How many docks does it take for players to stop modding in AW Seasons?

Keep the thread constructive

Comments

Taking an excerpt from The Journal of Special Education......um......while I admire your fervor, that's pretty inappropriate.

The study was one of the earliest to replicate Skinner’s work on behavioral extinction. Without proper context I can see how focusing on the journal alone would give the wrong impression. Replication can be found in more recent research here:

https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Cooper-Applied-Behavior-Analysis-3rd-Edition/PGM1784647.html

Or better yet, here’re the cliff notes from the above text’s specific chapter on extinction. They’re identical to findings from my OP’s journal screenshot:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AlLIWVJRrEUHkmSYwx1_ZdboK2FN

Kobster84

GroundedWisdom is their anyone you agree with?
Hey man... and everyone else reading this...

Please just stop responding to this guy. It only makes him craft more posts specifically designed to crawl under someones skin. He is obviously not trying to have a conversation about the game. He is trying to find a way to make people waste their time by writing super long responses to him. Just don't do it. Tree falling in the woods people....

This is not true at all. I don't comment to incite any reaction. My thoughts are my own. Equally, I don't agree or disagree for the sake of doing it. My views are considered through my own thoughts and shared. I don't just argue to go against the status quo. I also don't agree just because everyone else agrees. This is a discussion. People will express their own thoughts and ideas. In a respectful conversation, people can agree or disagree in a respectful way. They don't have to see things eye-to-eye. They just have to disagree in a way that's not personal or unproductive.
6,600 disagreeable comments begs to differ. Other valued opinions like melodic metals are insightful rather than incite-ful. It’s absurd to claim disenfranchised alliances that lose to cheaters shouldn’t be compensated, but you tend to stand against the community. There was no “war” if an alliance modded. Therefore the losing alliance was damaged and missed out on shards for their time, effort and items. Not exactly game breaking to compensate out of fairness. Good grief.
I'm not standing against anyone. I'm saying I don't agree with Wins by default. I could care less how many Disagrees there are. It's just spammed like Flags. Some people make a job out of clicking it on anything people say. That's pretty much why it was added. People want to anonymously hate on others, they can have at it. Doesn't do anything.
Saying you don't agree with wins by default in this case is saying you think people that lose impossible contents to cheaters deserve the loss. Most of the world of gaming/sports disagrees.

Yep can’t agree more

Kobster84

GroundedWisdom is their anyone you agree with?
Hey man... and everyone else reading this...

Please just stop responding to this guy. It only makes him craft more posts specifically designed to crawl under someones skin. He is obviously not trying to have a conversation about the game. He is trying to find a way to make people waste their time by writing super long responses to him. Just don't do it. Tree falling in the woods people....

This is not true at all. I don't comment to incite any reaction. My thoughts are my own. Equally, I don't agree or disagree for the sake of doing it. My views are considered through my own thoughts and shared. I don't just argue to go against the status quo. I also don't agree just because everyone else agrees. This is a discussion. People will express their own thoughts and ideas. In a respectful conversation, people can agree or disagree in a respectful way. They don't have to see things eye-to-eye. They just have to disagree in a way that's not personal or unproductive.
6,600 disagreeable comments begs to differ. Other valued opinions like melodic metals are insightful rather than incite-ful. It’s absurd to claim disenfranchised alliances that lose to cheaters shouldn’t be compensated, but you tend to stand against the community. There was no “war” if an alliance modded. Therefore the losing alliance was damaged and missed out on shards for their time, effort and items. Not exactly game breaking to compensate out of fairness. Good grief.
I'm not standing against anyone. I'm saying I don't agree with Wins by default. I could care less how many Disagrees there are. It's just spammed like Flags. Some people make a job out of clicking it on anything people say. That's pretty much why it was added. People want to anonymously hate on others, they can have at it. Doesn't do anything.
Saying you don't agree with wins by default in this case is saying you think people that lose impossible contents to cheaters deserve the loss. Most of the world of gaming/sports disagrees.
The determination isn't that one side should have won and one side should have lost. They're not changing the outcomes of the War. They're reprimanding Allies for violating TOS. That's it. They're not saying one side is the loser because they cheated. Total misconception.
That’s the most broken and illogical way of thinking. Both the cheating alliance is being reprimanded and the loser is staying a loser because one side cheated. Because kabam failed to prevent the cheating, an alliance has lost AW season points and upwards of 30,000 5* shards. The “loser” didn’t lose, they put in the effort, cash and units to compete against another alliance that cheated them out of an opportunity to win. That’s why your way of thinking is broken. It’s assuming the non-cheating alliance ever had a chance at winning.
Being cheated out of an opportunity to win, as you put it, is not a reason to give a guaranteed Win. You can word it how you like, but I'm not going to agree with giving Wins by default because the other side was caught cheating.

