**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
😉👍
I think that uncollected/cavalier should be separated from thronebreaker/paragon. Or even make four divisions.
"You mean, you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword and we'll try and kill each other like civilised people?
......
It's not my fault being the biggest and the strongest!"
If you are in same bracket you'll get matched.
Those who are sandbagging are just hurting themselves.
Matchmaking has been changed a bit.
You would have got same match even if the opponent was not sandbagging.
Since i banned his top champs, his options were pretty limited with those weakass 2* lol
Sandbaggers were present in all tiers, so they are matching with their respective tiers.
is it cheating colloquially? absolutely, scummy behavior to take advantage of it, just as bad as shelling in war
Why they show up after the arenas are primed with opponents is a somewhat more complicated. and mostly uninteresting implementation detail. The short answer is, if I recall correctly, it is a bit of harmless mistake in the match assignment code as the streak ramps up. This technical error causes the arena match system to believe it needs to resort to Kang teams when it doesn't really need to.
As to how the devs could not have realized their streak system would essentially cause infinite streak, the honest answer is that it was obvious to everyone what was happening once the details were carefully examined, but those details are buried deep in the technical implementation of the game. They are not something the average player can see without extremely in-depth testing, and not even something the content developers can see when they are working on the game, unless they dig under the hood. So it would not occur to anyone this was happening because the details that would make this obvious were obscured. And the last line of defense for fixing a bug like this is when the players report it. But the players never reported this as a bug, because why would they? Eventually the behavior lasted long enough that players didn't even refer to it as if it was an anomaly, but a feature of the arena. *Some* of us new either some or all of this due to testing, but no one knew enough to both realize what the precise behavior was and realize this could not possibly be deliberate (or if anyone did put these two together, they didn't think it was worth reporting).
If the devs don't know and the players don't care, that's the kind of bug that can persist for years.
Which means, in effect, the strongest alliance on that island could end up reaching tier 1 without ever having to face the majority of, or perhaps even *any* other tier 1 alliances. They can just keep beating up the other alliances on that island. Which did happen. What's more, alliance prestige can be manipulated. You might not want to directly manipulate your own personal prestige, but you could add lower prestige accounts to your alliance to deliberately lower your prestige artificially. You don't need high prestige to have, say, a super strong defense. A war focused alliance could afford a few ringers.
The mathematical description of what was going on was striation. The playerbase was being separated into layers of different prestige, without a lot of mixing between layers. So alliances didn't have to beat comparable strength alliances, because they never had to face them.
I'm not specifically advocating for them to do so, but just saying the TOS does technically cover these kinds of situations if Kabam chose to apply it. It is arguably a grey area, but guess who has the sole discretion to interpret the TOS.