Why would you take losses in GC where points really matter?
Because in GC I reach a point where I can't win anymore. It's not that I take losses it's just that there is a 99% chance of losing when my opponent has the best 7 stars r2 end rest r5 while I have 4 r5s and rest r4. And that's totally fine, I just found my roster limit and if I want to go further then I need to advance my roster.
The problem is I am at that point without completing all solo milestones. I have to play more if I want the top rewards (5k titan shards) but I have to waste elder marks because otherwise I'm at the risk of getting banned. That's just illigical to me, and the opposite of strategic play.
As long as you aren't deliberately losing you can use energy. If you get to that point, start using energy and lose because they're better than you, you're not going to get banned.
That's how it should work, I have a feeling a lot of ppl are going to get wrongly banned.
I doubt it, I've been doing this myself cause I lose 90% of my matches in Arcane due to my roster so no point in using elder marks there, I only use marks in Gamma and below. I'll let you know if I get banned since you seem genuinely concerned though.
Allright this puts my mind at ease. Thanks for the feedback!
It's unsurprising that Kabam hasn't addressed this kind of point. They haven't given any details on what is or is not "farming" except to say that "deliberately losing" runs contrary to the spirit of the game mode. Setting aside that inconsistency with literally every other game mode (outside of maybe AW, but they don't punish deliberate losses there, only shelling), Kabam has given us zero information on what it means to deliberately lose a match. And because their entire position on the matter is so vague and undefined, legitimate players will certainly be called cheaters through no fault of their own.
In Vegas, there is no explicit definition of "counting cards." You could argue that's just smart play. But you will still get kicked out for doing it, and you can appeal all you want for a handbook of what is legal and not legal when it comes to tracking cards, and nobody will answer you.
Of course, no one can actually *tell* when you're counting cards. That would take telepathy. What they can observe is whether your betting strategy is consistent with trying to leverage counting cards. They can then infer you're counting cards and act accordingly, without "proof." I'm assuming Kabam is doing something similar. There's no way to tell if someone is deliberately losing or not. But you can tell if the player is spending energy and marks in a way consistent with deliberately losing to farm points. A player that is "playing smartly" as some describe, will still sometimes win with energy and lose with marks, because they are only trying to guess at the outcome. But a player who is deliberately point farming will almost always lose with energy and almost always win with marks, because they have their thumbs on the scale. They aren't guessing whether they will lose or not, they *know*.
In effect, point farming is not just about deliberately losing. It is about taking advantage of the fact you know with perfect accuracy when you're going to lose. Which currency you spend is a kind of prediction. If you're always right, Kabam can presume you aren't able to see the future, you are always right about when you will lose because you are deliberately losing. Whether Kabam is as good as this as the average Vegas pit boss, I cannot say. But that's the only logical way this can be done.
That is a good example, and it presents an alternative explanation to my legal one. The key difference, however, is that in Vegas, the house plays the game. Any hand the blackjack player wins necessarily takes money away from the casino. The house is therefore incentivized to make its zero-sum game unfair in its favor. Because it runs the show, it does exactly that. In Vegas, from the very beginning, any gambler heading into a casino knows (or should know) that they're playing a game in which (1) the odds are stacked against them and (2) their opponent makes the rules. They can't cry foul because there's transparency in that system. They're supposed to lose because "the house always wins."
By contrast, Kabam does not play in Battlegrounds matches. It's not a zero sum game to Kabam, any outcome to them (one player wins, one player loses) is the same regardless of the actual outcome to the players themselves. Instead they're a moderator/overseer/police, making sure it's fair for the players and free of people who ruin the experience *for other players* by cheating them out of wins.
Because of Vegas' position as the opponent in card games, it's not analogous to Kabam role in the Battlegrounds. Kabam's is not trying to money at the player's expense. Its goal is to ensure Battlegrounds are **fair** for everyone who plays. Players stepping into MCOC don't walk in expecting an unfair game they will always lose. The basis for the rule (direct losses in a zero sum game) just isn't present in Battlegrounds.
The point that Vegas doesn't define card counting applies to some degree here, but it breaks down once you look at the role of the casino compared to the role of Kabam. They're just not analogous.
The role Kabam plays as arbiter is irrelevant here. The question is how farming is detected, not what the interests Kabam has in actually detecting it are. Why would Kabam's goal of being a fair arbiter in BG cause them to be unable to exercise the same procedures and methodology as card counting detection in Vegas. Is there something about being an arbiter that would make them incapable of doing it?
To put it another way, suppose I was trained to detect card counting. I go to Vegas and start watching the tables. I am a completely independent observer. I have no self-interest in what happens on those tables. I simply have the same training as the Vegas pit bosses. Are you saying that because I don't have the same interests as the pit bosses, I will be less capable of detecting card counters as the pit bosses are? I literally have the same training and the same observation skills, and I literally have the same view of the game (pit bosses are not able to see anything that the players of black jack cannot see by rule: it would potentially open the door to *them* being co-opted into cheating). So what would make me less capable in this situation?
I'm not suggesting Kabam can't detect actions. Of course they can, they have all the data they need. The question is once they have the data, what do they do about it? A casino has one motivation with card counters: kick them out. They don't care if the players are acting deliberately or not, the casino is losing money and it wants it's unfair game balance restored. Kabam doesn't have the same motivation. It hasn't stated that they will punish a specific action in Battlegrounds, but only players who have the specific motivation of "deliberately losing." So my original issue remains: how will Kabam decide who fits this mold, and who doesn't? Even if they can read actions, they can't tell who's doing what. You'll of course say that the actions themselves show intent. That's fine, we can disagree, because I don't see it as being that simple to read players' minds and motivations.
Now I recognize there's nothing stopping Kabam from enforcing this new policy like casinos do with card counting. But if that's how they decide to act, fine, give us the underlying actions that they decide set off their flags so everyone has a chance to avoid them. Otherwise we're just playing a guessing game with a seemingly arbitrary and capricious enforcer who's just trying to keep their finger on the scale despite not having a horse in the race. I don't see Kabam being quite so malicious.
Because their own announcement is quite unspecific about what exactly can be considered as a ban behaviour, I think it was more of a threat to regulate somewhat the problem. More likely they will issue bans to extreme and very obvious farming cases, like consistently forfeiting with energy and staying at a low VT tier throughout season, but end up high in GC in last couple of days. They know they can’t ban a huge amount of players, because obviously it will backlash to them, so the criteria for a ban will have to adapt to this fact. This leaves for ban only those who abuse hard the farm tactic, to signal the community to avoid this behaviour.
IMO it would be near impossible to determine farming by win/loss percentage by energy/marks without manually looking at it. I'm sure they'll look at forfeits to see who's farming, not those who afk with energy.
Comments
More likely they will issue bans to extreme and very obvious farming cases, like consistently forfeiting with energy and staying at a low VT tier throughout season, but end up high in GC in last couple of days.
They know they can’t ban a huge amount of players, because obviously it will backlash to them, so the criteria for a ban will have to adapt to this fact.
This leaves for ban only those who abuse hard the farm tactic, to signal the community to avoid this behaviour.