For me, any discussion that suggests alternatives to cheating is equal to justifying it by some need. There is no need that justifies breaking the rules. It's a choice.
Either of your ways are cheating in their book and it won't work no matter how you try to spin it and all pilioting is illegal it's just sometimes $$$$$ or famous in their circles seems to give more leeway with them.
Anyway once you give out your account information you're playing with fire in a number of ways and your alliance will get caught and your alliance will be penalized for it and it's pretty much that simple.
I would like your guys comments on an extra person or two in the alliance to give leeway to someone on vacation you never need their account, but they can take small time off and not hit the blackout timer when they come back
Very simple. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, no matter how altruistic the motive. If someone is on vacation, they can't play. If the Ally boots them during that time, that's not very understanding.
I cant smack my head enough. This wouldn't be breaking the rules. The proposal is making alliances able to have 31 members. No one would EVER log into the person's account on vacation. They would just sit there until the player is back. This allows the alliance to let them stay, while not having the alliance suffer. I fail to see where it breaks a rule.
you're totally wrong. this will never happen. if your alliance cant deal with 29 or u cant find 5 minutes to access ur phone then tough luck. Your proposal is weak and kabam has bigger fish to fry.
I'll be in the desert for the last week of this AW season. My choices:
(1) switch to a casual alliance which will be OK with fewer players
(2) hope I have enough access to participate, and if not screw my alliance
(3) quit or give away the account and stick to games that don't try to penalize my alliance when real life intrudes
(3) Is looking real appealing now. But hey, you've got your purity(?) I guess.
Seriously -- it's possible to design a game that allows you to take a break without penalties ... it just requires the company to think about that.
It's not the game design that's the issue. It's the expectations placed on individuals by the Allies. It's entirely possible to take a break without penalties. The Ally manages without the person gone. This whole pressure to "stay on top" is what the problem is. If the Alliance opts to boot the person because they are otherwise occupied with life, that's not the fault of the system. That's the fault of the Alliance and its demands. The whole system won't crumble if someone is gone for a week. That's the choice the Ally makes. As I said. The problem is Rewards come before people.
There could be an alternative to the “on deck” suggestion.
Instead of having 31-32 slots open in an alliance as suggested, have an “Invite as Reserve” button below the “Invite to Alliance” when clicking a person’s profile name. The limit to the number of Reserve Players can be capped, eg 3.
For example, alliance A invited player X (who is in alliance to be a reserve.
When accepted, player X will stay in his/her current alliance (alliance and not be entitled to any of the rewards alliance A receives.
Should a player (player Y) from alliance A need to go off on vacation, he can choose to switch his account into “Reserve Mode” and designate 1 of the 3 Reserves to handle his account. In this mode, the account is locked and only alliance based events (AQ and AW) can be accessed.
Player X will then be able to handle player Y’s AQ and AW using player Y’s champs. In addition, player Y will be unable to earn any rewards nor have the wars participated clock the 5 war minimum for Seasons while the account is in “Reserve Mode”.
To prevent abuse, an account can only go into “Reserve Mode” once every 30 days and for a minimum of 1 day each time.
In short, there’s no incentive for a player to be a Reserve for an alliance. It is done freely out of goodwill. There’s also no incentive for a player to go into “Reserve Mode” as they don’t get any rewards for the duration of time they are in that mode.
The only benefit that arises out of this is that alliances do not need to boot people from being occupied with real life.
For me, any discussion that suggests alternatives to cheating is equal to justifying it by some need. There is no need that justifies breaking the rules. It's a choice.
Either of your ways are cheating in their book and it won't work no matter how you try to spin it and all pilioting is illegal it's just sometimes $$$$$ or famous in their circles seems to give more leeway with them.
Anyway once you give out your account information you're playing with fire in a number of ways and your alliance will get caught and your alliance will be penalized for it and it's pretty much that simple.
I would like your guys comments on an extra person or two in the alliance to give leeway to someone on vacation you never need their account, but they can take small time off and not hit the blackout timer when they come back
Very simple. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, no matter how altruistic the motive. If someone is on vacation, they can't play. If the Ally boots them during that time, that's not very understanding.
I cant smack my head enough. This wouldn't be breaking the rules. The proposal is making alliances able to have 31 members. No one would EVER log into the person's account on vacation. They would just sit there until the player is back. This allows the alliance to let them stay, while not having the alliance suffer. I fail to see where it breaks a rule.
you're totally wrong. this will never happen. if your alliance cant deal with 29 or u cant find 5 minutes to access ur phone then tough luck. Your proposal is weak and kabam has bigger fish to fry.
