**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.
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.
Comments
I feel like you aren't really addressing the heart of the matter. We aren't talking about one player dropping to a lower alliance. We are talking about an entire alliance dropping to another alliance which has had the war rating manipulated as a shell so that they can still get decent rewards while playing against lower teams who have that same rating by fighting at the highest level they can. Other alliances at that level will use items in order to win some and lose some. The higher alliance will now compete against them while winning all their wars at no cost. And all of this in a mode that is supposed to be the highest level of competition in the game. The lower alliances shouldn't have to get matched against master groups "taking a break" while they are fighting to get gold 1 or platinum rewards. Gaming the system against real people trying to compete with others at their level kind of sucks and I hope it gets stopped. All good if you disagree but the "joining another league" analogy doesn't work. They are getting higher rewards than others playing in that league will get because they get guaranteed wins with unbeaten defenders while the others have to slog it out. And some of their opponents will get lower rewards than they deserved because they had the misfortune to get mismatched against a group taking it easy.
That was a good summary and really gets to the nub of our disagreement. My point is that whether it is 1 player choosing to drop, 10 players, or 30 players (ie, an entire alliance), it really makes no difference. Players should be entitled to choose the level at which they compete. You are seeing it as unfairness from the perspective of, say, the Gold tier alliance that has to face the Plat tier alliance that dropped down. I am seeing it from the perspective of the Plat tier alliance, which should have the right to choose the level it wishes to compete at. The effect of prohibiting such swaps is to compel alliances to compete at the highest level possible, instead of having the option of cutting back a season or two as they please.
Yes it seems unfair to the Gold tier alliance that has to go up against the Platinum tier alliance, but that is just the nature of competition. Sometimes you go up against stronger teams. You cannot start to ban players with, say, 5 r5 5*s from competing in Gold just because they have such stacked rosters. They earned those rosters and should be entitled to use them anywhere they want.
LOL. So in that case they should be given Gold rewards as well? Since they are competing there.
They should be given the same rewards any alliance starting in Gold Tier can get.
You’re awfully mistakened about Tiers and Ranks.
YOU LOST ME AT AT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH..
by any means, my friend, by any means.
no other sport plays fair. name a team in any sport that dont take advantage of the system they are currently participating in.
What *I* was discussing was the specific question you asked, which was: "Why would the game punish people who are legitimately just fed up with wars at the higher tiers?" And the simple answer is: you can "punish" anyone for anything in a game if you simply decide to do so and everyone else accepts that decision as fair.
Why the analogy works and yours doesn't is because in your counter-analogy, when you change leagues you escape the rules-making of the prior league. When a pro player quits to join an amateur league, the pro league can't penalize them for that because they are literally not playing that game anymore. But when an MCOC alliance decides to choose their competition because they want that competition to be easier on their members, regardless of *why* they want to do that, they are still playing the same game. They are taking a unilateral action to change the conditions of that game for them, and the game has the right to respond in kind.
So long as there is just one competition, one "league" of alliance war, alliances don't get to choose their competition, no matter why they want to do that. It could be for completely innocuous reasons, but that's entirely besides the point.
You're missing the point. You're talking about whether Kabam can penalise those alliances. Of course they can, this is their world and they can do anything. That discussion is of no interest. The real issue is whether kabam should. Of course those alliances are "taking a unilateral action to change the conditions of that game for them", but why can't they have that right? Again, back to the sporting analogy, you are saying that a professional player should be banned from competing in an amateur league (its not about whether they can, but whether they should be allowed).
I am not. I am using "Gold Tier" as a shorthand for spelling out the specific war rating of alliances. I understand that it is war rating swapping that is in issue. Nonetheless my point is simply that if you start at a certain rating, say, 2000 for instance, that is roughly the war rating of Gold tier alliances.
So what you're saying is, "an alliance that starts at a certain war rating that will most probably end up ranking in Gold". Is that right?
Do you roughly know where an alliance will rank if it wins all 12 wars starting at 2,000 war rating?
Atleast 2750 rating with huge 5* shards plus 4* shards plus loyalty and without spending pots and ending almost in Platinum1
Little bit guess work
Yup. Close. Either Plat 2 or 3.
From a "Gold" alliance. See the problem @Ultra8529 ?
No, you're the one missing the point. Of course Kabam can do anything they want with their game within the law, and that's pretty much anything. That's not really up for discussion. But the question being discussed as you say is whether they should, and the criteria for whether they should is ultimately what's best for the game. What any one person thinks is "fair" personally is of no consequence. And I'm saying that not to assert my own opinion on right and wrong, but to assert the observation that this is how all games and sports are regulated. Fairness isn't some Aristotelian absolute that people can simply decide for themselves. Fairness is a consensus arbitration, because all games rules are arbitrary. Whether or not we can pilot is an arbitrary decision based on a rough general agreement on fairness, but also ultimately its entirely up to Kabam to decide whether that fits the parameters they want for their competition. The same thing goes for using mods. You can't "prove" these things to be fair or unfair, we collectively decide if they are fair. And to be specific, Kabam decides if they are fair or not, and we collectively decide if we want to support that decision by continuing to play the game.
Getting back to the specific analogy, in MCOC at the moment there is only one "league." You can't just wave your hands and say that you're making up your own league by, say, dropping from Platinum 3 to Gold 1 because competition isn't set by season bracket. It is set by war rating. A 2400 Platinum 3 will get matched against a 2400 Gold 1 alliance because the match making system doesn't care about and isn't even aware of season brackets. You are still in the same "league."
