**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.

Alliance War Season 2 Points - 3rd time

Namo10Namo10 Posts: 28
edited May 2018 in General Discussion
3rd time, I am now not addressing anyone. Please do not take this thread down!

Not a regular forum user but this time I'll try and abide by the rules and not name any alliances or anyone.

Sequence of events:

- Season 1 done and dusted rewards handed out.
- End of Season 1 a particular alliance received retrospective rewards having been a victim of matchmaking algorithm.
- It was argued that, had they participated, they would've at least earned 100% participation rewards/points despite win/lose.
- Season 2 kicks off, end of the first week the 'hammer' was dropped and points/war rating etc were reduced on certain alliances that had violated the ToCs.
- Opponents of these alliances however are given this explanation, and I quote - 'we cannot be sure that if no violations had occurred, your alliance would have won that war'
- This explanation could be found in the following link: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/401217#Comment_401217
- Therefore no points are restored for the opposing alliances.

Now I am humbly asking, how would you have known, looking back if that specific alliance in Season 1 would've even accumulated 100% in those two missed wars to actually receive the retrospective rewards? Sure you could tell me that due to ToCs you are unable to discuss this matter publicly but the point stands, and I am using logic given above, I'll repeat, how would you have known if that specific alliance in Season 1 would've even accumulated 100% in the two missed wars to be rewarded them later? and eventually through the 'manual' calculation receiving top 3 rewards.

Speaking on behalf of my alliance and those that are in our position, a little consistency would be appreciated. Go ahead punish anyone that is violating your ToCs, in fact ban them for life I do not care, I welcome it! I am speaking about every account in the game, with no exceptions.

If equivalent treatment isn't a common application across the platform, then why do we even participate? It's just a discouraging show of affairs which does not represent your so called 'principles'.

For the ones saying, chin up and stop moaning, this again!!?? Yes I agree absolutely, we'll just look forward and participate in the season...but I leave the above treatment to your judgement...don't you think it's double standards?

Comments

  • chunkybchunkyb Posts: 1,453 Content Creator
    I'd like to hear an official word on this tbh. The reasoning in the op's post is sound. Seems very odd that one is ok and the other is not. I thought transparency with the community was the goal?
  • RiegelRiegel Posts: 1,088 ★★★★
    Wow. They are trying to silence you hard. Wonder why Kabam is so afraid of this post?
  • RiegelRiegel Posts: 1,088 ★★★★
    BTW no forum rules are being broken by this post.
  • BirdofpreyBirdofprey Posts: 66
    I think the reason they will not do this is the amount of work that it would take to research and give out said rewards. It is easy to adjust 1 alliances score, not so easy for the hundreds of alliances that were affected by piloting. I am in an alliance that was affected. In fact the 3 previous wars before the "ban" were alliances that were hit with the hammer. And I would love the shards and points, but I think it is too big and difficult a task for them to take on.
  • SperaSpera Posts: 152 ★
    Op makes a valid point ... I'd like to hear what kabaam has to say about this
  • chunkybchunkyb Posts: 1,453 Content Creator
    Was it also too big of an issue to give other alliances rewards when their matchmaking messed up? If you do it for one, you do it for all... Otherwise, there's an issue.

    I'm sure it would be framed as too much work, but I don't buy that story. People said it was too much work to identify cheaters and pilots as well. *shrug*
  • HulksmasshhHulksmasshh Posts: 742 ★★★
    These probably keep getting closed cause they already made an official comment - that they will not be retroactively rewarding victory bonus points to those legit alliances who lost against TOS violation alliances. Not that I agree with their comment, but that’s their official comment. In all fairness I think those alliances who lost should be awarded their victory bonus points but I think there are bigger fish to fry like to go after modder alliances.
  • Namo10Namo10 Posts: 28
    edited May 2018
    Hulksmasshh wrote: »
    These probably keep getting closed cause they already made an official comment - that they will not be retroactively rewarding victory bonus points to those legit alliances who lost against TOS violation alliances. Not that I agree with their comment, but that’s their official comment. In all fairness I think those alliances who lost should be awarded their victory bonus points but I think there are bigger fish to fry like to go after modder alliances.

    Not so sure. I think they chose to close them because I may have named someone. In any case, the closest I got to an answer is here which I am finding hard to accept:

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/401217#Comment_401217
  • Kabam MiikeKabam Miike Posts: 8,208
    This isn't about "silencing" anybody. When a thread is removed, it is against the forum rules to post it again.

    Now, the situation you are referencing is not at all related or comparable to what we're talking about now. You're talking about a situation where, because of systems in place, an Alliance was totally unable to compete in every war. This is not what we're discussing here. As we have already mentioned, it is not possible for us to determine how an Alliance is affected when coming up against another Alliance that may or may not have been playing honestly.

    It's not possible to determine the outcome, and we will not be taking any further actions on this.

    I know this is not the answer you're hoping to hear, but this is the decision that has been made.
This discussion has been closed.