Aw cheating

As predicted the post on the top alliances cheating was removed and not a word from kabam.
Please could you tell us why it was removed kabam and what your actions will be?

Comments

Bigdrail93

You will get no comment from them. If you do, it will just be something along the lines of "no proof that it's real". It's just a game. Enjoy it or quit and spend time with family

Reptilekeeper

Yeah that's about right, but if nothing is said then at least we know that others can get together and fix aw

Mainer123

There precious to them apparently . Must be nice to be guarded

TheOneAndOnly

The problem is you go about it the wrong way. Griping and groaning will get you nothing! Kabam closes threads all the times once they turn unproductive. There are serious flaws in the current war system. It needs some revision whether it be the ability to commit to commit to certain types of wars (imagine being able to commit to a war where both alliances can only place 2*s).

Reptilekeeper

TheOneAndOnly wrote: »

The problem is you go about it the wrong way. Griping and groaning will get you nothing! Kabam closes threads all the times once they turn unproductive. There are serious flaws in the current war system. It needs some revision whether it be the ability to commit to commit to certain types of wars (imagine being able to commit to a war where both alliances can only place 2*s).

This is not griping or moaning it's asking the powers to be for an answer.
The 2* wars were great when they ran, so there's no need to imagine as we did them until kabam realised no one was spending

Thawnim

Reptilekeeper wrote: »

TheOneAndOnly wrote: »

The problem is you go about it the wrong way. Griping and groaning will get you nothing! Kabam closes threads all the times once they turn unproductive. There are serious flaws in the current war system. It needs some revision whether it be the ability to commit to commit to certain types of wars (imagine being able to commit to a war where both alliances can only place 2*s).

This is not griping or moaning it's asking the powers to be for an answer.
The 2* wars were great when they ran, so there's no need to imagine as we did them until kabam realised no one was spending

Exactly...but instead of suggesting changes your only answer is "they cheat, we need answers."

Reptilekeeper

Thawnim wrote: »

Reptilekeeper wrote: »

TheOneAndOnly wrote: »

The problem is you go about it the wrong way. Griping and groaning will get you nothing! Kabam closes threads all the times once they turn unproductive. There are serious flaws in the current war system. It needs some revision whether it be the ability to commit to commit to certain types of wars (imagine being able to commit to a war where both alliances can only place 2*s).

This is not griping or moaning it's asking the powers to be for an answer.
The 2* wars were great when they ran, so there's no need to imagine as we did them until kabam realised no one was spending

Exactly...but instead of suggesting changes your only answer is "they cheat, we need answers."

The only possible changes I see they could make is kabam start the timer like Aq so if you wait to fix your war match you would be losing time, also maybe a matching system that only matches you with another alliance no more than 5-10 places university or below, that would then mean that matches could take ages to be matched.

Reptilekeeper

Of course a hefty punishment would deter people doing this again and things could go straight back to normal

Thawnim

Reptilekeeper wrote: »

Thawnim wrote: »

Reptilekeeper wrote: »

TheOneAndOnly wrote: »

The problem is you go about it the wrong way. Griping and groaning will get you nothing! Kabam closes threads all the times once they turn unproductive. There are serious flaws in the current war system. It needs some revision whether it be the ability to commit to commit to certain types of wars (imagine being able to commit to a war where both alliances can only place 2*s).

This is not griping or moaning it's asking the powers to be for an answer.
The 2* wars were great when they ran, so there's no need to imagine as we did them until kabam realised no one was spending

Exactly...but instead of suggesting changes your only answer is "they cheat, we need answers."

The only possible changes I see they could make is kabam start the timer like Aq so if you wait to fix your war match you would be losing time, also maybe a matching system that only matches you with another alliance no more than 5-10 places university or below, that would then mean that matches could take ages to be matched.

Great job...that's a start.

