Please Kabam: Do something against shells!

joke1004

Tier 1 AW is full of shell alliances. Why do alliances that don’t participate in wars for a whole season not get their war rating significantly reduced? They just take up the space, honest alliances deserve...

SparkAlot

Exactly, if you don't participate in the AW tier the alliance is rated, then the rating should significantly fall off, it shouldn't be used as a place holder.

Demonzfyre

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Aryl

I remember when Hamin make a post about this and people got all huffy.

Shells need to go.

Aryl

As Hamin suggested, there should be a degeneration of points to help squash shells.

Demonzfyre

Haji_Saab said:

Demonzfyre said:

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Except they prevent alliances from having a higher multiplier and hence stopping them from placing higher

@Haji_Saab what am I missing then exactly? If a shell alliance that has 1 player in it that isn't doing any actual wars and not acoring points, how does that stop participating alliance from having a higher multiplier? I don't get how a shell alliance prevents that.

GinjabredMonsta

Demonzfyre said:

Haji_Saab said:

Demonzfyre said:

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Except they prevent alliances from having a higher multiplier and hence stopping them from placing higher

@Haji_Saab what am I missing then exactly? If a shell alliance that has 1 player in it that isn't doing any actual wars and not acoring points, how does that stop participating alliance from having a higher multiplier? I don't get how a shell alliance prevents that.

Yeah I am kinda confused on this. Wouldn't other alliances just move past them?

Worknprogress

Demonzfyre said:

Haji_Saab said:

Demonzfyre said:

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Except they prevent alliances from having a higher multiplier and hence stopping them from placing higher

@Haji_Saab what am I missing then exactly? If a shell alliance that has 1 player in it that isn't doing any actual wars and not acoring points, how does that stop participating alliance from having a higher multiplier? I don't get how a shell alliance prevents that.

You're thinking season points. He's talking about tiers. Tiers are made up of percentages of all alliances in the game. So even an inactive alliance with a very high war rating would still be counted as part of the percentage making up T1

Demonzfyre

Worknprogress said:

Demonzfyre said:

Haji_Saab said:

Demonzfyre said:

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Except they prevent alliances from having a higher multiplier and hence stopping them from placing higher

@Haji_Saab what am I missing then exactly? If a shell alliance that has 1 player in it that isn't doing any actual wars and not acoring points, how does that stop participating alliance from having a higher multiplier? I don't get how a shell alliance prevents that.

You're thinking season points. He's talking about tiers. Tiers are made up of percentages of all alliances in the game. So even an inactive alliance with a very high war rating would still be counted as part of the percentage making up T1

I get it what you're saying now. Until they make shell alliances against the rules, I dont see much changing with it.

Aryl

Demonzfyre said:

Worknprogress said:

Demonzfyre said:

Haji_Saab said:

Demonzfyre said:

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Except they prevent alliances from having a higher multiplier and hence stopping them from placing higher

@Haji_Saab what am I missing then exactly? If a shell alliance that has 1 player in it that isn't doing any actual wars and not acoring points, how does that stop participating alliance from having a higher multiplier? I don't get how a shell alliance prevents that.

You're thinking season points. He's talking about tiers. Tiers are made up of percentages of all alliances in the game. So even an inactive alliance with a very high war rating would still be counted as part of the percentage making up T1

I get it what you're saying now. Until they make shell alliances against the rules, I dont see much changing with it.

They have the power to do this... actually, they could do it instantly under the rule of not adhering to the spirit of the contest.

Demonzfyre

Aryl said:

Demonzfyre said:

Worknprogress said:

Demonzfyre said:

Haji_Saab said:

Demonzfyre said:

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Except they prevent alliances from having a higher multiplier and hence stopping them from placing higher

@Haji_Saab what am I missing then exactly? If a shell alliance that has 1 player in it that isn't doing any actual wars and not acoring points, how does that stop participating alliance from having a higher multiplier? I don't get how a shell alliance prevents that.

You're thinking season points. He's talking about tiers. Tiers are made up of percentages of all alliances in the game. So even an inactive alliance with a very high war rating would still be counted as part of the percentage making up T1

I get it what you're saying now. Until they make shell alliances against the rules, I dont see much changing with it.

They have the power to do this... actually, they could do it instantly under the rule of not adhering to the spirit of the contest.

Not saying they don't have the power. They just haven't made it against the rules yet.

It gets murky where they draw the line when it comes to swapping alliances. I honestly don't know any perfect scenario that would 100% put an end to it.

