over-inclusive. You will end up penalising perfectly legitimate intentions, surely that is a mark of a bad rule/system.

    You may not see a reason as to why 30 would leave and start over, but can we rule it out? We can't. Same way we can't rule out 30 members wanting to move to an alliance with 500, or 1000, or 2000 war rating for instance, for perfectly legitmate reasons. Stop trying to ban player choices, and think of how to fix the system.

    Some here are already moving on to that discussion, which I think is a great start.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,331 ★★★★★
    edited December 2018
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?
    There are ways to compare strength. When AW was first revamped they implemented a scoring system that included defender strength. That could be expanded to include offensive stenength also which would leave room for calculations to effect scoring for sandbaggers. You could then award less points for punching down and more for punching up.

    I dunno why your compring ringers to sandbaggers as those are two different beasts.

    Anyways, you’re obviously heavily invested in protecting your ability to sandbag, GL with that.

    *Furthermore they have a system in place for dungeons which tallies a rosters strength based on the number of champions at a certain rank and places people into a “league” or “weight class” based on what they’re capable of acheiving. I’m not sure of the viability but something similiar could be applied to war rating where alliances are not capable of selecting thier WR but instead granted it at the start of a season if they attempt to sandbag to start.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?
    There are ways to compare strength. When AW was first revamped they implemented a scoring system that included defender strength. That could be expanded to include offensive stenength also which would leave room for calculations to effect scoring for sandbaggers. You could then award less points for punching down and more for punching up.

    I dunno why your compring ringers to sandbaggers as those are two different beasts.

    Anyways, you’re obviously heavily invested in protecting your ability to sandbag, GL with that.

    *Furthermore they have a system in place for dungeons which tallies a rosters strength based on the number of champions at a certain rank and places people into a “league” or “weight class” based on what they’re capable of acheiving. I’m not sure of the viability but something similiar could be applied to war rating where alliances are not capable of selecting thier WR but instead granted it at the start of a season if they attempt to sandbag to start.

    The only thing I'm "heavily invested" in is my option, one day, to quit playing at the master level and play with a couple of my friends in a small alliance, without the risk of getting penalised for that, or fingers pointed at us for 'cheating'. The ideas some are proposing here are so dangerously over-inclusive -- its using a scattershot approach to solve a narrow problem, and not caring who else gets hit in the process.

    That said, I do see som value in your suggestion of factoring in defensive and offensive rating into the scoring system somehow. But the way it was done in the past was merely as a scoring factor, and not part of the matchmaking system. Not sure if that would solve the problem entirely.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,331 ★★★★★
    edited December 2018
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?
    There are ways to compare strength. When AW was first revamped they implemented a scoring system that included defender strength. That could be expanded to include offensive stenength also which would leave room for calculations to effect scoring for sandbaggers. You could then award less points for punching down and more for punching up.

    I dunno why your compring ringers to sandbaggers as those are two different beasts.

    Anyways, you’re obviously heavily invested in protecting your ability to sandbag, GL with that.

    *Furthermore they have a system in place for dungeons which tallies a rosters strength based on the number of champions at a certain rank and places people into a “league” or “weight class” based on what they’re capable of acheiving. I’m not sure of the viability but something similiar could be applied to war rating where alliances are not capable of selecting thier WR but instead granted it at the start of a season if they attempt to sandbag to start.

    The only thing I'm "heavily invested" in is my option, one day, to quit playing at the master level and play with a couple of my friends in a small alliance, without the risk of getting penalised for that, or fingers pointed at us for 'cheating'. The ideas some are proposing here are so dangerously over-inclusive -- its using a scattershot approach to solve a narrow problem, and not caring who else gets hit in the process.

    That said, I do see som value in your suggestion of factoring in defensive and offensive rating into the scoring system somehow. But the way it was done in the past was merely as a scoring factor, and not part of the matchmaking system. Not sure if that would solve the problem entirely.

