If an alliance goes up against a tanking allinace they should have the right to report this and the team could take a look at it.. and it should result into some sort of penalty in the upcoming season .. like entlistment block or less points
Just make every match count. No off-season. Just put a week AW break in-between seasons with no matches. Tanking would stop immediately and problem solved.
would not stop shell alliances being used.
and shell alliances are even worse.
as they participate in wars during season with the shell ally it will take up a spot and take rewards away from a legfit ally.
imagine being #20 gold 2 knowing that 40 allies in gold one are shell alliances used by greedy scheming top 100 alliances.
imagine being glod #1 knowing there are some shell alliances collecting rewards in platinum 3 for body people in top allies.
imagine being anywhere in gold 1 after having worked your backside off all season knowing that the same rewards are going to bodgy usless throwaway accounts in some low lifes shell alliance.
@CoatHang3r where do you see that in terms of service?
he doesnt say it is in TOS.
but that does not mean it is not a form of cheating.
it is by definition MANIPULATION.
manipulating the system to gain an unfair advantage is cheating.
even if you want to argue it is not against the rules,
it is clearly unsportsman like behavior and against the spirit of the contest.
I haven’t said it’s not a form of cheating/manipulation. I’m pointing out that alliances are still in the right to do this tactic since it doesn’t violate TOS.
In other words, it might not be ethical but it’s not illegal so how can kabam hand out punishment?
In every game and competition, from video games to sports to everything else, there's always the presumption that conduct damaging to the game can be penalized. Even though that might be subjective, it is still considered a necessary avenue to regulate conduct that attempts to game the rules themselves. Just because something isn't *explicitly* listed as prohibited, doesn't mean it can't be penalized.
However, for any player that thinks they can play rules-lawyer and beat the rules authors themselves (generally, this is a losing proposition) there are two clauses in the TOS that Kabam can use to deal with any player conduct they feel is inappropriate to reasonable fair play:
• Use features of the Services for anything other than their intended purpose, including exploiting glitches for personal gain
• Intentionally interfere with the operation or fair play of any Services including Services available through any third party platform, or any other user’s enjoyment of such Services
*If* Kabam chooses to penalize tanking you can argue that tanking doesn't satisfy either condition, but the question is who are you going to argue with?
This is created by Kabam's system. You are punished for having a high AW rating. You want a fix? Only top 20 rated teams are in tier one multiplier. Next 20 are are tier 2 etc.
I'll provide 2 solutions, one I've seen posted already:
1. Freeze the war rating out of season
2. Add something to out of season winner rewards like 1 crystal that has, for example, a few t5b/ t2a shards/ 6* shards (does not need to be too many). This may sound too much but with a week between wars its a max of 3 wars which are impacted. Makes it worthwhile for the people participating.
Even in the biggest sports and games, tanking is an issue. In the NFL, some teams will tank towards the end of the season to secure a higher draft pick. It’s not an easy behavior to fix, you can’t force people do things they don’t want to.
Instead of focusing on punishing the tankers, Kabam should focus on incentivizing winners. I know this has been brought up before but a small portion of season rewards should be shifted into war victory rewards like:
War victory bonus:
6* shards 300 —> 450
5* shards 630 —> 1000
Loyalty 5800 —> 7500
And improving the war victory crystal per tier (Tier 1 victory crystal, tier 2, etc)
Keep the big rewards like T5B and war season crystals the same. Slightly reduce the 6* and 5* shards so alliances would roughly gain the same amount of shards as before over the course of season + season reward (even though season rewards are due a revamp). This might not completely deter tanking but give alliances more incentive to think twice.
Even in the biggest sports and games, tanking is an issue. In the NFL, some teams will tank towards the end of the season to secure a higher draft pick. It’s not an easy behavior to fix, you can’t force people do things they don’t want to.
You can’t force but you can certainly restrict, inhibit and/or penalize people attempting to manipulate the system.
“Tanking” in MCOC is a misnomer that serves to confuse people.
We went into a war and everyone put good defenders in and tried to win the war. Don't they know its the off season. I dont want use potions and boosts. Its the off season can't we make a rule to not let alliances try to hard during off season. Maybe like if they place all defenders give other ally a boost. Or better yet if they are moving through the map to fast make the device crash so they lose some fights.
