**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.

War Seasons Suggestion

GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
edited September 2018 in Suggestions and Requests
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!

There are a number of issues arising from Tanking, Rating Removals, and other actions that affect the Matchmaking. In some cases, they are the result of punitive measures. In other cases, they are because of an intentional strategy. There are other issues as well, but I'm focusing on these because the result is Allies being overpowered in Matches, and others are gaining an unfair edge in Points. Quite simply, the system is propelling their growth, whether intentional or byproduct, and giving them higher Rewards. Those under them are being stunted, not only because of the overpowered Losses but because the system shifts depending on what everyone does. Having encountered a number of extreme mismatches, I've been going back to my original idea of wiping clean at the end of every Season, but I don't see that as being feasible or practical, especially since Seasons are only a short amount of time. So, I'd like to throw a suggestion out there. Feel free to use any of it.

Seasons progress should carry over and remain in Seasons. How it could work is there would be a minimum War Rating requirement to enter Seasons, something easy and accessible. Perhaps 50 or 100 War Rating. Once you enter, you work your way up through the Brackets. Stone, Bronze, etc. Your Season Rating remains unchanged by Off-Season, and you pick up where you left off in the next Season. If you finished in Silver, you stay in Silver until you win or lose in the next Season.
The same lock-out applies, which also means if Allies want to have a Seasons Alliance, that's acceptable, as we know some keep Shells. Not at all what I think is prudent, or wise, but it happens. With the lock-out, it wouldn't be unfair from what I can see.
Off-Seasons would remain separate, and not affect Seasons.
The next part is not really integral to the suggestion, but I feel important. I won't discuss actions taken on Allies. I would like to make a gentle suggestion that a new way of punishing transgressions is introduced, especially for Seasons. Whether it be Suspensions from Season, removal of Rewards, or other. I think that the adverse effect of removing Rating is causing the Matchmaking to be off-balance. Don't get me wrong. I fully support taking actions. I just feel it has an effect that is more detrimental to those playing honestly. Especially in the case of repeat offenders who end up much lower and therefore gaining easier Wins.
I thought I would put out a couple ideas as a solution. My intention is to have a fair space to enjoy a healthy competition, and I've felt since I originally thought about Seasons that keeping progress separate is the best way to reward it. Thanks.
«13

Comments

  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,638 ★★★★★
    @GroundedWisdom I agree that lowering the rating punishes alliances at that rating who now have to face an alliance who would never ordinarily be in their bracket. It's not a good punishment if it punishes other alliances who did nothing wrong. I don't love the first suggestion as some alliances that may be trying to improve their tier would have that opportunity removed in the offseason but it may be the lesser of two evils. I don't love tanking either.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    Thanks. I think the problem stems from having them intertwined. I respect that you don't agree, but I've maintained they should be separate from the get-go. Actually, it came when I originally mentioned Seasons on the Forum. I got the idea from Diablo 3. Each Season you start new Characters. Then your progress transfers after it ends. Now that a form of Seasons is introduced, I think it's just refinement. I love Seasons, though.
  • DTMelodicMetalDTMelodicMetal Posts: 2,785 ★★★★★
    @GroundedWisdom I agree that lowering the rating punishes alliances at that rating who now have to face an alliance who would never ordinarily be in their bracket. It's not a good punishment if it punishes other alliances who did nothing wrong. I don't love the first suggestion as some alliances that may be trying to improve their tier would have that opportunity removed in the offseason but it may be the lesser of two evils. I don't love tanking either.

    I agree with this. Maybe Kabam could change the +/- war points amount when mismatches happen. If a 6 mil 900 war rating alliance matches up with a 15+ mil 900 war rating alliance that was recently created, the 6 mil alliance is docked very few war rating points if they lose. Kabam could alter the AW matchmaking process to consider alliance formation date as a variable.

    @GroundedWisdom appreciate you offering ideas to decrease the extent of AW manipulation
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    Thanks. It's a few suggestions anyway.
  • Helicopter_dugdugdugHelicopter_dugdugdug Posts: 555 ★★★
    Seriously don’t know why a silver tier guy cares so much about what happens in plat / Master??
  • IrohrIrohr Posts: 254 ★★
    Bronze. Not silver.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    edited September 2018
    I don't care if I'm in Master or Stone. Any manipulation of the system affects everyone. It's about right and wrong. The sytem is interdependent. What you do at one end affects the others. We aren't playing in a vacuum.
    Seriously don’t know why a silver tier guy cares so much about what happens in plat / Master??