    Not sure why you think people are trying to penalize you for joining a small allaince, as you’ll be incapable of competing for serious rewards under that scenario anyways which isn’t what people are discussing. People are discussing how to prevent and punish people who abuse and game the AW point system to increase their rewards by sandbagging as a group.


    *Furthermore that, to my recollection of this thread, is the least touched upon subject as you seem to be focused on protecting groups of people being able to manipulate their AW rating at will by swapping thinking they are somehow entitled to win the vast majority of season matches whilst minimizing risk from playing at their own level, that’s the very definition of sandbagging.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?
    There are ways to compare strength. When AW was first revamped they implemented a scoring system that included defender strength. That could be expanded to include offensive stenength also which would leave room for calculations to effect scoring for sandbaggers. You could then award less points for punching down and more for punching up.

    I dunno why your compring ringers to sandbaggers as those are two different beasts.

    Anyways, you’re obviously heavily invested in protecting your ability to sandbag, GL with that.

    *Furthermore they have a system in place for dungeons which tallies a rosters strength based on the number of champions at a certain rank and places people into a “league” or “weight class” based on what they’re capable of acheiving. I’m not sure of the viability but something similiar could be applied to war rating where alliances are not capable of selecting thier WR but instead granted it at the start of a season if they attempt to sandbag to start.

    The only thing I'm "heavily invested" in is my option, one day, to quit playing at the master level and play with a couple of my friends in a small alliance, without the risk of getting penalised for that, or fingers pointed at us for 'cheating'. The ideas some are proposing here are so dangerously over-inclusive -- its using a scattershot approach to solve a narrow problem, and not caring who else gets hit in the process.

    That said, I do see som value in your suggestion of factoring in defensive and offensive rating into the scoring system somehow. But the way it was done in the past was merely as a scoring factor, and not part of the matchmaking system. Not sure if that would solve the problem entirely.

    Not sure why you think people are trying to penalize you for joining a small allaince, as you’ll be incapable of competing for serious rewards under that scenario anyways which isn’t what people are discussing. People are discussing how to prevent and punish people who abuse and game the AW point system to increase their rewards by sandbagging as a group.


    *Furthermore that, to my recollection of this thread, is the least touched upon subject as you seem to be focused on protecting groups of people being able to manipulate their AW rating at will by swapping thinking they are somehow entitled to win the vast majority of season matches whilst minimizing risk from playing at their own level, that’s the very definition of sandbagging.

    Because there will be that risk to me if I ever choose to do that. Read up a few posts back and you'll see my supposition that a team of 10 players joining any alliance with 2000 war rating will almost definitely allow that ally to win all its matches up to 2500 rating. Would that be considered "sandbagging as a group", or an "abuse and gaming the AW point system to increase rewards" by your definition or not? It is inherently vague with no principled method to draw the line.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,331 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?
    There are ways to compare strength. When AW was first revamped they implemented a scoring system that included defender strength. That could be expanded to include offensive stenength also which would leave room for calculations to effect scoring for sandbaggers. You could then award less points for punching down and more for punching up.

    I dunno why your compring ringers to sandbaggers as those are two different beasts.

    Anyways, you’re obviously heavily invested in protecting your ability to sandbag, GL with that.

    *Furthermore they have a system in place for dungeons which tallies a rosters strength based on the number of champions at a certain rank and places people into a “league” or “weight class” based on what they’re capable of acheiving. I’m not sure of the viability but something similiar could be applied to war rating where alliances are not capable of selecting thier WR but instead granted it at the start of a season if they attempt to sandbag to start.

    The only thing I'm "heavily invested" in is my option, one day, to quit playing at the master level and play with a couple of my friends in a small alliance, without the risk of getting penalised for that, or fingers pointed at us for 'cheating'. The ideas some are proposing here are so dangerously over-inclusive -- its using a scattershot approach to solve a narrow problem, and not caring who else gets hit in the process.

