Use of Shell Alliances - when will you stop it?

ViclapViclap Member Posts: 56
edited November 2019 in General Discussion
The use of Shell Alliances to basically cheat is rampant and is at a point of severely compromising both AQ and AW Leaderboards.

You know it’s going on, just as you knew piloting was - and still is - going on.

Why are you letting it continue

It’s not hard to prevent so when are you going to do something about it?!?
«13

Comments

  • Lvernon15Lvernon15 Member Posts: 11,598 ★★★★★
    It is hard to prevent it, the only suggestion I’ve ever heard from anyone is ban people if they leave an alliance in mass, but they said that causes issues with things like mergers, if you have a suggestion be sure to say it though
  • AzKicker316AzKicker316 Member Posts: 2,451 ★★★★★
    Since kabam chose to lock your alliance tier in the offseason, that opened the door for shells to be used by everyone. Anyone who is war priority now has a shell alliance. But again, how do you determine an alliance is doing that versus just making moves or merging?
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★

    Since kabam chose to lock your alliance tier in the offseason, that opened the door for shells to be used by everyone. Anyone who is war priority now has a shell alliance. But again, how do you determine an alliance is doing that versus just making moves or merging?

    You can't. That's why people getting worked up over tanking was dumb bc it really didn't do much of anything honestly.
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,336 ★★★★★
    Tag... war ratings... to individuals...
  • SubExtaByteSubExtaByte Member Posts: 80

    xNig said:

    Tag... war ratings... to individuals...

    How does one go between competing in high tier wars and taking breaks from war at that point then?

    I dont personally care about war at all and dont play in alliances that push in it, but if you tie ratings to individuals it limits players from being able to move between competitive war and taking breaks
    What is shell ally?
  • Mellie_MelMellie_Mel Member Posts: 74
    @SubExtaByte when they talk about shell alliances, they mean a group has two or more alliances they move between. I’m not entirely sure why people complain about it so much though. I don’t think people understand why they exist and would rather complain and blame for their shortcomings rather than understand it.
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,336 ★★★★★
    edited November 2019

    xNig said:

    Tag... war ratings... to individuals...

    How does one go between competing in high tier wars and taking breaks from war at that point then?

    I dont personally care about war at all and dont play in alliances that push in it, but if you tie ratings to individuals it limits players from being able to move between competitive war and taking breaks
    They can still take a break at a lower war rating alliance, as 1-2 person’s absurdly high war rating doesn’t affect the alliance’s rating to make a substantial difference since the difference it’s divided by 30 people.

    Not to mention, it also accurately reflects the increase in war capabilities of the lower war rating alliance.

    This will, however, make shell alliances redundant as the members gain no advantage (in terms of war), by shifting everyone to another alliance, since the new alliance’s war rating will automatically be increased due to the influx of higher rated players.
  • Kaycg1Kaycg1 Member Posts: 257
    edited November 2019
    How about putting a lifetime counter in place for time with your alliance with a rewards system based on your level in the game and high tier rewards for the longer your in your alliance. Make it hard to walk away from rewards that are worth sticking around for with staying in the same alliance.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    @SubExtaByte when they talk about shell alliances, they mean a group has two or more alliances they move between. I’m not entirely sure why people complain about it so much though. I don’t think people understand why they exist and would rather complain and blame for their shortcomings rather than understand it.

    They complain because not only is it a form of cheating, it also makes those people in the lower tier of the shell alliance fight artificially harder alliances.

    If you are a tier 1 alliance and you switch to a shell that is tier 3, then all the tier 3/4 players that you face have just had a bump in the difficulty of the matches, all so you can be rewarded more points by facing artificially easier matches.
    No one swaps from T1 to T3. At absolute worst they'd move from T1 to bottom of T1 or very top of T2.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    xNig said:

    Tag... war ratings... to individuals...

    How does one go between competing in high tier wars and taking breaks from war at that point then?

