Tag Swapping - The Post-Ban Scourge

So the new trend we are seeing is major alliances having officers/leaders banned for cheating, so the rest of their groups are just packing up and taking over shell alliances with decent war ratings. It's clear where it's happening and it's creating further imbalance in the game. Sure hope something is done about this (not counting on it).

Comments

Noobeeus

What would you expect to be done and whom do you expect does it?

Sirnoob

Is leaving an ally and going to another against rules?

DalBot

Sirnoob wrote: »

Is leaving an ally and going to another against rules?

No, but association with cheaters enables people to grow their accounts through those associations even if they don't cheat themselves. Example: if Alliance A has say 3 modders who have high level prestige and high level champs as a result of cheating, then they raise the team prestige and capability, leading to better AQ results and AW results. Naivete is hardly believable in many of the cases.

And it's not hard to identify the alliances where cheating occurred. They're the Top 100 alliances that now have 2300+ war ratings and only a few low level players in the alliances. All of the rest have fled to the shell alliances. It wouldn't be hard for Kabam to identify them, but it won't happen.

Sirnoob

DalBot wrote: »

Sirnoob wrote: »

Is leaving an ally and going to another against rules?

No, but association with cheaters enables people to grow their accounts through those associations even if they don't cheat themselves. Example: if Alliance A has say 3 modders who have high level prestige and high level champs as a result of cheating, then they raise the team prestige and capability, leading to better AQ results and AW results. Naivete is hardly believable in many of the cases.

And it's not hard to identify the alliances where cheating occurred. They're the Top 100 alliances that now have 2300+ war ratings and only a few low level players in the alliances. All of the rest have fled to the shell alliances. It wouldn't be hard for Kabam to identify them, but it won't happen.

If an ally had officer/it's leader banned from aq and only them because they cheated not the rest you think it's wrong for the rest to leave said ally and merge with another?

DalBot

Say you're on a college sports team. It's found out that one player on your team was playing against the rules. The whole team at that point is subject to sanctions as they were essentially advancing due to illegal play. They can't all just go join up with another team to avoid sanctions.

What this alliance swapping does is it creates further imbalance in the game. It sucks to know you've had a cheater amongst you but in most cases people know fully well if someone amongst them isn't above board. If that's the case and you continue to associate with them then you're as bad as they are because you know your team is getting ill gotten gains.

It's shady matter how you slice it.

CoatHang3r

The bans are not exclusive to cheating. The number of alliances who have switched represent a tiny percentage. The impact of what you are worried about is negligible. Concern troll.

DalBot

CoatHang3r wrote: »

The bans are not exclusive to cheating. The number of alliances who have switched represent a tiny percentage. The impact of what you are worried about is negligible. Concern troll.

So you consider 16% of the top 100 alliances to be "negligible"? That's how many are under 5M alliance rating yet have war ratings over 2450. I know you try your darndest to be an apologist but it's failing real hard here

Sirnoob

DalBot wrote: »

Say you're on a college sports team. It's found out that one player on your team was playing against the rules. The whole team at that point is subject to sanctions as they were essentially advancing due to illegal play. They can't all just go join up with another team to avoid sanctions.

What this alliance swapping does is it creates further imbalance in the game. It sucks to know you've had a cheater amongst you but in most cases people know fully well if someone amongst them isn't above board. If that's the case and you continue to associate with them then you're as bad as they are because you know your team is getting ill gotten gains.

It's shady matter how you slice it.

Unless it's the Olympics from what I've seen no team is fully screwed just because of one person cheating in the nba if someone is found doing something illegal that one person gets the punishment and the rest move on
Let's say I'm in an ally and our leader got banned because he was hacking and none of us knew he was and he didn't get demoted

Which do u think ima do start from scratch with the rest of the members r simply merge?

GroundedWisdom

It's not reasonable to hold an entire Ally responsible for the actions of a few. Even when the Modding is related to War, that's difficult to address because it's a group effort, and it's not fair to the other Members to penalize them. They're not responsible or in control of that. If it's a known effort, there may be some grounds for consideration, for example if the Ally is knowingly Modding and sharing Account Info to gain War Rating. However in your example, I don't see cause for it. If someone is banned and others join the Ally, that's not really milking anything because Rating has to be earned and upheld, and can be lost just as easily. It's a variable that's based on group effort.

DalBot

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

It's not reasonable to hold an entire Ally responsible for the actions of a few. Even when the Modding is related to War, that's difficult to address because it's a group effort, and it's not fair to the other Members to penalize them. They're not responsible or in control of that. If it's a known effort, there may be some grounds for consideration, for example if the Ally is knowingly Modding and sharing Account Info to gain War Rating. However in your example, I don't see cause for it. If someone is banned and others join the Ally, that's not really milking anything because Rating has to be earned and upheld, and can be lost just as easily. It's a variable that's based on group effort.

