You can use all of the calculations, rethoric you want. It doesn't change the fact they are getting preferential treatment, in the current climate of the game with how competitive it is, it's not a question of wether it can affect the outcome of the scores in AW, or not, but if there is even the slightest chances it might, it should not be allowed.
Sounds to me like you just don't care, well I do, you don't cut me in line.
Ever.
Then I again I live in a 3rd world country so I am more assertive, perhaps y'all don't mind getting cut in line.
No one is cutting infront of you. The alliance that they moved to was infront of you from the start. And there is no 'line' either, we are all not waiting our turn for the same reward.
Think of it as a sports competition, if a group decent players scattered across teams all went to one team (I don't want to compare OMNI as the best players, because they are far from it) then that would not be considered cheating in any sense. It might be frowned upon but it is not cheating. And they all have been around 2000+ war rating alliances before, it is not like every player has been at 300 war rating this whole time. There is nothing wrong or manipulative about switching alliances.
I don't think we are understanding each other, answering to everyone...
Cutting a line is always wrong. (Y creeme que en la cultura anglosajona, las filas son muy importantes, asi que no es una cuestion del primer mundo).
Even if someone in front of you cuts more in line and you are not affected, someone will be affected. There is a difference between a merge, or people jumping to other alliances... to buying idle alliances with good war rating. You can hold on to my original comment all you want and you ARE CORRECT in your calculations. But it doesn't make this less exploity.
Crushing weaker alliances on the way up has been happening from the beginning, and it is not an exploit. It is probably a flawed design on Kabam's part, but it is not giving them a shortcut to better multipliers, rank or rewards.
I am uncollected, if i start a new account, I still have to go through acts 1 to 5 to be uncollected again. Even if we all agree that I am uncollected, there is no shortcut for my new account, I have to take the tedious slow path. So this slow progress is there by design. It is nice that they found the shortcut, and I am not suggesting Kabam to do anything to their alliance, but they should prevent this from becoming an exploit.
Or even have their say about this, because one day we will get a message from the grandmaster saying that people were taking advantage of this and will be banned or punished somehow. So if it is an exploit or not, I want the official word about this. Perhaps they already said something in this long thread, does anyone know?
In case this isn't an exploit, I would still consider it unfair, but it would mean that I can do the same anytime I want, without consequences.
You can use all of the calculations, rethoric you want. It doesn't change the fact they are getting preferential treatment, in the current climate of the game with how competitive it is, it's not a question of wether it can affect the outcome of the scores in AW, or not, but if there is even the slightest chances it might, it should not be allowed.
Sounds to me like you just don't care, well I do, you don't cut me in line.
Ever.
Then I again I live in a 3rd world country so I am more assertive, perhaps y'all don't mind getting cut in line.
yeah @DNA3000 you can use all the logic, proof, reason you want! that stuff is silly!
all this over joining an alliance that isn't even in 2000's war rating ... sheesh
i recommend focusing on one's own progression/alliance, excel and fight your way up ... if you've outgrown your alliance, jump up to a harder core one.... and if it's too hardcore, jump back down to a casual alliance. it's how the game works.... and make sure you're having fun!
Not convinced?
Well imagine again...
Your a racecar driver.
You suck. Your 10 laps down and first place just lapped you. After lapping you, both you and he pit. Your 11 laps from completion and hes 1 lap from winning.
You decide while the other driver jumps out for a sec, to get in his car and drive off securing a win after someone else had done all the work...
Cheating.
You do realize in this example that the driver you claim is cheating just won a race for a completely different team while getting his own team disqualified for not completing the race.
Not convinced?
Well imagine again...
Your a racecar driver.
You suck. Your 10 laps down and first place just lapped you. After lapping you, both you and he pit. Your 11 laps from completion and hes 1 lap from winning.
You decide while the other driver jumps out for a sec, to get in his car and drive off securing a win after someone else had done all the work...
Cheating.
You do realize in this example that the driver you claim is cheating just won a race for a completely different team while getting his own team disqualified for not completing the race.
