**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.
Options
AW Manipulation
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I don't believe you really have a firm grasp on the thing you're claiming as an exploit. The Omni players aren't jumping alliances to get better rewards in the next war or the next seven wars. They are doing it to start in a higher tier multiplier to reach for the best end of season rewards. Nullifying their rewards for seven days would have zero impact on their decision. Keep in mind these are players that were perfectly willing to start in a new alliance that had extremely low rewards compared to jumping to an empty shell alliance which they could have done from the start.
I'm not sure what you mean by "massive exploit exodus" because I'm unaware of any way to exploit the system by jumping alliances during the season. The rewards you get at the end of the season are not based on your tier, but based on your alliance's total points scored over the season. Any alliance that isn't actually fighting wars is keeping their tier, but not scoring points. If you jump out of your alliance three weeks before the end of the season into another alliance, that is only a good move if that alliance itself has been fighting wars all season long and scored a lot of points. There's no specific advantage I can see to do anything other than fight as many wars as possible and score as much points as possible. Any alliance parked idle is essentially losing ground every day. Having people jump into it at the last minute doesn't score points.
I'm not sure what you mean by "vastly outmatched ratings." The system matches using war rating, so alliances should normally be matched against alliances with similar ratings. Of course, sometimes the system seems to do odd things, but without knowing the precise implementation I can't comment on glitches.
Outside of glitches, the system seems to use a method that at least roughly matches how many seasonal or dynamic ratings systems work. Basically, every competitor has a theoretical rating that describes how powerful they are. In theory, competition should match everyone against competitors with similar rating. However, we don't know, and cannot know, what this hypothetical rating actually is. So we use the competition itself to refine our guess as to what that rating is. So an alliance starts with rating zero. It is matched against another alliance of similarly low rating. If it wins, we assume its "true" rating was obviously higher than zero. We use some formula (different for every rating system) to adjust our new "guess" at their "true" rating. So we guess their true rating is 100, for example. Now we match against alliances near that rating. With each win and loss, we adjust our "guesstimate" rating, which we assume slowly converges on the "true" rating of the alliance. Given that the strength of an alliance changes over time, competition changes over time, and there is some random luck in wins and losses, your system alliance rating will over time slowly bounce around your "true" rating, which remember is some theoretical number we can never actually know with certainty.
That's how the system basically deals with "unfair" match ups. It tries over time to evolve closer match ups using your win/loss record as the best possible "measurement" of what your strength actually is.
He's not high, he's just a free spirit that doesn't let logic, facts or rational thought get in the way of knee-jerk hysteria.
Hurry up and get to tier 1 where you belong.
However this system is FLAWED. to not start fresh? You really think the top 4 teams have any chance at all of not being the top 4 allies in the game currently?
The system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5.
And here is the “true” underlying reason that people seemingly have an issue with this. It is because they dislike him/them on a personal level.
I'm not sure why you believe that, because the mathematics of the scoring system doesn't support this statement. Tier 1 has a multiplier of 8.0 and therefore the maximum amount of points you can get and still lose is about 1.2 million (about 150k x 8.0). In actuality, a tier 1 loss is almost certainly going to generate less points than that - because they had to score less then the maximum amount of points or they wouldn't have lost. A tier 2 winner with multiplier 7.0 has a theoretical maximum possible points of 1.4 million, so they can overtake a tier 1 loser. Even a tier 3 winner with multiplier 6.0 can still overtake a tier 1 loser in theory: they have a maximum possible points for a victory of about 1.2 million, which is more than what a tier 1 loser is likely to earn.
Tier 1 contains the top 0.10% of all alliances, while tier 2 contains the top 0.5% of all alliances and tier 3 contains the top 1% of all alliances (exclusively, of course). Assuming there are at least 30,000 alliances (a reasonable assumption given the season reward table) this means those top three tiers represent (at least) the top 30, the top 150, and the top 300 alliances respectively. All of them are mathematically in the hunt for the top spots, although if they could in fact consistently beat the alliances in the top spots it does beg the question of why they haven't yet. But if those alliances could, but simply chose not to expend the effort, then they could attempt to do so now. The point is, if they could and do consistently win, they will eventually overtake the other alliances. They would also eventually be in tier 1 with all those victories.
(Incidentally, @Kabam Miike this is displayed HORRIBLY in the in-game display. It shows tier 1 as being 0.10%, and tier 2 as being "0.2% - 0.5%" which technically means the alliances between 0.1% and 0.2% I guess have no tier. The other tiers have similar range errors.)
The alliances currently in tier 1 do have their fate in their own hands. If they could win every single time, then of course no alliance in a lower tier can overtake them. But that's not generally possible to do against other tier 1 competition.
Because of his arrongance???
Just pointing out what i see.
Care to make a wager that it ends up
1) 2014
2,3,4) a core legion of iso8 anons
?
Nope. I have no idea what those odds would be personally, and that seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement. I'm only addressing your statement that it is impossible to overtake given the current system.