    That said, I do see som value in your suggestion of factoring in defensive and offensive rating into the scoring system somehow. But the way it was done in the past was merely as a scoring factor, and not part of the matchmaking system. Not sure if that would solve the problem entirely.

    Not sure why you think people are trying to penalize you for joining a small allaince, as you’ll be incapable of competing for serious rewards under that scenario anyways which isn’t what people are discussing. People are discussing how to prevent and punish people who abuse and game the AW point system to increase their rewards by sandbagging as a group.


    *Furthermore that, to my recollection of this thread, is the least touched upon subject as you seem to be focused on protecting groups of people being able to manipulate their AW rating at will by swapping thinking they are somehow entitled to win the vast majority of season matches whilst minimizing risk from playing at their own level, that’s the very definition of sandbagging.

    Because there will be that risk to me if I ever choose to do that. Read up a few posts back and you'll see my supposition that a team of 10 players joining any alliance with 2000 war rating will almost definitely allow that ally to win all its matches up to 2500 rating. Would that be considered "sandbagging as a group", or an "abuse and gaming the AW point system to increase rewards" by your definition or not? It is inherently vague with no principled method to draw the line.
    It’s not up to me or you as individuals to define what is acceptable that is up to the developers. They know what they are capable of and willing to do. I can say I think they value the enjoyment of the 12 allies,360 players, more than those 10 players in 1 alliance creating a disparity and gaming the system. I do not need to define the rules or be encumbered by principles I just need to highlight abuse and offer suggestions to aid in brainstorming solutions.
  • Ultra8529Ultra8529 Posts: 526 ★★★
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?
    There are ways to compare strength. When AW was first revamped they implemented a scoring system that included defender strength. That could be expanded to include offensive stenength also which would leave room for calculations to effect scoring for sandbaggers. You could then award less points for punching down and more for punching up.

    I dunno why your compring ringers to sandbaggers as those are two different beasts.

    Anyways, you’re obviously heavily invested in protecting your ability to sandbag, GL with that.

    *Furthermore they have a system in place for dungeons which tallies a rosters strength based on the number of champions at a certain rank and places people into a “league” or “weight class” based on what they’re capable of acheiving. I’m not sure of the viability but something similiar could be applied to war rating where alliances are not capable of selecting thier WR but instead granted it at the start of a season if they attempt to sandbag to start.

    The only thing I'm "heavily invested" in is my option, one day, to quit playing at the master level and play with a couple of my friends in a small alliance, without the risk of getting penalised for that, or fingers pointed at us for 'cheating'. The ideas some are proposing here are so dangerously over-inclusive -- its using a scattershot approach to solve a narrow problem, and not caring who else gets hit in the process.

    That said, I do see som value in your suggestion of factoring in defensive and offensive rating into the scoring system somehow. But the way it was done in the past was merely as a scoring factor, and not part of the matchmaking system. Not sure if that would solve the problem entirely.

    Not sure why you think people are trying to penalize you for joining a small allaince, as you’ll be incapable of competing for serious rewards under that scenario anyways which isn’t what people are discussing. People are discussing how to prevent and punish people who abuse and game the AW point system to increase their rewards by sandbagging as a group.


    *Furthermore that, to my recollection of this thread, is the least touched upon subject as you seem to be focused on protecting groups of people being able to manipulate their AW rating at will by swapping thinking they are somehow entitled to win the vast majority of season matches whilst minimizing risk from playing at their own level, that’s the very definition of sandbagging.

    Because there will be that risk to me if I ever choose to do that. Read up a few posts back and you'll see my supposition that a team of 10 players joining any alliance with 2000 war rating will almost definitely allow that ally to win all its matches up to 2500 rating. Would that be considered "sandbagging as a group", or an "abuse and gaming the AW point system to increase rewards" by your definition or not? It is inherently vague with no principled method to draw the line.
    It’s not up to me or you as individuals to define what is acceptable that is up to the developers. They know what they are capable of and willing to do. I can say I think they value the enjoyment of the 12 allies,360 players, more than those 10 players in 1 alliance creating a disparity and gaming the system. I do not need to define the rules or be encumbered by principles I just need to highlight abuse and offer suggestions to aid in brainstorming solutions.