Aryl

Demonzfyre said:

Aryl said:

Demonzfyre said:

Worknprogress said:

Demonzfyre said:

Haji_Saab said:

Demonzfyre said:

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Except they prevent alliances from having a higher multiplier and hence stopping them from placing higher

@Haji_Saab what am I missing then exactly? If a shell alliance that has 1 player in it that isn't doing any actual wars and not acoring points, how does that stop participating alliance from having a higher multiplier? I don't get how a shell alliance prevents that.

You're thinking season points. He's talking about tiers. Tiers are made up of percentages of all alliances in the game. So even an inactive alliance with a very high war rating would still be counted as part of the percentage making up T1

I get it what you're saying now. Until they make shell alliances against the rules, I dont see much changing with it.

They have the power to do this... actually, they could do it instantly under the rule of not adhering to the spirit of the contest.

Not saying they don't have the power. They just haven't made it against the rules yet.

It gets murky where they draw the line when it comes to swapping alliances. I honestly don't know any perfect scenario that would 100% put an end to it.

Good point. There is no good solution. I just wish people wouldn't go to such lengths.

Worknprogress

Demonzfyre said:

Aryl said:

Demonzfyre said:

Worknprogress said:

Demonzfyre said:

Haji_Saab said:

Demonzfyre said:

They cant be in tier 1 competition if they arent actually doing any wars. They may have a high war rating but they dont take spots up on the leader board. They have to win wars to do that. They dont effect you at all. They can exist simutainusly with you and still not habe any bearing on your AW season.

Except they prevent alliances from having a higher multiplier and hence stopping them from placing higher

@Haji_Saab what am I missing then exactly? If a shell alliance that has 1 player in it that isn't doing any actual wars and not acoring points, how does that stop participating alliance from having a higher multiplier? I don't get how a shell alliance prevents that.

You're thinking season points. He's talking about tiers. Tiers are made up of percentages of all alliances in the game. So even an inactive alliance with a very high war rating would still be counted as part of the percentage making up T1

I get it what you're saying now. Until they make shell alliances against the rules, I dont see much changing with it.

They have the power to do this... actually, they could do it instantly under the rule of not adhering to the spirit of the contest.

Not saying they don't have the power. They just haven't made it against the rules yet.

It gets murky where they draw the line when it comes to swapping alliances. I honestly don't know any perfect scenario that would 100% put an end to it.

Attaching war rating to specific players is about the only thing I think would do it. Otherwise you run into penalizing people for moving legitimately kinda like they did addressing the non issue that was tanking. Now alliances can't push in offseason to start the next season in a higher tier

Worknprogress

But even then, now a top tier player has a much harder time dropping down to take a break or join a retirement alliance after that.

cookiedealer

This is one of those alliance things that Kabam haven't moved to fix.

Just like:

how players can own multiple accounts and alliances (or pay botters), and donate to whichever alliance with their side accounts into the treasury for AQ.

They play around the 1 week donation by having multiple alliances (usually 2), and playing AQ in another alliance during off season, and donate to main alliance with side accounts during off season.

SummonerNR

Moving to another alliance would be OK, but if an entire (last season high ranking) alliance is left with very minimal or severely lower rated players this season then it shouldn’t get to keep it's high War Rating. Some swap their whole team (or most of it) between 2 different ally's in alternating seasons, so during the season it is barren it should have it's high War Rating stripped away so they can’t come back to it in the following season and expect to pick back up in upper tier Multiplier wars.

xNig

Just have war ratings tagged to individuals and shell alliances for AW will stop because it’s pointless.

Donation dump mules though.. different story..

CoatHang3r

There is this, much ado about nothing?

Kabam Miike said:

Hey Guys,



Thank you for bringing this up. I can see why this could be causing you some confusion and frustration, but I have talked to the team about this, and have some information to share with you all.



Inactive Alliances are not counted when determining Alliance War tiers. While they do still display there on the Leaderboards, they will not affect other Alliances and their chances in Alliance Wars seasons.

Worknprogress

xNig said:

Just have war ratings tagged to individuals and shell alliances for AW will stop because it’s pointless.

Donation dump mules though.. different story..

But then like I said, how does someone who's been playing in T1 that wants to take either a short break in lower tiers or a permanent break in lower tiers do so without A: raising the rating of the lower alliance he wants to join or B: getting back into T1 after taking say a month or so off for personal reasons or whatever else

SummonerNR

RE: Kabam Statement...

