**KNOWN ISSUE**
Currently, Alliance Prestige (as it concerns Alliance Quests) is not taking Relic Prestige into account. If possible, we are working to address this for the next round of Alliance Quests but will have more information for you when it is available.
Due to issues affecting Alliance Quests, we will be cancelling the current series of Alliance Quests. For more information, including compensation information, read more here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/320306/cancelling-alliance-quests-november-24-2022/

Why is nothing being done about piloting?

13

Comments

  • RiegelRiegel Posts: 1,088 ★★★★
    Riegel wrote: »
    Riegel wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that would be someone that played by the rules taking spoils, and someone that cheated not getting spoils

    No, it would be double retribution. They can't reasonably assume you would have won, and if they're removing War Rating AND Points, people will also be going up in positions, from doing the right thing. What the suggestion would result in is benefitting from someone else's mistakes. A bit greedy, IMO.

    It shouldn't matter. You should't be able to cheat and get a victory. If you cheat in any way you should lose. The team that didn't cheat should be given the win by default.

    Weather or not a team would have lost had the cheating team not cheated is immaterial, because they cheated.

    If they're not keeping the Points or the Rating, then that's not a victory. What you're saying is they should give you the Rewards by default because they cheated, and remove spoils on top of that. Whether you would win or not is not irrelevant. You only deserve Rewards if you win and win fairly. Either way you spell it out, it's benefitting from someone else breaking the rules.

    Huh? You can't win fairly if someone is cheating. You understand this right?

    They also can't assume you would have won whether they played fairly or not. They're removing Rating and Points, which means the people playing by the rules will rise in standings. That's enough. Anything on top of that is just creating an equally-unfair situation.

    They don't have to assume you would've won. When the winner is disqualified in practically everything the next participant is awarded the victory not based on an assumption of what would have happened but because they were the next best after the disqualified party. It's not hard.

    You can't win by default, that's what I'm saying. You have to earn the Win the same. People are expecting an easy Win because the other Team cheated. If an Ally ended up with Master Rewards because they encountered enough cheating Allies, you'd never hear the end of it. Lol. Besides, it's equally-unfair. What they're doing now is enough.

    It wouldn't matter to master alliances because it will come down to death count at the end, and even though they got the victory bonus they will still die way more if it's the case they aren't a strong alliance.

    What we are seeing right now is the exact opposite. A very good alliance who should be currently in the top 5 is not because they faced a cheating alliance twice. They took a 700k point hit because of cheaters. That's so damaging and personally I find that unjustifiable.

    The hope is that cheating is gone for good and all these cases will cease to happen.
  • RiegelRiegel Posts: 1,088 ★★★★
    weapon_x wrote: »
    @Riegel weren’t you a member of that “top” alliance that had a 600 point reduction this season?

    Why did you not complain about piloting while you were there and it was all happening?

    I was and I did.
  • Mr__CharlieMr__Charlie Posts: 1
    @WeaponX what would be really helpful is to find out who was at fault? Should I dump all 29 members?

    I think it is ridiculous, as the leader, I am not notified of the offending people. And we were hit with a severe penalty. If we were going to cheat, we would have won.

    Mr•Charlie
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 31,278 ★★★★★
    Vegeta9000 wrote: »
    Ban top alliances that pilot, that spend heavily, nah pal. Thats not how a business machine works, you slightly punish them, and let them keep going and keep spending.
    By all means, test that theory out at your own risk.
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    DrZola wrote: »
    Vegeta9000 wrote: »
    Ban top alliances that pilot, that spend heavily, nah pal. Thats not how a business machine works, you slightly punish them, and let them keep going and keep spending.

    And that’s why piloting won’t ever really stop—because the game makers know they can keep the cash flowing if they administer a slap on the wrist while cheaters know that policing piloting is difficult and the rewards largely outweigh the risks.

    Dr. Zola

    Piloting will stop after the latest leaderboard score reduction. Most alliances are fine with war rating reduction, but when Kabam starts deducting leaderboard scores then alliances will cut that **** out. The message is clear, no one is risking ANY piloting after this. Maybe a few alliances might experiment around with what is / isn't catchable piloting, but no alliance in the top ~150 is going to take that risk lol.
  • DrZolaDrZola Posts: 6,673 ★★★★★
    DrZola wrote: »
    Vegeta9000 wrote: »
    Ban top alliances that pilot, that spend heavily, nah pal. Thats not how a business machine works, you slightly punish them, and let them keep going and keep spending.

    And that’s why piloting won’t ever really stop—because the game makers know they can keep the cash flowing if they administer a slap on the wrist while cheaters know that policing piloting is difficult and the rewards largely outweigh the risks.

