Season rankings went kaboom

So. Atleast 3 alliances just had their warrating increased by atleast 500 points. They also got points added to their season score.
Wtf is going on?

Comments

For_Spetz

qop wrote: »

Edge234 wrote: »

What legitimate reasons? Ppl bought a new account and. Want to change the name? That is against TOS. If I was one of them my name would be iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii or whatever

Thats true. But u r trying to twist and disuade my point funny guy. Are u trying to be hypocrite and say changing names to iiiiiiiii or llllllllll is fine but mention other abusive namechange practices like those tat sell accounts and change acc names? U r not helping urself.

Of course there are legit people who simply want to change their name of choice to something else due to change of preference.

No were on Kabams rules does it say teams need to be allowed to distuinguish and scout defender ign & placements.

Acanthus

Myhappyday wrote: »

Current top 4 aw alliances are in same chat room manipulating aw search and matching.

They must be doing a really good job since they literally played each other last war

qop

Acanthus wrote: »

Myhappyday wrote: »

Current top 4 aw alliances are in same chat room manipulating aw search and matching.

They must be doing a really good job since they literally played each other last war

Planned? No idea but i do know they que search at certain order they agree to.

How about you share us their deaths and number of matches they played each other during the whole season?

Edit: turns out u r one of them.

qop

For_Spetz wrote: »

qop wrote: »

Edge234 wrote: »

What legitimate reasons? Ppl bought a new account and. Want to change the name? That is against TOS. If I was one of them my name would be iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii or whatever

Thats true. But u r trying to twist and disuade my point funny guy. Are u trying to be hypocrite and say changing names to iiiiiiiii or llllllllll is fine but mention other abusive namechange practices like those tat sell accounts and change acc names? U r not helping urself.

Of course there are legit people who simply want to change their name of choice to something else due to change of preference.

No were on Kabams rules does it say teams need to be allowed to distuinguish and scout defender ign & placements.

Do I need to explain what abusing or exploiting mean? Use ur common sense.

Im not necessarily arguing those that name changed to gain a competitive advantage should be banned. More so that this should not be allowed.

Acanthus

qop wrote: »

Acanthus wrote: »

Myhappyday wrote: »

Current top 4 aw alliances are in same chat room manipulating aw search and matching.

They must be doing a really good job since they literally played each other last war

Planned? No idea but i do know they que search at certain order they agree to.

How about you share us their deaths and number of matches they played each other during the whole season?

Edit: turns out u r one of them.

Why would I share our deaths to you? And there were atleast 6 matches between the current top4

For_Spetz

qop wrote: »

For_Spetz wrote: »

qop wrote: »

Edge234 wrote: »

What legitimate reasons? Ppl bought a new account and. Want to change the name? That is against TOS. If I was one of them my name would be iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii or whatever

Thats true. But u r trying to twist and disuade my point funny guy. Are u trying to be hypocrite and say changing names to iiiiiiiii or llllllllll is fine but mention other abusive namechange practices like those tat sell accounts and change acc names? U r not helping urself.

Of course there are legit people who simply want to change their name of choice to something else due to change of preference.

No were on Kabams rules does it say teams need to be allowed to distuinguish and scout defender ign & placements.

Do I need to explain what abusing or exploiting mean? Use ur common sense.

Im not necessarily arguing those that name changed to gain a competitive advantage should be banned. More so that this should not be allowed.

So Kabam is allowing them to exploit/abuse ? 🤔🤔🤔

Edge234

I have a feeling @qop is getting low rewards from season 2 and is jealous of alliances that are achieving rewards that are equal to their efforts. Hence his moan about top allies and the achievements they have managed. What is your ally?

qop

For_Spetz wrote: »

So Kabam is allowing them to exploit/abuse ? 🤔🤔🤔

Is that what u asked urself whenever people got caught for abusing and exploiting certain things in the game? hehehehe

@Edge234 you cannot even argue constructively. Stop embarassing urself.

Ive said my piece to make things aware. All tats left is to see what kabam will do.

Edge234

Don’t need to argue @qop you are writing lies, why would ppl jeopardise their season rank this close to the end. It’s fine you carry on with your conspiracies. Don’t forget to tell people the world is flat and that you have a pet dinosaur at the same time. Then all your stories will carry the same credibility

qop

Acanthus wrote: »

Why would I share our deaths to you? And there were atleast 6 matches between the current top4

Im curious how many deaths each side had? Since u guys arrange search ques, did u guys also fix who win and lose while minimize deaths? Just speculation on this part.

6 matches between 4 top alliances. So about 1 match for each of you. There are 24 matches during a season? So, 1/24?

