Or @GroundedWisdom, do the same to keep it even. It's not been addressed by the forum mods or TOS as something that is not allowed or not in the spirit of the game... to date, despite multiple threads and opinions on the matter.
Those who "tank" off season, are losing out on AW win rewards so they are giving something up too, but hoping it will pay off more during season. Nothing stopping any team from doing the same thing - those who don't, then that's up to them as well.
In my ally, we don't go in with the thought of losing, but we do agree to not spend during off season or use resources so we may end up losing more often as a result. Not tanking, just smart business sense. Others have said they just want to try out characters they normally don't use. That's diversity and not tanking, especially if they still end with a win through skill.
Also, when two teams "tank" together, there is still a winner and a loser, so not everyone benefits. If everyone did it, it would be a competition to see who could do it better.
Slight difference between choosing to save Items and consciously tanking. If people are playing to their ability without Items that's one thing. If they're intentionally taking dives and bulldozing Allies when the new Season starts, that's not fair play at all.
Imo the off season is much like a pre season in football. Where wins and loses do not count against you but you can test different defenses and offensive Champs. The issue is in mcoc it's a bit of a flawed system where ratings still raise and lower. Take that part away and it would be a true off season. That being said, I see no problem with alliances doing as they want during an off season. Hell, our alliance decided to play AW for fun this season and even with minimal item use and about a 50/50 win loss record we stayed in Gold 1, amazingly.
Slight difference between choosing to save Items and consciously tanking. If people are playing to their ability without Items that's one thing. If they're intentionally taking dives and bulldozing Allies when the new Season starts, that's not fair play at all.
Not really, if they both end in a loss - the overarching result is the same either way, so it really doesn't matter how you view it. There is a winner and a loser in every war. Sometimes you try to win and lose anyway. Sometimes you try to lose and win anyway. Sometimes you try to lose and lose. Sometimes you try diversity and lose. Sometimes you don't play and you lose. Speaking of...food for thought...
What if an ally just decides not to run war at all in the off season? That's less points than tanking because you still earn points when playing and losing, versus earning no points at all for not playing. Your war rating will be stagnant, while everyone else "playing" will still be earning something. I'm sure alliances (or members of an alliance) take time off when season is over to do other stuff or just take a break from the game so they don't burn out. They aren't being manipulative, or trying to lose, just taking a break from the game. Technically, those who do this have an even better "advantage" for season start, no? Down with the players who don't play at all during off season!!!!!
The only way this gets fixed is for War rating to be frozen during the off season. Essentially there's no real off season if an alliance can still move up or down.
The only way this gets fixed is for War rating to be frozen during the off season. Essentially there's no real off season if an alliance can still move up or down.
Whatever an alliance chooses to do as long as it's within the rules of the game is their choice. Just because some may think it's wrong doesn't mean it actually is. Does tanking suck for those lower alliances trying to move up? Of course but, it's well within the rules.
The only way this gets fixed is for War rating to be frozen during the off season. Essentially there's no real off season if an alliance can still move up or down.
Implementing an AW change that only concerns the top 100-300 alliances is not the right answer
if all top 50 allies tank to avoid playing each other, then all top 50 allies will now just be sitting lower and likey play each other....
be the one that does not tank and ends up matching with the ally that was previously 51....
tanking only works when 1 or 2 allies do it..... as they fall down into a sea of weaker opponents....
the more allies that try and do it, the less effective it is.....
if all of the top tanks then the top level just shift downward but still end up all alongside eachother.....
Freezing war rating will not work as people will use shell alliances.
The only thing I can think of would be to reset war rating at the onset of every season. Let the first 3 wars be determined by PI and the rest by war rating. It's not perfect, but it would end tanking.
One way of preventing tanking is to tag total points scored in Seasons to War Ratings rather than a Tier Multiplier.
Eg. Points Scored for a War Win in Season = 200k
Multiplier (Average War Rating of Both Alliances) = 3,000
Total Season Points = 200,000 x 3,000 = 600,000,000.
If the Season Point numbers get too large, we could just arbitrarily divide it by a fixed value (e.g. 1,000. Which would bring the above example to 600,000).
This would in fact make it a disincentive to tank wars during the off-season.
Piloting, cheating and now Tanking wars are the symptoms but its not the root cause of the problem. War season is the only place to get end game rewards, with so much on the line alliances will do whatever it takes to maximize there changes at the best rewards. The solution to all the drama that has been seen from war seasons is to open up the faucet on these rewards else where. Give a little t5b and t2a from every win or a small amount of t5b from AQ. If war season rewards isnt the only place these top resources are available then people wont result to such desperate measures to aquire them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the more popular tanking becomes the less it will be strategic to do it.
The teams doing it will drop rating and when the season starts they will be facing other teams that have done the same, so where is the advantage ? There won't be any steam rolling through the first 5 wars if they are going to be played against equally strong alliances. They will just be fighting for less rewards than if they had played normally on top of the rewards lost during tanking.
Everything balances out in war eventually, and starting with gold 1, the brackets are so big there is no reason to do it anyway. Maybe platinum teams think they will gain an advantage, but if it is such a common thing for that bracket then it really won't help them; they won't be able to drop so far as to only have easy wins throughout the season.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the more popular tanking becomes the less it will be strategic to do it.
