So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default.
So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default. Truthfully, doing nothing isn't an option @GroundedWisdom with what's being proposed. If they awarded the win to you, that means you get the 50k win bonus points (pre-multiplier), the war rating points for the win, and whatever else you earned along the way. If the major problem with AW in the realm of mods is now attack based (which is what I'm gathering from the majority of messages), stopping dead in your tracks is gonna hurt you. You'd still have to fight through to the end. Did you think that people were proposing getting max points from a war like this?? That's ludicrous and would never happen. In the proposed system, the Alliance that played fair would merely get what they earned, the 50k bonus for the win, and war rating points returned. That's what giving an Alliance the win means. Not handing them 100% exploration with max attack bonus when it wasn't earned.To prove that you tried to win, you have to fight that war like any other war. If anyone is proposing having Kabam handing them max points for running into an Alliance that's modding, they're seriously misguided. Never gonna happen. The other aforementioned method, I can see being a possibility, and a fair one too. Anything more is outlandish and asking too much. In this case, Kabam is not determining that the honest Ally has won. They're determining that the cheating Ally has won through a violation of TOS. Big difference. In turn, giving the win bonus to the honest Alliance after the fact. Perhaps it wasn't laid out properly before and it sounded like people just wanted a free win from running into a cheating Alliance. Perhaps they did. I'm not a mind reader afterall, lol. If they did, nah... never gonna happen like that.If anyone wants this to fly, they'd have to prove they fought their way to a win and got cheated out of it. I don't see Kabam just handing anyone win with max points simply because they ran into another group that was cheating. Especially if they stop dead in the beginning or middle because they felt the war was a lost cause due to cheaters. Therein lies the problem. You have 2 outcomes. Win and Loss. You either win or you lose. That all depends on the scoring. Hence my "what if" comment. You can't say "would have".
So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default. Truthfully, doing nothing isn't an option @GroundedWisdom with what's being proposed. If they awarded the win to you, that means you get the 50k win bonus points (pre-multiplier), the war rating points for the win, and whatever else you earned along the way. If the major problem with AW in the realm of mods is now attack based (which is what I'm gathering from the majority of messages), stopping dead in your tracks is gonna hurt you. You'd still have to fight through to the end. Did you think that people were proposing getting max points from a war like this?? That's ludicrous and would never happen. In the proposed system, the Alliance that played fair would merely get what they earned, the 50k bonus for the win, and war rating points returned. That's what giving an Alliance the win means. Not handing them 100% exploration with max attack bonus when it wasn't earned.To prove that you tried to win, you have to fight that war like any other war. If anyone is proposing having Kabam handing them max points for running into an Alliance that's modding, they're seriously misguided. Never gonna happen. The other aforementioned method, I can see being a possibility, and a fair one too. Anything more is outlandish and asking too much. In this case, Kabam is not determining that the honest Ally has won. They're determining that the cheating Ally has won through a violation of TOS. Big difference. In turn, giving the win bonus to the honest Alliance after the fact. Perhaps it wasn't laid out properly before and it sounded like people just wanted a free win from running into a cheating Alliance. Perhaps they did. I'm not a mind reader afterall, lol. If they did, nah... never gonna happen like that.If anyone wants this to fly, they'd have to prove they fought their way to a win and got cheated out of it. I don't see Kabam just handing anyone win with max points simply because they ran into another group that was cheating. Especially if they stop dead in the beginning or middle because they felt the war was a lost cause due to cheaters.
So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default. Truthfully, doing nothing isn't an option @GroundedWisdom with what's being proposed. If they awarded the win to you, that means you get the 50k win bonus points (pre-multiplier), the war rating points for the win, and whatever else you earned along the way. If the major problem with AW in the realm of mods is now attack based (which is what I'm gathering from the majority of messages), stopping dead in your tracks is gonna hurt you. You'd still have to fight through to the end. Did you think that people were proposing getting max points from a war like this?? That's ludicrous and would never happen. In the proposed system, the Alliance that played fair would merely get what they earned, the 50k bonus for the win, and war rating points returned. That's what giving an Alliance the win means. Not handing them 100% exploration with max attack bonus when it wasn't earned.To prove that you tried to win, you have to fight that war like any other war. If anyone is proposing having Kabam handing them max points for running into an Alliance that's modding, they're seriously misguided. Never gonna happen. The other aforementioned method, I can see being a possibility, and a fair one too. Anything more is outlandish and asking too much. In this case, Kabam is not determining that the honest Ally has won. They're determining that the cheating Ally has won through a violation of TOS. Big difference.
