War... Top 10 ally switched to shell alliamce
Staunton
Member Posts: 1,524 ★
They are 49m and 10th on leaderboard
The ally is in tier4 war.
There's no way they should be playing at this level, it's just crazy op
Our Chinese opponents
[Images removed as per forum rules]
Top 10
[Images removed as per forum rules]
@kabam Mike... Or one of the other mods. Can you investigate pls. It's ruining war.
Thank you
The ally is in tier4 war.
There's no way they should be playing at this level, it's just crazy op
Our Chinese opponents
[Images removed as per forum rules]
Top 10
[Images removed as per forum rules]
@kabam Mike... Or one of the other mods. Can you investigate pls. It's ruining war.
Thank you
Post edited by Kabam Zibiit on
7
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Yeah we fought a Russian ally ...pyb last war season they were #27 based on war rating
It's worth mentioning as kabam are going through a blocking spurt now.. so they might pick up on requests like this
Which is fine, I’d rather go against a master group and get curb stomped knowing they are a masters team, rather than a masters team hiding in a shell alliance (which may not be against the rules, but from a gamesmanship POV is a dink move)
It's another for all 30 to change for a common reason to diddle the system.
Its against kabam t+C's to exploit game bugs. This should fall into that cat
Instead of talking about meaningless stuff, help another player with his alliance out. Arguing and trying to belittle one another is how games begin to fail
This shell alliance stuff is wrecking alliance war. Its like someone taking steroids to enhance there performance it gives them such an unfair advantage. Its like Liverpool playing a League 1 team it's ridiculous and Kabam need to do something against it somehow because it may not be against the rules of the game but it isn't sportsman like to drop down and ruin other people's chances just to make your lives easier. People that do this just aren't decent people. It's just selfishness tbh.
Despite not being against the TOS, I do feel it is against the spirit of fair play and I think Kabam should do something about it.
My recommendation: If you change over more than 25/30 players in your alliance over the course of a season, reset the AW rating of said alliance to 0. Will discourage people from doing this as they will get garbage rewards for too long to be worth it.
I'm not sure I follow your logic.... They cant do it by choice but you'll force them to do it anyway....
Since it would not be fair to just change and base matches entirely on Prestige and nothing else (as some want), as many high Prestige alliances may just be casual end-game players who don’t want to spend a ton (or anything), and who are OK just winning half their wars playing on lower maps against similar prestige casual ally's. If you forces them to always play in upper tiers against mostly “spending” Ally’s, in the highest maps with those silly Node Options, they would be condemned to potentially lose all 12 wars each season.
So War Rating of some kind still DOES have to come into play.
But basing an Alliance War Rating on the historical War Performance Wins/Losses of the Ally from each current member (Individual WR), instead of what the Alliance itself may have done or not done in the past with potentially totally different members, would be the best approach.
The difference is that they don't drop all the way down currently. They drop to a place that is "easy" for them to win, but still rewards decent numbers of season points.
If you forced them to go all the way to the bottom, they just wouldn't do it any more. They aren't going to go fight those 0 war rating alliances because you end up getting basically no season points for those wars because the multiplier is so low.
But if someone wants to spend 4-5 seasons building their war rating back up they are welcome to do so I guess. Can't stop people from forming new alliances.
Why you so keen to see a post like this closed down?
I know people want to see loopholes like this closed but I'd caution players to be careful what they wish for.
I've seen this very argument play out across countless games on countless forums. Wherever there is alliance vs alliance or war, problems like this arise. I've seen the devs on some games make changes to counteract the "problem" only to create new and often worse problems.
See, here's the thing: some players are very creative. They will always find a way to creatively flex rules. They just will. And sometimes taking away one thing leads them (players) to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan. Often that new plan is far more effective than the old one.
Resources like time, money and manpower are finite. Devs can chase their tails trying to combat the next creative player skirting of the rules or come up with creative solutions themselves. Rather than taking away the ability to change alliances or severely punishing player movement, rewarding time spent in an alliance seems like a good and creative solution. How it is implemented will determine its success.
I'm not certain how effective the current tactics are having no experience with them personally so I can't comment on them much. But I do know taking it away will lead to a more effective method employed by creative alliances. It always does.