Here is example why people from alliances with rating ~2700 jump to lower ~2200. Fix this Kabam... matchmaking ~2700 tier2 platinum3 alliance vs ~3500 t1 master alliance. This is ****.
This is exactly what I've been getting at. So the people in gold tier alliances like war rating 2000 are feeling upset that people from Platinum tiers are dropping down to fight them, but the reality is that the platinum tier people are escaping exactly the same problem (namely, Master tier alliances totally destroying them).
As @Shrimkins said - the problem lies in the scoring system placing too much emphasis on wins. The problem is in scoring and not in people's choice in where they wish to compete.
Here is example why people from alliances with rating ~2700 jump to lower ~2200. Fix this Kabam... matchmaking ~2700 tier2 platinum3 alliance vs ~3500 t1 master alliance. This is ****.
This is exactly what I've been getting at. So the people in gold tier alliances like war rating 2000 are feeling upset that people from Platinum tiers are dropping down to fight them, but the reality is that the platinum tier people are escaping exactly the same problem (namely, Master tier alliances totally destroying them).
As @Shrimkins said - the problem lies in the scoring system placing too much emphasis on wins. The problem is in scoring and not in people's choice in where they wish to compete.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. They can both be problems lol
The reality is, this problem goes deeper than just people taking a break. It's been going on a while now, Tanking, Shells, etc. I don't believe the system is really the culprit because that doesn't acknowledge the fact that people are responsible for their own choice to look for an unfair advantage. We can make the argument that it's just what Gamers do, but there's a fair and an unfair way to play. We can blame the scarcity in Rewards, but that doesn't excuse going to sketchy lengths for them. We can blame the trickle-down effect, but all that does is emphasize how large of a problem it's become. People make their own shady choices.
Its not shady when people just want to take a break from competing at the highest levels. That's entirely understandable when people are facing extremely uneven match ups even at the top - they just want to get away from that. I reiterate my call to fix the matchmaking system as the main solution rather than any prohibition on trading down to a lower alliance.
Its not shady when people just want to take a break from competing at the highest levels. That's entirely understandable when people are facing extremely uneven match ups even at the top - they just want to get away from that. I reiterate my call to fix the matchmaking system as the main solution rather than any prohibition on trading down to a lower alliance.
I don't believe anyone suggested inhibiting where people move. What I'm saying is it's not as benign as just taking a break. That's not what's happening here. Even if that is the motivation, the end result is #### rolls downhill, and people are doing to others what you claim is being done to them. That's not a justification.
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 ?
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
My suggested solution to the problem, which I identify as one of scoring. @LeNoirFaineant
Any such scoring system "solves" the problem of manipulation by making any similar behavior that is *not* due to manipulation impossible. That trades the problem of penalizing manipulators with penalizing strong gameplay.
That's fundamentally worse because it doesn't actually attack the problem, it incorrectly defines the problem as one of scoring capability and not of intent to manipulate. A 2000 rating alliance that wins all of its matches is fundamentally different from a 3800 alliance that swaps into a 2000 shell and wins all of its matches. Most players can perceive the difference. The unfairness is not in the fact that the alliance is winning, it is the fact that the second alliance is deliberately subverting the system.
This isn't arbitrary. However imperfect the AW match making system is, it has the intent of trying to match alliances with other alliances of similar strength. There's no way for a computer to magically know how strong an alliance is, so it uses win/loss record as the proxy for measuring win/loss strength. The more you win, the stronger you must be. This presumes you are fighting alliances of similar strength in the first place. Initially, the system can't be sure that everyone is really as strong as their war rating implies, but over time wins and losses will correct imbalances. But this presumes that alliances history of wins and losses reasonably aligns with the actual strength of the alliance.
When one person moves from one alliance to another alliance, that disrupts that history. The implicit history of the alliance, which is baked into the alliance rating, no longer matches the members because one member wasn't there for that history. But that difference is usually small and will usually self-correct over time. We concede that we have to allow players to switch alliances, and so long as those switches are for legitimate reasons any problems will continue to self-correct over time. It isn't perfect, but nothing in the real world is.
Shell swapping completely destroys these presumptions, because the system is being deliberately subverted in a way that its intrinsic self-corrections will never have an opportunity to function. And it is being deliberately done with that intent. It isn't always easy to be *certain* that you're seeing a swap and not simply a matter of players wanting to change alliances, but once it is reasonably certain that a swap is happening there's no slippery slope: swapping to subvert the intent of the game to attempt to match equal strength alliances - however imperfect the system currently is - is harmful to the competition of the game. Game operators have the right, and even the responsibility to penalize those actions.
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 ?
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
My suggested solution to the problem, which I identify as one of scoring. @LeNoirFaineant
Any such scoring system "solves" the problem of manipulation by making any similar behavior that is *not* due to manipulation impossible. That trades the problem of penalizing manipulators with penalizing strong gameplay.
That's fundamentally worse because it doesn't actually attack the problem, it incorrectly defines the problem as one of scoring capability and not of intent to manipulate. A 2000 rating alliance that wins all of its matches is fundamentally different from a 3800 alliance that swaps into a 2000 shell and wins all of its matches. Most players can perceive the difference. The unfairness is not in the fact that the alliance is winning, it is the fact that the second alliance is deliberately subverting the system.
