Summoners, there was an issue with Alliance War matchmaking today preventing Alliances from being able to match with others. As a result, this upcoming war will be cancelled. There should be no detrimental effect to any Alliance's Season performance, and we will be reducing the Alliance War Season Rewards Participation minimum to 4 Wars. We apologize for this inconvenience.

AW Manipulation

1246789

Comments

  • CapWW2 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    CapWW2 wrote: »
    Nothing to see here. If they are good enough to stay at the top they deserve to be there. Not every alliance needs to start from the bottom up.

    Every alliance should start from 0 war rating. Kabam should make the penalty for switching alliance 7 days with no alliance rewards just like AQ with regard to AW.

    You do understand that every alliance already starts with zero war rating, and even if Kabam made the penalty for switching alliances a week of no rewards just like AQ that would have essentially zero impact on the people being discussed in this thread, right?

    I think it will stop the exploit somehow. 7 days with O rewards is very counterproductive.

    Tell me how kabam will avoid the massive exploit exodus happening 3 weeks before AW season Rewards are collected?

    I don't believe you really have a firm grasp on the thing you're claiming as an exploit. The Omni players aren't jumping alliances to get better rewards in the next war or the next seven wars. They are doing it to start in a higher tier multiplier to reach for the best end of season rewards. Nullifying their rewards for seven days would have zero impact on their decision. Keep in mind these are players that were perfectly willing to start in a new alliance that had extremely low rewards compared to jumping to an empty shell alliance which they could have done from the start.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "massive exploit exodus" because I'm unaware of any way to exploit the system by jumping alliances during the season. The rewards you get at the end of the season are not based on your tier, but based on your alliance's total points scored over the season. Any alliance that isn't actually fighting wars is keeping their tier, but not scoring points. If you jump out of your alliance three weeks before the end of the season into another alliance, that is only a good move if that alliance itself has been fighting wars all season long and scored a lot of points. There's no specific advantage I can see to do anything other than fight as many wars as possible and score as much points as possible. Any alliance parked idle is essentially losing ground every day. Having people jump into it at the last minute doesn't score points.
  • phillgreen wrote: »
    Thanks for the explanation @DNA3000 though if that is your simplified version I'd hate to see the long form, I appreciate the detail nonetheless. :D

    So, from a high rated they went to a lower rated alliance that is higher than a brand new alliance.

    I don't have a problem with that but it will not be nice for opposing alliances trying to work upwards, I think people are confusing what is right with what is fair.

    How does the system account for vastly outmatched ratings when matching in lower tiers?

    I'm not sure what you mean by "vastly outmatched ratings." The system matches using war rating, so alliances should normally be matched against alliances with similar ratings. Of course, sometimes the system seems to do odd things, but without knowing the precise implementation I can't comment on glitches.

    Outside of glitches, the system seems to use a method that at least roughly matches how many seasonal or dynamic ratings systems work. Basically, every competitor has a theoretical rating that describes how powerful they are. In theory, competition should match everyone against competitors with similar rating. However, we don't know, and cannot know, what this hypothetical rating actually is. So we use the competition itself to refine our guess as to what that rating is. So an alliance starts with rating zero. It is matched against another alliance of similarly low rating. If it wins, we assume its "true" rating was obviously higher than zero. We use some formula (different for every rating system) to adjust our new "guess" at their "true" rating. So we guess their true rating is 100, for example. Now we match against alliances near that rating. With each win and loss, we adjust our "guesstimate" rating, which we assume slowly converges on the "true" rating of the alliance. Given that the strength of an alliance changes over time, competition changes over time, and there is some random luck in wins and losses, your system alliance rating will over time slowly bounce around your "true" rating, which remember is some theoretical number we can never actually know with certainty.

    That's how the system basically deals with "unfair" match ups. It tries over time to evolve closer match ups using your win/loss record as the best possible "measurement" of what your strength actually is.
  • AxeCopFireAxeCopFire Posts: 1,115 ★★★
    edited February 2018
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    CapWW2 wrote: »
    phillgreen wrote: »
    What if individuals carried their own war rating based on previous performances?

    The alliance rating is a factor of the combined members.

    Amazing idea.

