It is whining. They need to have an expansive roster to compete successfully to gain these season rewards. They have to WIN. It's not like they'll rankly highly if they lose. And they've been playing long enough to have an extensive roster capable of taking them through. So what's the issue? The previous months if not years of gameplay to build up their team mean nothing? They're not using mods, highly likely to be spending their own money. Maybe the option shouldn't exist but them doing this doesn't affect my ability to continue to gain rewards in war.
If you want to raise a 'legitimate' concern then why not raise it regarding the alliances that periodically switch between themselves in order for a low ranking one to gain minimal 5* shards they would not otherwise get and a high prestige one to continue winning in war. That I would consider an exploit. Not this
If you find the use of the word 'whining' a provocative and alarming adjective, get off the internet. There's plenty of worse things out there people can call you. As for taking shortcuts, I think everyone will take the shortcut available to them if it comes down to it. The issue boils down to is it against the rules or not. It is not. File a ticket with Kabam and if they agree with you then so be it and they can fix it. Otherwise you're not proactively doing something about your issue with this. You're simply complaining to no one that can do anything about it.
Mods rarely comment on these posts and have actually stated in the past that filing a ticket should be the initial step for issues and concerns. So not quite the appropriate forum seeing as this is a 'general discussion' one.
Whine. Complain in a feeble or petulant way.
"she began to whine about how hard she had been forced to work"
This is exactly what you're doing. You can keep telling him to not use words like that, but maybe stop whining first and stop repeating the same thing over and over again.
Joining another alliance isn't against the rules. Merging with alliances isn't against the rules. Starting a new alliance isn't against the rules. Moving to a different alliance isn't against the rules, not when done by 1 person but also not when done by 30.
I actually have a "dead" alliance that I keep around due to the massive amounts in the treasury. Some day it might come in handy. I worked for it, with a lot of other people, and at some time I'll profit from it, probably with the a different group of people.
Has anyone considered that the 30 players who have formed this alliance did so because they got tired of being pilots in the alliances they were in and wanted to be somewhere that they were never pressured into doing that any more ?
They have the skills to be one of the best, and do it the right way with everyone only focusing on their own account, no piloting for the weaker fighters that they may have had to do to or losing wars because others were getting ko'd and not finishing their lanes ?
All these debates about them starting from zero or starting from a collapsed alliance don't hold any weight without the complainers knowing all the facts leading up to their decision to work together. I'm just speculating as I don't know all the details myself, and I don't care. My guess is some of the people here with the loudest complaints may have lost their best players to this group.
Joining another alliance isn't against the rules. Merging with alliances isn't against the rules. Starting a new alliance isn't against the rules. Moving to a different alliance isn't against the rules, not when done by 1 person but also not when done by 30.
I actually have a "dead" alliance that I keep around due to the massive amounts in the treasury. Some day it might come in handy. I worked for it, with a lot of other people, and at some time I'll profit from it, probably with the a different group of people.
I am not bothered by your prattling and use of passive-aggresive remarks to mock me, your attempt to ridicule me amounts to exactly less than nothing, so please stop trying so hard.
So ignore the 'passive-aggressive' and address the points made. Is she not entitled to use that alliance in the future? it's like saying because I saved money while working at one job I would not be allowed to use that money after starting another one. People are allowed to move alliances, whether it be one person or 30 people. There's no getting around that.
Its completely fair. The higher rated ally was created by some peeps and they got to a higher tier. Now, they disbanded and their leader felt okay to give the ally to Lagacy as the ally was in the dust. Lagacy is NOT stealing/robbing/hacking their ally. The leader is intentionally giving away the ally and I dont see a fault there. Are you trying to say that switching alliances is against the rules of the game?
People still talking about this non-exploit? Why don't you go start a real thread. Like about how all in the top 5 5.4 legends were merc'd. That's an actual issue.