So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default. Truthfully, doing nothing isn't an option @GroundedWisdom with what's being proposed. If they awarded the win to you, that means you get the 50k win bonus points (pre-multiplier), the war rating points for the win, and whatever else you earned along the way. If the major problem with AW in the realm of mods is now attack based (which is what I'm gathering from the majority of messages), stopping dead in your tracks is gonna hurt you. You'd still have to fight through to the end. Did you think that people were proposing getting max points from a war like this?? That's ludicrous and would never happen. In the proposed system, the Alliance that played fair would merely get what they earned, the 50k bonus for the win, and war rating points returned. That's what giving an Alliance the win means. Not handing them 100% exploration with max attack bonus when it wasn't earned.To prove that you tried to win, you have to fight that war like any other war. If anyone is proposing having Kabam handing them max points for running into an Alliance that's modding, they're seriously misguided. Never gonna happen. The other aforementioned method, I can see being a possibility, and a fair one too. Anything more is outlandish and asking too much.
So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default. Truthfully, doing nothing isn't an option @GroundedWisdom with what's being proposed. If they awarded the win to you, that means you get the 50k win bonus points (pre-multiplier), the war rating points for the win, and whatever else you earned along the way. If the major problem with AW in the realm of mods is now attack based (which is what I'm gathering from the majority of messages), stopping dead in your tracks is gonna hurt you. You'd still have to fight through to the end. Did you think that people were proposing getting max points from a war like this?? That's ludicrous and would never happen. In the proposed system, the Alliance that played fair would merely get what they earned, the 50k bonus for the win, and war rating points returned. That's what giving an Alliance the win means. Not handing them 100% exploration with max attack bonus when it wasn't earned.To prove that you tried to win, you have to fight that war like any other war. If anyone is proposing having Kabam handing them max points for running into an Alliance that's modding, they're seriously misguided. Never gonna happen. The other aforementioned method, I can see being a possibility, and a fair one too. Anything more is outlandish and asking too much. In this case, Kabam is not determining that the honest Ally has won. They're determining that the cheating Ally has won through a violation of TOS. Big difference. In turn, giving the win bonus to the honest Alliance after the fact. Perhaps it wasn't laid out properly before and it sounded like people just wanted a free win from running into a cheating Alliance. Perhaps they did. I'm not a mind reader afterall, lol. If they did, nah... never gonna happen like that.If anyone wants this to fly, they'd have to prove they fought their way to a win and got cheated out of it. I don't see Kabam just handing anyone win with max points simply because they ran into another group that was cheating. Especially if they stop dead in the beginning or middle because they felt the war was a lost cause due to cheaters. Therein lies the problem. You have 2 outcomes. Win and Loss. You either win or you lose. That all depends on the scoring. Hence my "what if" comment. You can't say "would have". Oh I agree. You cannot say that you 'would have won' if they weren't modding. No way to prove that. None. 0. Agreed. I mean, logically speaking, they probably wouldn't have won without the use of mods. However, that's not being said definitively though with that wording. Playing straight up and getting out performed by a group that's cheating should result in the win bonuses defaulting to the Alliance that played fair once proven that the cheaters had used a mod. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that seem fair when said like that?
I have no idea about the scoring? Is that what you're saying? You are aware I've been around since before the first War Beta, and have been an active voice in War discussions all along, right? That was a hypothetical. It was used to make a point. One that was apparently missed.
I have no idea about the scoring? Is that what you're saying? You are aware I've been around since before the first War Beta, and have been an active voice in War discussions all along, right? That was a hypothetical. It was used to make a point. One that was apparently missed. Only point you made was you have no idea.
Not exactly. It still equates to someone progressing no matter what they do, through the wrong actions of others.