I'll be in the desert for the last week of this AW season. My choices:
(1) switch to a casual alliance which will be OK with fewer players
(2) hope I have enough access to participate, and if not screw my alliance
(3) quit or give away the account and stick to games that don't try to penalize my alliance when real life intrudes
(3) Is looking real appealing now. But hey, you've got your purity(?) I guess.
Seriously -- it's possible to design a game that allows you to take a break without penalties ... it just requires the company to think about that.
It's not the game design that's the issue. It's the expectations placed on individuals by the Allies. It's entirely possible to take a break without penalties. The Ally manages without the person gone. This whole pressure to "stay on top" is what the problem is. If the Alliance opts to boot the person because they are otherwise occupied with life, that's not the fault of the system. That's the fault of the Alliance and its demands. The whole system won't crumble if someone is gone for a week. That's the choice the Ally makes. As I said. The problem is Rewards come before people.
As much as there’s some sense in what you said, are you going to tell the other 28 members of your alliance that because this one loyal member who has been in the alliance for a year is going on vacation for a week, the alliance will most probably lose the next 3 wars because only 29 people will be placing and attacking for AW?
Or would you rather tell this loyal member who has been with you for a year that he has to leave the alliance because he’s going on vacation and will most probably result in the alliance losing the next 3 wars and maybe drop a season tier?
And on the administrative side, are you going to tell your new recruit that he will only be staying with the alliance for a week as he is only a temporary replacement for the guy who is going overseas? Who would join you in that case? Or will you take the new recruit in first and find a reason to kick him one week later?
In a less competitive alliance, which I assume you’re leading base on some of your previous posts, it is perfectly manageable to have 29, or even 26 members run a 3 BG AW. People there are happy with where they are and don’t mind winning or losing.
But in a competitive one, that’s not acceptable. It’s because people in these alliances are competitive and starting with a disadvantage is simply out of the question. And they mind losing.. a lot..
I understand where you’re coming from as I lead alliances that fall in both categories. But you have to understand the competitive aspect of this game as well. Without the competition, it’s highly unlikely that you will get a game at all in the first place.
I tell them the same thing I tell them now. We will do our best when someone is not around, and I wait for them to return. There's competition, and then there's obsession with winning. A team should really be understanding when someone is not available. They do the best they can to their ability. That means when they're down a man, their ability is that of 29 people.
Otherwise, the Alliance is focused solely on winning, and their people are expendable. Which is up to Allies to function that way. I just won't entertain the idea of concern for their Member in that.
The problem is not people having a job, holidays or a family. The problem is the game mode.
The best alternative to piloting is replacing AW and AQ with something that doesn't demand your time and blood.
At least Arena grinding is an option. The only other option you have is not being competitive and advancing at a slower pace (so, players that cannot be online every hour or two should not join an alliance). That's it.
What I would do to replace AQ: no timers. Let them finish it whenever they want in those 24 hours. And make those 24 fixed hours, so no AQ is shorter than the other.
AW is not as punishing as AQ, but I suppose the main deal there is that some people do not have the skills to not die. In that case, there is no solution. It has been made in a way that only people with good skills and hardware can ace it (on high tiers). In a way that is a good thing, but it is making people pilot more. I don't see a solution to this. At least, not with how this game works.
I understand it is more lucrative to have us online every waking hour.
As much as there’s some sense in what you said, are you going to tell the other 28 members of your alliance that because this one loyal member who has been in the alliance for a year is going on vacation for a week, the alliance will most probably lose the next 3 wars because only 29 people will be placing and attacking for AW?
Or would you rather tell this loyal member who has been with you for a year that he has to leave the alliance because he’s going on vacation and will most probably result in the alliance losing the next 3 wars and maybe drop a season tier?
And on the administrative side, are you going to tell your new recruit that he will only be staying with the alliance for a week as he is only a temporary replacement for the guy who is going overseas? Who would join you in that case? Or will you take the new recruit in first and find a reason to kick him one week later?
In a less competitive alliance, which I assume you’re leading base on some of your previous posts, it is perfectly manageable to have 29, or even 26 members run a 3 BG AW. People there are happy with where they are and don’t mind winning or losing.
But in a competitive one, that’s not acceptable. It’s because people in these alliances are competitive and starting with a disadvantage is simply out of the question. And they mind losing.. a lot..
I understand where you’re coming from as I lead alliances that fall in both categories. But you have to understand the competitive aspect of this game as well. Without the competition, it’s highly unlikely that you will get a game at all in the first place.
That is it though. If you decided you want to compete at a certain level, you have decided you are ok with playing on vacations, on holidays ect.,
I've been in multiple alliances, one I was in for a very long time which became the play at all costs highly competitive alliance. I had to, as a player, decide that that level of play at all costs was not for me. I went to a lower ranked alliance that was more laid back and was ok with the idea of being short handed at times. I accepted the fact that I would not be getting the same level of rewards as I used to.