    Dr. Zola

    Piloting will stop after the latest leaderboard score reduction. Most alliances are fine with war rating reduction, but when Kabam starts deducting leaderboard scores then alliances will cut that **** out. The message is clear, no one is risking ANY piloting after this. Maybe a few alliances might experiment around with what is / isn't catchable piloting, but no alliance in the top ~150 is going to take that risk lol.

    Hope you are right. Doesn’t really affect me anymore, but I always disliked it when I ran across it (along with other exploits that skew the game).

    Dr. Zola
  • DrizzitsDrizzits Posts: 157

    Piloting will stop after the latest leaderboard score reduction.

    You wish!

    And what will happen when someone log other for aq(map6)? Other way is almost impossible to clear map6 100%...

    That is piloting to. So let’s punish all who plays map6....

    I think this is only witch hunt... And doesn’t bring nothing good for a game.

    I bet Kabam will be first to see difference on their bank account (less $$$$)
  • RiegelRiegel Posts: 1,088 ★★★★
    Drizzits wrote: »

    Piloting will stop after the latest leaderboard score reduction.

    You wish!

    And what will happen when someone log other for aq(map6)? Other way is almost impossible to clear map6 100%...

    That is piloting to. So let’s punish all who plays map6....

    I think this is only witch hunt... And doesn’t bring nothing good for a game.

    I bet Kabam will be first to see difference on their bank account (less $$$$)

    Sorry you account share :disappointed:
  • DrizzitsDrizzits Posts: 157
    No need, can do all alone
    but just thinking where is this “witch hunt” going.... I have a feeling it goes wrong direction
  • Never had an issue clearing map 6 without cheating.

    Also, not sure you know what witch hunt actually means tbqh.

    I, too, am sorry you account share. And that you have this weird notion that the game can't survive without cheaters.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,412 Guardian
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    Well, *I* could forgive that, but there's no technical way to prove the difference between one summoner covering for another summoner and one summoner piloting another summoner for an advantage, except to take the word of the players involved.

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense. Once you allow account sharing in some cases, you open the door for players to make excuses for anything. I didn't mod the game, the guy I shared my account info did. I didn't sell those crystals, the other guy did. If Kabam authorizes you to allow someone else to use your account, it eliminates accountability for that account.

    Piloting is an extreme example of the problems that can exist with account sharing, but it isn't the only one.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 1,985 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.
  • Cujo999Cujo999 Posts: 117
    whaler213 wrote: »
    lets be honest there is a difference between cheaters (hardcore organized piloting that is ruining AW) and having a life and needing an alliance mate to cover you so 9 other people arent held up or worse 29 people miss a small reward.

    If the reward is that small, then why cheat to make sure you earn it?

    Link nodes and QE are included in AW and AQ because those game modes emphasize members of a BG using dedication, strategy, and coordination to achieve rewards in addition to skill and powerful champs. The higher you go, the more of each is required. Having people "cover you" removes 2/5 of that equation. If dedication and coordination were not intended to be part of the equation, then link nodes and QE wouldn't have been included in those game modes. You would be able to just clear your lanes at your pace on your own time as long as you 100%'d your path before time ends and somebody kills the end boss and what happened in the other lanes would have no effect on what happens in yours. You could just jump in and 20 minutes later be done with your commitment for 24 hours. Just because you've got the skill, the roster, and the strategy doesn't mean you're entitled to a 100% success rate. If you don't put in the time that day, you don't deserve the rewards that day. Since in Alliance Events, Alliances earn rewards based on team performance, if members don't put in the time, the Alliance didn't earn the rewards.

  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,412 Guardian
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 1,985 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 31,278 ★★★★★
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.
    Actually, they were part of the same punishment. It wasn't "There's one violation, but we let the other slip.". It was part-and-parcel. People don't believe it because they want to see a ban. Punishment has always been up to their discretion. It was made an example, and it wasn't just KM in War.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 1,985 ★★★★★
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.
    Actually, they were part of the same punishment. It wasn't "There's one violation, but we let the other slip.". It was part-and-parcel. People don't believe it because they want to see a ban. Punishment has always been up to their discretion. It was made an example, and it wasn't just KM in War.

    How was it making an example? So now I know that if I account share I'll be kicked off the content creators program that I'm not a part of?
    Gosh that is really teaching me a lesson isn't it
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 31,278 ★★★★★
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.
    Actually, they were part of the same punishment. It wasn't "There's one violation, but we let the other slip.". It was part-and-parcel. People don't believe it because they want to see a ban. Punishment has always been up to their discretion. It was made an example, and it wasn't just KM in War.