So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default. Truthfully, doing nothing isn't an option @GroundedWisdom with what's being proposed. If they awarded the win to you, that means you get the 50k win bonus points (pre-multiplier), the war rating points for the win, and whatever else you earned along the way. If the major problem with AW in the realm of mods is now attack based (which is what I'm gathering from the majority of messages), stopping dead in your tracks is gonna hurt you. You'd still have to fight through to the end. Did you think that people were proposing getting max points from a war like this?? That's ludicrous and would never happen. In the proposed system, the Alliance that played fair would merely get what they earned, the 50k bonus for the win, and war rating points returned. That's what giving an Alliance the win means. Not handing them 100% exploration with max attack bonus when it wasn't earned.To prove that you tried to win, you have to fight that war like any other war. If anyone is proposing having Kabam handing them max points for running into an Alliance that's modding, they're seriously misguided. Never gonna happen. The other aforementioned method, I can see being a possibility, and a fair one too. Anything more is outlandish and asking too much. In this case, Kabam is not determining that the honest Ally has won. They're determining that the cheating Ally has won through a violation of TOS. Big difference. In turn, giving the win bonus to the honest Alliance after the fact. Perhaps it wasn't laid out properly before and it sounded like people just wanted a free win from running into a cheating Alliance. Perhaps they did. I'm not a mind reader afterall, lol. If they did, nah... never gonna happen like that.If anyone wants this to fly, they'd have to prove they fought their way to a win and got cheated out of it. I don't see Kabam just handing anyone win with max points simply because they ran into another group that was cheating. Especially if they stop dead in the beginning or middle because they felt the war was a lost cause due to cheaters. Therein lies the problem. You have 2 outcomes. Win and Loss. You either win or you lose. That all depends on the scoring. Hence my "what if" comment. You can't say "would have". Oh I agree. You cannot say that you 'would have won' if they weren't modding. No way to prove that. None. 0. Agreed. I mean, logically speaking, they probably wouldn't have won without the use of mods. However, that's not being said definitively though with that wording. Playing straight up and getting out performed by a group that's cheating should result in the win bonuses defaulting to the Alliance that played fair once proven that the cheaters had used a mod. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that seem fair when said like that? Not exactly. It still equates to someone progressing no matter what they do, through the wrong actions of others.
So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default. Truthfully, doing nothing isn't an option @GroundedWisdom with what's being proposed. If they awarded the win to you, that means you get the 50k win bonus points (pre-multiplier), the war rating points for the win, and whatever else you earned along the way. If the major problem with AW in the realm of mods is now attack based (which is what I'm gathering from the majority of messages), stopping dead in your tracks is gonna hurt you. You'd still have to fight through to the end. Did you think that people were proposing getting max points from a war like this?? That's ludicrous and would never happen. In the proposed system, the Alliance that played fair would merely get what they earned, the 50k bonus for the win, and war rating points returned. That's what giving an Alliance the win means. Not handing them 100% exploration with max attack bonus when it wasn't earned.To prove that you tried to win, you have to fight that war like any other war. If anyone is proposing having Kabam handing them max points for running into an Alliance that's modding, they're seriously misguided. Never gonna happen. The other aforementioned method, I can see being a possibility, and a fair one too. Anything more is outlandish and asking too much. In this case, Kabam is not determining that the honest Ally has won. They're determining that the cheating Ally has won through a violation of TOS. Big difference. In turn, giving the win bonus to the honest Alliance after the fact. Perhaps it wasn't laid out properly before and it sounded like people just wanted a free win from running into a cheating Alliance. Perhaps they did. I'm not a mind reader afterall, lol. If they did, nah... never gonna happen like that.If anyone wants this to fly, they'd have to prove they fought their way to a win and got cheated out of it. I don't see Kabam just handing anyone win with max points simply because they ran into another group that was cheating. Especially if they stop dead in the beginning or middle because they felt the war was a lost cause due to cheaters. Therein lies the problem. You have 2 outcomes. Win and Loss. You either win or you lose. That all depends on the scoring. Hence my "what if" comment. You can't say "would have". Oh I agree. You cannot say that you 'would have won' if they weren't modding. No way to prove that. None. 0. Agreed. I mean, logically speaking, they probably wouldn't have won without the use of mods. However, that's not being said definitively though with that wording. Playing straight up and getting out performed by a group that's cheating should result in the win bonuses defaulting to the Alliance that played fair once proven that the cheaters had used a mod. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that seem fair when said like that? Not exactly. It still equates to someone progressing no matter what they do, through the wrong actions of others. Not really. It's merely a mild incentive for playing through without breaking the rules when running into those who are. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and not doing right by those who did right, is another wrong when they were already wronged. Logically speaking, if they used the mods, they used them for a reason. They don't feel like they can perform as well as others. So, they cheat. You don't cheat, and get out performed on uneven ground. So, in turn, you were robbed of a fair chance at that win. Being the Alliance in the right should come with something in this case. Points you didn't have a fair shot at. Seems pretty fair to me. You get what you get on the grid, and the win points for playing fair.Truthfully, if they place some heavy focus on cracking down on these mods, it will become a moot point when they start to diminish in usageIt's mainly an interim deal. Once they 'take out the trash' it will be a rarity that it will be needed. It's not right to lose in a situation where you weren't competing on even ground. So naturally, it should be awarded to those that try their best in seemingly a no win situation. I can live without them doing this if they bring down the hammer hard on these rotten players. If they don't, it's kind of a necessity in my eyes. Not right to invest a bunch of boosts, health pots, and time into a no win situation. You still have to allocate as many points as possible to remain competitive in the season. Simply put, you're being robbed of the win bonus if you didn't have a fair shot at it. Have had it happen, and it blows. Truthfully, this impacts EVERYONE in the grand scheme. If they weren't taking up a slot in ranks, each group behind would move up. If they weren't in the equation, everyone would have a fair shot at a win. Until that's the case, something should be done to help balance the equation. Getting your war rating bonked and losing out a points you never had a fair shot at is simply bogus. If you don't feel the same way, well then enjoy running into a modding Alliance. I can say from experience it's VERY frustrating. Making it known that you'll get stripped of the win everytime and get some ban time might help put a stop to this. As you said, there's 2 outcomes. Win, and lose. If those that cheated are stripped of the win, it should default to the other. That's pretty much the case everywhere else, so why not here is my question?