    I merely highlight that there is no principled way to do this, and that is food for thought for the developers if/when they decide to make rules to govern this. My point is simply that they can try to introduce something stopping 30 people from swapping, but then what are they going to do about 10 people? A more fundamental change to the scoring and matchmaking system is needed, rather than a superficial attempt at constraining people's choices.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,331 ★★★★★
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    Ultra8529 wrote: »
    CoatHang3r wrote: »
    I’d take a note from how boxing is broken into weight classes as this would help end the sandbagging (which is what is being discussed). Sandbagging is punished in the majority of competitions and easily defined as cheating.

    Because weight gives boxers a clear advantage. How do we determine the appropriate measure of "weight" in the context of AW? Player PI or roster size? Prestige? Number of r5 5*s? Some measure of individual player's skills by a historical measure of their AW performance (as has been suggested above)? There is no clean cut method, contrary to boxing.

    It would be akin to imposing a weight class on sports like football or hockey. What is the proper basis other than leagues - professional, semi-pro, amateur? And in those cases, is there ever a ban on a professional going to play one day in the amateur league?
    There are ways to compare strength. When AW was first revamped they implemented a scoring system that included defender strength. That could be expanded to include offensive stenength also which would leave room for calculations to effect scoring for sandbaggers. You could then award less points for punching down and more for punching up.

    I dunno why your compring ringers to sandbaggers as those are two different beasts.

    Anyways, you’re obviously heavily invested in protecting your ability to sandbag, GL with that.

    *Furthermore they have a system in place for dungeons which tallies a rosters strength based on the number of champions at a certain rank and places people into a “league” or “weight class” based on what they’re capable of acheiving. I’m not sure of the viability but something similiar could be applied to war rating where alliances are not capable of selecting thier WR but instead granted it at the start of a season if they attempt to sandbag to start.

    The only thing I'm "heavily invested" in is my option, one day, to quit playing at the master level and play with a couple of my friends in a small alliance, without the risk of getting penalised for that, or fingers pointed at us for 'cheating'. The ideas some are proposing here are so dangerously over-inclusive -- its using a scattershot approach to solve a narrow problem, and not caring who else gets hit in the process.

    That said, I do see som value in your suggestion of factoring in defensive and offensive rating into the scoring system somehow. But the way it was done in the past was merely as a scoring factor, and not part of the matchmaking system. Not sure if that would solve the problem entirely.

    Not sure why you think people are trying to penalize you for joining a small allaince, as you’ll be incapable of competing for serious rewards under that scenario anyways which isn’t what people are discussing. People are discussing how to prevent and punish people who abuse and game the AW point system to increase their rewards by sandbagging as a group.


    *Furthermore that, to my recollection of this thread, is the least touched upon subject as you seem to be focused on protecting groups of people being able to manipulate their AW rating at will by swapping thinking they are somehow entitled to win the vast majority of season matches whilst minimizing risk from playing at their own level, that’s the very definition of sandbagging.

    Because there will be that risk to me if I ever choose to do that. Read up a few posts back and you'll see my supposition that a team of 10 players joining any alliance with 2000 war rating will almost definitely allow that ally to win all its matches up to 2500 rating. Would that be considered "sandbagging as a group", or an "abuse and gaming the AW point system to increase rewards" by your definition or not? It is inherently vague with no principled method to draw the line.
    It’s not up to me or you as individuals to define what is acceptable that is up to the developers. They know what they are capable of and willing to do. I can say I think they value the enjoyment of the 12 allies,360 players, more than those 10 players in 1 alliance creating a disparity and gaming the system. I do not need to define the rules or be encumbered by principles I just need to highlight abuse and offer suggestions to aid in brainstorming solutions.