    I dont personally care about war at all and dont play in alliances that push in it, but if you tie ratings to individuals it limits players from being able to move between competitive war and taking breaks
    They can still take a break at a lower war rating alliance, as 1-2 person’s absurdly high war rating doesn’t affect the alliance’s rating to make a substantial difference since the difference it’s divided by 30 people.

    Not to mention, it also accurately reflects the increase in war capabilities of the lower war rating alliance.

    This will, however, make shell alliances redundant as the members gain no advantage (in terms of war), by shifting everyone to another alliance, since the new alliance’s war rating will automatically be increased due to the influx of higher rated players.
    I get what you're saying but that's assuming a 2 person max member change. Retirement or war relaxed alliances also tend to have a lot of player changes. If you get 5 guys with a 3000 rating moving into a 1600 rated alliance that's over 200 pts in rating jump immediately.

    The current system is far from perfect I'm just not sure that rating shells have THAT much of an effect on seasons anymore personally. Again I really dont care either way, I just don't feel it's as simple or clean a fix as a lot seem to think it is.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    @SubExtaByte when they talk about shell alliances, they mean a group has two or more alliances they move between. I’m not entirely sure why people complain about it so much though. I don’t think people understand why they exist and would rather complain and blame for their shortcomings rather than understand it.

    They complain because not only is it a form of cheating, it also makes those people in the lower tier of the shell alliance fight artificially harder alliances.

    If you are a tier 1 alliance and you switch to a shell that is tier 3, then all the tier 3/4 players that you face have just had a bump in the difficulty of the matches, all so you can be rewarded more points by facing artificially easier matches.
    No one swaps from T1 to T3. At absolute worst they'd move from T1 to bottom of T1 or very top of T2.
    It does not matter if it is T3, which was for illustration, or bottom Tier 1/top tier 2, my point still stands, and you could not refute it. It still is a way to cheat the system to artificially increase your score at the expense of lower alliances, which artificially lowers their scores and potentially costs them ranks and rewards. It should be stopped if it can, it is just hard to.. The individual tier system works well, it would allow you to retire to a retirement alliance if you want to because you can average the tiers in the alliance for the match.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    @SubExtaByte when they talk about shell alliances, they mean a group has two or more alliances they move between. I’m not entirely sure why people complain about it so much though. I don’t think people understand why they exist and would rather complain and blame for their shortcomings rather than understand it.

    They complain because not only is it a form of cheating, it also makes those people in the lower tier of the shell alliance fight artificially harder alliances.

    If you are a tier 1 alliance and you switch to a shell that is tier 3, then all the tier 3/4 players that you face have just had a bump in the difficulty of the matches, all so you can be rewarded more points by facing artificially easier matches.
    No one swaps from T1 to T3. At absolute worst they'd move from T1 to bottom of T1 or very top of T2.
    It does not matter if it is T3, which was for illustration, or bottom Tier 1/top tier 2, my point still stands, and you could not refute it. It still is a way to cheat the system to artificially increase your score at the expense of lower alliances, which artificially lowers their scores and potentially costs them ranks and rewards. It should be stopped if it can, it is just hard to.. The individual tier system works well, it would allow you to retire to a retirement alliance if you want to because you can average the tiers in the alliance for the match.
    You're free to believe whatever you like but I just don't think they have much actual impact on where people end up placing in a season just like i didn't think tanking did. I played in past alliances that tanked in offseason and more often than not it ended up hurting in the end from starting with a lower multiplier. Unless you got lucky matches and won every early war, all you did was shoot yourself in the foot.

    I think the ridiculous matchmaking system has far more impact than tanking/shells ever did or will personally.
  • DęłtåDęłtå Member Posts: 295
    edited November 2019
    I’ve submitted so many shell alliances to kabam via support with screen shots of lower rated players in war tier 2.9 3.3 has done nothing and there still doing it still available to shell every season
  • Stara99Stara99 Member Posts: 426 ★★
    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    @SubExtaByte when they talk about shell alliances, they mean a group has two or more alliances they move between. I’m not entirely sure why people complain about it so much though. I don’t think people understand why they exist and would rather complain and blame for their shortcomings rather than understand it.