If they're taking more Losses, they're going to be lower. Yes. What I'm saying is, no matter how the other Ally cheats, they can't affect the performance of the opposing Ally. They may be losing to an Ally that's cheating, but that still counts as a Loss, simply because they're not playing well enough to win. People may be somewhat triggered by that, but it's all in the scoring. Both sides have an either equal chance to win (based on potential Points), or a chance to Tie and take a Loss. Whether you come up against an Ally that cheats, or an Ally that finishes perfectly, it still counts as a Loss. As wrong and as unfair as it is to lose to an Ally cheating, there's nothing that Ally can do to affect how you perform.
If they're taking more Losses, they're going to be lower. Yes. What I'm saying is, no matter how the other Ally cheats, they can't affect the performance of the opposing Ally. They may be losing to an Ally that's cheating, but that still counts as a Loss, simply because they're not playing well enough to win. People may be somewhat triggered by that, but it's all in the scoring. Both sides have an either equal chance to win (based on potential Points), or a chance to Tie and take a Loss. Whether you come up against an Ally that cheats, or an Ally that finishes perfectly, it still counts as a Loss. As wrong and as unfair as it is to lose to an Ally cheating, there's nothing that Ally can do to affect how you perform. You're literally and clearly trolling by now, considering all your posts which now aren't even making basic sense.I'd rather you stop doing it as it's going in unreal territory.Else I'll have to report you for trolling.Have a good day
You really do have to find something To troll about in each solid discussion don’t you
So because you think coming up against an Ally that cheats is an automatic Loss, you think an automatic Win is more fair? Not really. Honest answer. Let's say that's implemented and an Ally notices early on that the other side is cheating. So they do nothing and wait for vindication. Is that a fair system? Just default your way up? I'm sorry. No matter how you look at it, I disagree with defaults. There are already measures being taken to penalize Allies that affect the entire Leaderboard after. I'm not okay with them keeping the Rewards from Wins. With people on that one. I'm equally as not okay with just giving them by default. Truthfully, doing nothing isn't an option @GroundedWisdom with what's being proposed. If they awarded the win to you, that means you get the 50k win bonus points (pre-multiplier), the war rating points for the win, and whatever else you earned along the way. If the major problem with AW in the realm of mods is now attack based (which is what I'm gathering from the majority of messages), stopping dead in your tracks is gonna hurt you. You'd still have to fight through to the end. Did you think that people were proposing getting max points from a war like this?? That's ludicrous and would never happen. In the proposed system, the Alliance that played fair would merely get what they earned, the 50k bonus for the win, and war rating points returned. That's what giving an Alliance the win means. Not handing them 100% exploration with max attack bonus when it wasn't earned.To prove that you tried to win, you have to fight that war like any other war. If anyone is proposing having Kabam handing them max points for running into an Alliance that's modding, they're seriously misguided. Never gonna happen. The other aforementioned method, I can see being a possibility, and a fair one too. Anything more is outlandish and asking too much. In this case, Kabam is not determining that the honest Ally has won. They're determining that the cheating Ally has won through a violation of TOS. Big difference. In turn, giving the win bonus to the honest Alliance after the fact. Perhaps it wasn't laid out properly before and it sounded like people just wanted a free win from running into a cheating Alliance. Perhaps they did. I'm not a mind reader afterall, lol. If they did, nah... never gonna happen like that.If anyone wants this to fly, they'd have to prove they fought their way to a win and got cheated out of it. I don't see Kabam just handing anyone win with max points simply because they ran into another group that was cheating. Especially if they stop dead in the beginning or middle because they felt the war was a lost cause due to cheaters. Therein lies the problem. You have 2 outcomes. Win and Loss. You either win or you lose. That all depends on the scoring. Hence my "what if" comment. You can't say "would have". Oh I agree. You cannot say that you 'would have won' if they weren't modding. No way to prove that. None. 0. Agreed. I mean, logically speaking, they probably wouldn't have won without the use of mods. However, that's not being said definitively though with that wording. Playing straight up and getting out performed by a group that's cheating should result in the win bonuses defaulting to the Alliance that played fair once proven that the cheaters had used a mod. