Piloting Alternatives
The1_NuclearOnion
Member Posts: 908 ★★★
SO the more I've read about Piloting it seems there are genuinely two camps:
The Cheater Camp - Piloting by expert players specifically to gain an advantage in alliance wars
The Flexible Schedule Camp - Piloting because players are on vacation, have a bad day, break their phone, etc.
They are both against ToS and punishable and I don't want to argue to the contrary.
I DO want to open a constructive discussion about alternative ideas to address the Idea of a Flexible Schedule as stated above.
1. What are alliance options within the current build of the game and within ToS?
2. What changes can Kabam potentially make in the game to assist the second Camp above? Is there anything reasonable that we can suggest? I have one below but there are many others I'm sure.
I'd like to suggest a couple things to break the ice and also set some ground rules.
1. We know that running less BG's IS an option. Although we are looking for some options while running 3 BG's regularly.
2. We know that access to another person account for any reason is NOT an option so it needs to be outside of this method.
3. We know that you can just suck it up and do without and take whatever loss comes with that. We looking to avoid this.
Out of the box Suggestion:
Allow alliances to have more than 30 members (31?) with a "member on deck" (not active unless initiated by officer) to take over another alliance member's place (the other alliance member rotates to the "on deck" position). This is a long shot and I'm sure not fully though out. This would also MOST likely be a second account of someone since it could not contribute to anything in the alliance except this purpose since it cannot be used for events etc. until or unless rotated in.
This could make swapping out an alliance member easy for a temporary situation. Maybe limit the number of these swaps within a time frame per month? This also cannot be done mid AW or mid AQ. It would have to be pre-planned.
They go to the "On deck" position in the alliance while the current on deck account rotates in? If they rotate to on deck, they are still in the alliance but in an inactive position until rotated back in. That's the idea anyway.
Some of you forum members have had some good constructive ideas for this. Please suggest them here and let's see what happens.
The Cheater Camp - Piloting by expert players specifically to gain an advantage in alliance wars
The Flexible Schedule Camp - Piloting because players are on vacation, have a bad day, break their phone, etc.
They are both against ToS and punishable and I don't want to argue to the contrary.
I DO want to open a constructive discussion about alternative ideas to address the Idea of a Flexible Schedule as stated above.
1. What are alliance options within the current build of the game and within ToS?
2. What changes can Kabam potentially make in the game to assist the second Camp above? Is there anything reasonable that we can suggest? I have one below but there are many others I'm sure.
I'd like to suggest a couple things to break the ice and also set some ground rules.
1. We know that running less BG's IS an option. Although we are looking for some options while running 3 BG's regularly.
2. We know that access to another person account for any reason is NOT an option so it needs to be outside of this method.
3. We know that you can just suck it up and do without and take whatever loss comes with that. We looking to avoid this.
Out of the box Suggestion:
Allow alliances to have more than 30 members (31?) with a "member on deck" (not active unless initiated by officer) to take over another alliance member's place (the other alliance member rotates to the "on deck" position). This is a long shot and I'm sure not fully though out. This would also MOST likely be a second account of someone since it could not contribute to anything in the alliance except this purpose since it cannot be used for events etc. until or unless rotated in.
This could make swapping out an alliance member easy for a temporary situation. Maybe limit the number of these swaps within a time frame per month? This also cannot be done mid AW or mid AQ. It would have to be pre-planned.
They go to the "On deck" position in the alliance while the current on deck account rotates in? If they rotate to on deck, they are still in the alliance but in an inactive position until rotated back in. That's the idea anyway.
Some of you forum members have had some good constructive ideas for this. Please suggest them here and let's see what happens.
3
Comments
Okay, now that thats out of the way. I like the on-deck idea, but to make it workable, you'd have to make them a full member. This would essentially allow alliances to designate one person out of war, while another person is out of quest.
I used to play a game called Travian, which I believe is still around. It relies very much on real time and availability at any moment. Due to this, they allow you a "sitter" account. This is another account you give access to, that can do the basics on your account. I don't remember the extent in Travian, but the equivalent would be to allow one person, one account, to access your movements in AQ and AW. We could debate whether or not they could join, or what, but this would allow some coverage for alliance events, and dont let the sitter account access normal quests or arena. also ban any item use, unit use, and sell features. Also only allow each person to be a sitter for one account. This way you could only have one person cover your account, while also only being able to access one account in addition to your own (prevent one person from running all accounts). Put restrictions on that like you can only change the sitter once per week or something.
I don't expect them to put this suggestion into practice, because it would take some work along with monitoring and it would probably generate problems. But it is something I would like to see.
From reading this, and keeping the same number of entries in AW and AQ.
Would it be easier to increase the member maximum to 35 or 40? Increase the points needed for rewards in other events other than AW and AQ to account for the increase in members.. Limit the AQ and AW rewards to those who actually participated. This would give alliances leeway if members cannot get on, or allow a rotating schedule of members to take breaks from it to quest or from the game in general.
I think the "member on deck" is good, but it would be too big and too sudden of a change. Keep in Mind all this is out the top of my head.
