It doesn't actually give them any headway to begin with, the Multiplier drops too. It's foolish. My larger concern is for the after-effects on the Matchmaking system, and the effect it has on people who are taken advantage of in this.
It doesn't actually give them any headway to begin with, the Multiplier drops too. It's foolish. My larger concern is for the after-effects on the Matchmaking system, and the effect it has on people who are taken advantage of in this.
It sounds to me you’re the type to peg any season loss on “tanking and manipulation” when in reality, you probably just lost cause you lost the war straight up. Tanking doesn’t affect season matchups THAT much. Sure it might give a small advantage at the start of the season, but the new matchmaking system made last season the fairest one yet. It’s a behavior that’s not new and that there’s no easy fix to. The worst behavior of manipulation was fixed already. Everyone is at the mercy of matchmaking RNG and there will always be alliances better than you (unless you’re #1), tank or no tank.
Just once, I challenge you to pass a discussion without singling me out and taking a shot. I dare you.
I'm talking about Tanking. Not me losing a War. Not even because I fell victim to it. It's exploiting the Matchmaking, and it is not so easily brushed off. It's an issue that needs addressed.
Just once, I challenge you to pass a discussion without singling me out and taking a shot. I dare you.
I'm talking about Tanking. Not me losing a War. Not even because I fell victim to it. It's exploiting the Matchmaking, and it is not so easily brushed off. It's an issue that needs addressed.
I’m just replying to a thread on the front page and it doesn’t help your case that you post in just about every one. It also doesn’t help that your arguments are easiest to debate.
It’s clear you’re implying to yourself of “those getting taken advantage of” by your posts, no need to deny. Yes I agree it’s an issue, but as this thread comes up every off-season, it’s been discussed many times without any new arguments. There’s no simple solution that doesn’t come with pros and cons. Kabam is aware and perhaps they’ve seen the data and in reality it doesn’t affect rankings much. My alliance never tanks and we’ll gladly take free rewards without spending an item. Come season time, there’s been no difference in the quality of opponents we face.
You might be able to get away with that justification had you not been consistently doing it for the last 2 years or more. Since you have, that guise isn't very convincing, so I think the conversation can move on.
You might be able to get away with that justification had you not been consistently doing it for the last 2 years or more. Since you have, that guise isn't very convincing, so I think the conversation can move on.
Some people will just see what they want to see. But I’m talking about tanking, if there’s nothing else on it then yes let’s move on.
It doesn't actually give them any headway to begin with, the Multiplier drops too. It's foolish. My larger concern is for the after-effects on the Matchmaking system, and the effect it has on people who are taken advantage of in this.
True. But let’s say, theoretically, an alliance is of mid Tier 2 level. So that would give them a 50% win rate in Tier 2.
Using this assumption, in a season of 12 wars, they would win 6 and lose 6. This will net them a score of: - (6 x 200k + 6 x 150k) x 6.2 = 13.02m
On the flip side, let’s say the alliance tanks to Tier 3, where they are 6 wins away from Tier 2. This would mean they will win all 6 wars in Tier 3, then go 3 for 6 in Tier 2. This will net them a score of:
- (6 x 200k x 5.5) + (3 x 200k x 6.2) + (3 x 150k , 6.2) = 6.6m + 3.72m + 2.79 = 13.11m
You might say that the scores are similar, true, they are. But we are forgetting that the 6 wins in Tier 3 will come much easier and cheaper than the wars in Tier 2.
Also, that’s based on the assumption the alliance goes 3 for 6 in Tier 2, which is rarely the case for a mid Tier 2 alliance. It’s more likely that they go 4 or 5 for 6 as they win their way back up to their equilibrium war rating.
All i want Is to get a real fight, not those empty maps. I wanted to test new players in alliance, new paths, defenders. I like AWars, i enjoy trying new strategies, improving myself And my team, challenging good oponents And having balanced results (you dont really enjoy huge win or loose) This thing which we Are experiencing right Now, IT really destroys the good feelings you have in wars.
Is really worth to get a bit better starting position in season to disqust another one?
Also I consider this as a cheating, And since we dont do that, we Will get almost unplayable wars in season. Does it seems right?
All i want Is to get a real fight, not those empty maps. I wanted to test new players in alliance, new paths, defenders. I like AWars, i enjoy trying new strategies, improving myself And my team, challenging good oponents And having balanced results (you dont really enjoy huge win or loose) This thing which we Are experiencing right Now, IT really destroys the good feelings you have in wars.
Is really worth to get a bit better starting position in season to disqust another one?
Also I consider this as a cheating, And since we dont do that, we Will get almost unplayable wars in season. Does it seems right?
Truth is, no, it doesn’t seem right. But eventually the war ratings will balance out.
All i want Is to get a real fight, not those empty maps. I wanted to test new players in alliance, new paths, defenders. I like AWars, i enjoy trying new strategies, improving myself And my team, challenging good oponents And having balanced results (you dont really enjoy huge win or loose) This thing which we Are experiencing right Now, IT really destroys the good feelings you have in wars.