How about a simplification of the rewards system like they did for AQ? Prestige led to a lot of kicking among alliances under the old system. Under the new system with the stratified tiers there has been more stability. Making there be less tiers in war with the same types of shards in each tier would also seem to eliminate a lot of the problems with the current system. I'm not opposed to change...but simply saying they are cheating is not the right way to go about it either.

Threedeadkings

I'm curious... so by your logic, a deliberate and pre-agreed placement of 2* champions with your war opponent isn't gaming (ie cheating) the system (note: well, you said it yourself that it was great, and I quote you) but timing an alliance War search is? That some helluva twisted logic if it's logical at all.

Dainslàif

Suggestion would be to have a duration of Placement Phase where every alliance can "enter", once in the pool of entered alliances, then its up to the matchmaking to match alliances in that pool of alliances. This would eliminate the freedom of match searches unfortunately, but will address the matchmaking exploit that is on going.

As to the duration to enter the Placement Phase, it's up to Kabam on what they think is a reasonable timeframe.

Reptilekeeper

Threedeadkings wrote: »

I'm curious... so by your logic, a deliberate and pre-agreed placement of 2* champions with your war opponent isn't gaming (ie cheating) the system (note: well, you said it yourself that it was great, and I quote you) but timing an alliance War search is? That some helluva twisted logic if it's logical at all.

That was done openly in an agreement with the match we were drawn with, originally when a war match was found you could talk to them straight away and fight either a 2* war or full war, this was all done in an open and fair way with both parties agreeing.
The subject that is being discussed now is a closed few fixing it in there favour.
So completely different

DL864

The best way to get it to stop would be with rewards. So if they fought an alliance equal to them they get this set amount if they fought one lower then them they would get set amount. I had seen someone suggest the same thing with war points if you clear so much you get more points. But there has to be and incentive for people to waste that much resources. And I don't think the amount of shards is enough.

Reptilekeeper

Thawnim wrote: »

Reptilekeeper wrote: »

Thawnim wrote: »

Reptilekeeper wrote: »

TheOneAndOnly wrote: »

The problem is you go about it the wrong way. Griping and groaning will get you nothing! Kabam closes threads all the times once they turn unproductive. There are serious flaws in the current war system. It needs some revision whether it be the ability to commit to commit to certain types of wars (imagine being able to commit to a war where both alliances can only place 2*s).

This is not griping or moaning it's asking the powers to be for an answer.
The 2* wars were great when they ran, so there's no need to imagine as we did them until kabam realised no one was spending

Exactly...but instead of suggesting changes your only answer is "they cheat, we need answers."

The only possible changes I see they could make is kabam start the timer like Aq so if you wait to fix your war match you would be losing time, also maybe a matching system that only matches you with another alliance no more than 5-10 places university or below, that would then mean that matches could take ages to be matched.

Great job...that's a start.

How about a simplification of the rewards system like they did for AQ? Prestige led to a lot of kicking among alliances under the old system. Under the new system with the stratified tiers there has been more stability. Making there be less tiers in war with the same types of shards in each tier would also seem to eliminate a lot of the problems with the current system. I'm not opposed to change...but simply saying they are cheating is not the right way to go about it either.

It's an extremely hard issue to totally stop in the current format, they could balance unfair matches by a handicap system, i.e. Extra points awarded to the team with the lower war rating then that would not only stop the top teams doing this but also balance all of the matches in other tiers

Reptilekeeper

Reptilekeeper wrote: »

Threedeadkings wrote: »

I'm curious... so by your logic, a deliberate and pre-agreed placement of 2* champions with your war opponent isn't gaming (ie cheating) the system (note: well, you said it yourself that it was great, and I quote you) but timing an alliance War search is? That some helluva twisted logic if it's logical at all.

That was done openly in an agreement with the match we were drawn with, originally when a war match was found you could talk to them straight away and fight either a 2* war or full war, this was all done in an open and fair way with both parties agreeing.
The subject that is being discussed now is a closed few fixing it in there favour.
So completely different

Also it was 2* placed but the boss was the best you had so it all came down to who was the best at beating the boss, i.e. Least kills. It in no way gave either side an advantage or gurantee a win, it was still down to how well your team could fight

TillerTheKiller

Punish the top spenders for using the match system to their advantage? Hmm... seems like a smart business plan.