DTMelodicMetal

Edge234 wrote: »

Don’t need to argue @qop you are writing lies, why would ppl jeopardise their season rank this close to the end. It’s fine you carry on with your conspiracies. Don’t forget to tell people the world is flat and that you have a pet dinosaur at the same time. Then all your stories will carry the same credibility

I'd post a line chat screenshot that keeps players' and alliance's privacy hidden to support what @qop has said but I'd rather not get this thread removed in spite of abiding by the forum's rules

danielmath

qop wrote: »

Acanthus wrote: »

Why would I share our deaths to you? And there were atleast 6 matches between the current top4

Im curious how many deaths each side had? Since u guys arrange search ques, did u guys also fix who win and lose while minimize deaths? Just speculation on this part.

6 matches between 4 top alliances. So about 1 match for each of you. There are 24 matches during a season? So, 1/24?

You're out of line here accusing them without any proof.

Edge234

qop wrote: »

Acanthus wrote: »

Why would I share our deaths to you? And there were atleast 6 matches between the current top4

Im curious how many deaths each side had? Since u guys arrange search ques, did u guys also fix who win and lose while minimize deaths? Just speculation on this part.

6 matches between 4 top alliances. So about 1 match for each of you. There are 24 matches during a season? So, 1/24?

There are also 20 alliances in master so if you matched everyone once there would only be 4 duplicate matches left. Your point is invalid, if kabam made a matching system then everyone would face each other once then that would be fair. The top teams in a football season don’t face each other every match do they? Obviously not or the whole point of a season would be pointless

qop

I have proof they que search together at specific set order. What else is needed to be said regarding manipulation? Dont try to expand my points to off or sub topics. U just need to clarify honestly and answer whether top allies are in a group chat together trying to manipulate search times to avoid one another for the most part. yes? no?

As for piloting, I can only hope kabam arrange a better detection filter for those violating TOS.

DTMelodicMetal

qop wrote: »

I have proof they que search together at specific set order. What else is needed to be said regarding manipulation? Dont try to expand my points to off or sub topics. U just need to clarify honestly and answer whether top allies are in a group chat together trying to manipulate search times to avoid one another for the most part. yes? no?

This had been done for years, common knowledge among high-end players. Some alliances did this and ran 2 BG AWs to keep their war rating elevated.

EDIT: See proof below

Anxiety

If you're a victim of this on the other side of the coin, how do you figure out who, what, and when the offense occurred if no one is banned?

FallingKingdoms

Thank you for the transparency. Hopefully this means we have a chance at more open and honest communication in the future.

Anxiety

Is there really no way to figure out who it was? That's a bit disappointing and completely unfair for the other 29 teammates playing by the rules.
@Kabam Miike

unknown

This content has been removed.

DrOctavius2_2

Thank you Kabam!! For giving justice to cheaters. Game is much more fun and enjoyable now. Please keep up the good work and ignore the haters.

unknown

This content has been removed.

roastedbagel

humzah217 wrote: »

@Kabam Miike my alliance war rating used to be 800 now its 300 and I got a in game message saying someone in the alliance has broken the TOS and that’s why the war rating has been adjusted....can u at least give me the name of the person so I can kick them out or can u do it for me!?

They won't.

Kabam has this wildly ridiculous thought that this info is as secretive as CIA documents and don't dare share this stuff cause it's super sensitive and secret. It's not. Other AAA game developers share this info (rightfully), kabam is just exercising their horrific communication abilities.

It's incredibly stupid.

MattMan

roastedbagel wrote: »

humzah217 wrote: »

@Kabam Miike my alliance war rating used to be 800 now its 300 and I got a in game message saying someone in the alliance has broken the TOS and that’s why the war rating has been adjusted....can u at least give me the name of the person so I can kick them out or can u do it for me!?

They won't.

Kabam has this wildly ridiculous thought that this info is as secretive as CIA documents and don't dare share this stuff cause it's super sensitive and secret. It's not. Other AAA game developers share this info (rightfully), kabam is just exercising their horrific communication abilities.

It's incredibly stupid.

If the username/account info is considered personal or private information, they likely can’t due to privacy laws.

DNA3000

MattMan wrote: »

roastedbagel wrote: »

humzah217 wrote: »

@Kabam Miike my alliance war rating used to be 800 now its 300 and I got a in game message saying someone in the alliance has broken the TOS and that’s why the war rating has been adjusted....can u at least give me the name of the person so I can kick them out or can u do it for me!?

They won't.