I’m gonna go on a hunch here and say you don’t follow many sports otherwise you’d know if a competitor is disqualified the other person is awarded an automatic win

Kobster84

I also feel that if an ally has had a cheater for multiple wars I.e like 3 (just so it’s not a case of they recruited someone and weren’t aware happened to one of my old allies)
The entire ally should be excluded from season rewards I think then we will see a big movement to get rid of cheaters

GroundedWisdom

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.

At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.

EarthElite

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.
At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.

If you don't think cheating is acceptable, then why do you refuse for players to auto-win if they fought a modded alliance. If the good alliance still loses, then what was the point of calling them out in the first place?

GroundedWisdom

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.
At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.
If you don't think cheating is acceptable, then why do you refuse for players to auto-win if they fought a modded alliance. If the good alliance still loses, then what was the point of calling them out in the first place?

There's a difference between thinking cheating is wrong and agreeing that people should be given Wins regardless of how they perform.

EarthElite

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.
At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.
If you don't think cheating is acceptable, then why do you refuse for players to auto-win if they fought a modded alliance. If the good alliance still loses, then what was the point of calling them out in the first place?
There's a difference between thinking cheating is wrong and agreeing that people should be given Wins regardless of how they perform.

So you want them to still lose, even though they may have poured dozens of revives and potions on the quest? Giving them an auto win seems like fair compensation to me, and most of games.

GroundedWisdom

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.
At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.
If you don't think cheating is acceptable, then why do you refuse for players to auto-win if they fought a modded alliance. If the good alliance still loses, then what was the point of calling them out in the first place?
There's a difference between thinking cheating is wrong and agreeing that people should be given Wins regardless of how they perform.
So you want them to still lose, even though they may have poured dozens of revives and potions on the quest? Giving them an auto win seems like fair compensation to me, and most of games.

I'm not getting into the subject again. I don't want to see people default their way up the Leaderboard for the same reasons we don't want to see people cheat their way up.

EarthElite

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.
At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.
If you don't think cheating is acceptable, then why do you refuse for players to auto-win if they fought a modded alliance. If the good alliance still loses, then what was the point of calling them out in the first place?
There's a difference between thinking cheating is wrong and agreeing that people should be given Wins regardless of how they perform.
So you want them to still lose, even though they may have poured dozens of revives and potions on the quest? Giving them an auto win seems like fair compensation to me, and most of games.
I'm not getting into the subject again. I don't want to see people default their way up the Leaderboard for the same reasons we don't want to see people cheat their way up.

Yes, that may happen in the first season or two. But afterwards people will get tired of modding and eventually quit, leaving little to no modders in a few months or so. Defaulting your way up will never happen, there aren't that much modders Lol.

Nick_Caine_32

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.
At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.