To put it bluntly, the reason why you don't just get to decide to face easier competition, is ultimately because a majority of players don't want you to have that choice, and Kabam is likely to side with them, and that's that. Or if you want to get meta, you can choose to deliberately manipulate your competition match ups to be lower, placing those alliances at a huge disadvantage, and they can choose to appeal your actions to Kabam. That is an equally legitimate choice.
What's the problem? What if it is genuinely a good Gold tier alliance (meaning a genuinely good alliance starting at 2000 war rating)? Why should they not be entitled to the rewards they are getting if they win 12 wars in a row in seasons?
To put it simply, yes or no: you are saying that players shouldn't have the right to choose to drop down from competing in master to competing in gold tier? If you are a master tier player with an equivalent roster, you are compelled to play in master only (alliance with about 3000 war rating). If you ever choose to play in gold tier (2400 rating or lower), you are a cheater and should be punished. Yes or no - that is your point?
Also, on your view that fairness is something decided majority of players, who gave you the mandate to speak on behalf of the MCOC community? What should be the rules that govern this situation is precisely what we're debating here. You have absolutely no basis to speak on behalf of the entire community. You are looking at it from one perspective (namely, those at a lower tier facing higher tier alliances that drop down), whereas I am approaching it from the opposite perspective (the right of higher tier alliances to take it easy as and when they want to). The exchange of ideas and perspectives is for the very purpose of giving the entire community an informed and educated understanding of how this decision will impact them. My point with regard to your view is that it will end up punishing players and alliances that one day decide that they want to take it easier in the game and stop pushing at the top. You wish to prohibit and penalise such behaviour, taking away free choice in this game.
My point is that the problem is not in alliances choosing to start at 2000 war rating. The problem instead is that it seems unfair, to some, that an alliance starting at 2000 war rating can eventually get the rewards it does if it wins all 12 matches. That is a value judgment. If that is deemed to be unfair, then the problem is one of scoring and of rewards. Put differently, if Kabam thinks that it is unfair for an alliance starting at 2000 war rating and winning 12 matches in a row in season to get Plat 2 or 3 rewards, then do something to the multiplier to make that impossible. It is entirely within Kabam's hands to limit, by tweaking the relevant multipliers, the maximum attainable rewards from any given starting point. It can easily be backwards calculated what multipliers should be applied in order to ensure, say, that any alliance starting at 2000 has a ceiling of Platinum 3 rewards even if they win 12 matches in a row. @xNig
So you agree individual players have the right to drop down to any tier alliance they want? @LeNoirFaineant
Or are you saying they are compelled to stay in master tier alliances and their only option is to choose not to boost/heal in that alliance?
We're not talking about a couple of people who want to reduce their stress and pressure. We're talking about a deliberate manipulation of the system.
Thank you for that concession. I say concession because once you accept that individual players have such a right, then it is a slippery slope if you want to start penalising alliances for similar behaviours. An alliance is nothing more than 30 individual players. Where do you draw the line between permissible dropping (1 player), and impermissible dropping?
Say 10 players with 8 r5s and master tier skill wish to drop into a 2000 war rating alliance, I can guarantee you that on the basis of those 10 players alone, that alliance can win every single war from 2000 rating to 2500 rating. They can split among 3 BGs handle all the toughest paths in AW. And their defence will make opponents at that level unable to complete the map. Is this permissible or not? If that is not permissible, then how about 9 player? 8? If that is permissible, then how about 11 or 12?
It is a slippery slope and any number you stipulate is entirely arbitrary. The solution is to fix scoring and matchmaking, rather than trying to impose artificial and arbitrary limits on players' freedoms to choose where and how they want to compete.
You are imputing a negative and sinister aim into what is otherwise a neutral behaviour (namely, competing at a lower level). 30 players dropping into a lower alliance can be for equally innocuous reasons, such as simply wishing to fight at a lower level.
We're currently in a War against an Ally that's 10 Mil more than us. After falling down a number of Tiers last Season from these Matches, and they're still coming. You have a better chance of convincing me Dahmer was a Culinary Genius than convincing me the right to just take it easy has precedence right now.
It's not really a slippery slope. Finding a shell alliance is much easier than finding a group with a reasonable war rating that needs 10 members at the right time. And if you could, the rest of the alliance won't be good enough even with the 10 to get to plat one making this a not very attractive option for master group manipulation. We have an actual problem with shell alliances and tanking that it would be good to fix. But if 10 guys from master want to join a lower group and get them to plat 3 or gold 1 more power to them. If it turns out that there is a way to game the system that way we can cross that bridge when we come to it. It isn't a reason to not deal with the problem at hand. And if it requires a certain amount of arbitrary line drawing so be it.
Your reply betrays the fact that you have no answer to the problem. So how about if 29 people swap into an alliance? Should that be penalised? By saying "if it turns out that there is some way to game the system", you are effectively saying "this doesn't bother me yet, so I can live with it. But if i start losing to such alliances, then it is unfair". That is entirely unprincipled and not at all how rules should be made.
As for the getting pulverised point - let me tell you that the cold hard truth is that smaller alliances will increasingly face stacked rosters and increasingly get pulverised because more and more top players are getting burnt out in higher tier wars. I have seen players with a Sig 200 R5 Korg going down into 1800 war rating alliances - what do you think that does to the other team? I've seen 3 - 4 players item out on him at that tier. Is that fun? Not for the other team. But is that fair? Of course it is, the player earned that r5 sig 200 Korg and is entitled to use it wherever he pleases. The reality is you just need 1 or 2 of these monster defenders or accounts at that low tier, and it will completely crush the other team. So this problem of getting pulverised, alone, is not going away. It is the nature of AW and how Kabam has set up certain defenders/nodes to be nearly impossible unless you have the right combination of roster +skill - both of which tend to be lacking at the lower tiers.