Kabam has this wildly ridiculous thought that this info is as secretive as CIA documents and don't dare share this stuff cause it's super sensitive and secret. It's not. Other AAA game developers share this info (rightfully), kabam is just exercising their horrific communication abilities.

It's incredibly stupid.

If the username/account info is considered personal or private information, they likely can’t due to privacy laws.

If the fact that you've been disciplined or not was protected by law, they couldn't visibly show anyone being banned on the forums. There's no law I'm aware of that only affects superhero mobile games, but not public forums.

Maat1985

DNA3000 wrote: »

MattMan wrote: »

roastedbagel wrote: »

humzah217 wrote: »

@Kabam Miike my alliance war rating used to be 800 now its 300 and I got a in game message saying someone in the alliance has broken the TOS and that’s why the war rating has been adjusted....can u at least give me the name of the person so I can kick them out or can u do it for me!?

They won't.

Kabam has this wildly ridiculous thought that this info is as secretive as CIA documents and don't dare share this stuff cause it's super sensitive and secret. It's not. Other AAA game developers share this info (rightfully), kabam is just exercising their horrific communication abilities.

It's incredibly stupid.

If the username/account info is considered personal or private information, they likely can’t due to privacy laws.

If the fact that you've been disciplined or not was protected by law, they couldn't visibly show anyone being banned on the forums. There's no law I'm aware of that only affects superhero mobile games, but not public forums.

We are not talking about people being banned per se as far as privacy goes as that is easy to see anyway.... and also actively sharing this info is different to not hiding it....
Difference between baning someone and for being a forum troll and banning someone in game for hacking when it affects a whole alliance. The latter opens up the person to potential abuse from other people. Which whether or not a you agree with it needs to be done.

Imagine this scenario, a young kid cheats in a video game and costs others rewards because of this. The video game comapny then tell the community that this player was banned for hacking. The community (esp the alliance involved here) then constantly abuse and berate the child to a point where he attmepts to take his own life. The parents of said child then choose to take the video game company to court for opening their child up to the abuse that led to their suicide there is a good chance that they may win compensation.

I personally think the above scenario is BS and should never happen but i have no doubt with how “sue happy” our society has become and how much of a bs pushover our legal system is that this is a potentially likely outcome and as a company you would not want to open yourself up to this kind of thing.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

Maat1985 wrote: »

Imagine this scenario, a young kid cheats in a video game and costs others rewards because of this. The video game comapny then tell the community that this player was banned for hacking. The community (esp the alliance involved here) then constantly abuse and berate the child to a point where he attmepts to take his own life. The parents of said child then choose to take the video game company to court for opening their child up to the abuse that led to their suicide there is a good chance that they may win compensation.

Imagine this scenario. The exact same thing happens, but this time the game operator doesn't say who's responsible. So the community guesses, and berates the wrong person to the point of driving them to the same desperate acts. While the game operator, knowing who actually was responsible, stands by and does nothing.

I don't see how this case is harder to win than yours. In neither case does the game operator have any real responsibility over the actions of others, but if the intent is to try to pin the blame on an easy target the game operator is equally easy of a target.

In fact, if I was plaintiff's counsel, I would prefer to take my case over yours. Because you have a callous game company, but I have a completely innocent victim to present to the jury. I'm not an attorney, but I like those odds a lot better.

Maat1985

DNA3000 wrote: »

Maat1985 wrote: »

Imagine this scenario, a young kid cheats in a video game and costs others rewards because of this. The video game comapny then tell the community that this player was banned for hacking. The community (esp the alliance involved here) then constantly abuse and berate the child to a point where he attmepts to take his own life. The parents of said child then choose to take the video game company to court for opening their child up to the abuse that led to their suicide there is a good chance that they may win compensation.

Imagine this scenario. The exact same thing happens, but this time the game operator doesn't say who's responsible. So the community guesses, and berates the wrong person to the point of driving them to the same desperate acts. While the game operator, knowing who actually was responsible, stands by and does nothing.

I don't see how this case is harder to win than yours. In neither case does the game operator have any real responsibility over the actions of others, but if the intent is to try to pin the blame on an easy target the game operator is equally easy of a target.

In fact, if I was plaintiff's counsel, I would prefer to take my case over yours. Because you have a callous game company, but I have a completely innocent victim to present to the jury. I'm not an attorney, but I like those odds a lot better.

In my case the action of the game company has led directly to the abuse of a particular person

In your case they have done their part to protect the player.

2 questions are....
Has the game company knowingly allowed or facitlitated the abuse of a particular player?
In mine yes, in yours no
Has the game company got systems in place and done its part to protect its consumers?
In mine yes, in yours no.

