War... Top 10 ally switched to shell alliamce

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

Comments

Das_gi

@Staunton they do it all the time and says nowhere they can’t do it. Just deal with it everybody eventually fights a Plat 1 alliance in a shell alliance

Mauled

I thought you were P3 from your posts not G1

Staunton

We are in tier4 war atm

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

Plantesan

Not to your extent OP but definitely understand the frustration with how matchmaking pairs teams up. Currently our ally (p2) got matched up with a masters ally. Mind you there is a 400 war rating difference between us, it’s somethin I tell ya...

QuikPik

@Plantesan but how close is your prestige?

Demonzfyre

We are in tier4 war atm

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

Can you show me where it says switching to a different alliance is against the rules?

Mcord11758

The last 2 seasons my alliance have matched against top 10 alliances in aq in tier 6. 3 different wars each alliance over 45 million rated, one was over 50 million. It is what it is

Plantesan

@Plantesan but how close is your prestige?

10187 vs 10457

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)

-sixate-

Worry about yourself, why do you care what another alliance is doing?

Mcord11758

Worry about yourself, why do you care what another alliance is doing?

Because this form of manipulation could be a deciding factor in an another alliance placing in gold 1 or 2 or plat 4. The system is broken terribly, but it is what it is, as I said

Demonzfyre

@Plantesan but how close is your prestige?
10187 vs 10457

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)

Just remember what you are saying right now. Better not plan on switching alliances ever.

Staunton

It's one thing to change ally for personal reason

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

Demonzfyre

It's one thing to change ally for personal reason

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

Its not a game bug nor is it against the rules currently. Its 100% legit. Does it suck, sure bit there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

Plantesan

@Plantesan but how close is your prestige?
10187 vs 10457

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)
Just remember what you are saying right now. Better not plan on switching alliances ever.

Any future moves would involve going to a semi-retired with some old ally mates at this point XD The game isn’t what it used to be

Zuko_ILC

Unfortunately this isn't a game bug. Swapping alliances has always been allowed and there is no rule against it that I know of.

MinatoNamikazie

Some of you rules, T&C geniuses are missing the point of the post. The point is the matchmaking is unfair and your trying to promote unfair play.

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

Demonzfyre

@Plantesan but how close is your prestige?
10187 vs 10457

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)
Just remember what you are saying right now. Better not plan on switching alliances ever.
Any future moves would involve going to a semi-retired with some old ally mates at this point XD The game isn’t what it used to be

Wouldn't that be the same thing? Your stacked roster up against people with smaller ones?

iW0nderingWolf

It's not really the same thing considering in retirement you don't drop down to get the best rewards you stop playing as much and get less rewards.
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.

Demonzfyre

Some of you rules, T&C geniuses are missing the point of the post. The point is the matchmaking is unfair and your trying to promote unfair play.

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

It's not meaningless. OP and others are saying switching alliances is against the ToS and its not. This is exactly how mis-information is spread.

Treinin

It may not be against the rules to use shell-alliances, but it is definitely ruining the game mode. We have faced 2 alliances who finished in "Participation" levels last season and are very clearly shells out of a total of 3 wars so far.

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.

Worknprogress

You do realize there are plenty of high rated alliances that make zero effort in war now right. We're rated a lot higher than that and were in T4 until a couple seasons ago. We just made less than no effort in war

Demonzfyre

It may not be against the rules to use shell-alliances, but it is definitely ruining the game mode. We have faced 2 alliances who finished in "Participation" levels last season and are very clearly shells out of a total of 3 wars so far.

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.

Wait.... So switching alliances to get to a lower tier and matching against people who have some ability to win if played smart is not ok but erasing war rating and forcing them to match against the lowest tiers where they can work their way up fairly easily but basically equalling a win through bottom tiers is ok?

I'm not sure I follow your logic.... They cant do it by choice but you'll force them to do it anyway....

Lvernon15

The issue is finding a solution, it’s something that’s needed but is difficult to do without severe knock-on effects

SummonerNR

Best solution I’ve seen many people suggest is having INDIVIDUAL's WAR RATING tied to each person, and then that “average” is what makes up your current Alliance War Rating.

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.

Treinin

It may not be against the rules to use shell-alliances, but it is definitely ruining the game mode. We have faced 2 alliances who finished in "Participation" levels last season and are very clearly shells out of a total of 3 wars so far.

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.
Wait.... So switching alliances to get to a lower tier and matching against people who have some ability to win if played smart is not ok but erasing war rating and forcing them to match against the lowest tiers where they can work their way up fairly easily but basically equalling a win through bottom tiers is ok?

I'm not sure I follow your logic.... They cant do it by choice but you'll force them to do it anyway....

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.

LilMaddogHT

In Dorky Dave's recent interview with Kabam, they did mention that they would be interested in changing Loyalty and it be based on length in alliance etc. If they make some kind of change that is really worth it (worth more than the swapping), that could help reduce this but swapping will continue until it's not worth it.

Staunton

Thanks good to know

Nuclekerr

I thought mods were supposed to shut down posts that call out other ally’s or members? Where you at mods?

Staunton

This affects everyone in plat/gold allies...
Why you so keen to see a post like this closed down?

naikavon

In Dorky Dave's recent interview with Kabam, they did mention that they would be interested in changing Loyalty and it be based on length in alliance etc. If they make some kind of change that is really worth it (worth more than the swapping), that could help reduce this but swapping will continue until it's not worth it.

IMHO this is crucial. I caught that too and thought this might be the devs attempt to curb this issue.

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.