I didn't say you were accepting of cheating. Your argument was that groups shouldn't be given a default win if the opponent is using mods and cheating, because you didn't like them defaulting and getting a win for not playing the war. My point is that the Bye system in war is literally defaulting, set up by kabam, where up to 3 groups a week can get a default and win for not playing due to the system. How is that acceptable, but groups through no fault of their own would get a default because the opponent cheated? The cause may be different but the outcome would be the same. It's kind of a weird hill to try and climb up when you're saying you don't like defaults (when they already exist for a few seasons now).

you say you don't want groups in this hypothetical system to climb up the leaderboard from defaulting, fair. But I would assume in that situation kabam would do something to counter that and make it more fair that it has been. I would say it's kind of shocking to see you not assume the same and trust kabam to make it right (if they did choose to implement another default into war like that). They came up with the Bye system to stop a problem that had been happening for a long time, why is it so hard to fathom they could address this problem in a similar fashion and make it so groups aren't taking advantage of it too?

GroundedWisdom

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.
At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.
I didn't say you were accepting of cheating. Your argument was that groups shouldn't be given a default win if the opponent is using mods and cheating, because you didn't like them defaulting and getting a win for not playing the war. My point is that the Bye system in war is literally defaulting, set up by kabam, where up to 3 groups a week can get a default and win for not playing due to the system. How is that acceptable, but groups through no fault of their own would get a default because the opponent cheated? The cause may be different but the outcome would be the same. It's kind of a weird hill to try and climb up when you're saying you don't like defaults (when they already exist for a few seasons now).

That's the solution Kabam has come up with for the system not allowing them to play at all. That's a bit different than playing and winning no matter how you score.

Nick_Caine_32

If you're going to try calling people out, you should probably get your facts straight.
Winning is the same greedy motivation that compels people to cheat. Winning without earning it. Giving the Win without earning it is the same thing, without breaking rules.
Not to keep this going, but I would love if you would respond to my earlier comment in this thread about the "bye" system awarding groups with wins by default (up to 3 a week since it launched) and tell me how that is acceptable, but not this? It's getting something for not playing a war due to no fault of the alliance playing, it's just the circumstance that's different that leads to the default. Why is one acceptable while the other isn't, to you? I hesitated in responding but this was a few pages back and you're still repeating it and keeping it going.
At what point did I say any of the cheating is acceptable?
I'm not talking about Compensation anymore. The subject is over and I've said my thoughts.
I didn't say you were accepting of cheating. Your argument was that groups shouldn't be given a default win if the opponent is using mods and cheating, because you didn't like them defaulting and getting a win for not playing the war. My point is that the Bye system in war is literally defaulting, set up by kabam, where up to 3 groups a week can get a default and win for not playing due to the system. How is that acceptable, but groups through no fault of their own would get a default because the opponent cheated? The cause may be different but the outcome would be the same. It's kind of a weird hill to try and climb up when you're saying you don't like defaults (when they already exist for a few seasons now).

That's the solution Kabam has come up with for the system not allowing them to play at all. That's a bit different than playing and winning no matter how you score.

Ok, but that's precedence. There was a problem with Alliance War that wasn't fair to groups playing, so kabam made a change and implemented a default system. Those groups tried to play and through no fault of their own, are given a win by kabam.

"That's a bit different than playing and winning no matter how you score."

Groups getting a bye = went into matchmaking and didn't get to play the war fairly and equally
Groups facing cheaters = went into matchmaking and didn't get to play the war fairly and equally

It's not a huge logic jump here man. For all the grief I give kabam (for 4+ years now) I would argue many changes to the war SYSTEM itself have alleviated some of the huge problems with that game mode over the course of the seasons. I don't like the map nodes or difficulty ramp up personally, but I cannot say they haven't taken concrete steps to make it more fair and equitable. What we're discussing here is no different. Going after cheaters and making it fair for EVERYONE and including rewards to match that seems the most logical and fair position anyone who plays this could take. The means to get there may differ, but they've shown they can come up with good ideas or borrow from the playerbase suggestions.

Get matched and the opponent cheats? They get action taken and the group who faced them gets an auto win or points change to compensate. Kabam monitors it and makes sure no one is abusing it. Seems like a pretty simple change that would make a LOT of people happy.

Keeping the current way is not.

GroundedWisdom

Many things would make a lot of people happy. I don't necessarily agree with them. Entering Matchmaking and failing to find a Match is one thing. Playing and securing a guaranteed Win no matter how you played or scored is not something I support.