I find the whole reaction to be staunch. It's not exploitative. It's a move. People are free to go to whatever Ally they are admitted to. If the Leader of the Ally allowed them to take over, it's a legit move. Unless there are some unforeseen circumstances where someone was manipulated or coerced into giving up their Ally, those in charge are free to do with their Ally whatever they want. I'm not entertaining the idea that they gain some sort of advantage because that's not the case. There is no solution because there is no problem. What would be the suggestion? Nullifying War Rating when people leave? No. The system in place for discouraging Jumpers is that you have to be present for 5 Wars to qualify. You can't expect them to wipe the Rating when people join or leave regardless of whether it's one or 30 people moving. I'm sorry, but this sounds more like a personal resentment than an actual issue. They made a legit move and it's not stopping anyone from participating fairly or taking anything from anyone. The Season literally just started, and they moved beforehand. No offense, but I don't see the need for a Soapbox on this one.
I find the whole reaction to be staunch. It's not exploitative. It's a move. People are free to go to whatever Ally they are admitted to. If the Leader of the Ally allowed them to take over, it's a legit move. Unless there are some unforeseen circumstances where someone was manipulated or coerced into giving up their Ally, those in charge are free to do with their Ally whatever they want. I'm not entertaining the idea that they gain some sort of advantage because that's not the case. There is no solution because there is no problem. What would be the suggestion? Nullifying War Rating when people leave? No. The system in place for discouraging Jumpers is that you have to be present for 5 Wars to qualify. You can't expect them to wipe the Rating when people join or leave regardless of whether it's one or 30 people moving. I'm sorry, but this sounds more like a personal resentment than an actual issue. They made a legit move and it's not stopping anyone from participating fairly or taking anything from anyone. The Season literally just started, and they moved beforehand. No offense, but I don't see the need for a Soapbox on this one.
Yes, they were able to do it because it is possible to do it. But it really doesn't seem like it should be possible. Seems like an unforeseen scenario.
I want to be clear about this... I do not want OMNI to be punished for this. I said something that people seem to ignore... People are selling alliances. This is slowly becoming a disadvantage, and they should state whether it is legal or not now, before it goes too far.
I do think it creates a disadvantage. I think you are mostly right on your opinion, but it doesn't mean they are not taking advantage of a poorly planned feature.
If I start a new alliance with all good players, we still have to go through all the tiers. As it was intended. They took a shortcut and with that also took some other alliance's spot. They immediately get better rewards than me because of the shortcut. They make more points than me, because they jumped tiers.
As opposed to the Ally that sits and lies dormant and unused? It doesn't look like they need any help regardless. They could easily jump Tiers. You can't stop people from joining Allies, and it doesn't matter how many move. It's up to the owner of the Ally. If he wanted to help them out, and if they wanted to help him by making use of the Ally, there's nothing unfair about that. Let's call the real issue for what it is. People are worried about the competition in the Season. To be honest, if they are on top in the old Ally, they'll be on top in the new one. That's not done by the Rating, that's brought about by the Players.
As opposed to the Ally that sits and lies dormant and unused? It doesn't look like they need any help regardless. They could easily jump Tiers. You can't stop people from joining Allies, and it doesn't matter how many move. It's up to the owner of the Ally. If he wanted to help them out, and if they wanted to help him by making use of the Ally, there's nothing unfair about that. Let's call the real issue for what it is. People are worried about the competition in the Season. To be honest, if they are on top in the old Ally, they'll be on top in the new one. That's not done by the Rating, that's brought about by the Players.
Selling Allies is a separate issue. That's not what we are discussing. That's against TOS and wrong in general. I have no evidence to believe that's what we have here.
Not convinced?
Well imagine again...
Your a racecar driver.
You suck. Your 10 laps down and first place just lapped you. After lapping you, both you and he pit. Your 11 laps from completion and hes 1 lap from winning.
You decide while the other driver jumps out for a sec, to get in his car and drive off securing a win after someone else had done all the work...
Cheating.
You do realize in this example that the driver you claim is cheating just won a race for a completely different team while getting his own team disqualified for not completing the race.
In that case OMNI would get disqualified
Actually yes, but not in the way you probably mean. The point is that the example seems to have no connection to the events being discussed, because the example makes absolutely no sense since the driver that is claimed to be cheating in the example did something that helped his competitors and hurt himself. That's not a cheater, that's an idiot.
