**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.
AW Manipulation
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
No one is cutting infront of you. The alliance that they moved to was infront of you from the start. And there is no 'line' either, we are all not waiting our turn for the same reward.
Think of it as a sports competition, if a group decent players scattered across teams all went to one team (I don't want to compare OMNI as the best players, because they are far from it) then that would not be considered cheating in any sense. It might be frowned upon but it is not cheating. And they all have been around 2000+ war rating alliances before, it is not like every player has been at 300 war rating this whole time. There is nothing wrong or manipulative about switching alliances.
Cutting a line is always wrong. (Y creeme que en la cultura anglosajona, las filas son muy importantes, asi que no es una cuestion del primer mundo).
Even if someone in front of you cuts more in line and you are not affected, someone will be affected. There is a difference between a merge, or people jumping to other alliances... to buying idle alliances with good war rating. You can hold on to my original comment all you want and you ARE CORRECT in your calculations. But it doesn't make this less exploity.
Crushing weaker alliances on the way up has been happening from the beginning, and it is not an exploit. It is probably a flawed design on Kabam's part, but it is not giving them a shortcut to better multipliers, rank or rewards.
I am uncollected, if i start a new account, I still have to go through acts 1 to 5 to be uncollected again. Even if we all agree that I am uncollected, there is no shortcut for my new account, I have to take the tedious slow path. So this slow progress is there by design. It is nice that they found the shortcut, and I am not suggesting Kabam to do anything to their alliance, but they should prevent this from becoming an exploit.
Or even have their say about this, because one day we will get a message from the grandmaster saying that people were taking advantage of this and will be banned or punished somehow. So if it is an exploit or not, I want the official word about this. Perhaps they already said something in this long thread, does anyone know?
In case this isn't an exploit, I would still consider it unfair, but it would mean that I can do the same anytime I want, without consequences.
yeah @DNA3000 you can use all the logic, proof, reason you want! that stuff is silly!
all this over joining an alliance that isn't even in 2000's war rating ... sheesh
i recommend focusing on one's own progression/alliance, excel and fight your way up ... if you've outgrown your alliance, jump up to a harder core one.... and if it's too hardcore, jump back down to a casual alliance. it's how the game works.... and make sure you're having fun!
We have a saying in 'Murica that goes like this:
Say, that's a nice chair you got there...
You do realize in this example that the driver you claim is cheating just won a race for a completely different team while getting his own team disqualified for not completing the race.
In that case OMNI would get disqualified
Yes, they were able to do it because it is possible to do it. But it really doesn't seem like it should be possible. Seems like an unforeseen scenario.
I want to be clear about this... I do not want OMNI to be punished for this. I said something that people seem to ignore... People are selling alliances. This is slowly becoming a disadvantage, and they should state whether it is legal or not now, before it goes too far.
I do think it creates a disadvantage. I think you are mostly right on your opinion, but it doesn't mean they are not taking advantage of a poorly planned feature.
If I start a new alliance with all good players, we still have to go through all the tiers. As it was intended. They took a shortcut and with that also took some other alliance's spot. They immediately get better rewards than me because of the shortcut. They make more points than me, because they jumped tiers.
I agree with you
Actually yes, but not in the way you probably mean. The point is that the example seems to have no connection to the events being discussed, because the example makes absolutely no sense since the driver that is claimed to be cheating in the example did something that helped his competitors and hurt himself. That's not a cheater, that's an idiot.
But if you believe that example is illustrative, then my understanding of NASCAR rules is that this would fall under the replacement driver rule which allows a team to replace a driver in the middle of the race. Under these rules, the driver that started the race would get all of the driver points while the replacement driver would get none in a driver competition but in team/owner competitions it is the car/team that gets the points regardless of the driver. Meanwhile the car the driver left obviously would fail to finish the race and would get disqualified.
So, under NASCAR rules the players of Omni would forfeit their personal rewards for one war, but the alliance they moved to would get full points for that war, the alliance they left would get no points, and the entire thing would be legal.
That's the thing about analogies. People often think the real world works differently than it actually does, and it often makes their analogies have the opposite meaning they probably intended.
They weren't on top, that is why they did this.
Yeah, I was just joking
I just think it is unfair to other alliances that are taking the longer path, even if they shouldn't start from the bottom.
I suspected you were, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on a point the joke raises.
What.
Yeah. I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
I can see how people feel that is scummy, even if perfectly legal, and I can also see how people say they would have been there naturally anyway given enough time.
That's why I say Kabam should have implemented a personal rating that follows the player, and Alliance rating should be the average of all members that participated in the most recent war. Then none of this would have mattered. They could have created a brand new Alliance and started at a rating that was fitting of its members.
And no one would think of doing this on a whim in the middle of a season, because while your rating would be retained using an average of all the members, your points towards the season would start over at zero.
But oh well, too late for that now.
Really, it doesn’t affect you. You’re alliance’s ranking will not be affected. A top 1,000 alliance will still be top 1,000. If you’re the alliance that finishes 1,001 then reality is you should have won one more war.
The alliance in question is loaded with top level players and they will eventually reach tier 1 or tier 2. They will steamroll through tier 4 and tier 3. To make a comparison, most of us are playing in a rec league and they’re trying to win the Super Bowl.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.