    Are you high? You're arguing that Omni is somehow exploiting the game by jumping to an idle alliance with a higher than zero rating, and your solution to that is to allow them to keep the alliance rating they had when they left their previous alliances which is almost certainly far higher than that?

    He's not high, he's just a free spirit that doesn't let logic, facts or rational thought get in the way of knee-jerk hysteria.
  • RektorRektor Posts: 677 ★★★
    You cant use logic to satisfy complaints that are caused by jealousy. Bunch of people were excited to see OMNI miss out on AW rewards. Now they’re mad.

    Hurry up and get to tier 1 where you belong.
  • MattScottMattScott Posts: 587 ★★
    I’m here for the comments. This is great. It is in no way an exploit. They had an opportunity and took it. All of these people sitting high and mighty. Like if one their leaders found a shell ally with a higher war, they wouldn’t all jump. And 1900 isn’t even very high TBH. so what’s the fuss?
  • MattScottMattScott Posts: 587 ★★
    Someone said 10 of their members switched and that’s okay, but 30. No way. Why? Because that suits your situation? LOL. That’s great. Best of luck to OMNI in seasons. Placing high here will be A LOT more difficult than AQ.

    However this system is FLAWED. to not start fresh? You really think the top 4 teams have any chance at all of not being the top 4 allies in the game currently?
    The system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5.
  • MattScottMattScott Posts: 587 ★★
    edited February 2018
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    Well imo it's definitely scummy but not illegal if it was an alliance member. Shows that they're shady and would do everything to get on top of others but that isn't much of a surprise lol. I think they'll lead themselves into a dead-end, Too arrogant, too cocky... their group of 'friends' will shatter eventually, and the whole alliance will go down with it. They just all strike me as incredibly full of themselves, it's just a feeling. One guy left his alliance and did a 25 minutes video explaining everything that went down only to really expose his mistakes tells volumes about how high he thinks of himself (imo)

    And here is the “true” underlying reason that people seemingly have an issue with this. It is because they dislike him/them on a personal level.
  • MattScott wrote: »
    Someone said 10 of their members switched and that’s okay, but 30. No way. Why? Because that suits your situation? LOL. That’s great. Best of luck to OMNI in seasons. Placing high here will be A LOT more difficult than AQ.

    However this system is FLAWED. to not start fresh? You really think the top 4 teams have any chance at all of not being the top 4 allies in the game currently?
    The system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5.

    I'm not sure why you believe that, because the mathematics of the scoring system doesn't support this statement. Tier 1 has a multiplier of 8.0 and therefore the maximum amount of points you can get and still lose is about 1.2 million (about 150k x 8.0). In actuality, a tier 1 loss is almost certainly going to generate less points than that - because they had to score less then the maximum amount of points or they wouldn't have lost. A tier 2 winner with multiplier 7.0 has a theoretical maximum possible points of 1.4 million, so they can overtake a tier 1 loser. Even a tier 3 winner with multiplier 6.0 can still overtake a tier 1 loser in theory: they have a maximum possible points for a victory of about 1.2 million, which is more than what a tier 1 loser is likely to earn.

    Tier 1 contains the top 0.10% of all alliances, while tier 2 contains the top 0.5% of all alliances and tier 3 contains the top 1% of all alliances (exclusively, of course). Assuming there are at least 30,000 alliances (a reasonable assumption given the season reward table) this means those top three tiers represent (at least) the top 30, the top 150, and the top 300 alliances respectively. All of them are mathematically in the hunt for the top spots, although if they could in fact consistently beat the alliances in the top spots it does beg the question of why they haven't yet. But if those alliances could, but simply chose not to expend the effort, then they could attempt to do so now. The point is, if they could and do consistently win, they will eventually overtake the other alliances. They would also eventually be in tier 1 with all those victories.

    (Incidentally, @Kabam Miike this is displayed HORRIBLY in the in-game display. It shows tier 1 as being 0.10%, and tier 2 as being "0.2% - 0.5%" which technically means the alliances between 0.1% and 0.2% I guess have no tier. The other tiers have similar range errors.)