Can not believe this thread is still going. Have those of u **** about them not supposed to be up there and its a exploit contemplated the idea that IF they arent supposed to be there theyll lose an drop down tiers? Also that they ALL came from high tier allys to begin with before being in omni?...plz just give it a rest. If they hadnt created omni theyd all be higher anyway. The only thing i could remotely agree with in any of the arguements is that your war rating should decay over time that way no allys that are dormant are taking spots in a higher tier where a grinding ally is tryin to climb to. Also just being in the higher tier doesnt mean they auto win season rewards they still have to compete and win in wars to EARN the season rewards. To my understanding thus far of the seasons ull recieve points (with a multiplier based on tier) towards ur season score. Ur ally war rating is NOT ur starting score its ur starting multiplier
The option being exercised is "moving to a different alliance." Unless Kabam makes it impossible to leave your alliance and join another one, they cannot eliminate this option.
But this is all largely moot for another reason. This isn't about "hopping" like before with jumping between two different alliances to manipulate AW rating to get better match ups. In the new AW seasons, there is absolutely no benefit to manipulating war rating to get better match ups in general, because in AW seasons alliances - not players, alliances - get points every time that alliance fights a war, and those points determine your end of season rewards.
Every time a group of players jumps out of one alliance and into another, the alliance they left gains ZERO points for any war they fight in a different alliance. If you are trying to get as much points as possible, you CANNOT jump into a different alliance to improve your situation. Prior to seasons, it was PLAYERS that individually got rewards for each war that was fought. So it didn't matter what alliance you were in. That's why alliances were sometimes referred to as "shells." They were just wrappers for the players, and the players could wear any shell they wanted to when they fought wars, and could pick the shell that gave them the best possible advantage.
Alliances are not shells anymore, because the game doesn't give season points to players. The game gives season points to alliances. It is the alliance, not the players, that must fight wars to get the best possible rewards at the end of the season. So while it is still true that players get rewards after every war, it is the potentially very large season rewards that people are jockeying for, and the one and only time they can jump alliances is before the season starts, and the only way this offers an advantage is if they jump upward.
If there is no advantage to jumping downward anymore, and there's a huge penalty for jumping at all during a season, shell hopping is going to quickly become a rarity. The short term advantage won't be worth the long term penalty. By the time we all figure out how to stop it, it won't be happening anymore.
Sure, an occasional high tier alliance will disband and their alliance will become hot property, but outside of that rare occurrence there won't be any way for this to work to anyone's advantage.
When this post started I didn't think about it as an exploit. But after reading the arguments, I have to agree that it is unfair. Even if it is a very pro alliance like OMNI, that would eventually get to the top tiers, it puts other alliances in disadvantage and takes the spot for another alliance as well (while it would have taken them a while to get there).
So it wasn't an exploit when they did it... but it is an exploit now, BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE ARE NOW SELLING IDLE ALLIANCES.
So yes, this is a problem to look at. Maybe it cannot be fixed retroactively, but something should be done, otherwise, all the efforts could be undone by any idle alliance resurrecting for 5 wars.
So yes, this is a problem to look at. Maybe it cannot be fixed retroactively, but something should be done, otherwise, all the efforts could be undone by any idle alliance resurrecting for 5 wars.
That's an interesting statement. Please explain how "resurrecting for five wars" accomplishes anything. Explain how earning points for only five wars gets you anywhere.
I don't think you understand how alliance war seasons works. It sounds like you think you can jump into an idle tier 1 alliance and get the top season rewards. You can't, because the war tier you are in has no effect on your season rewards. It only affects your points multiplier. To make this work, you would have to jump into an idle high tier alliance and fight as that tier for (essentially) the entire season.
You need to fight for at least five wars just to qualify for rewards. But your seasonal rewards will be based on how many points the alliance you are in racked up over the entire season. An alliance that only fights five wars at the end of the season is unlikely to be in a very good position overall.
So yes, this is a problem to look at. Maybe it cannot be fixed retroactively, but something should be done, otherwise, all the efforts could be undone by any idle alliance resurrecting for 5 wars.