    They complain because not only is it a form of cheating, it also makes those people in the lower tier of the shell alliance fight artificially harder alliances.

    If you are a tier 1 alliance and you switch to a shell that is tier 3, then all the tier 3/4 players that you face have just had a bump in the difficulty of the matches, all so you can be rewarded more points by facing artificially easier matches.
    No one swaps from T1 to T3. At absolute worst they'd move from T1 to bottom of T1 or very top of T2.
    It does not matter if it is T3, which was for illustration, or bottom Tier 1/top tier 2, my point still stands, and you could not refute it. It still is a way to cheat the system to artificially increase your score at the expense of lower alliances, which artificially lowers their scores and potentially costs them ranks and rewards. It should be stopped if it can, it is just hard to.. The individual tier system works well, it would allow you to retire to a retirement alliance if you want to because you can average the tiers in the alliance for the match.
    I really don’t think people care much of ratings as others are commenting on. The ratings are just something from switching. The reason people are switching is because of aq costs. Lots of people are crying about gold because they don’t want to do arena. Kabam did something great when they increased the unit to bc donation 1/550 but loyalty is lacking. Only way to get loyalty is to do aw and donations are still lacking 1/100 which created the black market. Until kabam does something about loyalty then black market will be there.
  • jgrazjgraz Member Posts: 82
    Seems like a lot of work for AW rewards which kind of suck anyway. If ther are willing to waste the time, have at it
  • AleorAleor Member Posts: 3,105 ★★★★★
    There are ways to solve it. You can give out rewards for previous season one week before the next one starts for example
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,336 ★★★★★

    xNig said:

    xNig said:

    Tag... war ratings... to individuals...

    How does one go between competing in high tier wars and taking breaks from war at that point then?

    I dont personally care about war at all and dont play in alliances that push in it, but if you tie ratings to individuals it limits players from being able to move between competitive war and taking breaks
    They can still take a break at a lower war rating alliance, as 1-2 person’s absurdly high war rating doesn’t affect the alliance’s rating to make a substantial difference since the difference it’s divided by 30 people.

    Not to mention, it also accurately reflects the increase in war capabilities of the lower war rating alliance.

    This will, however, make shell alliances redundant as the members gain no advantage (in terms of war), by shifting everyone to another alliance, since the new alliance’s war rating will automatically be increased due to the influx of higher rated players.
    I get what you're saying but that's assuming a 2 person max member change. Retirement or war relaxed alliances also tend to have a lot of player changes. If you get 5 guys with a 3000 rating moving into a 1600 rated alliance that's over 200 pts in rating jump immediately.

    The current system is far from perfect I'm just not sure that rating shells have THAT much of an effect on seasons anymore personally. Again I really dont care either way, I just don't feel it's as simple or clean a fix as a lot seem to think it is.
    I agree, however, a 200 rating jump from 1.6k to 1.8k for a lower alliance also reflects the improvement of the rosters + experience these 5 guys bring coming from a 3k alliance.

    Skill and boosting for wars aside, just the defenders of these 5 guys alone will make a difference (it’s 1/6 of the alliance’s defenders), and that improvement in war capabilities is exactly what the war rating system should be capturing.

    Shells is still a big thing in tier 1/2/3 wars. My sister alliance is in Tier 3 and for the past 2 seasons, we match shells 30-50% of the time. Similarly, my main alliance match shells around half the time too, with all members being War Elites and the alliance ranking Silver 1 or lower the previous season (season 12).
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Member Posts: 22,366 ★★★★★
    Viclap said:

    The use of Shell Alliances to basically cheat is rampant and is at a point of severely compromising both AQ and AW Leaderboards.

    You know it’s going on, just as you knew piloting was - and still is - going on.

    Why are you letting it continue

    It’s not hard to prevent so when are you going to do something about it?!?

    Simple, there isnt a rule against it....yet. Until they actually make it against AW rules and find a way to prevent it, there isnt anything anyone can do about it. It's frowned upon for sure but still legal.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    xNig said:

    xNig said:

    Tag... war ratings... to individuals...