If you want the rewards of a highly competitive alliance then you are committing to the requirements of that alliance which may include playing when you are on vacation, sneaking off at work, or as I've seen some do, wake up in the middle of the night to make moves. The choice of being in that kind of alliance can even mean you have to leave for a little while so so one else can fill in if you are not able to play at the level needed and miss out.
If you are burning out, like many do, you may need to adjust your expectations of rewards and slow down a bit. There's an alliance out there that will fit practically everyone, and if you can't find one, you can always make one.
not feasible. If you can't play, that's tough luck. Piloting is piloting is piloting... it's all cheating and all punishments are well deserved.
Not constructive really. The title suggests "Alternatives to piloting". If you don't have any then just move on man. I don't agree with piloting and to put the argument to rest am wondering if any of us have a solution outside the box. You don't and that's ok. Maybe someone else does.
Either of your ways are cheating in their book and it won't work no matter how you try to spin it and all pilioting is illegal it's just sometimes $$$$$ or famous in their circles seems to give more leeway with them.
Anyway once you give out your account information you're playing with fire in a number of ways and your alliance will get caught and your alliance will be penalized for it and it's pretty much that simple.
I must have not been clear. None of the suggested solution of "on deck" has anything to do with someone else logging into anyone else's account. It simply suggests that an alternative account (another player or a second account owned by a current alliance member) is kept on deck but inactive within the alliance and can be swapped in (but not in the middle of AQ or AW). It would be "piloted by its owner only". There is nothing cheating or justifying about this at all.
And stop that on-deck BS... ppl download this game to play and have fun not to sit back and wait for someone to get sick or something.
People have second and third accounts they own and park in other alliances. That's an easy solution that people already use. How long have you been playing this game?
Instead of parking it at another alliance until they need it they simply park the account on deck in their current one in case they need it.
For me, any discussion that suggests alternatives to cheating is equal to justifying it by some need. There is no need that justifies breaking the rules. It's a choice.
Same:
I must have not been clear. None of the suggested solution of "on deck" has anything to do with someone else logging into anyone else's account. It simply suggests that an alternative account (another player or a second account owned by a current alliance member) is kept on deck but inactive within the alliance and can be swapped in (but not in the middle of AQ or AW). It would be "piloted by its owner only". There is nothing cheating or justifying about this at all.
There could be an alternative to the “on deck” suggestion.
Instead of having 31-32 slots open in an alliance as suggested, have an “Invite as Reserve” button below the “Invite to Alliance” when clicking a person’s profile name. The limit to the number of Reserve Players can be capped, eg 3.
For example, alliance A invited player X (who is in alliance to be a reserve.
When accepted, player X will stay in his/her current alliance (alliance and not be entitled to any of the rewards alliance A receives.
Should a player (player Y) from alliance A need to go off on vacation, he can choose to switch his account into “Reserve Mode” and designate 1 of the 3 Reserves to handle his account. In this mode, the account is locked and only alliance based events (AQ and AW) can be accessed.
Player X will then be able to handle player Y’s AQ and AW using player Y’s champs. In addition, player Y will be unable to earn any rewards nor have the wars participated clock the 5 war minimum for Seasons while the account is in “Reserve Mode”.
To prevent abuse, an account can only go into “Reserve Mode” once every 30 days and for a minimum of 1 day each time.
In short, there’s no incentive for a player to be a Reserve for an alliance. It is done freely out of goodwill. There’s also no incentive for a player to go into “Reserve Mode” as they don’t get any rewards for the duration of time they are in that mode.
The only benefit that arises out of this is that alliances do not need to boot people from being occupied with real life.
Comments
It's not the game design that's the issue. It's the expectations placed on individuals by the Allies. It's entirely possible to take a break without penalties. The Ally manages without the person gone. This whole pressure to "stay on top" is what the problem is. If the Alliance opts to boot the person because they are otherwise occupied with life, that's not the fault of the system. That's the fault of the Alliance and its demands. The whole system won't crumble if someone is gone for a week. That's the choice the Ally makes. As I said. The problem is Rewards come before people.
Instead of having 31-32 slots open in an alliance as suggested, have an “Invite as Reserve” button below the “Invite to Alliance” when clicking a person’s profile name. The limit to the number of Reserve Players can be capped, eg 3.
For example, alliance A invited player X (who is in alliance
When accepted, player X will stay in his/her current alliance (alliance
Should a player (player Y) from alliance A need to go off on vacation, he can choose to switch his account into “Reserve Mode” and designate 1 of the 3 Reserves to handle his account. In this mode, the account is locked and only alliance based events (AQ and AW) can be accessed.