The teams doing it will drop rating and when the season starts they will be facing other teams that have done the same, so where is the advantage ? There won't be any steam rolling through the first 5 wars if they are going to be played against equally strong alliances. They will just be fighting for less rewards than if they had played normally on top of the rewards lost during tanking.
Everything balances out in war eventually, and starting with gold 1, the brackets are so big there is no reason to do it anyway. Maybe platinum teams think they will gain an advantage, but if it is such a common thing for that bracket then it really won't help them; they won't be able to drop so far as to only have easy wins throughout the season.
There is a reason to do it. There is a big diff between gold 1 and 3. Last season we moved from 3 to 1 and when regular season arrived we got slaughtered 5 matchups in a row because we were playing gold 1 and platinum teams where we really belonged in gold 2
Again, tanking is perfectly legit in current rules. I am asking for an incentive to not tank. Or remove the incentive to tank.
I think xNig has a good suggestion. I'm also ok with freezing rating during off season.
Thanks bro.
Just to reiterate. My suggestion is to remove fixed Tier Multipliers like how it is currently. Instead, have the Average War Ratings of BOTH alliances act as the multiplier.
This removes the incentive to tank and allows new alliances to move up the tiers during the off season.
Comments
Those who "tank" off season, are losing out on AW win rewards so they are giving something up too, but hoping it will pay off more during season. Nothing stopping any team from doing the same thing - those who don't, then that's up to them as well.
In my ally, we don't go in with the thought of losing, but we do agree to not spend during off season or use resources so we may end up losing more often as a result. Not tanking, just smart business sense. Others have said they just want to try out characters they normally don't use. That's diversity and not tanking, especially if they still end with a win through skill.
Also, when two teams "tank" together, there is still a winner and a loser, so not everyone benefits. If everyone did it, it would be a competition to see who could do it better.
Not really, if they both end in a loss - the overarching result is the same either way, so it really doesn't matter how you view it. There is a winner and a loser in every war. Sometimes you try to win and lose anyway. Sometimes you try to lose and win anyway. Sometimes you try to lose and lose. Sometimes you try diversity and lose. Sometimes you don't play and you lose. Speaking of...food for thought...
What if an ally just decides not to run war at all in the off season? That's less points than tanking because you still earn points when playing and losing, versus earning no points at all for not playing. Your war rating will be stagnant, while everyone else "playing" will still be earning something. I'm sure alliances (or members of an alliance) take time off when season is over to do other stuff or just take a break from the game so they don't burn out. They aren't being manipulative, or trying to lose, just taking a break from the game. Technically, those who do this have an even better "advantage" for season start, no? Down with the players who don't play at all during off season!!!!!
Agreed. And until then, it is what it is.
Implementing an AW change that only concerns the top 100-300 alliances is not the right answer
if all top 50 allies tank to avoid playing each other, then all top 50 allies will now just be sitting lower and likey play each other....
be the one that does not tank and ends up matching with the ally that was previously 51....
tanking only works when 1 or 2 allies do it..... as they fall down into a sea of weaker opponents....
the more allies that try and do it, the less effective it is.....
if all of the top tanks then the top level just shift downward but still end up all alongside eachother.....
1. During the offseason, war rating cannot decrease lower than the final rating of the previous season.
2. At the start of the season, war rating will be the higher of the final rating of the previous season and the final rating of the offseason.
I think this would allow alliances to progress, while at the same time it would end tanking.
The only thing I can think of would be to reset war rating at the onset of every season. Let the first 3 wars be determined by PI and the rest by war rating. It's not perfect, but it would end tanking.
Eg. Points Scored for a War Win in Season = 200k
Multiplier (Average War Rating of Both Alliances) = 3,000
Total Season Points = 200,000 x 3,000 = 600,000,000.
If the Season Point numbers get too large, we could just arbitrarily divide it by a fixed value (e.g. 1,000. Which would bring the above example to 600,000).
This would in fact make it a disincentive to tank wars during the off-season.
That’s what I’m suggesting
The teams doing it will drop rating and when the season starts they will be facing other teams that have done the same, so where is the advantage ? There won't be any steam rolling through the first 5 wars if they are going to be played against equally strong alliances. They will just be fighting for less rewards than if they had played normally on top of the rewards lost during tanking.
Everything balances out in war eventually, and starting with gold 1, the brackets are so big there is no reason to do it anyway. Maybe platinum teams think they will gain an advantage, but if it is such a common thing for that bracket then it really won't help them; they won't be able to drop so far as to only have easy wins throughout the season.
There is a reason to do it. There is a big diff between gold 1 and 3. Last season we moved from 3 to 1 and when regular season arrived we got slaughtered 5 matchups in a row because we were playing gold 1 and platinum teams where we really belonged in gold 2
Then by golly use that sucker on korg lol
Thanks bro.
Just to reiterate. My suggestion is to remove fixed Tier Multipliers like how it is currently. Instead, have the Average War Ratings of BOTH alliances act as the multiplier.
This removes the incentive to tank and allows new alliances to move up the tiers during the off season.