Is really worth to get a bit better starting position in season to disqust another one?
Also I consider this as a cheating, And since we dont do that, we Will get almost unplayable wars in season. Does it seems right?
Your "want" to fight new players and champs on defence must be counter balanced against the "wants" of other players on the opposing teams not to have their champs locked up in a meaningless AW off-season match, when they could much more gainfully be employed in clearing hard content like Map 7, Act 6 and variant. In the grand scheme of things, you will eventually get to face hard wars again when AW season starts back up, so you are not really losing that much. By comparison, you are expecting your opponents to give up the only time they have that they can afford to take their best champs out of AW. Not very fair is it?
Your excuse is debunked by the Rating of said Maps. An Alliance in that Tier should have enough to fill a Map, even with their best in other Quests, and if not, then they're opening the Map to take a dive. Try again.
You're implying it's some type of unfounded allegation, when it's been a rampant problem for pretty much the duration of Seasons. The solution may be precarious, but the behavior is anything but debatable. We're not talking about people running their second best. We're talking about people intentionally losing to lower their Rating. It's been admitted and observed all along, and it's very easy to spot. I'm addressing it for what it is. Exploiting the Matchmaking to gain an unfair advantage within Seasons. While there may be grey area with not running Top Teams, there is no question with Alliances not placing. I'm not making unfounded accusations. We're all aware of what is taking place. I'm not pretending otherwise.
You are still missing the point. All you as an observer can see is the fact or the appearance of an empty map, or a weaker than usual defence. From that fact, there are at least two possible inferences as to why the opposing ally did that - (1) they are trying actively to tank their war rating; (2) they are simply re-focusing their attention and best champs elsewhere, say Map 7, Act 6, or variant.
You have no basis to assert or claim that it is one possibility over the other. What you say is a "rampant problem" is nothing more than an observation that the 'fact' of weaker/missing defences are being placed; it is not "rampant" that alliances are tanking, since you have no basis to know for a fact that that is the predominant intention among all those alliances you might have faced.
Your excuse is debunked by the Rating of said Maps. An Alliance in that Tier should have enough to fill a Map, even with their best in other Quests, and if not, then they're opening the Map to take a dive. Try again.
Do you actually even play in that tier or is this completely just speculation? I play in a top 50 alliance if not top 30. You have three champs in map 7, and if you are doing serious questing, you will want your entire r4 and above roster to be free for whatever utilities/synergy teams you might need. I am not going to be placing any of those champs on defence during the off-season if I am looking to clear content like Act 6 and/or variant. So yes I could still place a defence full of r3s, but that would similarly attract allegations of 'tanking' from people like you.
In fact I may well wish not to place any defence at all because (1) who knows sometimes even a r3 might be useful to a particular syngery team and i don't want to be caught in a situation where I have to put my questing on hold just because someone is locked in AW; (2) I don't want to modify my AW defence team and take the risk of accidentally placing a wrong team when AW season actually starts up.
You are speaking from the position of someone who has not actually thought through all these issues, and weighed the full costs/benefits of the particular course of action you are advocating for. As many have pointed out, there are still benefits - namely shards and loyalty - for an alliance to enlist for a war even if they have no intention of competing in that war seriously. That is not the same as intending to tank, it is just a shift in priorities in the off season.
No one opens an empty Map at that level unless they intend to take a dive. I'm not buying the spin. At that level, they value winning too much for that. I don't buy the plausible but untrue justification. Especially when it's been admittedly calculated enough. People have enough Champs to put SOMETHING on the Map. This is precisely why I'm saying the best course of action is to separate Off-Season from Seasons. Whether that involves a 2-week break, or just separating progress. Any possible unfair advantage people see, they'll take it, and justify it with any excuse they can. Regardless of who they step on to get it.
No one opens an empty Map at that level unless they intend to take a dive. I'm not buying the spin. At that level, they value winning too much for that. I don't buy the plausible but untrue justification. Especially when it's been admittedly calculated enough. People have enough Champs to put SOMETHING on the Map. This is precisely why I'm saying the best course of action is to separate Off-Season from Seasons. Whether that involves a 2-week break, or just separating progress. Any possible unfair advantage people see, they'll take it, and justify it with any excuse they can. Regardless of who they step on to get it.
All i hear is "there is a small chance that some alliances are abusing this, but lets go ahead and punish the majority who might be acting perfectly legitimately so as to stop the minority that are guilty of abuse".
Why do your suggestions involve stepping up the tempo instead of say creating incentives for players to continue to participate in and win off-season alliance wars? The fact that alliances aren't putting in effort into off-season alliance wars is simply a sign that they are not worth the hassle. If it is so important to you that alliances play wars every single week, then why not simply increase the rewards for off-season wars? Add t5b and double the 5* shards for each win, I'm sure you will see a marked increase in interest.
The solution should be more about encouraging and incentivising the conduct you want, rather than constraining people's choices.
