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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
?
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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..
@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.
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.
Exploit = changing alliances to seek easier wars to win against overmatched opponents
Not an exploit = changing alliances to seek harder wars to win against evenly matched opponents
This is simple. A lot of you were annoyed they could just snap their fingers and create a top 10 AQ alliance.
But after AW seasons were announced, you found joy in the fact that they wouldn’t have the war rating to earn season rewards for a top 10 alliance. And now you’re all just mad that they will.
Worry about yourselves. If they don’t belong in tier 1 then they won’t finish there.
Did it really delete my comment? Lame. It was long and thought out.
Readers digest version
They shouldn’t just piggyback the rarest rewards in game to an existing system. There should have been some sort of a reset, and some sort of a placement round.
It won't let you edit after fifteen minutes, and I've also noticed if you try to edit and change only a tiny thing it goes to moderator approval land. I think the forum software has a brain-dead bug where if you try to edit a single word, it triggers the repost filter and thinks you are trying to post something almost identical to a previous post, which is technically true but also dumb.
It won't let you edit after fifteen minutes, and I've also noticed if you try to edit and change only a tiny thing it goes to moderator approval land. I think the forum software has a brain-dead bug where if you try to edit a single word, it triggers the repost filter and thinks you are trying to post something almost identical to a previous post, which is technically true but also dumb.
That’s what happened. I changed a should to shouldn’t. And then poof. But do you agree there should be a reset and placement period?
Same thing here, you are earning rewards you did not work for. And maybe could not reach unless you used that technicality.
The problem with this line of thinking applied universally is that no one who jumps to an alliance higher than the one they were originally in gets rewards they worked for. My alliance is currently in tier 8. If a tier 1 alliance recruits me tomorrow, is that fair? Should I be disallowed from being recruited into certain alliances because I don't deserve the rewards they get? Any fairness rule must, unless we're being hilariously hypocritical, be applied fairly to everyone. If it is unfair for a group of players who were in a high tier to jump to a new alliance and then to an alliance in the mid tiers, it would be even more unfair for me to jump into an alliance at a tier I have never so much as been in the same zip code as in my entire playing history. And that's a line I don't think can be safely crossed.
It won't let you edit after fifteen minutes, and I've also noticed if you try to edit and change only a tiny thing it goes to moderator approval land. I think the forum software has a brain-dead bug where if you try to edit a single word, it triggers the repost filter and thinks you are trying to post something almost identical to a previous post, which is technically true but also dumb.
That’s what happened. I changed a should to shouldn’t. And then poof. But do you agree there should be a reset and placement period?
At the moment, no. It sounds simple, but its extremely problematic. You can't just reset everyone's war rating to zero, because then you will have tier 1 (for all intents and purposes here) fighting tier 20 alliances to win and move up in rank. The low alliances will just get crushed for a couple weeks while the ratings sort themselves out. And you can't match by "virtual rating" while reseting everyone's actual war rating because then tier 1 alliances would get matched against each other and their one win will be equal to the one win from a tier 20 alliance. That would place the higher tier alliances at a significant disadvantage. It would take months for an ELO-like system to sort itself out from there.
However we add competitive rewards, the presumption is that the players that win those competitive rewards will come from the pool of the strongest players in the game. The weakest ones aren't realistically going to have a shot at them. That's inherent to a game that emphasizes progress. The rewards for getting better, are better. That's not an intrinsic flaw of the system. This isn't an IROC race.
The best you can probably do practically, is what they are doing. We are technically in the placement phase of AW. We know it is coming, we know there is an advantage to being in a higher AW tier, but at the moment no one is earning points towards the seasonal reward tier. Every alliance is free to jockey for position until the season starts, and no one's multiplier currently counts for anything. Only wins and losses do.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
Because of his arrongance???
Just pointing out what i see.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
Have a point
This already happens with the quasi-exploitative Alliance hopping and such, so what would be different?
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.
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..
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.
Nope. Nor did I say that, nor did you assert that, nor do I even really want that to be possible.
Not an exploit = changing alliances to seek harder wars to win against evenly matched opponents
This is simple. A lot of you were annoyed they could just snap their fingers and create a top 10 AQ alliance.
But after AW seasons were announced, you found joy in the fact that they wouldn’t have the war rating to earn season rewards for a top 10 alliance. And now you’re all just mad that they will.
Worry about yourselves. If they don’t belong in tier 1 then they won’t finish there.
It isn’t letting me edit it.
Readers digest version
They shouldn’t just piggyback the rarest rewards in game to an existing system. There should have been some sort of a reset, and some sort of a placement round.
start sharing? Are you being serious? Piloting is the single biggest problem that exists currently.
It won't let you edit after fifteen minutes, and I've also noticed if you try to edit and change only a tiny thing it goes to moderator approval land. I think the forum software has a brain-dead bug where if you try to edit a single word, it triggers the repost filter and thinks you are trying to post something almost identical to a previous post, which is technically true but also dumb.
That’s what happened. I changed a should to shouldn’t. And then poof. But do you agree there should be a reset and placement period?
The problem with this line of thinking applied universally is that no one who jumps to an alliance higher than the one they were originally in gets rewards they worked for. My alliance is currently in tier 8. If a tier 1 alliance recruits me tomorrow, is that fair? Should I be disallowed from being recruited into certain alliances because I don't deserve the rewards they get? Any fairness rule must, unless we're being hilariously hypocritical, be applied fairly to everyone. If it is unfair for a group of players who were in a high tier to jump to a new alliance and then to an alliance in the mid tiers, it would be even more unfair for me to jump into an alliance at a tier I have never so much as been in the same zip code as in my entire playing history. And that's a line I don't think can be safely crossed.
Yes, this really is the gateway drug. I expect every member of this alliance to shortly move to Columbia and become the next big cartel.
I look forward to watching the Netflix documentary on them....."It all started with a simple alliance merger..."
At the moment, no. It sounds simple, but its extremely problematic. You can't just reset everyone's war rating to zero, because then you will have tier 1 (for all intents and purposes here) fighting tier 20 alliances to win and move up in rank. The low alliances will just get crushed for a couple weeks while the ratings sort themselves out. And you can't match by "virtual rating" while reseting everyone's actual war rating because then tier 1 alliances would get matched against each other and their one win will be equal to the one win from a tier 20 alliance. That would place the higher tier alliances at a significant disadvantage. It would take months for an ELO-like system to sort itself out from there.
However we add competitive rewards, the presumption is that the players that win those competitive rewards will come from the pool of the strongest players in the game. The weakest ones aren't realistically going to have a shot at them. That's inherent to a game that emphasizes progress. The rewards for getting better, are better. That's not an intrinsic flaw of the system. This isn't an IROC race.
The best you can probably do practically, is what they are doing. We are technically in the placement phase of AW. We know it is coming, we know there is an advantage to being in a higher AW tier, but at the moment no one is earning points towards the seasonal reward tier. Every alliance is free to jockey for position until the season starts, and no one's multiplier currently counts for anything. Only wins and losses do.