That's an interesting statement. Please explain how "resurrecting for five wars" accomplishes anything. Explain how earning points for only five wars gets you anywhere.
I don't think you understand how alliance war seasons works. It sounds like you think you can jump into an idle tier 1 alliance and get the top season rewards. You can't, because the war tier you are in has no effect on your season rewards. It only affects your points multiplier. To make this work, you would have to jump into an idle high tier alliance and fight as that tier for (essentially) the entire season.
You need to fight for at least five wars just to qualify for rewards. But your seasonal rewards will be based on how many points the alliance you are in racked up over the entire season. An alliance that only fights five wars at the end of the season is unlikely to be in a very good position overall.
I never said they were going to be on top after 5 wars, I just said that they would displace the other alliances that didn't do this.
Basically, it would affect low and middle tiers the most. Whatever amount of points they do from now until the end, it will be a better result than before they jumped into a higher tier. See it as a stack. If you add something in the middle of the stack, all the numbers under it change. Even if they do not make enough points, they started with an advantage. In cases like OMNI, they can keep the tier and go even further, but it doesn't make it more fair. Because of their multiplier, they can get more points than starting almost from scratch as they were before the season.
When this post started I didn't think about it as an exploit. But after reading the arguments, I have to agree that it is unfair. Even if it is a very pro alliance like OMNI, that would eventually get to the top tiers, it puts other alliances in disadvantage and takes the spot for another alliance as well (while it would have taken them a while to get there).
So it wasn't an exploit when they did it... but it is an exploit now, BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE ARE NOW SELLING IDLE ALLIANCES.
So yes, this is a problem to look at. Maybe it cannot be fixed retroactively, but something should be done, otherwise, all the efforts could be undone by any idle alliance resurrecting for 5 wars.
I guess in everyday life the people not bothered by this don't mind getting cut in lines.
But what do we know, as long as it's not explicitly prohibited then we are just whining.
I still stand by my argument. They did not earn that war rating, end of story.
So you "earn " by stepping on people.smaller then You?
Funny you argue a moral guideline while fighting the stance that stepping.on new players.is the right thing to do
Those players will only need to lose once against them as they will keep going up. While it is an unfair match (due to matchmaking rules), it would be fair play (because the rules will apply to everyone).
Personally I’d rather these guys start where they clearly belong,than come through my alliance on their way up there, it’s not a queue for me, I’m not trying to make it to top 300, gold 1 is my goal and these guys won’t affect that unless I’m alliance number 1501, but if I hit them on the way up there and they smoked my alliance then I’m worse off than fighting an alliance of my strength
So yes, this is a problem to look at. Maybe it cannot be fixed retroactively, but something should be done, otherwise, all the efforts could be undone by any idle alliance resurrecting for 5 wars.
That's an interesting statement. Please explain how "resurrecting for five wars" accomplishes anything. Explain how earning points for only five wars gets you anywhere.
I don't think you understand how alliance war seasons works. It sounds like you think you can jump into an idle tier 1 alliance and get the top season rewards. You can't, because the war tier you are in has no effect on your season rewards. It only affects your points multiplier. To make this work, you would have to jump into an idle high tier alliance and fight as that tier for (essentially) the entire season.
You need to fight for at least five wars just to qualify for rewards. But your seasonal rewards will be based on how many points the alliance you are in racked up over the entire season. An alliance that only fights five wars at the end of the season is unlikely to be in a very good position overall.
I never said they were going to be on top after 5 wars, I just said that they would displace the other alliances that didn't do this.
Basically, it would affect low and middle tiers the most. Whatever amount of points they do from now until the end, it will be a better result than before they jumped into a higher tier. See it as a stack. If you add something in the middle of the stack, all the numbers under it change. Even if they do not make enough points, they started with an advantage. In cases like OMNI, they can keep the tier and go even further, but it doesn't make it more fair. Because of their multiplier, they can get more points than starting almost from scratch as they were before the season.