    The alliances currently in tier 1 do have their fate in their own hands. If they could win every single time, then of course no alliance in a lower tier can overtake them. But that's not generally possible to do against other tier 1 competition.
  • CapWW2CapWW2 Posts: 2,901 ★★★★
    MattScott wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    Well imo it's definitely scummy but not illegal if it was an alliance member. Shows that they're shady and would do everything to get on top of others but that isn't much of a surprise lol. I think they'll lead themselves into a dead-end, Too arrogant, too cocky... their group of 'friends' will shatter eventually, and the whole alliance will go down with it. They just all strike me as incredibly full of themselves, it's just a feeling. One guy left his alliance and did a 25 minutes video explaining everything that went down only to really expose his mistakes tells volumes about how high he thinks of himself (imo)

    And here is the “true” underlying reason that people seemingly have an issue with this. It is because they dislike him/them on a personal level.

    Because of his arrongance???
  • MattScottMattScott Posts: 587 ★★
    zero7 wrote: »
    MattScott wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    Well imo it's definitely scummy but not illegal if it was an alliance member. Shows that they're shady and would do everything to get on top of others but that isn't much of a surprise lol. I think they'll lead themselves into a dead-end, Too arrogant, too cocky... their group of 'friends' will shatter eventually, and the whole alliance will go down with it. They just all strike me as incredibly full of themselves, it's just a feeling. One guy left his alliance and did a 25 minutes video explaining everything that went down only to really expose his mistakes tells volumes about how high he thinks of himself (imo)

    And here is the “true” underlying reason that people seemingly have an issue with this. It is because they dislike him/them on a personal level.

    most likely only a public level.
    CapWW2 wrote: »
    MattScott wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    Well imo it's definitely scummy but not illegal if it was an alliance member. Shows that they're shady and would do everything to get on top of others but that isn't much of a surprise lol. I think they'll lead themselves into a dead-end, Too arrogant, too cocky... their group of 'friends' will shatter eventually, and the whole alliance will go down with it. They just all strike me as incredibly full of themselves, it's just a feeling. One guy left his alliance and did a 25 minutes video explaining everything that went down only to really expose his mistakes tells volumes about how high he thinks of himself (imo)

    And here is the “true” underlying reason that people seemingly have an issue with this. It is because they dislike him/them on a personal level.

    Because of his arrongance???

    Just pointing out what i see.
  • MattScottMattScott Posts: 587 ★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    MattScott wrote: »
    Someone said 10 of their members switched and that’s okay, but 30. No way. Why? Because that suits your situation? LOL. That’s great. Best of luck to OMNI in seasons. Placing high here will be A LOT more difficult than AQ.

    However this system is FLAWED. to not start fresh? You really think the top 4 teams have any chance at all of not being the top 4 allies in the game currently?
    The system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5.

    I'm not sure why you believe that, because the mathematics of the scoring system doesn't support this statement. Tier 1 has a multiplier of 8.0 and therefore the maximum amount of points you can get and still lose is about 1.2 million (about 150k x 8.0). In actuality, a tier 1 loss is almost certainly going to generate less points than that - because they had to score less then the maximum amount of points or they wouldn't have lost. A tier 2 winner with multiplier 7.0 has a theoretical maximum possible points of 1.4 million, so they can overtake a tier 1 loser. Even a tier 3 winner with multiplier 6.0 can still overtake a tier 1 loser in theory: they have a maximum possible points for a victory of about 1.2 million, which is more than what a tier 1 loser is likely to earn.

    Tier 1 contains the top 0.10% of all alliances, while tier 2 contains the top 0.5% of all alliances and tier 3 contains the top 1% of all alliances (exclusively, of course). Assuming there are at least 30,000 alliances (a reasonable assumption given the season reward table) this means those top three tiers represent (at least) the top 30, the top 150, and the top 300 alliances respectively. All of them are mathematically in the hunt for the top spots, although if they could in fact consistently beat the alliances in the top spots it does beg the question of why they haven't yet. But if those alliances could, but simply chose not to expend the effort, then they could attempt to do so now. The point is, if they could and do consistently win, they will eventually overtake the other alliances. They would also eventually be in tier 1 with all those victories.

    (Incidentally, @Kabam Miike this is displayed HORRIBLY in the in-game display. It shows tier 1 as being 0.10%, and tier 2 as being "0.2% - 0.5%" which technically means the alliances between 0.1% and 0.2% I guess have no tier. The other tiers have similar range errors.)

    The alliances currently in tier 1 do have their fate in their own hands. If they could win every single time, then of course no alliance in a lower tier can overtake them. But that's not generally possible to do against other tier 1 competition.