But if you believe that example is illustrative, then my understanding of NASCAR rules is that this would fall under the replacement driver rule which allows a team to replace a driver in the middle of the race. Under these rules, the driver that started the race would get all of the driver points while the replacement driver would get none in a driver competition but in team/owner competitions it is the car/team that gets the points regardless of the driver. Meanwhile the car the driver left obviously would fail to finish the race and would get disqualified.
So, under NASCAR rules the players of Omni would forfeit their personal rewards for one war, but the alliance they moved to would get full points for that war, the alliance they left would get no points, and the entire thing would be legal.
That's the thing about analogies. People often think the real world works differently than it actually does, and it often makes their analogies have the opposite meaning they probably intended.
As opposed to the Ally that sits and lies dormant and unused? It doesn't look like they need any help regardless. They could easily jump Tiers. You can't stop people from joining Allies, and it doesn't matter how many move. It's up to the owner of the Ally. If he wanted to help them out, and if they wanted to help him by making use of the Ally, there's nothing unfair about that. Let's call the real issue for what it is. People are worried about the competition in the Season. To be honest, if they are on top in the old Ally, they'll be on top in the new one. That's not done by the Rating, that's brought about by the Players.
Not convinced?
Well imagine again...
Your a racecar driver.
You suck. Your 10 laps down and first place just lapped you. After lapping you, both you and he pit. Your 11 laps from completion and hes 1 lap from winning.
You decide while the other driver jumps out for a sec, to get in his car and drive off securing a win after someone else had done all the work...
Cheating.
You do realize in this example that the driver you claim is cheating just won a race for a completely different team while getting his own team disqualified for not completing the race.
In that case OMNI would get disqualified
Actually yes, but not in the way you probably mean. The point is that the example seems to have no connection to the events being discussed, because the example makes absolutely no sense since the driver that is claimed to be cheating in the example did something that helped his competitors and hurt himself. That's not a cheater, that's an idiot.
But if you believe that example is illustrative, then my understanding of NASCAR rules is that this would fall under the replacement driver rule which allows a team to replace a driver in the middle of the race. Under these rules, the driver that started the race would get all of the driver points while the replacement driver would get none in a driver competition but in team/owner competitions it is the car/team that gets the points regardless of the driver. Meanwhile the car the driver left obviously would fail to finish the race and would get disqualified.
So, under NASCAR rules the players of Omni would forfeit their personal rewards for one war, but the alliance they moved to would get full points for that war, the alliance they left would get no points, and the entire thing would be legal.
That's the thing about analogies. People often think the real world works differently than it actually does, and it often makes their analogies have the opposite meaning they probably intended.
In any case, it seems like for most people it is ok to cut in the line. And I am sure by now, Kabam mods have seen this thread and didn't care enough to comment. So it must be legal.
I just think it is unfair to other alliances that are taking the longer path, even if they shouldn't start from the bottom.
Not convinced?
Well imagine again...
Your a racecar driver.
You suck. Your 10 laps down and first place just lapped you. After lapping you, both you and he pit. Your 11 laps from completion and hes 1 lap from winning.
You decide while the other driver jumps out for a sec, to get in his car and drive off securing a win after someone else had done all the work...
Cheating.
You do realize in this example that the driver you claim is cheating just won a race for a completely different team while getting his own team disqualified for not completing the race.
In that case OMNI would get disqualified
Actually yes, but not in the way you probably mean. The point is that the example seems to have no connection to the events being discussed, because the example makes absolutely no sense since the driver that is claimed to be cheating in the example did something that helped his competitors and hurt himself. That's not a cheater, that's an idiot.
But if you believe that example is illustrative, then my understanding of NASCAR rules is that this would fall under the replacement driver rule which allows a team to replace a driver in the middle of the race. Under these rules, the driver that started the race would get all of the driver points while the replacement driver would get none in a driver competition but in team/owner competitions it is the car/team that gets the points regardless of the driver. Meanwhile the car the driver left obviously would fail to finish the race and would get disqualified.
So, under NASCAR rules the players of Omni would forfeit their personal rewards for one war, but the alliance they moved to would get full points for that war, the alliance they left would get no points, and the entire thing would be legal.
That's the thing about analogies. People often think the real world works differently than it actually does, and it often makes their analogies have the opposite meaning they probably intended.
