@INTEGRAL I was in your side when you complained about hacking to win AW. I firmly believe the other alliance knew about the hacking and probably condoned it, and only decided to take action and remove the hacker when you made it public in this forum. But to come here and defend an exploit in AW where alliances can swap, drop into lower tiers just to get mismatches and easy 5* shards as "strategy"?
Maybe I'm not a top tier player like you (I know I'm not) but I call BS. Hacking is bad but utilising exploits in the AW system, like alliance swapping to get mismatches, to get an unfair advantage is also something that should not be condoned.
It's strategy sure. Its not against the rules either. I am not sure for someone with a huge roster that has completed paths in LOL it is a respectable thing to do. I mean what is the sense of having the account at that point? Content like master quest and new spider quest are not a challenge to these players. Aq while on this hiatus would likely be a step down and not as much of a focus, as well as generally easy for these players. War matches against similar strength opponents would be the only real challenge for them I would think.
So at that point they are just playing to collect champs not for sport or challenge. Nothing wrong with that just I can't see why one would keep playing if that is what you are doing.
Before reworking the aw matchup system, kabam should really look into all the cheaters which are popping up like mushrooms everywhere, even in tier1. When exposed or reported no action is taken for months and the thread about cheats here gets closed down without warning.
After that bs gets cleaned, we can look into a possible different AW matchup system
An alliance waives T4b, alphas and t4c maybe for 3 weeks just to get more 5* shards and you say it is cheating? They do not get every thing they used to get when they switch alliance.
Swaps for AQ were eliminated because the game team deemed that it was inappropriate and unfair to the player base writ large. Manipulating war rating to get super easy match ups every time also skirts the intended purpose of war rating and comes at the expense of weaker alliances.
Ultimately, Kabam wants to make money off of selling pots in AW and AQ--that's why they're so overpriced in game. Kabam loses revenue and weaker alliances get taken advantage of when stronger alliances manipulate war rating. Weaker alliances don't use items against overmatched opponents and neither to the stronger alliances need to use many, if any, items against weaker foes. It's a lose-lose all the way around.
Just have it based on alliance prestige. It's not that hard.
Could be an option, but this way some "relaxed" alliances would suffer badly. and what about people with 29 members? do you still calculate off average prestige or consider the missing one a 0 prestige? might put some aw pretty off
Just have it based on alliance prestige. It's not that hard.
Could be an option, but this way some "relaxed" alliances would suffer badly. and what about people with 29 members? do you still calculate off average prestige or consider the missing one a 0 prestige? might put some aw pretty off
Just an average of everyone's prestige. Wouldn't be hard. And those "relaxed" alliances that have guys with multiple r4's playing teams full of 4* are gaming the system as well so I feel no pitty for them.
The logic of swapping to a shell makes no sense... unless the allliance decides to take a break from tier 1, a new shell would mean you'd have to start of at tier 20. Which takes quite a while to get back to where u get 4 and 5* shards... yeah you'd steamroll through the competition, but that's tons of wasted time trying to get back to where rewards are descent.
Not if the shell was old -- from an alliance that is no longer active.
I personally prefer the idea of personal war rating attached to each player, and the Alliance rating is an average of all members.
Barring that, set it up so that if the Alliance experiences member leaving/joining over some pre-determined amount in a pre-determined amount of time (i.e. 10+ people leave/join every 3 days, etc) then their tier is reset to 20.
Nothing beyond that is necessary, because if they are willing to start over at the bottom, they could always just create a new alliance no matter what.
Of course, if we want fair and even matches, the real solution that will NEVER be used, is to normalize the challenger rating of both teams so it's an even playing field. Average all of the challenger ratings of both defense and attack of both sides together, set all champs to this average challenger rating. No longer would a team of 4/55 and 5/50 be roflstomping a team of 4/40 and 3/30. It would be a team of 3/30 vs 3/30, or 4/40 vs 4/40, or whatever.
Now, some might say, well, that will just let everyone load up their team with the best champs from the far more accessible 3* pool, as opposed to the more rare 4*, and especially 5* rosters. So, you cap the highest possible tier rewards for each team based on the lowest challenger rating fielded by that team.
For instance, to qualify for the 5*/4* shards, every single defender and attacks has to at least by a 3/30 4*, or CR80.
If there is anything less than CR80, like a 4/40 3* or 2/20 4*, then the highest tier rewards are 4*/3* shards.
If there is anything less than CR50, like a 1/10 3* or 3/30 2*, then the highest tier rewards are 3*/PHC shards.
Also, each team's highest potential tier reward is independent from each other. A team of all 5* vs a team of all 2* may normalize to something around a low-mid 4* for everyone in that match, but only the 5* team has the potential to get the 5*/4* shards, while the 2* team can only get 3*/PHC at best.