And yet the actions of a few can greatly benefit the whole. I'm not saying the other alliance members should all be punisher per se, but allowing them to mass migrate just puts all the other alliances that have to deal with them at that point at a marked disadvantage. And again, if you know someone is cheating and you say/do nothing, how does that make you any better? It's hard to imagine that most of those banned were doing this without their teammates knowing, especially as leaders or officers.

CoatHang3r

DalBot wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

The bans are not exclusive to cheating. The number of alliances who have switched represent a tiny percentage. The impact of what you are worried about is negligible. Concern troll.

So you consider 16% of the top 100 alliances to be "negligible"? That's how many are under 5M alliance rating yet have war ratings over 2450. I know you try your darndest to be an apologist but it's failing real hard here

Not apologizing in the slightest. You cannot state with certainty the bans were related to pvp cheating or cheating at all since using emulators are included in those bans and you are not privy to the reasons for all the bans either. That alone completely destroys the credibility of the "concern" you express.

16 alliances (in arguendo) have a negligible impact on the game, yup many more than that are continually reformed and work their way back up the tiers in AW on a regular basis. How many of those alliances are actual swappers who do it to game the reward system? You don't know. "A thought is not a fact."

Keep trying to make mountains out of mole hills in regards to an inconsequential events related to a video game. This wasn't your first and won't be you last, looking forward to the next cause hysteria is hysterical.

Acanthus

How did you come up with the idea that alliances are switching because of bans and cheating? Lol.

loader187

well to be honest with you it is a good plan. I am not saying it is what is happening but example........

If you select a couple people that can cheat in an alliance and they purchase a gifting badge and they are able to get free units by cheating and gift stuff to the rest of the team to help them grow than the people that are not directly cheating but know what is going on are helping alliances grow. Than if they just ban those 2+ people for cheating they could open a new alliance and the people they were helping would than move to the new alliance and start over. It could even be someone that has 2 accounts.

Everyone knows having units helps you grow and they are not easy to come by.

Again. I am not saying that is what is going on but unless I am missing something it would help that alliance grow faster. However, it is not as easy to do these things anymore.

Its not like this is Contra up,up,down,down,left,right,left,right,b,a start. Give me my 30 guys

RehctansBew

DalBot wrote: »

Say you're on a college sports team. It's found out that one player on your team was playing against the rules. The whole team at that point is subject to sanctions as they were essentially advancing due to illegal play. They can't all just go join up with another team to avoid sanctions.

What this alliance swapping does is it creates further imbalance in the game. It sucks to know you've had a cheater amongst you but in most cases people know fully well if someone amongst them isn't above board. If that's the case and you continue to associate with them then you're as bad as they are because you know your team is getting ill gotten gains.

It's shady matter how you slice it.

Actually this happens all the time, what is in place is that a player must sit out one year before being able to join another team or a semester I believe. Then they are able to play. As MCOC has put similar rules in with swapping you must wait one week before earning rewards. This is a non-issue on many fronts. You are diverting attention from real game issues and bugs with such a post. Focus on fixing the game first.

HoidCosmere

I have read this through and I am really struggling to understand what the problem is here OP. Leader gets banned...move to another alliance. Seems to be what I would do in their shoes. You don't want to be in a leaderless alliance, regardless of its war rating.

I had suggested kabam automatically booting any permanently banned player from their alliance, for exactly this reason. That way one of the officers can assume the leader role and everyone can move on.

LocoMotives

RehctansBew wrote: »

DalBot wrote: »

Say you're on a college sports team. It's found out that one player on your team was playing against the rules. The whole team at that point is subject to sanctions as they were essentially advancing due to illegal play. They can't all just go join up with another team to avoid sanctions.

What this alliance swapping does is it creates further imbalance in the game. It sucks to know you've had a cheater amongst you but in most cases people know fully well if someone amongst them isn't above board. If that's the case and you continue to associate with them then you're as bad as they are because you know your team is getting ill gotten gains.

It's shady matter how you slice it.

Actually this happens all the time, what is in place is that a player must sit out one year before being able to join another team or a semester I believe. Then they are able to play. As MCOC has put similar rules in with swapping you must wait one week before earning rewards. This is a non-issue on many fronts. You are diverting attention from real game issues and bugs with such a post. Focus on fixing the game first.

I was gonna say exactly this. This also happens with coaches who get no penalty for leaving early. I'm not saying this matters to the subject, but your analogy is faulty as best.