Yeah, I was just joking
I suspected you were, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on a point the joke raises.
This is the dumbest thread since the legion of Blade nerf threads. The system was broken for them being in the lower tiers with high prestige. It was taking hours to find a match so they were losing the opportunity to start some wars. If they had gone to this alliance from the beginning no one would be complaining. They wanted to form an alliance and someone had an alliance, but they decided instead to start from the bottom up. When the system was causing them to miss wars and the new AW was released they decided to move to the alliance they could have been in any time they wanted. From there, if they are as bad as @NuHuman_2099 weirdly claims they are they will go back down. If they belong at the top they will go there. In neither case is this an exploit. For all you exploit people, let me ask you this. I could go to a higher alliance if I wanted to and get better rewards. No one would call that an exploit. What if I took a group of five with me? Or 10? How about 15? If the top 15 from my alliance merged with a higher group that had a bunch of people retiring would that be an exploit? What if it were 20? Where is the exploit line?
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
I still don't see any issues. If anything, it allowed 30 other people to move up to stronger alliances to fill the spaces left by the ones who moved on to work together. What ever path omni took provided benefits to some, and really didn't hurt anyone else. If they had all moved to an established alliance in the first place there wouldn't be a discussion. There are always shake ups. It's not like they were gifted accounts. They've paid their dues. This no different from mergers who move to whichever alliance has a higher war rating. It's not an exploit where they are dropping tiers to fight weaker.opponents to collect easy wins. They are being placed where they really should be based on their experience.
So when someone leaves an alliance and they replace him with a new memeber should their war rating start over? If not why? According to your arguments is they didn’t earn that war rating and therefore should start at zero
I think the part the feels scummy to most people that have objected is that the multipliers every Alliance starts the season with is based on PAST performance. Those that were involved in hopping around knew this, so instead of growing their rating to where it would naturally go, but dealing with a lower multiplier until that point, they jumped to an empty one so they could have a higher multiplier at the start.
I can see how people feel that is scummy, even if perfectly legal, and I can also see how people say they would have been there naturally anyway given enough time.
That's why I say Kabam should have implemented a personal rating that follows the player, and Alliance rating should be the average of all members that participated in the most recent war. Then none of this would have mattered. They could have created a brand new Alliance and started at a rating that was fitting of its members.
And no one would think of doing this on a whim in the middle of a season, because while your rating would be retained using an average of all the members, your points towards the season would start over at zero.
I think the idea that they cannot move to a different alliance is asinine. People change alliances all the time and alliance mergers occur on a regular basis. Usually, it is done to maximize rewards. It is certainly within the rules of the game and it is not an exploit nor is it cheating.
Really, it doesn’t affect you. You’re alliance’s ranking will not be affected. A top 1,000 alliance will still be top 1,000. If you’re the alliance that finishes 1,001 then reality is you should have won one more war.
The alliance in question is loaded with top level players and they will eventually reach tier 1 or tier 2. They will steamroll through tier 4 and tier 3. To make a comparison, most of us are playing in a rec league and they’re trying to win the Super Bowl.
Only there is an issue with the way matchmaking works. Because both rating and prestige are taken into account (to fix other alliance hopping issues) so instead of steamrolling through the alliances to their way back up they can't find any matches.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
Comments
No one is cutting infront of you. The alliance that they moved to was infront of you from the start. And there is no 'line' either, we are all not waiting our turn for the same reward.
Think of it as a sports competition, if a group decent players scattered across teams all went to one team (I don't want to compare OMNI as the best players, because they are far from it) then that would not be considered cheating in any sense. It might be frowned upon but it is not cheating. And they all have been around 2000+ war rating alliances before, it is not like every player has been at 300 war rating this whole time. There is nothing wrong or manipulative about switching alliances.
Cutting a line is always wrong. (Y creeme que en la cultura anglosajona, las filas son muy importantes, asi que no es una cuestion del primer mundo).
Even if someone in front of you cuts more in line and you are not affected, someone will be affected. There is a difference between a merge, or people jumping to other alliances... to buying idle alliances with good war rating. You can hold on to my original comment all you want and you ARE CORRECT in your calculations. But it doesn't make this less exploity.