    Care to make a wager that it ends up
    1) 2014
    2,3,4) a core legion of iso8 anons
    ?
  • MattScott wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    MattScott wrote: »
    Someone said 10 of their members switched and that’s okay, but 30. No way. Why? Because that suits your situation? LOL. That’s great. Best of luck to OMNI in seasons. Placing high here will be A LOT more difficult than AQ.

    However this system is FLAWED. to not start fresh? You really think the top 4 teams have any chance at all of not being the top 4 allies in the game currently?
    The system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5.

    I'm not sure why you believe that, because the mathematics of the scoring system doesn't support this statement. Tier 1 has a multiplier of 8.0 and therefore the maximum amount of points you can get and still lose is about 1.2 million (about 150k x 8.0). In actuality, a tier 1 loss is almost certainly going to generate less points than that - because they had to score less then the maximum amount of points or they wouldn't have lost. A tier 2 winner with multiplier 7.0 has a theoretical maximum possible points of 1.4 million, so they can overtake a tier 1 loser. Even a tier 3 winner with multiplier 6.0 can still overtake a tier 1 loser in theory: they have a maximum possible points for a victory of about 1.2 million, which is more than what a tier 1 loser is likely to earn.

    Tier 1 contains the top 0.10% of all alliances, while tier 2 contains the top 0.5% of all alliances and tier 3 contains the top 1% of all alliances (exclusively, of course). Assuming there are at least 30,000 alliances (a reasonable assumption given the season reward table) this means those top three tiers represent (at least) the top 30, the top 150, and the top 300 alliances respectively. All of them are mathematically in the hunt for the top spots, although if they could in fact consistently beat the alliances in the top spots it does beg the question of why they haven't yet. But if those alliances could, but simply chose not to expend the effort, then they could attempt to do so now. The point is, if they could and do consistently win, they will eventually overtake the other alliances. They would also eventually be in tier 1 with all those victories.

    (Incidentally, @Kabam Miike this is displayed HORRIBLY in the in-game display. It shows tier 1 as being 0.10%, and tier 2 as being "0.2% - 0.5%" which technically means the alliances between 0.1% and 0.2% I guess have no tier. The other tiers have similar range errors.)

    The alliances currently in tier 1 do have their fate in their own hands. If they could win every single time, then of course no alliance in a lower tier can overtake them. But that's not generally possible to do against other tier 1 competition.

    Care to make a wager that it ends up
    1) 2014
    2,3,4) a core legion of iso8 anons
    ?

    Nope. I have no idea what those odds would be personally, and that seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement. I'm only addressing your statement that it is impossible to overtake given the current system.

    Care to place a bet that your previous statement "the system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5" is provably false by example? In other words, would you care to bet that upon examining the leaderboard at the end of the season we can find an alliance not at the top of the leaderboards that had they won every single war would have obviously beaten every alliance at the top of the leaderboards?

  • ViperKingVViperKingV Posts: 111
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    CapWW2 wrote: »
    phillgreen wrote: »
    What if individuals carried their own war rating based on previous performances?

    The alliance rating is a factor of the combined members.

    Amazing idea.

    Are you high? You're arguing that Omni is somehow exploiting the game by jumping to an idle alliance with a higher than zero rating, and your solution to that is to allow them to keep the alliance rating they had when they left their previous alliances which is almost certainly far higher than that?