Nick_Caine_32

Many things would make a lot of people happy. I don't necessarily agree with them. Entering Matchmaking and failing to find a Match is one thing. Playing and securing a guaranteed Win no matter how you played or scored is not something I support.

The original problem is literally "playing and securing a guaranteed win no matter how you played" due to cheating. That's the actual issue here and the thing that needs addressed and has needed attention for YEARS now. Clearly what system is in place now isn't working. It's just weird to concentrate on the negative outcome for the groups on the other end to me. Not only are they not winning and have no hope to win against someone using mods, but may not realize it until well into the war, after using items and boosts. They're not getting those back either, and they're still taking the entire loss on an unequal playing field from the start of the war. That's what's not fair here. The hypothetical default (if they were to go that route) could be VERY encouraging for groups who have felt for years the deck has been stacked against them and the cheaters have been allowed to do their thing.

I guess in my mind "failing to find a match and not playing because of it" is equal to "never having a chance because the opponent is cheating so it's as if you didn't play at all, and you're not getting your items back anyway even if we adjust it." Both seem more fair that what is happening now.

Greywarden

The overall tone of this thread has been negative towards Kabam but they actually have done something since seasons started so SOME credit is due. I remember the first docking list was something around 100 alliances.

The issue here is that this isn't enough anymore and the timing/severity of the punishment just isn't working.

A points docking after 6-9 wars is a bit late and really leads to the fair groups getting docked with them in affect because they're losing points but in this case for playing fair. You can say whatever you want about it's not guaranteed whether they would have won or not without using mods but the fact remains they had to face an unwinnable war.

Regarding severity a points dock and potential 5-7 day ban isn't enough. These people and alliances just keep doing the same thing which is obvious by the leaderboard EVERY season. If we can't go with perma bans I think we have to AT LEAST start with a full season ban for the first offense and increase the penalty for repeat offenders ala the MLB's policy. In my eyes it should be one strike and you're out for modding considering nobody can accidentally mod, it's 100% intentional and against TOS.

The reality here is that we need something more than what is currently in place. A highly competitive game mode is being completely taken advantage of for 11 seasons now. I think really long bans can curb this behavior even more but probably won't completely nip it in the bud. These types of people will just go buy another high level account (also against TOS) and do it all over again. In my opinion the perma ban for first offenders of modding will eventually kill two TOS birds with one stone. At some point there just won't be enough high level accounts to be purchased and the cheaters can either give up, move onto another game or actually try and play fair.

GroundedWisdom

I'm not opposed to bans with due process. I really think the solution is disqualification from Season Rewards. Once they realize it won't yield any Rewards, they'll likely stop. Perhaps move on to something else, but one fire at a time.

Zuro

I'm not opposed to bans with due process. I really think the solution is disqualification from Season Rewards. Once they realize it won't yield any Rewards, they'll likely stop. Perhaps move on to something else, but one fire at a time.

Or they could just perma-ban

SiriusBreak

Indeed we should move beyond the defaulting aspect as I doubt it would ever come to be. I agree with it. As do the majority for obvious and logical reasons. Let's not get caught in a loop of nonsense, which will ultimately derail this thread. Focus on the root of the problem. The seeming lack of severe consequences for cheating in AW. Getting this aspect covered should be the primary goal here.

Now, I completely understand that the investigation process takes some time. This fact is not lost on me, and many others. However, when you have a slew of players all handing in information on the same players over, and over, and over again... at what point is it enough to justify placing stiffer penalties on such repeated offenses? Not to mention the damage that gets done along the way to those who play straight up.

The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. I could see players being aware of the current penalties and using secondary accounts for the 1st half the season (mods don't require top tier champs to destroy afterall). They let those get the week ToS violation ban during the 1st wave of bans, and then bringing in their main for the last 6 wars to allocate the rewards. Also could minimize their mod usage to assist in legitimizing their performance.