    How does one go between competing in high tier wars and taking breaks from war at that point then?

    I dont personally care about war at all and dont play in alliances that push in it, but if you tie ratings to individuals it limits players from being able to move between competitive war and taking breaks
    They can still take a break at a lower war rating alliance, as 1-2 person’s absurdly high war rating doesn’t affect the alliance’s rating to make a substantial difference since the difference it’s divided by 30 people.

    Not to mention, it also accurately reflects the increase in war capabilities of the lower war rating alliance.

    This will, however, make shell alliances redundant as the members gain no advantage (in terms of war), by shifting everyone to another alliance, since the new alliance’s war rating will automatically be increased due to the influx of higher rated players.
    I get what you're saying but that's assuming a 2 person max member change. Retirement or war relaxed alliances also tend to have a lot of player changes. If you get 5 guys with a 3000 rating moving into a 1600 rated alliance that's over 200 pts in rating jump immediately.

    The current system is far from perfect I'm just not sure that rating shells have THAT much of an effect on seasons anymore personally. Again I really dont care either way, I just don't feel it's as simple or clean a fix as a lot seem to think it is.
    I agree, however, a 200 rating jump from 1.6k to 1.8k for a lower alliance also reflects the improvement of the rosters + experience these 5 guys bring coming from a 3k alliance.

    Skill and boosting for wars aside, just the defenders of these 5 guys alone will make a difference (it’s 1/6 of the alliance’s defenders), and that improvement in war capabilities is exactly what the war rating system should be capturing.

    Shells is still a big thing in tier 1/2/3 wars. My sister alliance is in Tier 3 and for the past 2 seasons, we match shells 30-50% of the time. Similarly, my main alliance match shells around half the time too, with all members being War Elites and the alliance ranking Silver 1 or lower the previous season (season 12).
    Granted you still have to be a strong player usually but a T1 war rating is far more indicative of one's willingness to boost and spend items in war regularly than it is roster strength by far.

    Take myself for example, my war rating would be quite low as I play in an alliance that doesnt push war at all but I'm over 10.7k prestige with 17 R5 and 6 R2 champs. If I decided I cared enough to move to a competitive war alliance and start boosting and wasting items in it again, in your situation that rating change to the alliance I moved to wouldn't actually be indicative of the change in strength to the alliance I moved to.

    Yes I'm well aware shells are still used regularly I just truly don't believe they have near the effect on season standings as some of you seem to think personally. I've played in T1 alliances and am more than happy slumming it in T4 these days. Whatever ends up happening you guys can have fun with it. I just think it's an issue that's not even worth making large changes to address is all.
  • xNigxNig Member Posts: 7,336 ★★★★★
    I doubt a genuine T4 alliance will have members with a full slate of 5* R5s as defenders.. which is what you brought to the alliance when you moved from T1 to their alliance.

    I’m very sure, solely based on your defenders alone, your alliance got better in war.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Member Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    xNig said:

    I doubt a genuine T4 alliance will have members with a full slate of 5* R5s as defenders.. which is what you brought to the alliance when you moved from T1 to their alliance.

    I’m very sure, solely based on your defenders alone, your alliance got better in war.

    Negative. We're also top 5 ranked in AQ. We have plenty of very large rosters. Just dont care about war
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • CliffordcanCliffordcan Member Posts: 1,341 ★★★★
    No one is going to point out that no one cares about war anymore, shell alliances are for donation drops these days.
  • grolsch420grolsch420 Member Posts: 30
    Kabam must act on this. In tier 2 AW S12 we faced 7/12 matches Shell alliances who are just Master alliances. We lost all these wars and they were VERY costly to 100%.

    It took away all the fun of AW fighting and doenst feel fair at all. We made tickets facing all these Shells and kabam told us they are looking into it but im hearing nothing so far on solutions.

    AW is pretty much broken in the top tiers. All glory gained is going to glorystore health potions and revives just to 100% against these shell's with no chance of winning.
Sign In or Register to comment.