Of course, if we want fair and even matches, the real solution that will NEVER be used, is to normalize the challenger rating of both teams so it's an even playing field. Average all of the challenger ratings of both defense and attack of both sides together, set all champs to this average challenger rating. No longer would a team of 4/55 and 5/50 be roflstomping a team of 4/40 and 3/30. It would be a team of 3/30 vs 3/30, or 4/40 vs 4/40, or whatever.
Now, some might say, well, that will just let everyone load up their team with the best champs from the far more accessible 3* pool, as opposed to the more rare 4*, and especially 5* rosters. So, you cap the highest possible tier rewards for each team based on the lowest challenger rating fielded by that team.
For instance, to qualify for the 5*/4* shards, every single defender and attacks has to at least by a 3/30 4*, or CR80.
If there is anything less than CR80, like a 4/40 3* or 2/20 4*, then the highest tier rewards are 4*/3* shards.
If there is anything less than CR50, like a 1/10 3* or 3/30 2*, then the highest tier rewards are 3*/PHC shards.
Also, each team's highest potential tier reward is independent from each other. A team of all 5* vs a team of all 2* may normalize to something around a low-mid 4* for everyone in that match, but only the 5* team has the potential to get the 5*/4* shards, while the 2* team can only get 3*/PHC at best.
This is a very informative and impassioned thread, and I'm going to make sure that the team reads all of it. We don't like people exploiting the system to gain and unfair advantage more than you all do, and if we determine that this is a real problem, we'll work on a solution.
That being said, I'm closing this thread down now because it's starting to get a little personal, and we need to keep the discourse in the forums civil.
Comments
Aren't you the same guy that was complaining about AW in the forums a few days ago?
He complains about hacking in AW, yet has no problem with exploiting AW system by other means like alliance swapping. Smh.
Maybe I'm not a top tier player like you (I know I'm not) but I call BS. Hacking is bad but utilising exploits in the AW system, like alliance swapping to get mismatches, to get an unfair advantage is also something that should not be condoned.
So at that point they are just playing to collect champs not for sport or challenge. Nothing wrong with that just I can't see why one would keep playing if that is what you are doing.
After that bs gets cleaned, we can look into a possible different AW matchup system
Swaps for AQ were eliminated because the game team deemed that it was inappropriate and unfair to the player base writ large. Manipulating war rating to get super easy match ups every time also skirts the intended purpose of war rating and comes at the expense of weaker alliances.
Ultimately, Kabam wants to make money off of selling pots in AW and AQ--that's why they're so overpriced in game. Kabam loses revenue and weaker alliances get taken advantage of when stronger alliances manipulate war rating. Weaker alliances don't use items against overmatched opponents and neither to the stronger alliances need to use many, if any, items against weaker foes. It's a lose-lose all the way around.
Could be an option, but this way some "relaxed" alliances would suffer badly. and what about people with 29 members? do you still calculate off average prestige or consider the missing one a 0 prestige? might put some aw pretty off
Just an average of everyone's prestige. Wouldn't be hard. And those "relaxed" alliances that have guys with multiple r4's playing teams full of 4* are gaming the system as well so I feel no pitty for them.
Not if the shell was old -- from an alliance that is no longer active.
Barring that, set it up so that if the Alliance experiences member leaving/joining over some pre-determined amount in a pre-determined amount of time (i.e. 10+ people leave/join every 3 days, etc) then their tier is reset to 20.
Nothing beyond that is necessary, because if they are willing to start over at the bottom, they could always just create a new alliance no matter what.
Now, some might say, well, that will just let everyone load up their team with the best champs from the far more accessible 3* pool, as opposed to the more rare 4*, and especially 5* rosters. So, you cap the highest possible tier rewards for each team based on the lowest challenger rating fielded by that team.
For instance, to qualify for the 5*/4* shards, every single defender and attacks has to at least by a 3/30 4*, or CR80.
If there is anything less than CR80, like a 4/40 3* or 2/20 4*, then the highest tier rewards are 4*/3* shards.
If there is anything less than CR50, like a 1/10 3* or 3/30 2*, then the highest tier rewards are 3*/PHC shards.
Also, each team's highest potential tier reward is independent from each other. A team of all 5* vs a team of all 2* may normalize to something around a low-mid 4* for everyone in that match, but only the 5* team has the potential to get the 5*/4* shards, while the 2* team can only get 3*/PHC at best.
no
This is a very informative and impassioned thread, and I'm going to make sure that the team reads all of it. We don't like people exploiting the system to gain and unfair advantage more than you all do, and if we determine that this is a real problem, we'll work on a solution.
That being said, I'm closing this thread down now because it's starting to get a little personal, and we need to keep the discourse in the forums civil.