  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 8,638 ★★★★★
    Seriously don’t know why a silver tier guy cares so much about what happens in plat / Master??

    LOL come on. I'm the last one to object to coming down on @GroundedWisdom when he deserves it. But he made a reasonable suggestion. This isn't like commenting on Uncollected level if you aren't uncollected.
  • TwmRTwmR Posts: 662 ★★★
    Firstly i want to say i agree the whole tanking thing is not good and would love to see it stop but its unlikely when there is something to gain from it.
    I don't really understand what your suggesting though, the bracket your in during the season doesnt affect who you will be matched with its your war rating. A tier 1 alliance who only had taken part in 1 war during the first 2 weeks would be down in stone or some low bracket but then if they started a war they would still face a tier 1 or 2 alliance most likely in plat or master. Unless you're suggesting a divisions type thing with promotion and relegation each season?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    TwmR wrote: »
    Firstly i want to say i agree the whole tanking thing is not good and would love to see it stop but its unlikely when there is something to gain from it.
    I don't really understand what your suggesting though, the bracket your in during the season doesnt affect who you will be matched with its your war rating. A tier 1 alliance who only had taken part in 1 war during the first 2 weeks would be down in stone or some low bracket but then if they started a war they would still face a tier 1 or 2 alliance most likely in plat or master. Unless you're suggesting a divisions type thing with promotion and relegation each season?
    The issue I'm concerned with is the Matchmaking problems. Both as a result of Allies being punished as well as Tanking. Both cases, the result is unfair and uneven Matches. In the case of Tanking, I understand that your Bracket has no bearing on Matchmaking. The issue is that Allies will lower their Rating by taking a dive in the Off-Season and use the easy Wins for Points when Seasons begin again. That's a problem for everyone else but the Allies who do that. One system is being manipulated to boost another, and that affects the ones who are encountering them, as well as the whole system.
    In terms of my suggestion, my main concern is for the adverse effects of Rating changes, both as the result of Tanking and punishment. There are a few ways they could implement it. They could introduce Prestige into Matchmaking. They could transfer War Rating from Off-Season if implemented, sort of a snapshot. They could have a separate mechanic for determining Matches for Seasons. They could start fresh and have people build a Seasons War Rating. Just off the top of my head. My idea is basically the bare bones, and the specifics could be up to them. My two main concerns are separating Seasons from Off-Seasons, and having a way to maintain order that doesn't lead to Allies being placed in unfair Matches.
  • Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Yep. Removed 3 threads on the topic now. I can only conclude from it that they condone cheating and the manipulation of matchmaking via some of the approaches mentioned. The fix is simple. But, even short of a fix, an official comment on the topic that is good, bad or indifferent should be given. But, unlikely. They will just keep deleting without comment. So, cheat on.
  • thegrimmlingthegrimmling Posts: 167
    edited September 2018
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Yep. Removed 3 threads on the topic now. I can only conclude from it that they condone cheating and the manipulation of matchmaking via some of the approaches mentioned. The fix is simple. But, even short of a fix, an official comment on the topic that is good, bad or indifferent should be given. But, unlikely. They will just keep deleting without comment. So, cheat on.

    Or there could be a change up with the next update they cannot comment about yet.

    It is a big update week with version 20.


    Also, my original thread still is up....

    https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/93359/aliances-tanking-in-the-off-season-need-some-restrictions

    For now.
  • Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Yep. Removed 3 threads on the topic now. I can only conclude from it that they condone cheating and the manipulation of matchmaking via some of the approaches mentioned. The fix is simple. But, even short of a fix, an official comment on the topic that is good, bad or indifferent should be given. But, unlikely. They will just keep deleting without comment. So, cheat on.

    Or there could be a change up with the next update they cannot comment about yet.

    It is a big update week with version 20.