It is hard to explain without a whiteboard
I understand the concept of a leaderboard. The problem is the math simply doesn't agree with you. You're stating directly that if a bunch of players left their alliance in the middle of the season and jumped into an idle empty alliance that had a high tier rating, they would do better than if they just stayed where they were. Let's run the numbers.
First, what is the absolute best possible season score an alliance could generate in tier 1 with five straight victories? Its about 8 million points. That's 150k for a 100% victory plus the 50k victory bonus, multiplied by the maximum tier 1 8.0 multiplier, times five wins.
Okay, now let's take my alliance. We're in tier 7, with a 3.2 multiplier. Let's say we do 20 wars during the season, which is an average of 2.5 a week. Sometimes two, sometimes three, depending on AQ cycle. And let's say we average about 140k points when we win, and about 110k points when we lose, and we win about half the time. That means every two wars we would average about 300k * 3.2 = 960k, and we'd end the season with 9.6 million points.
This means if in the last two weeks of the season someone offered to let us jump out of our alliance and into a tier 1 alliance, and offered to pilot the entire alliance to five straight victories in tier 1, he'd actually *cost* us points and rewards. We would be better off not taking the offer. Mathematically speaking, this jump only helps if a tier 10 alliance somehow jumped into a tier 1 alliance, and again, somehow managed to get five perfect victories in tier 1. Going further, this only works if the alliance jumps from one tier to a higher tier with a multiplier about 3 times higher. And only if they can actually win five perfect wars in a row.
Jumping before the start of the season and then playing through the entire season in the same alliance does offer an advantage, assuming you maintain the same win/loss record. That's obvious. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether the statement you made, that an alliance that jumps into an idle one and wins five wars meaningfully helps the alliance that jumps. In almost every case, it won't. You have to posit a huge jump in tier and a massive skill increase (or cheating separate from jumping) to make the numbers work.
When this post started I didn't think about it as an exploit. But after reading the arguments, I have to agree that it is unfair. Even if it is a very pro alliance like OMNI, that would eventually get to the top tiers, it puts other alliances in disadvantage and takes the spot for another alliance as well (while it would have taken them a while to get there).
So it wasn't an exploit when they did it... but it is an exploit now, BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE ARE NOW SELLING IDLE ALLIANCES.
So yes, this is a problem to look at. Maybe it cannot be fixed retroactively, but something should be done, otherwise, all the efforts could be undone by any idle alliance resurrecting for 5 wars.
I guess in everyday life the people not bothered by this don't mind getting cut in lines.
When someone cuts in front of me in a line, they get to the front sooner, and I get to the front later. What Omni did is closer in effect to someone way ahead of me get out of line, and then have a friend of theirs let them come back into the line farther back then where they were, but still ahead of me. The net effect is that they are worse off, but no one else is. That's very hard to get overly excited about.
When this post started I didn't think about it as an exploit. But after reading the arguments, I have to agree that it is unfair. Even if it is a very pro alliance like OMNI, that would eventually get to the top tiers, it puts other alliances in disadvantage and takes the spot for another alliance as well (while it would have taken them a while to get there).
So it wasn't an exploit when they did it... but it is an exploit now, BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE ARE NOW SELLING IDLE ALLIANCES.
So yes, this is a problem to look at. Maybe it cannot be fixed retroactively, but something should be done, otherwise, all the efforts could be undone by any idle alliance resurrecting for 5 wars.
I guess in everyday life the people not bothered by this don't mind getting cut in lines.
But what do we know, as long as it's not explicitly prohibited then we are just whining.
I still stand by my argument. They did not earn that war rating, end of story.
Your logic is completely flawed. You are allowed go to another alliance at any time as long as they accept you. In this new alliance you have not EARNED the war rating. Just like them. They also need to win as many war as they can during this war season for the rewards. So they are not getting a freebie. They still have to win.