    How was it making an example? So now I know that if I account share I'll be kicked off the content creators program that I'm not a part of?
    Gosh that is really teaching me a lesson isn't it
    When it's mentioned in the Thread on the Program that someone was removed, and it was learned they were Account Sharing, that's an example. Word travels fast, and people knew exactly who it was. Just because they never banned him doesn't mean they ignored it. Honestly, it's hard to tell if people care about the cheating, or they want to see him personally fry.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 1,985 ★★★★★
    edited May 2018
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.
    Actually, they were part of the same punishment. It wasn't "There's one violation, but we let the other slip.". It was part-and-parcel. People don't believe it because they want to see a ban. Punishment has always been up to their discretion. It was made an example, and it wasn't just KM in War.

    How was it making an example? So now I know that if I account share I'll be kicked off the content creators program that I'm not a part of?
    Gosh that is really teaching me a lesson isn't it
    When it's mentioned in the Thread on the Program that someone was removed, and it was learned they were Account Sharing, that's an example. Word travels fast, and people knew exactly who it was. Just because they never banned him doesn't mean they ignored it. Honestly, it's hard to tell if people care about the cheating, or they want to see him personally fry.

    I want to see all cheaters get banned. That shouldn't be too hard for them to do, and in fact it is part of the ToS, but it seems sometimes that there are different strokes for different spenders.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 31,278 ★★★★★
    So define fry, because they take their own actions into account. Which is one of the reasons they don't discuss them, most likely. It leads to situations like this where people feel it should be more/less. Apparently they felt removal from the Program was sufficient enough, which is not uncommon when you have an honest working relationship at times. You can find that anywhere you go in life. Having a history yields a certain amount of leeway with these things. Had it been a prolonged occurrence, or had he not been honest, it might have gone the other way. Who knows? It's their call. It certainly wasn't ignored, or else they wouldn't have said anything at all.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 1,985 ★★★★★
    So define fry, because they take their own actions into account. Which is one of the reasons they don't discuss them, most likely. It leads to situations like this where people feel it should be more/less. Apparently they felt removal from the Program was sufficient enough, which is not uncommon when you have an honest working relationship at times. You can find that anywhere you go in life. Having a history yields a certain amount of leeway with these things. Had it been a prolonged occurrence, or had he not been honest, it might have gone the other way. Who knows? It's their call. It certainly wasn't ignored, or else they wouldn't have said anything at all.

    Nope. If there's leeway when it comes to account sharing then Kabam are breaking their own ToS. Again, because he's a spender.
    Account sharers should be banned - no matter who it is or what their history with Kabam is.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,412 Guardian
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.

    That's your interpretation of events. The more correct interpretation is that the entire incident was considered a single incident and not a basket of smaller incidents, and the punishment was intended to cover all elements of that particular incident.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,412 Guardian
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.
    Actually, they were part of the same punishment. It wasn't "There's one violation, but we let the other slip.". It was part-and-parcel. People don't believe it because they want to see a ban. Punishment has always been up to their discretion. It was made an example, and it wasn't just KM in War.

    How was it making an example? So now I know that if I account share I'll be kicked off the content creators program that I'm not a part of?
    Gosh that is really teaching me a lesson isn't it

    If that's the lesson you learned, I'm afraid it is the wrong lesson. Other people who have apparently been caught piloting appear to have discovered that the lesson you learned was incorrect.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 1,985 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.
    Actually, they were part of the same punishment. It wasn't "There's one violation, but we let the other slip.". It was part-and-parcel. People don't believe it because they want to see a ban. Punishment has always been up to their discretion. It was made an example, and it wasn't just KM in War.

    How was it making an example? So now I know that if I account share I'll be kicked off the content creators program that I'm not a part of?
    Gosh that is really teaching me a lesson isn't it

    If that's the lesson you learned, I'm afraid it is the wrong lesson. Other people who have apparently been caught piloting appear to have discovered that the lesson you learned was incorrect.

    It's the lesson that GW said Kabam was teaching us. So I agree - the lesson I learned WAS incorrect.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,412 Guardian
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ArmandStar wrote: »
    that's another thing to consider: one summoner covering another one summoner can be a forgivable offense.
    hardcore full-alliance organized piloting should be grounds for ban, and i mean ban the alliance from the season, or at the very least ban from matchmaking for a week, like someone else mentioned

    That's one of the reasons I suspect account sharing is a zero-exception offense.

    Unless, of course, your in-game name starts with an 's' and rhymes with, appropriately enough, 'cheatin'.

    Without getting into specifics because that is against the forum rules, I'm unaware of Kabam making an exception in that case. Kabam specifically stated that account sharing, even in that case, was against the rules. You might disagree with the punishment levied in that case, but the conduct itself was not excused by Kabam.