We went into a war and everyone put good defenders in and tried to win the war. Don't they know its the off season. I dont want use potions and boosts. Its the off season can't we make a rule to not let alliances try to hard during off season. Maybe like if they place all defenders give other ally a boost. Or better yet if they are moving through the map to fast make the device crash so they lose some fights.
Thanks!
You took that from me haha but for some reason my comments are gone from there
It wasn’t even a bad joke. I asked “how are we sure you aren’t reverse tanking?” When someone complained about tanking and when he said he put a full strong defense, I said “sounds like reverse tanking to me”
It wasn’t even a bad joke. I asked “how are we sure you aren’t reverse tanking?” When someone complained about tanking and when he said he put a full strong defense, I said “sounds like reverse tanking to me”
Even in the biggest sports and games, tanking is an issue. In the NFL, some teams will tank towards the end of the season to secure a higher draft pick. It’s not an easy behavior to fix, you can’t force people do things they don’t want to.
Instead of focusing on punishing the tankers, Kabam should focus on incentivizing winners. I know this has been brought up before but a small portion of season rewards should be shifted into war victory rewards like:
War victory bonus:
6* shards 300 —> 450
5* shards 630 —> 1000
Loyalty 5800 —> 7500
And improving the war victory crystal per tier (Tier 1 victory crystal, tier 2, etc)
Keep the big rewards like T5B and war season crystals the same. Slightly reduce the 6* and 5* shards so alliances would roughly gain the same amount of shards as before over the course of season + season reward (even though season rewards are due a revamp). This might not completely deter tanking but give alliances more incentive to think twice.
I suspect this wouldn't work because the alliances most likely to be manipulating the system to achieve the maximum seasonal rewards are specifically aiming for the rewards you keep in the season package, and care much less about the rewards you're shifting into the victory bonus.
But I think there's a more general problem that it is extremely difficult to find a set of rewards that is both "big" enough to affect players' behavior, and yet "small" enough to not affect reward balance. As @Kabam Miike touched on earlier, the seasonal rewards are specifically there explicitly to reward the competitive nature of the war. It simply isn't possible to reduce the competitive pressure while still keeping the rewards. Players might not agree with that rationale, but developers work for producers, not players.
Going around and marking people’s comments as spam for no reason is against forum rules
Yes, it is. But it also isn't a big deal. You see your own posts' flags, but no other normal forum poster sees that flag indicator. The moderators see it, and they are required to review the posts when flagged, but if the flag seems unwarranted they just ignore it. If someone flags too many posts that appear to have no inappropriate content they can be informally warned, and they can themselves also draw forum penalties.
No it’s about previous off topic posts being deleted. Think.
We are discussing the new term “reverse tanking” and it’s origin so now we have the terms tanking and reverse tanking to help futher the discussion about whether it is against the rules to do such.
Going around and marking people’s comments as spam for no reason is against forum rules
You see your own posts' flags, but no other normal forum poster sees that flag indicator.
Ever use the mobile version of the forums?
Honestly not often. The forums don't seem particularly mobile friendly to me.
If the flags do show up on the mobile stylesheet, it still shouldn't bother people all that much. I appear to have 2300 LOL flags at the moment. As I'm not really that funny, most of them are probably just people who can only express disagreement by pushing buttons, and have already been warned by the moderators not to push the ones that bother the moderators every time they do it. Its just something that happens.
Going around and marking people’s comments as spam for no reason is against forum rules
You see your own posts' flags, but no other normal forum poster sees that flag indicator.
Ever use the mobile version of the forums?
Honestly not often. The forums don't seem particularly mobile friendly to me.
If the flags do show up on the mobile stylesheet, it still shouldn't bother people all that much. I appear to have 2300 LOL flags at the moment. As I'm not really that funny, most of them are probably just people who can only express disagreement by pushing buttons, and have already been warned by the moderators not to push the ones that bother the moderators every time they do it. Its just something that happens.