Care to place a bet that your previous statement "the system makes it literally impossible, even if an ally wins EVERY SINGLE war, they won’t crack the top 5" is provably false by example? In other words, would you care to bet that upon examining the leaderboard at the end of the season we can find an alliance not at the top of the leaderboards that had they won every single war would have obviously beaten every alliance at the top of the leaderboards?
I don’t believe I named an alliance or a player because this is not just about one alliance exploiting the ability of 30 players to move from one alliance to another. However the alliance you mentioned did Post a video on youtube to explain why they moved from a tier 17 alliance to a tier 4 alliance with a 1900 war Rating. The reason given “The Rewards!” They want the top rewards, but those rewards are so good that the top alliances will gain a insurmountable Prestige advantage. Luckily one of them remembered that they had an alt account in an inactive alliance that had a
1900 War Rating. They explained that by jumping to the new alliance, they would go from tier 17 to Tier 4 in the new system. And they are excited because the jump might move them close enough to have some chance at getting to the top. I don’t think Kabam will stop them so I hope they succeed. My alliance is in tier 4, I hope we get a chance to defend our position rather than just getting pushed back a spot.
My question is , what stops 20 other alliances from doing the same thing? If You aren’t lucky enough to find an inactive alliance with a high war ranking, you could probably find an active alliance that would sell to you. The rewards for 30 players 3 Wars a week would easily be worth a few thousand dollars or more. Kabam has no way of knowing if players paid money for an alliance with a high war rating. Im not sure how Kabam could 100% Prevent this but if they dont lAbel this an exploit, then I believe alliances will start losing tier position as more players decide to do the same thing. AW is zero sum. for an alliance to move up another alliance moves down. If my alliance drops a tier, I want it to be because we lost. I don’t want to find out that it was because a higher prestige alliance found a way to raise their war rating simply by jumping to an inactive alliance
If any ally is in the bottom tier and getting 1/8th the multiplier of top 20 ally, you think it’s possible for them to crack the top 5? Really?
The Alliance's AW Rating should be an average of their members.
The flaw with that is that you would see players regrouping to align to have the highest AW rating then. Also the individual components of war (the MVP) is a broken measurement in my opinion. It rewards the players that complete the longest lines and have the most kills. I think everyone can agree that the middle lanes are tougher and that placement of champs can aid in the defender kills metric. So, a system built off of individual player ratings would actually be far more flawed than the current system.
Based purely off of this I would speculate there are more than 30,000 alliances. Are there a million? It may be possible, but a lot of those would be inactive would be my guess.
Have a point
This already happens with the quasi-exploitative Alliance hopping and such, so what would be different?
No, I simply mean at the end of the war, you go up or down the same as everyone else in your alliance with each win/loss, but your individual score is a reflection of the player's total win/loss history.
Player 1 has a personal rating of 1000
Player 2 has a personal rating of 950
Player 3 has a personal rating of 950
Player 4 has a personal rating of 1100
Player 5 has a personal rating of 1200
Player 6 has a personal rating of 1300
Player 7 has a personal rating of 800
Player 8 has a personal rating of 900
Player 9 has a personal rating of 950
Player 10 has a personal rating of 1050
10200 / 10 = Alliance rating of 1020.
That Alliance wins a war, everyone goes up by +50
Player 1 has a personal rating of 1050
Player 2 has a personal rating of 1000
Player 3 has a personal rating of 1000
Player 4 has a personal rating of 1150
Player 5 has a personal rating of 1250
Player 6 has a personal rating of 1350
Player 7 has a personal rating of 850
Player 8 has a personal rating of 950
Player 9 has a personal rating of 1000
Player 10 has a personal rating of 1100
10700 / 10 = Alliance rating of 1070.
Then at some point, Player 6 thinks he's hot ****, and those scrubs are keeping him down, so he could look for an Alliance that is closer to his personal rating of 1350, or maybe a little higher, and move. That would lower the overall rating of the Alliance he left to 1038.9, and he would either raise or lower his new Alliance based on his personal rating to their current average when he joined.
This was not a merger.. This was an entire alliance moving into a shell alliance.. Watch the video and listen to what he says..
Again this is a tricky situation personally I see it as an exploit..
Having others complete ingame content so you can receive rewards you have not earned yourself (and therefore not entitled too) is a banable offence..
The reason they made the move to this inactive shell alliance is for the war rating that none of them earned.. The reason they want the war rating is too exploit the rewards of AW seasons.. Rewards they would not have earned (This season) had they continued with their alliance..
I'm not sure how. In the context of players hopping around to try and get into tiers that they haven't earned, or intentionally trying to drop down to have easy wins for a while, or whatever kind of shenanigans that gets pulled, using personal ratings that follow the player where ever they go would completely remove the ability to have an Alliance rating that is not an accurate reflection of the players in the Alliance.
Oh, one further refinement, only players that actively participated in the previous war would count towards the Alliance average. Those that did not participate do not have their personal ratings adjusted based on the win/loss outcome. They simply don't factor into it at all, as they did not participate.
Nope. Nor did I say that, nor did you assert that, nor do I even really want that to be possible.