    There WAS no punishment for the account sharing. He only got 'punished' for his early access Killmonger being used in war defense.
    The account sharing was incidental to that and remains unpunished - no loss of points or rating or rewards.
    Actually, they were part of the same punishment. It wasn't "There's one violation, but we let the other slip.". It was part-and-parcel. People don't believe it because they want to see a ban. Punishment has always been up to their discretion. It was made an example, and it wasn't just KM in War.

    How was it making an example? So now I know that if I account share I'll be kicked off the content creators program that I'm not a part of?
    Gosh that is really teaching me a lesson isn't it
    When it's mentioned in the Thread on the Program that someone was removed, and it was learned they were Account Sharing, that's an example. Word travels fast, and people knew exactly who it was. Just because they never banned him doesn't mean they ignored it. Honestly, it's hard to tell if people care about the cheating, or they want to see him personally fry.

    I want to see all cheaters get banned. That shouldn't be too hard for them to do, and in fact it is part of the ToS, but it seems sometimes that there are different strokes for different spenders.

    It seems pretty clear from many posts about the subject that in many cases alliances are getting war rating removed for piloting, but no actual player appears to be getting banned at the same time so no one knows for certain which player triggered the ban. That means first time offenses are not generally generating bans in all cases. If the policy is to remove rating for piloting alliances but only give warnings to the actual pilots under certain conditions, then in fact the content creator in question did not receive a lighter punishment than many other players apparently being detected as pilots. You could argue they received stronger punishment due to the potential visibility of the problem.

    The notion that they got off lighter than other players on average is not supported by the facts.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 15,412 Guardian
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    So define fry, because they take their own actions into account. Which is one of the reasons they don't discuss them, most likely. It leads to situations like this where people feel it should be more/less. Apparently they felt removal from the Program was sufficient enough, which is not uncommon when you have an honest working relationship at times. You can find that anywhere you go in life. Having a history yields a certain amount of leeway with these things. Had it been a prolonged occurrence, or had he not been honest, it might have gone the other way. Who knows? It's their call. It certainly wasn't ignored, or else they wouldn't have said anything at all.

    Nope. If there's leeway when it comes to account sharing then Kabam are breaking their own ToS. Again, because he's a spender.
    Account sharers should be banned - no matter who it is or what their history with Kabam is.

    What specific term of the TOS do you believe Kabam is breaking? Because I can find no specific statement that binds them to inflicting a specific punishment for any specific offense. The only statement I can find anywhere regarding what their response to a violation of terms of service will be is this one: "If you break our terms of service, action will be taken against your account."

    You seem to have a very specific idea about how the world should work. However, that idea is not how the vast majority of people who operate video games, or for that matter how all people in general, believe the world should work. When you break someone else's rules within their sphere of influence, they generally have a lot of discretion as to how to deal with you. Your belief that they should be bound to a specific response in all cases isn't reflected in most parts of all of existence.
  • Palito_DiazPalito_Diaz Posts: 51
    edited May 2018
    Instead of losing points too, why don't KABAM just retain the points of the losing alliance that played fair and just penalize the cheating alliance? If they cannot award the win and the points to the losing alliance that played fair, it's only right and fair too that they at least maintain their score.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 1,985 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Snizzbar wrote: »
    So define fry, because they take their own actions into account. Which is one of the reasons they don't discuss them, most likely. It leads to situations like this where people feel it should be more/less. Apparently they felt removal from the Program was sufficient enough, which is not uncommon when you have an honest working relationship at times. You can find that anywhere you go in life. Having a history yields a certain amount of leeway with these things. Had it been a prolonged occurrence, or had he not been honest, it might have gone the other way. Who knows? It's their call. It certainly wasn't ignored, or else they wouldn't have said anything at all.

    Nope. If there's leeway when it comes to account sharing then Kabam are breaking their own ToS. Again, because he's a spender.
    Account sharers should be banned - no matter who it is or what their history with Kabam is.

    What specific term of the TOS do you believe Kabam is breaking? Because I can find no specific statement that binds them to inflicting a specific punishment for any specific offense. The only statement I can find anywhere regarding what their response to a violation of terms of service will be is this one: "If you break our terms of service, action will be taken against your account."

    You seem to have a very specific idea about how the world should work. However, that idea is not how the vast majority of people who operate video games, or for that matter how all people in general, believe the world should work. When you break someone else's rules within their sphere of influence, they generally have a lot of discretion as to how to deal with you. Your belief that they should be bound to a specific response in all cases isn't reflected in most parts of all of existence.

    Blah blah blah too many words I can't be bothered reading. You seem to have a very specific ability to write way too many words in the most boring way imaginable.
Sign In or Register to comment.