So by the answer of those simple questions
Secenario 1 indicates the game company has done watnit can to protects its players
Scenario 2 indicates the game company has directly thrown someone into the firing line.

Yes the whole potential situation is a joke and yes people need to take responsibility for their own actions. But unfortunately we live in a world where people are increasingly allowed to place blame on others and our laws and legal system has no choice but to cater for stupid.
Either way i agree with them not specifically stating who the player is and i agree with them.

Really the player should be banned and removed from the alliance.
Cus whilst this would allow the alliance to be able to see who was the culprit. It would also cover the game comapany as they have not specificaly stated who was banned/kicked or why.

There is a big difference between something being visible and able to be seen/worked out by people and specifically stating

DTMelodicMetal

_ASDF_ wrote: »

Obviously the sole purpose for the name change is anonymity, making it difficult to figure out which champ comes from who’s account. They also ALL R5d blade or Medusa. R4 or 5 Magik. If you look at their accounts, they’ve basically hid their defenders by ranking up the same champs. Kudos to them on that. I think it’s a little obscene that they can mod their account names, which is what it is...

Am I the only one who thinks this strategy is overrated? The alliance who uses this strategy is currently in 1st place this AW Season but changing their profile names is not necessarily the reason why.

Every time you fight a hidden defender in AW you're able to view the player's profile and see their top 4 champions. If their hidden defender is one of their top 4 champions you're able to take an educated guess if the hidden defender you're fighting is one of the 4 champions shown in that player's profile. In most cases you're not able to find out which defender is being hidden before you start your AW fights, unless your alliance previously faced your assigned AW opponent and keeps notes on your AW fights.

There are many tier 1 AW players who post their AW fights on YouTube. Some of these players are quite skilled, but many simply use r5 god tier champions for attackers and 30% champion's boosts on top of other health/attack/special AW boosts for every single fight. The amount of complaints about one alliance's members changing their profile names tells me two things:

1) Tier 1 players are searching for reasons to blame their Season 2 losses other than their opponents outperforming them in AW
2) Tier 1 AW Piloting was so common pre-AW Season 2 that the skills of many tier 1 AW players are more on par with low to mid level platinum players

DNA3000

Maat1985 wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Maat1985 wrote: »

Imagine this scenario, a young kid cheats in a video game and costs others rewards because of this. The video game comapny then tell the community that this player was banned for hacking. The community (esp the alliance involved here) then constantly abuse and berate the child to a point where he attmepts to take his own life. The parents of said child then choose to take the video game company to court for opening their child up to the abuse that led to their suicide there is a good chance that they may win compensation.

Imagine this scenario. The exact same thing happens, but this time the game operator doesn't say who's responsible. So the community guesses, and berates the wrong person to the point of driving them to the same desperate acts. While the game operator, knowing who actually was responsible, stands by and does nothing.

I don't see how this case is harder to win than yours. In neither case does the game operator have any real responsibility over the actions of others, but if the intent is to try to pin the blame on an easy target the game operator is equally easy of a target.

In fact, if I was plaintiff's counsel, I would prefer to take my case over yours. Because you have a callous game company, but I have a completely innocent victim to present to the jury. I'm not an attorney, but I like those odds a lot better.

In my case the action of the game company has led directly to the abuse of a particular person

In your case they have done their part to protect the player.

2 questions are....
Has the game company knowingly allowed or facitlitated the abuse of a particular player?
In mine yes, in yours no
Has the game company got systems in place and done its part to protect its consumers?
In mine yes, in yours no.

So by the answer of those simple questions
Secenario 1 indicates the game company has done watnit can to protects its players
Scenario 2 indicates the game company has directly thrown someone into the firing line.

I don't say this to be facetious, but in the hypothetical where I was functioning as plaintiff's counsel, you would not be presiding as judge. My non-professional but significant exposure to the law says that viewpoint is inconsistent with tort law.

If notifying an alliance who triggered a terms of service violation causes the game operator to be considered a "facilitator" of any problems that arises from this, then it is equally true that *any* game detail that can cause players to suffer any injury is an equal facilitation of that injury. If a player is hounded by their alliance mates because they don't use energy efficiently, then Kabam facilitated that abuse by implementing a five hour energy timer.

Except no court would likely accept that argument. The threshold for liability due to facilitation has to be way higher than that. So while you might draw the conclusions you do based on reasonable lines of thought, I'd bet a lot of money those conclusions wouldn't hold up in court. And we are talking about whether Kabam has any legal liability issues, not whether they are going to be internetted to death, so its the legal line of thought that matters in this context.