It’s really not a queue, once You make it to the top you have to stay there, you don’t win and start again from the bottom, it’s a leaderboard, and one that will soon settle people where they Deserve to be. This isn’t a game changing exploit worth freaking out about. but yeah the idea of war rating slowly deteriorating when unused isn’t something I would object to, it’s just whether or not this is worth worrying about, the few high war rating alliances unused will soon be snapped up... end of problem
Comments
If you want to raise a 'legitimate' concern then why not raise it regarding the alliances that periodically switch between themselves in order for a low ranking one to gain minimal 5* shards they would not otherwise get and a high prestige one to continue winning in war. That I would consider an exploit. Not this
"she began to whine about how hard she had been forced to work"
This is exactly what you're doing. You can keep telling him to not use words like that, but maybe stop whining first and stop repeating the same thing over and over again.
Joining another alliance isn't against the rules. Merging with alliances isn't against the rules. Starting a new alliance isn't against the rules. Moving to a different alliance isn't against the rules, not when done by 1 person but also not when done by 30.
I actually have a "dead" alliance that I keep around due to the massive amounts in the treasury. Some day it might come in handy. I worked for it, with a lot of other people, and at some time I'll profit from it, probably with the a different group of people.
They have the skills to be one of the best, and do it the right way with everyone only focusing on their own account, no piloting for the weaker fighters that they may have had to do to or losing wars because others were getting ko'd and not finishing their lanes ?
All these debates about them starting from zero or starting from a collapsed alliance don't hold any weight without the complainers knowing all the facts leading up to their decision to work together. I'm just speculating as I don't know all the details myself, and I don't care. My guess is some of the people here with the loudest complaints may have lost their best players to this group.
Just enjoy your game, and let others do the same.
So ignore the 'passive-aggressive' and address the points made. Is she not entitled to use that alliance in the future? it's like saying because I saved money while working at one job I would not be allowed to use that money after starting another one. People are allowed to move alliances, whether it be one person or 30 people. There's no getting around that.
Everyone jumped ship to join my nemesis' alliance. I need 29 new members to join my alliance ASAP, 3147 war rating!
About half my team got banned! Need new members to join my alliance ASAP, 3200 war rating.
I hate BG2 and BG3. Need 20 players to join my alliance, 1846 war rating.
Looking for merger, need 9-15 players , 2187 war rating.
All this is context of game. No manipulation by... you know who.
The option being exercised is "moving to a different alliance." Unless Kabam makes it impossible to leave your alliance and join another one, they cannot eliminate this option.
But this is all largely moot for another reason. This isn't about "hopping" like before with jumping between two different alliances to manipulate AW rating to get better match ups. In the new AW seasons, there is absolutely no benefit to manipulating war rating to get better match ups in general, because in AW seasons alliances - not players, alliances - get points every time that alliance fights a war, and those points determine your end of season rewards.
Every time a group of players jumps out of one alliance and into another, the alliance they left gains ZERO points for any war they fight in a different alliance. If you are trying to get as much points as possible, you CANNOT jump into a different alliance to improve your situation. Prior to seasons, it was PLAYERS that individually got rewards for each war that was fought. So it didn't matter what alliance you were in. That's why alliances were sometimes referred to as "shells." They were just wrappers for the players, and the players could wear any shell they wanted to when they fought wars, and could pick the shell that gave them the best possible advantage.
Alliances are not shells anymore, because the game doesn't give season points to players. The game gives season points to alliances. It is the alliance, not the players, that must fight wars to get the best possible rewards at the end of the season. So while it is still true that players get rewards after every war, it is the potentially very large season rewards that people are jockeying for, and the one and only time they can jump alliances is before the season starts, and the only way this offers an advantage is if they jump upward.
If there is no advantage to jumping downward anymore, and there's a huge penalty for jumping at all during a season, shell hopping is going to quickly become a rarity. The short term advantage won't be worth the long term penalty. By the time we all figure out how to stop it, it won't be happening anymore.
Sure, an occasional high tier alliance will disband and their alliance will become hot property, but outside of that rare occurrence there won't be any way for this to work to anyone's advantage.
So it wasn't an exploit when they did it... but it is an exploit now, BECAUSE I KNOW PEOPLE ARE NOW SELLING IDLE ALLIANCES.