Crushing weaker alliances on the way up has been happening from the beginning, and it is not an exploit. It is probably a flawed design on Kabam's part, but it is not giving them a shortcut to better multipliers, rank or rewards.
I am uncollected, if i start a new account, I still have to go through acts 1 to 5 to be uncollected again. Even if we all agree that I am uncollected, there is no shortcut for my new account, I have to take the tedious slow path. So this slow progress is there by design. It is nice that they found the shortcut, and I am not suggesting Kabam to do anything to their alliance, but they should prevent this from becoming an exploit.
Or even have their say about this, because one day we will get a message from the grandmaster saying that people were taking advantage of this and will be banned or punished somehow. So if it is an exploit or not, I want the official word about this. Perhaps they already said something in this long thread, does anyone know?
In case this isn't an exploit, I would still consider it unfair, but it would mean that I can do the same anytime I want, without consequences.
yeah @DNA3000 you can use all the logic, proof, reason you want! that stuff is silly!
all this over joining an alliance that isn't even in 2000's war rating ... sheesh
i recommend focusing on one's own progression/alliance, excel and fight your way up ... if you've outgrown your alliance, jump up to a harder core one.... and if it's too hardcore, jump back down to a casual alliance. it's how the game works.... and make sure you're having fun!
We have a saying in 'Murica that goes like this:
Say, that's a nice chair you got there...
You do realize in this example that the driver you claim is cheating just won a race for a completely different team while getting his own team disqualified for not completing the race.
In that case OMNI would get disqualified
Yes, they were able to do it because it is possible to do it. But it really doesn't seem like it should be possible. Seems like an unforeseen scenario.
I want to be clear about this... I do not want OMNI to be punished for this. I said something that people seem to ignore... People are selling alliances. This is slowly becoming a disadvantage, and they should state whether it is legal or not now, before it goes too far.
I do think it creates a disadvantage. I think you are mostly right on your opinion, but it doesn't mean they are not taking advantage of a poorly planned feature.
If I start a new alliance with all good players, we still have to go through all the tiers. As it was intended. They took a shortcut and with that also took some other alliance's spot. They immediately get better rewards than me because of the shortcut. They make more points than me, because they jumped tiers.
I agree with you
Actually yes, but not in the way you probably mean. The point is that the example seems to have no connection to the events being discussed, because the example makes absolutely no sense since the driver that is claimed to be cheating in the example did something that helped his competitors and hurt himself. That's not a cheater, that's an idiot.
But if you believe that example is illustrative, then my understanding of NASCAR rules is that this would fall under the replacement driver rule which allows a team to replace a driver in the middle of the race. Under these rules, the driver that started the race would get all of the driver points while the replacement driver would get none in a driver competition but in team/owner competitions it is the car/team that gets the points regardless of the driver. Meanwhile the car the driver left obviously would fail to finish the race and would get disqualified.
So, under NASCAR rules the players of Omni would forfeit their personal rewards for one war, but the alliance they moved to would get full points for that war, the alliance they left would get no points, and the entire thing would be legal.
That's the thing about analogies. People often think the real world works differently than it actually does, and it often makes their analogies have the opposite meaning they probably intended.
They weren't on top, that is why they did this.
Yeah, I was just joking
I just think it is unfair to other alliances that are taking the longer path, even if they shouldn't start from the bottom.
I suspected you were, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on a point the joke raises.
What.
Yeah. I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
I can see how people feel that is scummy, even if perfectly legal, and I can also see how people say they would have been there naturally anyway given enough time.
That's why I say Kabam should have implemented a personal rating that follows the player, and Alliance rating should be the average of all members that participated in the most recent war. Then none of this would have mattered. They could have created a brand new Alliance and started at a rating that was fitting of its members.
And no one would think of doing this on a whim in the middle of a season, because while your rating would be retained using an average of all the members, your points towards the season would start over at zero.
But oh well, too late for that now.
Really, it doesn’t affect you. You’re alliance’s ranking will not be affected. A top 1,000 alliance will still be top 1,000. If you’re the alliance that finishes 1,001 then reality is you should have won one more war.
The alliance in question is loaded with top level players and they will eventually reach tier 1 or tier 2. They will steamroll through tier 4 and tier 3. To make a comparison, most of us are playing in a rec league and they’re trying to win the Super Bowl.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.