    I don’t believe I named an alliance or a player because this is not just about one alliance exploiting the ability of 30 players to move from one alliance to another. However the alliance you mentioned did Post a video on youtube to explain why they moved from a tier 17 alliance to a tier 4 alliance with a 1900 war Rating. The reason given “The Rewards!” They want the top rewards, but those rewards are so good that the top alliances will gain a insurmountable Prestige advantage. Luckily one of them remembered that they had an alt account in an inactive alliance that had a
    1900 War Rating. They explained that by jumping to the new alliance, they would go from tier 17 to Tier 4 in the new system. And they are excited because the jump might move them close enough to have some chance at getting to the top. I don’t think Kabam will stop them so I hope they succeed. My alliance is in tier 4, I hope we get a chance to defend our position rather than just getting pushed back a spot.
    My question is , what stops 20 other alliances from doing the same thing? If You aren’t lucky enough to find an inactive alliance with a high war ranking, you could probably find an active alliance that would sell to you. The rewards for 30 players 3 Wars a week would easily be worth a few thousand dollars or more. Kabam has no way of knowing if players paid money for an alliance with a high war rating. Im not sure how Kabam could 100% Prevent this but if they dont lAbel this an exploit, then I believe alliances will start losing tier position as more players decide to do the same thing. AW is zero sum. for an alliance to move up another alliance moves down. If my alliance drops a tier, I want it to be because we lost. I don’t want to find out that it was because a higher prestige alliance found a way to raise their war rating simply by jumping to an inactive alliance
  • MattScottMattScott Posts: 587 ★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    MattScott wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    MattScott wrote: »
    Someone said 10 of their members switched and that’s okay, but 30. No way. Why? Because that suits your situation? LOL. That’s great. Best of luck to OMNI in seasons. Placing high here will be A LOT more difficult than AQ.

    However this system is FLAWED. to not start fresh? You really think the top 4 teams have any chance at all of not being the top 4 allies in the game currently?
    The system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5.

    I'm not sure why you believe that, because the mathematics of the scoring system doesn't support this statement. Tier 1 has a multiplier of 8.0 and therefore the maximum amount of points you can get and still lose is about 1.2 million (about 150k x 8.0). In actuality, a tier 1 loss is almost certainly going to generate less points than that - because they had to score less then the maximum amount of points or they wouldn't have lost. A tier 2 winner with multiplier 7.0 has a theoretical maximum possible points of 1.4 million, so they can overtake a tier 1 loser. Even a tier 3 winner with multiplier 6.0 can still overtake a tier 1 loser in theory: they have a maximum possible points for a victory of about 1.2 million, which is more than what a tier 1 loser is likely to earn.

    Tier 1 contains the top 0.10% of all alliances, while tier 2 contains the top 0.5% of all alliances and tier 3 contains the top 1% of all alliances (exclusively, of course). Assuming there are at least 30,000 alliances (a reasonable assumption given the season reward table) this means those top three tiers represent (at least) the top 30, the top 150, and the top 300 alliances respectively. All of them are mathematically in the hunt for the top spots, although if they could in fact consistently beat the alliances in the top spots it does beg the question of why they haven't yet. But if those alliances could, but simply chose not to expend the effort, then they could attempt to do so now. The point is, if they could and do consistently win, they will eventually overtake the other alliances. They would also eventually be in tier 1 with all those victories.

    (Incidentally, @Kabam Miike this is displayed HORRIBLY in the in-game display. It shows tier 1 as being 0.10%, and tier 2 as being "0.2% - 0.5%" which technically means the alliances between 0.1% and 0.2% I guess have no tier. The other tiers have similar range errors.)

    The alliances currently in tier 1 do have their fate in their own hands. If they could win every single time, then of course no alliance in a lower tier can overtake them. But that's not generally possible to do against other tier 1 competition.

    Care to make a wager that it ends up
    1) 2014
    2,3,4) a core legion of iso8 anons
    ?

    Nope. I have no idea what those odds would be personally, and that seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement. I'm only addressing your statement that it is impossible to overtake given the current system.

    Care to place a bet that your previous statement "the system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5" is provably false by example? In other words, would you care to bet that upon examining the leaderboard at the end of the season we can find an alliance not at the top of the leaderboards that had they won every single war would have obviously beaten every alliance at the top of the leaderboards?

    If any ally is in the bottom tier and getting 1/8th the multiplier of top 20 ally, you think it’s possible for them to crack the top 5? Really?
  • dkatryldkatryl Posts: 672 ★★★
    edited February 2018
    Players should have a personal AW Rating that adjusts up and down, similar to how the Alliance one currently does, independently from everyone else in the Alliance.

    The Alliance's AW Rating should be an average of their members.
  • ThawnimThawnim Posts: 1,461 ★★★★
    dkatryl wrote: »
    Players should have a personal AW Rating that adjusts up and down, similar to how the Alliance one currently does, independently from everyone else in the Alliance.

    The Alliance's AW Rating should be an average of their members.