A small chance? No. Not a small chance. It is 100% occurring, and that equals exploitation. Exploiting the way the Matchmaking system operates to gain unfair advantages. I would much rather prevent people from being taken advantage of than not. I have no idea why it is that whenever we're talking about stopping something from being abused, people start talking about rights, but people abuse those rights. Which leads to the need for action. I would much rather separate that so people can have a fair fight within War, than allow others to be taken advantage of and call it collateral damage.
Its 3rd war in row, where we got aw with no defence, or not fully placed defence. There Are plenty of alliances losing on purpose. This Is really boring, i was looking forward to some training And this Is what se got 3rd!!!!! Time in a row
Lots of hand-wringing and whining about nothing. Who wants to waste precious time and resources for no payoff? It's not worth it to change my AWD lineup and risk messing it up when it counts, people need a break from AW and to make AQ a little easier with a larger selection of their top champs. Off-season AW is a lightest slap contest. Only idiots play seriously and you already lose just by playing at all.
Has there ever been an official comment from Kabam on "tanking"... Seems to me that it's a valid way of playing AW, especially considering how long it's been a "problem" and it's consistently ignored by the game team.
Comments
I'm talking about Tanking. Not me losing a War. Not even because I fell victim to it. It's exploiting the Matchmaking, and it is not so easily brushed off. It's an issue that needs addressed.
It’s clear you’re implying to yourself of “those getting taken advantage of” by your posts, no need to deny. Yes I agree it’s an issue, but as this thread comes up every off-season, it’s been discussed many times without any new arguments. There’s no simple solution that doesn’t come with pros and cons. Kabam is aware and perhaps they’ve seen the data and in reality it doesn’t affect rankings much. My alliance never tanks and we’ll gladly take free rewards without spending an item. Come season time, there’s been no difference in the quality of opponents we face.
Using this assumption, in a season of 12 wars, they would win 6 and lose 6. This will net them a score of:
- (6 x 200k + 6 x 150k) x 6.2 = 13.02m
On the flip side, let’s say the alliance tanks to Tier 3, where they are 6 wins away from Tier 2. This would mean they will win all 6 wars in Tier 3, then go 3 for 6 in Tier 2. This will net them a score of:
- (6 x 200k x 5.5) + (3 x 200k x 6.2) + (3 x 150k , 6.2) = 6.6m + 3.72m + 2.79 = 13.11m
You might say that the scores are similar, true, they are. But we are forgetting that the 6 wins in Tier 3 will come much easier and cheaper than the wars in Tier 2.
Also, that’s based on the assumption the alliance goes 3 for 6 in Tier 2, which is rarely the case for a mid Tier 2 alliance. It’s more likely that they go 4 or 5 for 6 as they win their way back up to their equilibrium war rating.
This is why tanking works.
I wanted to test new players in alliance, new paths, defenders.
I like AWars, i enjoy trying new strategies, improving myself And my team, challenging good oponents And having balanced results (you dont really enjoy huge win or loose)
This thing which we Are experiencing right Now, IT really destroys the good feelings you have in wars.
Is really worth to get a bit better starting position in season to disqust another one?
Also I consider this as a cheating, And since we dont do that, we Will get almost unplayable wars in season. Does it seems right?
You have no basis to assert or claim that it is one possibility over the other. What you say is a "rampant problem" is nothing more than an observation that the 'fact' of weaker/missing defences are being placed; it is not "rampant" that alliances are tanking, since you have no basis to know for a fact that that is the predominant intention among all those alliances you might have faced.
In fact I may well wish not to place any defence at all because (1) who knows sometimes even a r3 might be useful to a particular syngery team and i don't want to be caught in a situation where I have to put my questing on hold just because someone is locked in AW; (2) I don't want to modify my AW defence team and take the risk of accidentally placing a wrong team when AW season actually starts up.
You are speaking from the position of someone who has not actually thought through all these issues, and weighed the full costs/benefits of the particular course of action you are advocating for. As many have pointed out, there are still benefits - namely shards and loyalty - for an alliance to enlist for a war even if they have no intention of competing in that war seriously. That is not the same as intending to tank, it is just a shift in priorities in the off season.
I don't buy the plausible but untrue justification. Especially when it's been admittedly calculated enough. People have enough Champs to put SOMETHING on the Map.
This is precisely why I'm saying the best course of action is to separate Off-Season from Seasons. Whether that involves a 2-week break, or just separating progress. Any possible unfair advantage people see, they'll take it, and justify it with any excuse they can. Regardless of who they step on to get it.
Why do your suggestions involve stepping up the tempo instead of say creating incentives for players to continue to participate in and win off-season alliance wars? The fact that alliances aren't putting in effort into off-season alliance wars is simply a sign that they are not worth the hassle. If it is so important to you that alliances play wars every single week, then why not simply increase the rewards for off-season wars? Add t5b and double the 5* shards for each win, I'm sure you will see a marked increase in interest.
The solution should be more about encouraging and incentivising the conduct you want, rather than constraining people's choices.
Off-season AW is a lightest slap contest. Only idiots play seriously and you already lose just by playing at all.