Alliance events scoring (and how to prevent cheats/exploits/etc)

dot_dittodot_ditto Posts: 1,223 ★★★
Just trying to start a discussion on the "elephant in the room", which Kabam doesn't want to seem to talk about.

I was thinking about an easy way to help mitigate all the exploits/cheats/whatever which occur from time to time in regards to Alliance Events and I think I've come up with a simple one. So figured I'd put it here for discussion ;)

At the start of an Alliance Event ... Kabam takes a "snapshot" list of current members of the alliance.
Individuals earn points towards the alliance, but the score is tracked "by individual" ..
At the end of the event, Kabam takes another "snapshot" list of current members of the alliance.

Total Alliance Event score is tallied from the individual scores of all members present at the END of the event only.
Members receive rewards IF-and ONLY if ... they are in both lists (ie they were members at the START and the END of the event).

This would help prevent:
1) alliances booting members minutes before end of alliance to prevent them receiving rewards. Note if the alliance does this, the alliance also doesn't benefit from the members score contribution ;)
In some cases, the alliance may decide this is worth it (ie a really low scoring member) .. but this seems about right, IMHO.

2) rotating members through to inflate the score of the alliance. Not possible, as once those members leave, they're contributions go with them.

3) alliances looking to gather high scorers last minute - not possible, since they'd have to be in the alliance at start as well - so they'd have to know who was going to score high in the first place.

I feel this simple change would bring alliance events back to their intention: a group of 30 people working together to score higher than another group of 30 people. No rotating doors, no shell games ... no funny stuff.

That said ... there's likely a way to exploit something .. however, let's discuss that, and iron those kinks out, rather than just saying "won't work, somebody will find a loop hole".
Just because somebody will find a loop hole shouldn't prevent us from TRYING to fix things. ;)

Comments

  • dot_dittodot_ditto Posts: 1,223 ★★★
    I'm honestly surprised by the lack of feedback (positive or negative) O.o

    Is it just holidays, and this topic is still "too touchy" ?
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 12,525 ★★★★★
    It's going to get closed. It's not that Kabam doesn't want to talk about it, they can't. They put it in the ToS that they aren't going to comment on cheaters, the possibility of cheating or anything related to what happens to those cheaters if anything does. Continuing to post about it won't change that fact. We'll never know the behind the scenes processes that go on or anything close.
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Posts: 1,223 ★★★

    It's going to get closed. It's not that Kabam doesn't want to talk about it, they can't. They put it in the ToS that they aren't going to comment on cheaters, the possibility of cheating or anything related to what happens to those cheaters if anything does. Continuing to post about it won't change that fact. We'll never know the behind the scenes processes that go on or anything close.

    Sorry, I don't follow that line of reasoning.
    I'm not discussing any specific cheaters .. not calling anyone out by names.
    I'm addressing suggestions for improving the game ... focusing on a particular aspect.

    I don't see any validity in the assumption that they'd close this thread because of my original suggestion ..
    I can, however, understand them closing the thread due to comments derailing and detracting from the discussion .. and dragging the topic over to specific cases.

    So please don't do that, and please comment on original suggestions (if you have anything worth saying).

    thanks.
  • OP is a very, very, long way to go to try and say something that can be simplified by ...

    Points only count when contributed by those that were already in alliance when it started, and still with alliance by the end (accomplished by removing their points when someone leaves the alliance).

    I'd say something similar, that only those in Ally at end would count. But I would allow those that join mid-event to also count (so long as they remain until end, thus no “rotating en-mass in and out”, just ones that come in and stay in).
    ** But since milestones are earned/claimed while Event is in progress, taking away points directly won’t work. You’d have to implement a “Negative Points” status for when people leave the Ally (similar to the Negative Units for Refunded real money Unit purchases). So that it doesn’t affect the status of Milestones already claimed by some. Then when Ally Event has Negative Points, any new points go first toward re-satisfying what was lost from the person who left's points, before starting to increase Ally Score again.
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Posts: 1,223 ★★★


    ** But since milestones are earned/claimed while Event is in progress, taking away points directly won’t work. You’d have to implement a “Negative Points” status for when people leave the Ally (similar to the Negative Units for Refunded real money Unit purchases). So that it doesn’t affect the status of Milestones already claimed by some. Then when Ally Event has Negative Points, any new points go first toward re-satisfying what was lost from the person who left's points, before starting to increase Ally Score again.

    That's a good point, I hadn't thought about that.
    It might be easiest/safest then to not hand out milestones "as you reach them" .. but rather wait until then end, then reward all milestones .etc ..

    definitely a different shift in the style of handing out rewards, though .. and might not float with everyone :)

    but definitely good point .. hmmm
  • Thx. Negative Points could go towards other major Ally Events too, like SA, Item Use, etc, although really there is not much desire for trying to reach the top spots in those.

    But principally for Gifting. And could even be used for revoking points of those that get banned, etc (since they may not necessarily actually be removed from ally).
  • CaptainPollCaptainPoll Posts: 901 ★★★
    wouldnt this process be too much manual?
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 815 ★★★★
    There's only one real event that people care about that was obviously taken advantage of, gifting.

    1) Extend the 8 days it takes for a member to contribute to the treasury to gifting as well.
    2) If a member leaves an alliance or gets booted their score is subtracted from the gifting total.
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Posts: 1,223 ★★★

    wouldnt this process be too much manual?

    What do you mean .. "manual" ?

    Yes, it would definitely require a bit of a rework in the way to manage rewards and points ...
    however, in order to lessen the impact and the ability of some to manipulate things ... I think there needs to be a rework of some sorts . *shrug*.

    Not saying what I suggested is the only way .. just trying to start a mature and reasonable discussion on it :)
    Definitely something needs to be done ...
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,234 ★★★★★
    You punish people who have an alt they use to gift themselves for the event; there are multiple of these accounts on the solo leaderboard and one popular YT video wrongly called one of them either a bot or fraudster.

    Doing this reduces people’s willingness to spend under these circumstances.

    You are also telling players that they must have an equal number of spenders or spend without hope of return.

    Furthermore the stink is being raised by many people who break the rules, except they came out on the short end of the stick this time so it’s now a problem? w/e
  • dot_dittodot_ditto Posts: 1,223 ★★★

    You punish people who have an alt they use to gift themselves for the event; there are multiple of these accounts on the solo leaderboard and one popular YT video wrongly called one of them either a bot or fraudster.

    Sorry? How so ?

    Doing this reduces people’s willingness to spend under these circumstances.
    Why?

    You are also telling players that they must have an equal number of spenders or spend without hope of return.
    Again, why? I'm not seeing it, there isn't anything there forcing what you claim. Care to explain in more detail please ?
    I'm genuinely interested in understanding what you're talking about. I'm just not seeing it right now.

    Furthermore the stink is being raised by many people who break the rules, except they came out on the short end of the stick this time so it’s now a problem? w/e
    Not sure what you mean by this ... I'm not overly concerned about anyone "breaking the rules" .. the idea of these suggestions, is it blatantly prevents the kinds of "breaking the rules" which we are all now painfully aware of.

    The idea .. and intention is to bring these events back to a "proper" level .. where those who spend (legitimately) benefit appropriately.

    There's nothing in there that punishes those who don't spend .. or those who spend a lot.

    It only tries to prevent those exploiting loopholes from benefiting from doing that.
Sign In or Register to comment.