    That would be swell. But, they could acknowledge if that's the case and therefore either completely address the topic or at least diffuse it. Silence is compliance.
  • thegrimmlingthegrimmling Posts: 167
    edited September 2018
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Yep. Removed 3 threads on the topic now. I can only conclude from it that they condone cheating and the manipulation of matchmaking via some of the approaches mentioned. The fix is simple. But, even short of a fix, an official comment on the topic that is good, bad or indifferent should be given. But, unlikely. They will just keep deleting without comment. So, cheat on.

    Or there could be a change up with the next update they cannot comment about yet.

    It is a big update week with version 20.

    That would be swell. But, they could acknowledge if that's the case and therefore either completely address the topic or at least diffuse it. Silence is compliance.

    I get the feeling that it is not "compliance", but they cannot comment on it publicly yet.

    Obviously they are aware of the tanking/sandbagging issue, but stone silence implies one of two things...

    1) They will ignore it. Which in the long run will cost them consumers.

    2) They will be addressing it. But cannot talk about it yet seeing if they announce how they will fix it without their programmers already having the fix ready would cause a firestorm on the forums and support tickets.


    They have not talked about season 4 much yet as far as I can tell. Last cycle when season 2 ended, they were very talkative about season 3.

    That is my opinion, I could be wrong.
  • Verzz wrote: »
    What are they going to do? Anything they do will result in different problems. If you freeze war rating then people that want to start an alliance from scratch will have to steamroll through season after season until they reach their “true” rating. The only way to stop sandbagging is to not have an offseason or scrap seasons entirely

    That would have to happen regardless. My alliance, though made up of game vets started from scratch on 5/2/18. We had to fight our way up from the basement during Season 2. We got to Gold 3 and ran out of time for any further advancement until Season 3. But, anyone starting from scratch should have to fight their way up. That's the way starting from scratch goes. Your point is valid -- some in that circumstance might complain as they'd like to use off-season to help that initiative, but that seems like a very minor argument.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    edited September 2018
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Cleaning the Forum is not an indication that it's acceptable.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    edited September 2018
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Cleaning the Forum is not an indication that it's acceptable.

    It is also not an indication that it is not acceptable. Nobody is getting punished for this as they have said nothing. Fair until then

    I never suggested anyone get punished. I suggested steps be taken to prevent people from manipulating the system and taking advantage of weaker Allies. It is not fair.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Cleaning the Forum is not an indication that it's acceptable.

    It is also not an indication that it is not acceptable. Nobody is getting punished for this as they have said nothing. Fair until then

    I never suggested anyone get punished. I suggested steps be taken to prevent people from manipulating the system and taking advantage of weaker Allies. It is not fair.

    No stance has been taken by the mods and it is being used as a perfectly fair, equal opportunity strategy. If they take any of your suggestions then people will just find a way around them. Come and stop us. Until then, all is fair. What you call manipulation is simply strategy.

    It is NOT fair. It's manipualting War Rating to take advantage of weaker Allies, just for easy Kills and a Points boost. You don't need an official comment to know what is fair or not. What about the Points those Allies are potentially missing out on because they're being overrun with Matches? Do you consider that fair, or does it matter? Learning right from wrong is not something that can be done on a Forum.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    Is it any less fair than a 6k prestige player joining a 3k prestige alliance and running wars against other teams in the 3-4k prestige range ?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    edited September 2018
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Cleaning the Forum is not an indication that it's acceptable.

    It is also not an indication that it is not acceptable. Nobody is getting punished for this as they have said nothing. Fair until then

    I never suggested anyone get punished. I suggested steps be taken to prevent people from manipulating the system and taking advantage of weaker Allies. It is not fair.

    No stance has been taken by the mods and it is being used as a perfectly fair, equal opportunity strategy. If they take any of your suggestions then people will just find a way around them. Come and stop us. Until then, all is fair. What you call manipulation is simply strategy.

    It is NOT fair. It's manipualting War Rating to take advantage of weaker Allies, just for easy Kills and a Points boost. You don't need an official comment to know what is fair or not. What about the Points those Allies are potentially missing out on because they're being overrun with Matches? Do you consider that fair, or does it matter? Learning right from wrong is not something that can be done on a Forum.