    I merely highlight that there is no principled way to do this, and that is food for thought for the developers if/when they decide to make rules to govern this. My point is simply that they can try to introduce something stopping 30 people from swapping, but then what are they going to do about 10 people? A more fundamental change to the scoring and matchmaking system is needed, rather than a superficial attempt at constraining people's choices.
    They can adress the 10 people problem later on as the 30 people is the more immeadiate problem. They do not even need to try they just need to announce a rule stating it is not allowed and enforce it. It’s far easier for 30 people to swap an alliance than for a group of 10 to find an allaince willing to sacrifice what they’ve built for a seasons worth of rewards when those 10 are likely to leave the remaining 20 high and dry once the alliance has served thier purpose to the 10. The 10 while being harder to correct for is likely less able to be tenable as a season strategy.
  • ShrimkinsShrimkins Posts: 1,479 ★★★★
    @Ultra8529 is right. The main issue is not player behavior, the issue is the system rewards the "bad" behavior.

    The scoring system needs to be able to absorb and correct itself for alliance swaping, group transfers, ect.

    As I stated earlier in this thread, the scoring system rewards too many points for winning thus making winning the only thing that actually matters. It's always better to win in tier 5 than lose in tier 3. Even though the competition and difficulty in tier 3 is significantly harder, an alliance that loses in tier 3 will ultimately get less rewards than alliances that win in tier 5.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,331 ★★★★★
    edited December 2018
    Shrimkins wrote: »
    @Ultra8529 is right. The main issue is not player behavior, the issue is the system rewards the "bad" behavior.

    The scoring system needs to be able to absorb and correct itself for alliance swaping, group transfers, ect.

    As I stated earlier in this thread, the scoring system rewards too many points for winning thus making winning the only thing that actually matters. It's always better to win in tier 5 than lose in tier 3. Even though the competition and difficulty in tier 3 is significantly harder, an alliance that loses in tier 3 will ultimately get less rewards than alliances that win in tier 5.
    Giving a war an average of 146k points An ally losing in tier 3 takes home 803,000 (146k x 5.5) points and an ally winning in their 5 takes home 784,000 (196k x 4) points. Seems like an alliance losing in their 3 has a better chance of higher season rewards which is ultimately what seasons are about, What am I missing?

    *Player behavior is the problem, and people are proposing there should be punishments/adjustments for engaging in that behaivor.
  • Denslo500Denslo500 Posts: 509 ★★★
    I like the idea of a bonus for longevity of a team in a bracket.
    Make it substantial, so the bonuses of exploiting the system are devalued.

    Change brackets, lose the bonus.
    Change team, lose the bonus.

    Don't alter the actual war.
    You can win all you want, but you won't get a bonus for exploiting the weaknesses of the system.
    People generally war for resources, not wins.
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★
    EvilEmpire wrote: »
    Could just remove seasons and give t2a and t5b frags for winning in higher tiers. The problem with the current system is if you push it to the max you will inevitably find yourself without a paddle relative to the competition and your alliance will suffer the consequences of failure when you spend an entire season losing because your rating is too high to be sustained and you start losing players to more favourable situations. Guys are doing what they have to do to be competitive within the confines that Kabam has created. If your options are to fail miserably or play the shell game it’s no question which is better for the group.

    I've said that AW seasons have killed much of the enjoyment of this game. You have to go hard for 12 straight wars to get the rewards you need. That instinctively leads to all the cheating we've seen plus all the BS that goes on for everyone in competitive alliances with the constant cycle of kicking the worst players to try to get better players. It's led to so much burnout and distrust amongst the community.

    If they did away with seasons and just broke up the rewards into the war rewards it would solve so many issues. Each war would be so much less important and if, for example, there is a war running on Christmas or New Years (I know that's a silly thought because no smart company would put mandatory content on those two days) you could just choose to not do them and not sacrifice an entire season of rewards.
Sign In or Register to comment.