    The flaw with that is that you would see players regrouping to align to have the highest AW rating then. Also the individual components of war (the MVP) is a broken measurement in my opinion. It rewards the players that complete the longest lines and have the most kills. I think everyone can agree that the middle lanes are tougher and that placement of champs can aid in the defender kills metric. So, a system built off of individual player ratings would actually be far more flawed than the current system.
  • colbyscipio987colbyscipio987 Posts: 1,027 ★★
    It would take too long to get in the high tier's, if you start at the bottom. Do you know how many alliances their are in MCOC?(over a mil)
  • ThawnimThawnim Posts: 1,461 ★★★★
    It would take too long to get in the high tier's, if you start at the bottom. Do you know how many alliances their are in MCOC?(over a mil)

    Based purely off of this I would speculate there are more than 30,000 alliances. Are there a million? It may be possible, but a lot of those would be inactive would be my guess.
    k5r3nvybxwyi.png
  • colbyscipio987colbyscipio987 Posts: 1,027 ★★
    Thawnim wrote: »
    It would take too long to get in the high tier's, if you start at the bottom. Do you know how many alliances their are in MCOC?(over a mil)

    Based purely off of this I would speculate there are more than 30,000 alliances. Are there a million? It may be possible, but a lot of those would be inactive would be my guess.
    k5r3nvybxwyi.png

    Have a point
  • Zeke_the_XbotZeke_the_Xbot Posts: 202
    A highly stacked alliance merged with a dead alliance bettering their war position nothing wrong with that. Check alliance section lots of alliances ask for mergers this just happened to be nearly an entire alliance merging with another. Honestly it feels like you want Kabam to give everyone a one time decision to pick an alliance and if 50% quits the game the entire alliance might as well quit to since everyone could only enter one alliance per account ever.
  • dkatryldkatryl Posts: 672 ★★★
    Thawnim wrote: »
    The flaw with that is that you would see players regrouping to align to have the highest AW rating then.

    This already happens with the quasi-exploitative Alliance hopping and such, so what would be different?
    Also the individual components of war (the MVP) is a broken measurement in my opinion. It rewards the players that complete the longest lines and have the most kills. I think everyone can agree that the middle lanes are tougher and that placement of champs can aid in the defender kills metric. So, a system built off of individual player ratings would actually be far more flawed than the current system.

    No, I simply mean at the end of the war, you go up or down the same as everyone else in your alliance with each win/loss, but your individual score is a reflection of the player's total win/loss history.

    Player 1 has a personal rating of 1000
    Player 2 has a personal rating of 950
    Player 3 has a personal rating of 950
    Player 4 has a personal rating of 1100
    Player 5 has a personal rating of 1200
    Player 6 has a personal rating of 1300
    Player 7 has a personal rating of 800
    Player 8 has a personal rating of 900
    Player 9 has a personal rating of 950
    Player 10 has a personal rating of 1050

    10200 / 10 = Alliance rating of 1020.

    That Alliance wins a war, everyone goes up by +50

    Player 1 has a personal rating of 1050
    Player 2 has a personal rating of 1000
    Player 3 has a personal rating of 1000
    Player 4 has a personal rating of 1150
    Player 5 has a personal rating of 1250
    Player 6 has a personal rating of 1350
    Player 7 has a personal rating of 850
    Player 8 has a personal rating of 950
    Player 9 has a personal rating of 1000
    Player 10 has a personal rating of 1100

    10700 / 10 = Alliance rating of 1070.

    Then at some point, Player 6 thinks he's hot ****, and those scrubs are keeping him down, so he could look for an Alliance that is closer to his personal rating of 1350, or maybe a little higher, and move. That would lower the overall rating of the Alliance he left to 1038.9, and he would either raise or lower his new Alliance based on his personal rating to their current average when he joined.
  • ThawnimThawnim Posts: 1,461 ★★★★
    @dkatryl Your idea is interesting but far more ripe for manipulation and abuse than the current system. Sorry, I just cannot buy into it. Plus they have never even built in prestige into player rankings. Asking them to build in individual war rankings is far less likely in my opinion.
  • IOSJasoNIOSJasoN Posts: 551 ★★
    Check alliance section lots of alliances ask for mergers this just happened to be nearly an entire alliance merging with another.

    This was not a merger.. This was an entire alliance moving into a shell alliance.. Watch the video and listen to what he says..