    It IS fair. It is a trade off that an alliance decides to do, giving up winner offseason rewards to get into a more favourable position during the season. The points that allies are potentially missing out on because they are being overrun with matches? You don’t know if they will win or lose with any random match anyways. Alliances are just doing the smart and completely FAIR thing to get ahead. Until it is banned it is fair by definition. Just like piloting in season one and the barcode names until recently. Anything else you say is just your opinion and frankly means nothing. The reality is that it is happening and nobody has done anything to try to counter it yet so it IS fair.

    From the perspective of the Ally doing it, that might seem fair. To the Allies who are coming up against them, it's not. The system is designed to Match based on relatively proportionate ability using War Rating, and that Rating shows ability based on Wins and Losses. What people are doing is pecking off easy Wins by dropping their Rating. It's not at all fair. They're gaining an unfair advantage by doing it, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, and it wouldn't be easy Kills. The argument that you never know doesn't hold water because the Matches are not naturally progressed. It's manipation plain and simple. Personally, I don't want to win by pecking off weaker Allies. Doesn't qualify as earning it to me. In any case, it's not that ambiguous. It's milking the system at the expense of people lower.
  • IrohrIrohr Posts: 254 ★★
    Ahh the morality of playing a video game.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,235 ★★★★★
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Verzz wrote: »
    Well I can safely assume that since they closed down the thread with like 5k views and over 200 comments with no comment, the official stance is “no comment”. Fair play then.

    Cleaning the Forum is not an indication that it's acceptable.

    It is also not an indication that it is not acceptable. Nobody is getting punished for this as they have said nothing. Fair until then

    I never suggested anyone get punished. I suggested steps be taken to prevent people from manipulating the system and taking advantage of weaker Allies. It is not fair.

    No stance has been taken by the mods and it is being used as a perfectly fair, equal opportunity strategy. If they take any of your suggestions then people will just find a way around them. Come and stop us. Until then, all is fair. What you call manipulation is simply strategy.

    It is NOT fair. It's manipualting War Rating to take advantage of weaker Allies, just for easy Kills and a Points boost. You don't need an official comment to know what is fair or not. What about the Points those Allies are potentially missing out on because they're being overrun with Matches? Do you consider that fair, or does it matter? Learning right from wrong is not something that can be done on a Forum.

    It IS fair. It is a trade off that an alliance decides to do, giving up winner offseason rewards to get into a more favourable position during the season. The points that allies are potentially missing out on because they are being overrun with matches? You don’t know if they will win or lose with any random match anyways. Alliances are just doing the smart and completely FAIR thing to get ahead. Until it is banned it is fair by definition. Just like piloting in season one and the barcode names until recently. Anything else you say is just your opinion and frankly means nothing. The reality is that it is happening and nobody has done anything to try to counter it yet so it IS fair.

    From the perspective of the Ally doing it, that might seem fair. To the Allies who are coming up against them, it's not. The system is designed to Match based on relatively proportionate ability using War Rating, and that Rating shows ability based on Wins and Losses. What people are doing is pecking off easy Wins by dropping their Rating. It's not at all fair. They're gaining an unfair advantage by doing it, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, and it wouldn't be easy Kills. The argument that you never know doesn't hold water because the Matches are not naturally progressed. It's manipation plain and simple. Personally, I don't want to win by pecking off weaker Allies. Doesn't qualify as earning it to me. In any case, it's not that ambiguous. It's milking the system at the expense of people lower.

    Then keep playing with your “code of honour”. They can’t do anything unless they scrap seasons completely or have no offseason. And even if they had no offseason shells would be used. How can that be stopped? Lol you think you have answers but they will do nothing. Fact is that people are being smart to get an advantage when it matters to them the most. And the ones that get trampled on deserve it because they didn’t adapt.

    They didn't adapt? Right. How do you adapt to a system that blindsides you because people are altering it?
    They can do more than that, which is why I suggested alternatives. They've been consistent in showing that they're dedicated to improving the fairness of Seasons and War in general, and this is just another aspect that can be looked at. If you want to go on the premise that they can't change it and that it's their fault people are playing unfairly, be my guest. You've added your stance. I can move on and discuss it with others.
Sign In or Register to comment.