**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options

Ban wave

2

Comments

  • Options
    MetalJakeMetalJake Posts: 343 ★★
    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    You’ll never know bc they cheated and screwed your out of that opportunity to compete. They get to keep the trophy but not log in for 7 days. Does that seem fair to the ones of us that play the game properly
  • Options
    Destroyer123Destroyer123 Posts: 368 ★★
    MetalJake said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    You’ll never know bc they cheated and screwed your out of that opportunity to compete. They get to keep the trophy but not log in for 7 days. Does that seem fair to the ones of us that play the game properly
    No but this is kabam they’ve been weak on cheaters since day 1
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Usually these situations aren't just a secret decision to run a Mod and get a few kills. The chances of Alliances not being aware are slim. Rarely would it be some secretive thing. If Joe Smith in my Ally is taking down heavy Nodes without losing Health, Imma know.
  • Options
    Wiredawg1Wiredawg1 Posts: 504 ★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    I completely agree. Any alliance caught cheating the other alliances they faced in season gets auto win and cheating alliance drops to participant bracket
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Had I known you'd be feeding me words I'd have eaten a lighter dinner. As I said earlier, I believe alliances that lost to cheaters should be given the full win bonus and have that times their multiplier at the time of the war added to their season total.

    But we do need to consider ramifications for the alliances they would be jumping, and find a way to protect them as well. Or at least, I see the merit in an argument claiming that we should protect such alliances as well.
    Unless you're going to do the same for all "unearned" wins I don't see the point or need at all.

    My alliance boss rushed the last 2 wars this season bc there was zero possibility of us moving up or down in rankings. Should those 2 opponents have their bonuses removed or should the entire tables be adjusted for every war that happens in? That's pretty ridiculous to me.

    They both affect other alliances in the same way. Yes, in one situation an alliance is breaking ToS and in the other one isn't but I'm not really sure how that matters. In both situations other alliances are being affected by someone being given a free win the only difference is who's giving the win.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
  • Options
    Destroyer123Destroyer123 Posts: 368 ★★
    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    That quoted wrong man I was meaning it to the guy you responded too
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
    There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
  • Options
    Lovejoy72Lovejoy72 Posts: 1,858 ★★★★
    When alliances are docked, are they dropping in the ratings? Does that mean that other alliances are benefiting from the losses of the alliances they beat, AND the punishment of the cheating alliances?
  • Options
    Destroyer123Destroyer123 Posts: 368 ★★
    Lovejoy72 said:

    When alliances are docked, are they dropping in the ratings? Does that mean that other alliances are benefiting from the losses of the alliances they beat, AND the punishment of the cheating alliances?

    Yea they had small drops except 1 allaince who seems to have just been removed from the season.
  • Options
    RichiestylzRichiestylz Posts: 53 ★
    Wonder how many alliances are getting banned. Will teams in gold move up?
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
    There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
    Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
  • Options
    Destroyer123Destroyer123 Posts: 368 ★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
    There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
    Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
    Uhmm everyone always assumes they were cheated now too. You could easily automate these bans and adjustments. Kabam is and always has been weak on tos violations and fair play
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Destroyer123 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
    There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
    Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
    Uhmm everyone always assumes they were cheated now too. You could easily automate these bans and adjustments. Kabam is and always has been weak on tos violations and fair play
    You can't automate them. You have to verify the data. As for being weak, I'd have to say I disagree.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Also, no offense to Kabam, but we all know that issues can and do occur. You really want to trust the banning process to an automated algorithm with no dispute for actions?
  • Options
    Destroyer123Destroyer123 Posts: 368 ★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
    There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
    Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
    Uhmm everyone always assumes they were cheated now too. You could easily automate these bans and adjustments. Kabam is and always has been weak on tos violations and fair play
    You can't automate them. You have to verify the data. As for being weak, I'd have to say I disagree.
    Computers can verify data you don’t need people to look at it at all.

    And yes very very weak on cheaters historically.
  • Options
    Lovejoy72Lovejoy72 Posts: 1,858 ★★★★
    Destroyer123 said:

    Lovejoy72 said:

    When alliances are docked, are they dropping in the ratings? Does that mean that other alliances are benefiting from the losses of the alliances they beat, AND the punishment of the cheating alliances?

    Yea they had small drops except 1 allaince who seems to have just been removed from the season.
    That’s pretty gross. Some alliances get cheated. Other alliances benefit from that alliance getting cheated, both by their loss and then the subsequent drop of the cheating alliances? I’m glad I left war behind.
  • Options
    Destroyer123Destroyer123 Posts: 368 ★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Also, no offense to Kabam, but we all know that issues can and do occur. You really want to trust the banning process to an automated algorithm with no dispute for actions?

    Computers wouldn’t be biased to protect spenders accts I trust a computer far more then I trust the guy getting paid to look the other way yes
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Destroyer123 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Also, no offense to Kabam, but we all know that issues can and do occur. You really want to trust the banning process to an automated algorithm with no dispute for actions?

    Computers wouldn’t be biased to protect spenders accts I trust a computer far more then I trust the guy getting paid to look the other way yes
    You must be new.
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
    There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
    Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
    Alliances get free wins from other alliances tanking, not bothering actually competing, etc... all the time. It's not like every result outside of matching cheaters is fair to surrounding alliances. If those don't matter enough to be addressed, then neither does awarding wins to alliances that lost to docked opponents
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Destroyer123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
    What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
    Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
    There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
    Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
    Alliances get free wins from other alliances tanking, not bothering actually competing, etc... all the time. It's not like every result outside of matching cheaters is fair to surrounding alliances. If those don't matter enough to be addressed, then neither does awarding wins to alliances that lost to docked opponents
    That's not free Wins as a result of the system. That's Alliances manipulating it. While I'm with you on the problem it creates (I've said all along it should be separate from off-season), that's not Kabam giving a free Win.
    Bottom line is there's no reward for not breaking the rules. I get the reward of not going to jail for not robbing a bank.
  • Options
    WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Patchie93 said:

    Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won

    It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
    if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.

    The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.

    I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
    It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.


    But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.

    And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?

    I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
    Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.

    If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
    One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
    So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?

    How on earth does that make sense to you?
    Had I known you'd be feeding me words I'd have eaten a lighter dinner. As I said earlier, I believe alliances that lost to cheaters should be given the full win bonus and have that times their multiplier at the time of the war added to their season total.

    But we do need to consider ramifications for the alliances they would be jumping, and find a way to protect them as well. Or at least, I see the merit in an argument claiming that we should protect such alliances as well.
    Unless you're going to do the same for all "unearned" wins I don't see the point or need at all.

    My alliance boss rushed the last 2 wars this season bc there was zero possibility of us moving up or down in rankings. Should those 2 opponents have their bonuses removed or should the entire tables be adjusted for every war that happens in? That's pretty ridiculous to me.

    They both affect other alliances in the same way. Yes, in one situation an alliance is breaking ToS and in the other one isn't but I'm not really sure how that matters. In both situations other alliances are being affected by someone being given a free win the only difference is who's giving the win.
    I believe that cheating should result in a forfeit of that war. In the other scenario, there is no reason to say that the actual winner of the war should have their win forfeited. That's the difference.
    Why not? They still gained an unfair advantage. They're either both worth addressing or neither is. Expecting whole ranking groups to be expanded bc of adjusting scores for alliances that lost to cheaters is just a bridge too far. That's far more work than they're ever going to actually do. It's far easier and no more impactful than anything already going on to just give the win bonus to the opponents of docked alliances
This discussion has been closed.