Threedeadkings

Yea, It was unfortunate I actually read some your short lived post. Let's be straight here, agreement between alliance doesn't mean it is how the game is as originally intended by Developers to be played. Again you missed the point I'm raising. You kept emphasising that top alliances who choose to avoid each other at War is cheating. You are implying mostly those top alliances must only play with one another and no one else. So by your logic, a 2k war rating in his tier1 should never face the best in the tier because the top 5 guys should exclusively play against each other? And again by your logic it's cheating if everyone talks to each other on a third party messaging app before pressing search?
But, the now half-dead 2* War side agreement isn't? That's some logic.

Reptilekeeper

Threedeadkings wrote: »

Yea, It was unfortunate I actually read some your short lived post. Let's be straight here, agreement between alliance doesn't mean it is how the game is as originally intended by Developers to be played. Again you missed the point I'm raising. You kept emphasising that top alliances who choose to avoid each other at War is cheating. You are implying mostly those top alliances must only play with one another and no one else. So by your logic, a 2k war rating in his tier1 should never face the best in the tier because the top 5 guys should exclusively play against each other? And again by your logic it's cheating if everyone talks to each other on a third party messaging app before pressing search?
But, the now half-dead 2* War side agreement isn't? That's some logic.

The 2* wars were done on the kabam game chat and the match was done by kabam, if you drew a top alliance you would still lose as in them days they were the only ones with r5's there was no secret groups where fixing was done. The war was won or lost on skill and in fact the only losers were kabam as 0 items were ever used. The first roll out of the very original wars which I was lucky enough to be in one of the few alliances Involved were great as the nodes were very weak so it was more you v them, since then it's been made into a money making machine.

Reptilekeeper

TillerTheKiller wrote: »

Punish the top spenders for using the match system to their advantage? Hmm... seems like a smart business plan.

It should be the same rule for all regardless on there spending habbits

Burntbacon

Thawnim wrote: »

Reptilekeeper wrote: »

TheOneAndOnly wrote: »

The problem is you go about it the wrong way. Griping and groaning will get you nothing! Kabam closes threads all the times once they turn unproductive. There are serious flaws in the current war system. It needs some revision whether it be the ability to commit to commit to certain types of wars (imagine being able to commit to a war where both alliances can only place 2*s).

This is not griping or moaning it's asking the powers to be for an answer.
The 2* wars were great when they ran, so there's no need to imagine as we did them until kabam realised no one was spending

Exactly...but instead of suggesting changes your only answer is "they cheat, we need answers."

Why is it our job to suggest changes? We are not developers.

unknown

This content has been removed.

VandalSavage

Haji_Saab wrote: »

Lost me when you started defending 2* wars. At least be consistent.

Under his world view, the 2-star collusion wars were the best because anyone can do it. No planning is involved. Just show up and wing it.

With the new collusion scheme, planning is required and it is far easier to implement in certain tiers than others. Still far more difficult to implement than the 2-star collusion scheme but the point is that it is easier to implement in certain tiers (mainly tier 1).

Thus not everyone can do it.

In other words, it isn't about the collusion; it is about availability. The scheme isn't available to him and therefore it is wrong.

Mcord11758

Cowardice

Cookiem0n_

What are we saying is going on that is cheating.

Thawnim

Cookiem0n_ wrote: »

What are we saying is going on that is cheating.

The OP is arguing that the top alliances are cheating because they do not face each other in wars. I'd argue it is just a bad design with the current war system (whether it be how matchups are made, rewards are too disproportionate, or a combination of many factors).

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mainer123

if kabam doesn't call it cheating , I will call it pretty dam low and some of the worst sportsmanship I have seen . Come on people what is wrong with you where is you pride and morals. Bunch of losers