Anyway once you give out your account information you're playing with fire in a number of ways and your alliance will get caught and your alliance will be penalized for it and it's pretty much that simple.
I would like your guys comments on an extra person or two in the alliance to give leeway to someone on vacation you never need their account, but they can take small time off and not hit the blackout timer when they come back
Very simple. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, no matter how altruistic the motive. If someone is on vacation, they can't play. If the Ally boots them during that time, that's not very understanding.
I cant smack my head enough. This wouldn't be breaking the rules. The proposal is making alliances able to have 31 members. No one would EVER log into the person's account on vacation. They would just sit there until the player is back. This allows the alliance to let them stay, while not having the alliance suffer. I fail to see where it breaks a rule.
Still wouldn't work in kabams book it's still illegal and once you give out you'll information they will eventually catch you and punnish you and it could cause other problems for you and kabam.
In case you haven't noticed they've been really cracking down on account sharring and piloting, tons of allainces who do the same thing you're suggestion and talking about have been penalized for it especially lately.
In their book no matter what you do once you give out your information you break their rules and will get caught by them and your alliance will get penalized.
Kabam created this problem and this seems to be the first step in fixing it, next maybe the should take a better look at this game especially in the aq and aw department and figure out something to ensure that it doesn't have to happen and that people can do everything on their own and not have to come on so frequently and lessen the strain on the higher ones who either have to come on all the time or share their information.
What they're doing isn't working and they need to do more if they want people to stop with the account sharring and piloting.
Sigh... let me explain again. An extra account. so alliances would have 31 people. No one is logging into other accounts. When an account goes on vacation, they stay in the alliance, but because the alliance has 31, 30 members complete everything.
Let me make it clear I am totally against piloting. I am competitive in this game and am pushing into the higher ranks. I have led alliances and been a member in alliances. This isnt a thread to make piloting legal (my first comment was probably misplaced) but to suggest ways to do things differently to alleviate the pressure and missing out on rewards as an alliance because one person went MIA
My concern is what happens when no one is on vacation? Is one member just screwed into not earning anything? Or do you just kick someone whenever your player comes back?
Having the extra spot (or 2) earn rewards would allow bigger alliances to help newer players along without being drug down by them
I understand your point about it most likely being someone’s second account, but it shouldn’t be designed to be a second account
I kinda hate this idea because if someone wanted a new account, they could build it by literally doing nothing but sitting there. Imagine how valuable 4* are at the start, now a new account will get one at least weekly.
You should only get what you contribute to, so the extra person would take the toll of not participating in aw/aq but be able to participate in SA, item use, etc. for those rewards. And depending what an alliance wanted to do, they could rotate that person out, or have one person not included in war, have another person not included in AQ. This would also help those wanting to do some hard content take a break without actually leaving an alliance.
It may mean that for a week you forgo doing the normal AQ map and doing a tier lower, getting a fill in member for that week or two, or just running things normally but being short handed.
Yes it's a pain when a member or two can't play, but a well formed and managed alliance will make good decisions on how to manage their way through those times (Without cheating).
You have to work around people not being available. That's part of being in an Alliance. The problem roots from people caring more about Rewards than its Members.
you're totally wrong. this will never happen. if your alliance cant deal with 29 or u cant find 5 minutes to access ur phone then tough luck. Your proposal is weak and kabam has bigger fish to fry.
Don’t think your understanding the pressure from high tier wars.. every point matters. Especially with the new terrible nodes now in war.. you putting your loyal member on the bench means 1 less fighter for war.. which can be the lead to a success.
Also yourself.. in a previous comment.. stating that this is in a way cheating/a way around cheating is bizarre. This is not a way around cheating whatsoever.
This idea is actually BRILLIANT.
Cheating would be being able to manipulate the system. As long as kabam give this for limited use how can this be deemed as cheating?
If this got added to the game. And you had a member who was there for you when you need them..
1. Unable to contribute to alliance events
2. Unable to contribute to war/aq also unable to place on defence unless given permission by the leader before war search takes place. Which would be in a switch with the member you have on a break.
3. Unable to donate
4. their prestige does not affect AQ whatsoever
5. Only claim war rewards if they were in that war(which would take other members rewards as they didn’t contribute)
6. Only claim aq rewards I participated & would have to have completed full week series(which would replace the other members rewards as they never.
7. Not allowed for excessive use(unable to do this every war/when you want to as.. to not allow excessive use.. maybe have to submit a ticket to get approved ? After X amount of times youbdo it they investigate if needs be..
Tell me how on Earth is that cheating?
The key here is that as long as the alliance runs 3 bg's, everyone gets the payout so the people sitting out are hosed for not being involved that time around.