The mere fact I can conjure such an idea means it's likely already been done. That taints the results of AW Seasons. Clean and clear. Perhaps this needs to go a few steps further in locking onto the IP address(es) AND associated accounts across the board of said players. Ban them from AW for X time to assist in shutting the whole of it down player by player. If the actions taken are not enough to detour the practice, it will undoubtedly continue until such a time that the consequences outweigh the benefits. That's pretty basic stuff in my eyes. (Love the reference material @DTMelodicMetal , good stuff)

While I understand the desire for compensation and interim fixes for those impacted by said cheaters, it likely will slow the process in the long run. If the focus is solely on those pulling dirty stunts, they'll have more time to 0 in on, and deal with them. Making the need for 'win defaulting' moot. The video provided by @OmegaSupreme is inspiring. Seeing that other app developers are taking harder stands against cheating gives me hope that Kabam will eventually follow suit. Not sure if suing them is necessary, but full on bans seem to be the end game in this situation. Hopefully those that would ruin the integrity of the contest days are numbered. Hopefully anyway.

Starting with a full AW lock out for a full Season would be a great start. Cleaning up the contest for a single Season would show what the leaderboards could look like without cheaters in play. Perhaps this should also come with a Probation period following the AW lock out. During which time said players are under constant surveillance by a hypothetical mod tracking algorithm (if such a thing could be conjured). If a red flag is raised during the Probation period and it is proven that they've once again violated the ToS, the penalties should increase exponentially tim, or simply a permanent ban from MCoC altogether (via IP address flagging).

The objective of all the proposed punishments is to bring cheating to a crawl if not stop it altogether. If it is known that the penalties are severe enough, the risk won't be worth it anymore. That should be the end game here. I do appreciate and applaud all that has been done already to attempt to quell the issues. Cases of piloting seem to have diminished, but in turn have be replaced by mods. Off Season tanking has essentially been dealt with. Collusion during matchmaking has been dealt with. Once this has been dealt with, the last major standing issue will be Shell Alliances. Which is whole other problem, and a bit more difficult to tackle all things considered.

BriceMiester

Why dont they just delete the accounts of players caught modding

OmegaSupreme

Why dont they just delete the accounts of players caught modding

This is what they should do.

Mods aren't an accident. They have to be researched, downloaded, and even paid for.

I don't buy leniency one bit. You mod once your account needs to be erased. If this game turns a blind eye to hacking, then what it's all for? Why am I doing arena? Why am I buying crystals? Or offers? It's all meaningless.

SiriusBreak

Why dont they just delete the accounts of players caught modding
This is what they should do.

Mods aren't an accident. They have to be researched, downloaded, and even paid for.

I don't buy leniency one bit. You mod once your account needs to be erased. If this game turns a blind eye to hacking, then what it's all for? Why am I doing arena? Why am I buying crystals? Or offers? It's all meaningless.

Agreed. It really should be done like that. However, as we've seen in the past, Kabam likes to give chances at redemption. Unfortunately that's being exploited now. The reason I proposed the AW Ban, is that it does leave the door open for redemption if it is known this is what's gonna happen.

At a certain point though, how many chances is too much? 1, 2? Some would say 1 is 1 too many. To a certain extent, I do agree. It is indeed a choice to load those mods. It is a choice to use 3rd party methods in any sense. Be it getting units, gold, loyalty, BCs, whatever loaded onto your account via hacks. All of which are in violation of the ToS. All of which give the account holder an unfair advantage. It's all bad at the end of the day.

Blubfish_666

Mods aren't "at an all time high", because the game has been worse before but yep- definitely up there

unknown

This content has been removed.

SiriusBreak

Why dont they just delete the accounts of players caught modding
This is what they should do.

Mods aren't an accident. They have to be researched, downloaded, and even paid for.