But they are not necessarily INACTIVE. A Leader (2nd acct of someone) takes the reigns, and they may open it up to anybody to join (and get a bunch of really low level ppl). They may (and probably do ?) do a small amount of wars, if their intention is to lower their WR a little bit, so as to start the next season (restored with their main people) in a slightly lower position (and theoretically little easier matches).

And as one person pointed out, while their Season Points will not be putting them up their in a high overall Season Points Rank position, IT WOULD still take up positions in the in-season Multiplier Tier position (based on WR) and would thus bump some other ally's down to next lower Multiplier Tier, costing those other ally's some points.
** UNLESS Kabam recognizes severely different Ally Summoner Rating/Prestige vs Ally War Rating as falling into that stated “Inactive” category (even if they are doing some wars).

CoatHang3r

Have you examined the leaderboard to see how many alliances use shells to drop their WR? I’m guessing the answer is no.

Unless players back up their arguments with facts and reality Kabam is just going to write you off, legitimately.

Worknprogress

CoatHang3r said:

There is this, much ado about nothing?

Kabam Miike said:

Hey Guys,



Thank you for bringing this up. I can see why this could be causing you some confusion and frustration, but I have talked to the team about this, and have some information to share with you all.



Inactive Alliances are not counted when determining Alliance War tiers. While they do still display there on the Leaderboards, they will not affect other Alliances and their chances in Alliance Wars seasons.

I personally couldn't care less about the whole issue really as I've been done caring about war for a while now. That's just not how it actually works though bc they're not completely inactive. They have to have members in there to start wars and lose them to get the rating back down again while playing in the second alliance. Then swap back again the following season.

CoatHang3r

Worknprogress said:

CoatHang3r said:

There is this, much ado about nothing?

Kabam Miike said:

Hey Guys,



Thank you for bringing this up. I can see why this could be causing you some confusion and frustration, but I have talked to the team about this, and have some information to share with you all.



Inactive Alliances are not counted when determining Alliance War tiers. While they do still display there on the Leaderboards, they will not affect other Alliances and their chances in Alliance Wars seasons.

I personally couldn't care less about the whole issue really as I've been done caring about war for a while now. That's just not how it actually works though bc they're not completely inactive. They have to have members in there to start wars and lose them to get the rating back down again while playing in the second alliance. Then swap back again the following season.

I’m not denying that it happens just the frequency/severity.

Check the leaderboards, most shells in high tiers do no do this, the high war rating allies up there are the result of the implementation of donation cool downs or disbanded alliances and are inactive, allies manipulating their war rating are the minority.

And yes I don’t like manipulation either and consider it unsportsmanlike but exaggerating the impact and use isn’t going to make an argument against it stronger, it weakens it.

SparkAlot

CoatHang3r said:

I’m not denying that it happens just the frequency/severity.

Only Kabam has numbers, and we know it is going on.

If they wanted to, they could stack the deck with alt accounts, tank all their games, get the war rating down, and still get good rewards, and then next season hop back into another shell alliance with the lower war rating and then mop up better rewards since they are competing at a lower level, then repeat this forever. How is this fair to alliances that don't play these games?

It doesn't matter if only a few alliances do this, it cheats the system.

Worknprogress

CoatHang3r said:

Worknprogress said:

CoatHang3r said:

There is this, much ado about nothing?

Kabam Miike said:

Hey Guys,



Thank you for bringing this up. I can see why this could be causing you some confusion and frustration, but I have talked to the team about this, and have some information to share with you all.



Inactive Alliances are not counted when determining Alliance War tiers. While they do still display there on the Leaderboards, they will not affect other Alliances and their chances in Alliance Wars seasons.

I personally couldn't care less about the whole issue really as I've been done caring about war for a while now. That's just not how it actually works though bc they're not completely inactive. They have to have members in there to start wars and lose them to get the rating back down again while playing in the second alliance. Then swap back again the following season.

I’m not denying that it happens just the frequency/severity.

Check the leaderboards, most shells in high tiers do no do this, the high war rating allies up there are the result of the implementation of donation cool downs or disbanded alliances and are inactive, allies manipulating their war rating are the minority.

And yes I don’t like manipulation either and consider it unsportsmanlike but exaggerating the impact and use isn’t going to make an argument against it stronger, it weakens it.

Yeah I agree it's not as large an issue as it gets made to be just like I didn't think tanking was something that needed to be addressed either. It makes people feel better to blame where they are on someone else doing something nefarious though. I was just saying how it works when it is actually done.

Aryl

Aryl said:

As Hamin suggested

Lol oops