Player X will then be able to handle player Y’s AQ and AW using player Y’s champs. In addition, player Y will be unable to earn any rewards nor have the wars participated clock the 5 war minimum for Seasons while the account is in “Reserve Mode”.
To prevent abuse, an account can only go into “Reserve Mode” once every 30 days and for a minimum of 1 day each time.
In short, there’s no incentive for a player to be a Reserve for an alliance. It is done freely out of goodwill. There’s also no incentive for a player to go into “Reserve Mode” as they don’t get any rewards for the duration of time they are in that mode.
The only benefit that arises out of this is that alliances do not need to boot people from being occupied with real life.
As much as there’s some sense in what you said, are you going to tell the other 28 members of your alliance that because this one loyal member who has been in the alliance for a year is going on vacation for a week, the alliance will most probably lose the next 3 wars because only 29 people will be placing and attacking for AW?
Or would you rather tell this loyal member who has been with you for a year that he has to leave the alliance because he’s going on vacation and will most probably result in the alliance losing the next 3 wars and maybe drop a season tier?
And on the administrative side, are you going to tell your new recruit that he will only be staying with the alliance for a week as he is only a temporary replacement for the guy who is going overseas? Who would join you in that case? Or will you take the new recruit in first and find a reason to kick him one week later?
In a less competitive alliance, which I assume you’re leading base on some of your previous posts, it is perfectly manageable to have 29, or even 26 members run a 3 BG AW. People there are happy with where they are and don’t mind winning or losing.
But in a competitive one, that’s not acceptable. It’s because people in these alliances are competitive and starting with a disadvantage is simply out of the question. And they mind losing.. a lot..
I understand where you’re coming from as I lead alliances that fall in both categories. But you have to understand the competitive aspect of this game as well. Without the competition, it’s highly unlikely that you will get a game at all in the first place.
The best alternative to piloting is replacing AW and AQ with something that doesn't demand your time and blood.
At least Arena grinding is an option. The only other option you have is not being competitive and advancing at a slower pace (so, players that cannot be online every hour or two should not join an alliance). That's it.
What I would do to replace AQ: no timers. Let them finish it whenever they want in those 24 hours. And make those 24 fixed hours, so no AQ is shorter than the other.
AW is not as punishing as AQ, but I suppose the main deal there is that some people do not have the skills to not die. In that case, there is no solution. It has been made in a way that only people with good skills and hardware can ace it (on high tiers). In a way that is a good thing, but it is making people pilot more. I don't see a solution to this. At least, not with how this game works.
I understand it is more lucrative to have us online every waking hour.
That is it though. If you decided you want to compete at a certain level, you have decided you are ok with playing on vacations, on holidays ect.,
I've been in multiple alliances, one I was in for a very long time which became the play at all costs highly competitive alliance. I had to, as a player, decide that that level of play at all costs was not for me. I went to a lower ranked alliance that was more laid back and was ok with the idea of being short handed at times. I accepted the fact that I would not be getting the same level of rewards as I used to.
If you want the rewards of a highly competitive alliance then you are committing to the requirements of that alliance which may include playing when you are on vacation, sneaking off at work, or as I've seen some do, wake up in the middle of the night to make moves. The choice of being in that kind of alliance can even mean you have to leave for a little while so so one else can fill in if you are not able to play at the level needed and miss out.
If you are burning out, like many do, you may need to adjust your expectations of rewards and slow down a bit. There's an alliance out there that will fit practically everyone, and if you can't find one, you can always make one.
Not constructive really. The title suggests "Alternatives to piloting". If you don't have any then just move on man. I don't agree with piloting and to put the argument to rest am wondering if any of us have a solution outside the box. You don't and that's ok. Maybe someone else does.
I must have not been clear. None of the suggested solution of "on deck" has anything to do with someone else logging into anyone else's account. It simply suggests that an alternative account (another player or a second account owned by a current alliance member) is kept on deck but inactive within the alliance and can be swapped in (but not in the middle of AQ or AW). It would be "piloted by its owner only". There is nothing cheating or justifying about this at all.
People have second and third accounts they own and park in other alliances. That's an easy solution that people already use. How long have you been playing this game?
Instead of parking it at another alliance until they need it they simply park the account on deck in their current one in case they need it.
Same:
I must have not been clear. None of the suggested solution of "on deck" has anything to do with someone else logging into anyone else's account. It simply suggests that an alternative account (another player or a second account owned by a current alliance member) is kept on deck but inactive within the alliance and can be swapped in (but not in the middle of AQ or AW). It would be "piloted by its owner only". There is nothing cheating or justifying about this at all.
I like these ideas. Thanks