So yes, this is a problem to look at. Maybe it cannot be fixed retroactively, but something should be done, otherwise, all the efforts could be undone by any idle alliance resurrecting for 5 wars.
That's an interesting statement. Please explain how "resurrecting for five wars" accomplishes anything. Explain how earning points for only five wars gets you anywhere.
I don't think you understand how alliance war seasons works. It sounds like you think you can jump into an idle tier 1 alliance and get the top season rewards. You can't, because the war tier you are in has no effect on your season rewards. It only affects your points multiplier. To make this work, you would have to jump into an idle high tier alliance and fight as that tier for (essentially) the entire season.
You need to fight for at least five wars just to qualify for rewards. But your seasonal rewards will be based on how many points the alliance you are in racked up over the entire season. An alliance that only fights five wars at the end of the season is unlikely to be in a very good position overall.
I never said they were going to be on top after 5 wars, I just said that they would displace the other alliances that didn't do this.
Basically, it would affect low and middle tiers the most. Whatever amount of points they do from now until the end, it will be a better result than before they jumped into a higher tier. See it as a stack. If you add something in the middle of the stack, all the numbers under it change. Even if they do not make enough points, they started with an advantage. In cases like OMNI, they can keep the tier and go even further, but it doesn't make it more fair. Because of their multiplier, they can get more points than starting almost from scratch as they were before the season.
It is hard to explain without a whiteboard
Those players will only need to lose once against them as they will keep going up. While it is an unfair match (due to matchmaking rules), it would be fair play (because the rules will apply to everyone).
I understand the concept of a leaderboard. The problem is the math simply doesn't agree with you. You're stating directly that if a bunch of players left their alliance in the middle of the season and jumped into an idle empty alliance that had a high tier rating, they would do better than if they just stayed where they were. Let's run the numbers.
First, what is the absolute best possible season score an alliance could generate in tier 1 with five straight victories? Its about 8 million points. That's 150k for a 100% victory plus the 50k victory bonus, multiplied by the maximum tier 1 8.0 multiplier, times five wins.
Okay, now let's take my alliance. We're in tier 7, with a 3.2 multiplier. Let's say we do 20 wars during the season, which is an average of 2.5 a week. Sometimes two, sometimes three, depending on AQ cycle. And let's say we average about 140k points when we win, and about 110k points when we lose, and we win about half the time. That means every two wars we would average about 300k * 3.2 = 960k, and we'd end the season with 9.6 million points.
This means if in the last two weeks of the season someone offered to let us jump out of our alliance and into a tier 1 alliance, and offered to pilot the entire alliance to five straight victories in tier 1, he'd actually *cost* us points and rewards. We would be better off not taking the offer. Mathematically speaking, this jump only helps if a tier 10 alliance somehow jumped into a tier 1 alliance, and again, somehow managed to get five perfect victories in tier 1. Going further, this only works if the alliance jumps from one tier to a higher tier with a multiplier about 3 times higher. And only if they can actually win five perfect wars in a row.
Jumping before the start of the season and then playing through the entire season in the same alliance does offer an advantage, assuming you maintain the same win/loss record. That's obvious. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether the statement you made, that an alliance that jumps into an idle one and wins five wars meaningfully helps the alliance that jumps. In almost every case, it won't. You have to posit a huge jump in tier and a massive skill increase (or cheating separate from jumping) to make the numbers work.
When someone cuts in front of me in a line, they get to the front sooner, and I get to the front later. What Omni did is closer in effect to someone way ahead of me get out of line, and then have a friend of theirs let them come back into the line farther back then where they were, but still ahead of me. The net effect is that they are worse off, but no one else is. That's very hard to get overly excited about.
Your logic is completely flawed. You are allowed go to another alliance at any time as long as they accept you. In this new alliance you have not EARNED the war rating. Just like them. They also need to win as many war as they can during this war season for the rewards. So they are not getting a freebie. They still have to win.