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that seem fair when said like that? Not exactly. It still equates to someone progressing no matter what they do, through the wrong actions of others. Not really. It's merely a mild incentive for playing through without breaking the rules when running into those who are. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and not doing right by those who did right, is another wrong when they were already wronged. Logically speaking, if they used the mods, they used them for a reason. They don't feel like they can perform as well as others. So, they cheat. You don't cheat, and get out performed on uneven ground. So, in turn, you were robbed of a fair chance at that win. Being the Alliance in the right should come with something in this case. Points you didn't have a fair shot at. Seems pretty fair to me. You get what you get on the grid, and the win points for playing fair.Truthfully, if they place some heavy focus on cracking down on these mods, it will become a moot point when they start to diminish in usageIt's mainly an interim deal. Once they 'take out the trash' it will be a rarity that it will be needed. It's not right to lose in a situation where you weren't competing on even ground. So naturally, it should be awarded to those that try their best in seemingly a no win situation. I can live without them doing this if they bring down the hammer hard on these rotten players. If they don't, it's kind of a necessity in my eyes. Not right to invest a bunch of boosts, health pots, and time into a no win situation. You still have to allocate as many points as possible to remain competitive in the season. Simply put, you're being robbed of the win bonus if you didn't have a fair shot at it. Have had it happen, and it blows. Truthfully, this impacts EVERYONE in the grand scheme. If they weren't taking up a slot in ranks, each group behind would move up. If they weren't in the equation, everyone would have a fair shot at a win. Until that's the case, something should be done to help balance the equation. Getting your war rating bonked and losing out a points you never had a fair shot at is simply bogus. If you don't feel the same way, well then enjoy running into a modding Alliance. I can say from experience it's VERY frustrating. Making it known that you'll get stripped of the win everytime and get some ban time might help put a stop to this. As you said, there's 2 outcomes. Win, and lose. If those that cheated are stripped of the win, it should default to the other. That's pretty much the case everywhere else, so why not here is my question? I've come up against Allies that cheated. I didn't like it any more than anyone else would. I reported them and left it. What I didn't expect was to be given the Win. We lost. Albeit to a cheating Ally, but that's how it went. We lost and got what Points we could from the War. As I already said, the determination is not that the honest Ally "could have, should have, would have, did" win. The determination is that the cheating Ally won, and did so using means that broke the TOS. What people are proposing, no matter how you look at it, is that Kabam designates them the Winner. I do not agree with that. They lost. Regardless of whether the other side cheated or not, they lost. That's the outcome. Anything outside of that is based on hypothetical outcomes, under the assumption that the honest Ally should have won. You can't determine that based on the wrong actions of the other side. You can gauge based on what they're working with, what the probability of a Win is, and you can (with reasonable certainty) say whether you would have won or not. What you can't do is just hand Rewards based on that assumption, within a system designed to Reward based on progress made. Past tense.
Anyone playing in a competition would agree to an Auto-Win. I'm not discussing that part of the conversation anymore. I've said about all I can say on my views with default Wins. You don't get what you could have won. You get what you win or lose.
Kabam won’t ban them because a lot of them are spenders. And kabam do not want them to go. Hate cheaters in video games with a passion but apparently, gaming companies do not share that passion. Thats my experience with EA and others as well.
How is it possible that anyone would be defining the cheaters? If you are caught cheating in any contest you lose and your opponent wins. It's that simple.
@Greywarden Don't want to quote that Thread. It's a bit miffed. Nowhere did I say cheating doesn't affect the score. I said it doesn't alter it in a way that manipulates the amount you can earn. Meaning the cheating side doesn't prevent you from earning Points. You earn Points and gain Wins based on what you do, not what they do. Do I think it's fair to lose to a cheating Ally? No. Not a bit. What I said is you have to award based on how Wars play out. Not what "could" have played out. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with giving Rewards by default. I agree with giving them based on earning them. That means either side.
AW Season 11 rankings are up. This season’s motto should be “if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying”.