    Again this is a tricky situation personally I see it as an exploit..
    Having others complete ingame content so you can receive rewards you have not earned yourself (and therefore not entitled too) is a banable offence..

    The reason they made the move to this inactive shell alliance is for the war rating that none of them earned.. The reason they want the war rating is too exploit the rewards of AW seasons.. Rewards they would not have earned (This season) had they continued with their alliance..
  • dkatryldkatryl Posts: 672 ★★★
    edited February 2018
    Thawnim wrote: »
    @dkatryl Your idea is interesting but far more ripe for manipulation and abuse than the current system. Sorry, I just cannot buy into it. Plus they have never even built in prestige into player rankings. Asking them to build in individual war rankings is far less likely in my opinion.

    I'm not sure how. In the context of players hopping around to try and get into tiers that they haven't earned, or intentionally trying to drop down to have easy wins for a while, or whatever kind of shenanigans that gets pulled, using personal ratings that follow the player where ever they go would completely remove the ability to have an Alliance rating that is not an accurate reflection of the players in the Alliance.

    Oh, one further refinement, only players that actively participated in the previous war would count towards the Alliance average. Those that did not participate do not have their personal ratings adjusted based on the win/loss outcome. They simply don't factor into it at all, as they did not participate.
  • MattScott wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    MattScott wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    MattScott wrote: »
    Someone said 10 of their members switched and that’s okay, but 30. No way. Why? Because that suits your situation? LOL. That’s great. Best of luck to OMNI in seasons. Placing high here will be A LOT more difficult than AQ.

    However this system is FLAWED. to not start fresh? You really think the top 4 teams have any chance at all of not being the top 4 allies in the game currently?
    The system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5.

    I'm not sure why you believe that, because the mathematics of the scoring system doesn't support this statement. Tier 1 has a multiplier of 8.0 and therefore the maximum amount of points you can get and still lose is about 1.2 million (about 150k x 8.0). In actuality, a tier 1 loss is almost certainly going to generate less points than that - because they had to score less then the maximum amount of points or they wouldn't have lost. A tier 2 winner with multiplier 7.0 has a theoretical maximum possible points of 1.4 million, so they can overtake a tier 1 loser. Even a tier 3 winner with multiplier 6.0 can still overtake a tier 1 loser in theory: they have a maximum possible points for a victory of about 1.2 million, which is more than what a tier 1 loser is likely to earn.

    Tier 1 contains the top 0.10% of all alliances, while tier 2 contains the top 0.5% of all alliances and tier 3 contains the top 1% of all alliances (exclusively, of course). Assuming there are at least 30,000 alliances (a reasonable assumption given the season reward table) this means those top three tiers represent (at least) the top 30, the top 150, and the top 300 alliances respectively. All of them are mathematically in the hunt for the top spots, although if they could in fact consistently beat the alliances in the top spots it does beg the question of why they haven't yet. But if those alliances could, but simply chose not to expend the effort, then they could attempt to do so now. The point is, if they could and do consistently win, they will eventually overtake the other alliances. They would also eventually be in tier 1 with all those victories.

    (Incidentally, @Kabam Miike this is displayed HORRIBLY in the in-game display. It shows tier 1 as being 0.10%, and tier 2 as being "0.2% - 0.5%" which technically means the alliances between 0.1% and 0.2% I guess have no tier. The other tiers have similar range errors.)

    The alliances currently in tier 1 do have their fate in their own hands. If they could win every single time, then of course no alliance in a lower tier can overtake them. But that's not generally possible to do against other tier 1 competition.

    Care to make a wager that it ends up
    1) 2014
    2,3,4) a core legion of iso8 anons
    ?

    Nope. I have no idea what those odds would be personally, and that seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement. I'm only addressing your statement that it is impossible to overtake given the current system.

    Care to place a bet that your previous statement "the system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5" is provably false by example? In other words, would you care to bet that upon examining the leaderboard at the end of the season we can find an alliance not at the top of the leaderboards that had they won every single war would have obviously beaten every alliance at the top of the leaderboards?

    If any ally is in the bottom tier and getting 1/8th the multiplier of top 20 ally, you think it’s possible for them to crack the top 5? Really?

    Nope. Nor did I say that, nor did you assert that, nor do I even really want that to be possible.
This discussion has been closed.