That 5.3k agree outweighs the 2.3k LOL
Wow this is still going since I last commented.... interesting
Comments
would not stop shell alliances being used.
and shell alliances are even worse.
as they participate in wars during season with the shell ally it will take up a spot and take rewards away from a legfit ally.
imagine being #20 gold 2 knowing that 40 allies in gold one are shell alliances used by greedy scheming top 100 alliances.
imagine being glod #1 knowing there are some shell alliances collecting rewards in platinum 3 for body people in top allies.
imagine being anywhere in gold 1 after having worked your backside off all season knowing that the same rewards are going to bodgy usless throwaway accounts in some low lifes shell alliance.
I think the reward of punishing many alliances tanking is more helpful than “punishing” the few alliances trying to move up
In every game and competition, from video games to sports to everything else, there's always the presumption that conduct damaging to the game can be penalized. Even though that might be subjective, it is still considered a necessary avenue to regulate conduct that attempts to game the rules themselves. Just because something isn't *explicitly* listed as prohibited, doesn't mean it can't be penalized.
However, for any player that thinks they can play rules-lawyer and beat the rules authors themselves (generally, this is a losing proposition) there are two clauses in the TOS that Kabam can use to deal with any player conduct they feel is inappropriate to reasonable fair play:
*If* Kabam chooses to penalize tanking you can argue that tanking doesn't satisfy either condition, but the question is who are you going to argue with?
Problem solved. Also gets rid of shell swapping..
1. Freeze the war rating out of season
2. Add something to out of season winner rewards like 1 crystal that has, for example, a few t5b/ t2a shards/ 6* shards (does not need to be too many). This may sound too much but with a week between wars its a max of 3 wars which are impacted. Makes it worthwhile for the people participating.
Instead of focusing on punishing the tankers, Kabam should focus on incentivizing winners. I know this has been brought up before but a small portion of season rewards should be shifted into war victory rewards like:
War victory bonus:
6* shards 300 —> 450
5* shards 630 —> 1000
Loyalty 5800 —> 7500
And improving the war victory crystal per tier (Tier 1 victory crystal, tier 2, etc)
Keep the big rewards like T5B and war season crystals the same. Slightly reduce the 6* and 5* shards so alliances would roughly gain the same amount of shards as before over the course of season + season reward (even though season rewards are due a revamp). This might not completely deter tanking but give alliances more incentive to think twice.
“Tanking” in MCOC is a misnomer that serves to confuse people.
We went into a war and everyone put good defenders in and tried to win the war. Don't they know its the off season. I dont want use potions and boosts. Its the off season can't we make a rule to not let alliances try to hard during off season. Maybe like if they place all defenders give other ally a boost. Or better yet if they are moving through the map to fast make the device crash so they lose some fights.
Thanks!
You took that from me haha but for some reason my comments are gone from there
Oh haha didn't see it but glad we think the same!
LOL that's perfect!
I guess that is cheating also?
I suspect this wouldn't work because the alliances most likely to be manipulating the system to achieve the maximum seasonal rewards are specifically aiming for the rewards you keep in the season package, and care much less about the rewards you're shifting into the victory bonus.
But I think there's a more general problem that it is extremely difficult to find a set of rewards that is both "big" enough to affect players' behavior, and yet "small" enough to not affect reward balance. As @Kabam Miike touched on earlier, the seasonal rewards are specifically there explicitly to reward the competitive nature of the war. It simply isn't possible to reduce the competitive pressure while still keeping the rewards. Players might not agree with that rationale, but developers work for producers, not players.
Yes, it is. But it also isn't a big deal. You see your own posts' flags, but no other normal forum poster sees that flag indicator. The moderators see it, and they are required to review the posts when flagged, but if the flag seems unwarranted they just ignore it. If someone flags too many posts that appear to have no inappropriate content they can be informally warned, and they can themselves also draw forum penalties.
No it’s about previous off topic posts being deleted. Think.
We are discussing the new term “reverse tanking” and it’s origin so now we have the terms tanking and reverse tanking to help futher the discussion about whether it is against the rules to do such.
Honestly not often. The forums don't seem particularly mobile friendly to me.
If the flags do show up on the mobile stylesheet, it still shouldn't bother people all that much. I appear to have 2300 LOL flags at the moment. As I'm not really that funny, most of them are probably just people who can only express disagreement by pushing buttons, and have already been warned by the moderators not to push the ones that bother the moderators every time they do it. Its just something that happens.
That 5.3k agree outweighs the 2.3k LOL
Wow this is still going since I last commented.... interesting