That's the whole point of what I'm saying. This idea that it is absolutely necessary because "we won't survive when one person has a life" is the problem. There's no real loyalty in an Alliance like that. The only loyalty is to Rewards, not to the Player that has other obligations, certainly not if they're willing to risk their Account and jeopardize the Alliance War Rating, just to make sure someone moves.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about in terms of a way around is cheating. I said any conversation that talks about alternatives to cheating is effectively justifying it by default. "Here are the reasons people cheat, let's change the system so they don't have to.". People cheat because they don't care about the rules, they don't care about the consequences, they just care about getting those Rewards. Well, when you don't care, you end up with consequences. It's the same as saying the system is at fault because of the reasons people cheat.
There's only one alternative to cheating. Don't do it.
That wouldn't work and is just another form of pilioting, and they would never do it for tons of reasons.
The only people who can alieivte the burdens on people and their alliance is kabam and they don't particularly seem to care about us.
So it's up to us to figure what to do and which maps to run, no matter what life takes priority of this game and it's why so many people are getting burned out, quitting, or leaving their alliances
I agree with 2nd/3rd paragraphs here. What I am suggesting in the quoted comment isnt piloting, imo. No one is sharing any login info, no one is logging into anyones account. Ignore my first comment on this thread, my next comments dont reflect that.
The idea ive been commenting on is more what the OP presented.
The more I thought about the 31 members idea the more I loved it. The alliance would almost always stick at 30, because who wants to sit and do nothing? but with the ever increasing importance of war and map 6, the extra spot would allow the leeway to add someone to the alliance for AQ even when the war isnt over yet, so there is no disastrous time management.
You are quite correct what you are saying is not piloting nor is it cheating. It's having an additional member on deck which can play as a substitute.
I get that.
But at the same time, figuring out how to play within the constraints of the game is part of the game itself. It's part of planning, making alliance adjustments, communicating, and adapting.
Making the tough calls about what to do is something an officer is supposed to have to do.
Being confronted with the idea of, we are 1 or 2 members short, we should drop down an AQ map, or maybe run a 2 BG war this time, forgo this alliance event because there's not enough players, or risk it gamble short handed. Do we move members around from one BG to another to compensate, how many lines of attack can we run given who is where and available.
That is part of being an officer, and very much a part of the game play itself.
I can agree with that, as I used to have the same argument. I dont think the 31 members is a fix all, end all, just a dream.
That type of planning was fun and doable when seasons weren't a thing. You had a level of alliance who went all out, map 6, war 100% every time, full rewards. This group needed 30 all the time. It seems with the addition of seasons, that group has expanded exponentially. You used to be able to decide to go 2 bgs and really not have it be an issue. Map 5 only has 8 paths. As @Riegel pointed out, 9 paths on map 6 would go a long way to fixing this. I think the shortening of seasons also fixes this. If you get screwed by a member, on a 2 month season the effect lasts the full 2 months. Now the effect will last a month, which is so much better, IMO.
To implement this the extra 2 members would have to be invite only into the alliance even if the alliance normally has an open to join status. That way alliances that only want 30 members could stay at 30 and keep running things the same way, while alliances that want a couple backup members could have them.
The 30 members who participated in a day of AQ would get daily rewards for that day. Whichever of the 32 total members participated in ALL 5 days of AQ would get full AQ weekly rewards for that week. If you only participated in 1-4 days of AQ for a week then you would either receive no weekly rewards or a subset of those rewards depending on the difficulty of implementation.
The 30 members who participated in each individual war would get AW rewards for that war. The 5 war minimum per season would still apply to all 32 members. If a member doesn't do 5 wars per season then no season rewards for that member. This would leave it up to the alliances if they were rotating members in and out of AW so all 32 could achieve season rewards or if the additional 2 accounts are strictly backups for real life situations like vacations or work projects, etc. Face it we all have lives and sitting out one war per season so a backup can get their 5 wars in wouldn't be a major hardship anyways.
All 32 members would be eligible for solo event rewards and all non-AQ/AW related alliance event rewards. All 32 member's scores in alliance events would contribute to the alliance event totals. This would allow the extra two members to keep developing their accounts even if they are strictly AQ/AW backups, albeit at a slower rate.
This could effectively solve the problem of "flexible-schedule piloting" and allow alliances to stay competitive if up to two members at a time need to step away from the game for a short period of time. It would be up to each alliance if the extra two slots are filled with secondary accounts of current alliance members or completely new members.
Additionally, secondary accounts being pulled from a "parked account" alliance to fill-in for someone in their main account's alliance would have no gap in alliance event rewards like Summoner Advancement.
Piloting out of "perceived necessity" would be eliminated. Booting long-standing alliance members temporarily would be eliminated. Alliances suffering from reduced rewards due to running lower maps/fewer BGs each time a member goes on vacation would be eliminated.
Each BG allows UP TO 10 players. 10 are not required to 100% a map in AW or AQ. It's about planning and managing your alliance.
The shorter AW season will help with the burn out.
If you are in an alliance that needs to be running 30 people all of the time, 100% map 6 and win every AW with no break ect. Then you have committed to never taking off. You always have the option to run in a more laid back alliance or run solo.
Before going into discussion can someone please explain how would u know if someone is sharing account??? IP address??? Well I travel and play my account from multiple IP addresses daily and those could span from US to Canada. Are u saying I should stop playing this game???