I don't buy leniency one bit. You mod once your account needs to be erased. If this game turns a blind eye to hacking, then what it's all for? Why am I doing arena? Why am I buying crystals? Or offers? It's all meaningless.
Agreed. It really should be done like that. However, as we've seen in the past, Kabam likes to give chances at redemption. Unfortunately that's being exploited now. The reason I proposed the AW Ban, is that it does leave the door open for redemption if it is known this is what's gonna happen.

At a certain point though, how many chances is too much? 1, 2? Some would say 1 is 1 too many. To a certain extent, I do agree. It is indeed a choice to load those mods. It is a choice to use 3rd party methods in any sense. Be it getting units, gold, loyalty, BCs, whatever loaded onto your account via hacks. All of which are in violation of the ToS. All of which give the account holder an unfair advantage. It's all bad at the end of the day.
If they want redemption, they should start a new account, rank, level it up like every non-cheater does. There’s no reason to be lenient, it’s premeditated and is stealing from those who play fairly.

Hey, I'm honestly right there with you. Just looking at this from multiple POVs and making suggestions based on previous actions from Kabam. I think they might be more apt to do an AW Season ban in lue of a full on permanent ban for a 1st offense. Do I think they now should have a 0 tolerance policy all things considered? Yes. However I don't run things so my POV isn't gonna be what changes their's. Yah know? I like to look for things that meet in the middle so to speak. A full Season ban is a HECK of a lot better than a week game ban and a point dock if you ask me. Just my 2 cents.

ChopstickWarrior

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 know where your biggest flaw is in your reasoning?
You say cheating did not impact the losing allies performance and yes thats true BUT the cheating impacted the cheating allies performance. Seems you miss that point entirely or dont know how AW works.
It has nothing to do with if this if that, the cheating alliance gets BONUS points for NOT DYING because of CHEATING which the alliance that plays fair has NO IMPACT on. You are saying based on their performance they have lost fairly even if the oposing ally is cheating.

As others have done let me give an example in real competitive sports but on how you look at this situation.
In cycling someone won because he was faster than the second place because he took drugs. Now yes without drugs maybe he would have won, we agree on that but the current second place has NOT and i state NOT lost fairly. No the cycler wouldnt have sprinted faster or whatever but the cheating one did gain an adventage and why did he take drugs you think? Because he knows he isnt good enough otherwise.

Mlee1829

Haha. You are doing a what if situation either way. By not giving the team that played fair the win, you are essentially saying they would have lost even IF it was a fair matchup.

ChopstickWarrior

@GroundedWisdom you said the alliane that played fair against a cheating one lost fairly is what you are saying right... you know that you are also saying that THE CHEATERS won FAIRLY you see that doesnt add up at all.

KerayZ

I believe it should be just straight up perm ban. If they used hacks to get ahead in the game on the account then, to be fair to all legit honest players, that account should not have access to the game going forward. Banning them for just one Season still allows them to reap the rewards, rank ups, champs & other content they most likely cheated and benefited from. Put a brand on the profile so if people search the profile they see "not in good standing". End game players will know who it was. If they buy a new account they would then have to change their whole community identity as well to avoid being discovered.

Now you might think...gee thats harsh! Yet it's common practice in a lot of games and gaming platforms to do all this. Mobile Gaming is still new. Mobile Gaming Anti Cheat detection is even newer. This is new ground for a lot of mobile gaming developers to traverse. Creating your own special progressive discipline tier system where you allow them to come back and keep doing it. Where you keep it "private" for them. This is not how gaming developers have handled this issue for many years in the gaming industry. This is a new mobile way of handling it. The mobile gaming loot box way.

If they are modding/hacking the game they are most likely using shady itunes/googleplay as well. Just seems Kabam likes that shady money sometimes. So they let them keep loading it over and over. Oh we will ban you for a week. Oh look he spent for 4 days but we gotta ban him for another week again. Oh cool he loaded more units for us cha-ching. Oopsie we gotta ban ya for a month now. 30 days later. oooooo look more loaded units for us thanks.

That's how it feels. Only because this is not how you handle hackers/cheaters in games.

OmegaSupreme

Thread's been up for 9 days and no answer from the developer...