This isn't arbitrary. However imperfect the AW match making system is, it has the intent of trying to match alliances with other alliances of similar strength. There's no way for a computer to magically know how strong an alliance is, so it uses win/loss record as the proxy for measuring win/loss strength. The more you win, the stronger you must be. This presumes you are fighting alliances of similar strength in the first place. Initially, the system can't be sure that everyone is really as strong as their war rating implies, but over time wins and losses will correct imbalances. But this presumes that alliances history of wins and losses reasonably aligns with the actual strength of the alliance.
When one person moves from one alliance to another alliance, that disrupts that history. The implicit history of the alliance, which is baked into the alliance rating, no longer matches the members because one member wasn't there for that history. But that difference is usually small and will usually self-correct over time. We concede that we have to allow players to switch alliances, and so long as those switches are for legitimate reasons any problems will continue to self-correct over time. It isn't perfect, but nothing in the real world is.
Shell swapping completely destroys these presumptions, because the system is being deliberately subverted in a way that its intrinsic self-corrections will never have an opportunity to function. And it is being deliberately done with that intent. It isn't always easy to be *certain* that you're seeing a swap and not simply a matter of players wanting to change alliances, but once it is reasonably certain that a swap is happening there's no slippery slope: swapping to subvert the intent of the game to attempt to match equal strength alliances - however imperfect the system currently is - is harmful to the competition of the game. Game operators have the right, and even the responsibility to penalize those actions.
In our view, this simply goes back to the problem of penalising players from exercising their rights to play at a certain desired level. We consider that it is unfair and inappropriate to compel players to continuously play at a high level just because they have, in the past, earned that spot and their rosters. Strong players are entitled to play in whatever league they want to, and most can understand that players should be given the fundamental right to play a game at their own pace.
The system provides for matchmaking based on war rating, but it equally provides for rewards based on an easily calculable median and maximum possible score in a season. If it is deemed unfair that any alliance can get high rewards from winning 12-0 in a season, then our view is that that should be changed.
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 ?
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
My suggested solution to the problem, which I identify as one of scoring. @LeNoirFaineant
Any such scoring system "solves" the problem of manipulation by making any similar behavior that is *not* due to manipulation impossible. That trades the problem of penalizing manipulators with penalizing strong gameplay.
That's fundamentally worse because it doesn't actually attack the problem, it incorrectly defines the problem as one of scoring capability and not of intent to manipulate. A 2000 rating alliance that wins all of its matches is fundamentally different from a 3800 alliance that swaps into a 2000 shell and wins all of its matches. Most players can perceive the difference. The unfairness is not in the fact that the alliance is winning, it is the fact that the second alliance is deliberately subverting the system.
This isn't arbitrary. However imperfect the AW match making system is, it has the intent of trying to match alliances with other alliances of similar strength. There's no way for a computer to magically know how strong an alliance is, so it uses win/loss record as the proxy for measuring win/loss strength. The more you win, the stronger you must be. This presumes you are fighting alliances of similar strength in the first place. Initially, the system can't be sure that everyone is really as strong as their war rating implies, but over time wins and losses will correct imbalances. But this presumes that alliances history of wins and losses reasonably aligns with the actual strength of the alliance.
When one person moves from one alliance to another alliance, that disrupts that history. The implicit history of the alliance, which is baked into the alliance rating, no longer matches the members because one member wasn't there for that history. But that difference is usually small and will usually self-correct over time. We concede that we have to allow players to switch alliances, and so long as those switches are for legitimate reasons any problems will continue to self-correct over time. It isn't perfect, but nothing in the real world is.
Shell swapping completely destroys these presumptions, because the system is being deliberately subverted in a way that its intrinsic self-corrections will never have an opportunity to function. And it is being deliberately done with that intent. It isn't always easy to be *certain* that you're seeing a swap and not simply a matter of players wanting to change alliances, but once it is reasonably certain that a swap is happening there's no slippery slope: swapping to subvert the intent of the game to attempt to match equal strength alliances - however imperfect the system currently is - is harmful to the competition of the game. Game operators have the right, and even the responsibility to penalize those actions.
In our view, this simply goes back to the problem of penalising players from exercising their rights to play at a certain desired level. We consider that it is unfair and inappropriate to compel players to continuously play at a high level just because they have, in the past, earned that spot and their rosters. Strong players are entitled to play in whatever league they want to, and most can understand that players should be given the fundamental right to play a game at their own pace.
The system provides for matchmaking based on war rating, but it equally provides for rewards based on an easily calculable median and maximum possible score in a season. If it is deemed unfair that any alliance can get high rewards from winning 12-0 in a season, then our view is that that should be changed.
You have no right to choose your competition. But if you want to frame this as a question of rights, then my solution to that problem is to allow any alliance to flag themselves deliberately to fight at any rating level lower than their intrinsic win/loss computed level. Any rating level at all, right down to zero.
Everyone will also get the right to refuse to match with anyone who sets that flag to any level other than their intrinsic level. That preserves everyone's rights. You get the right to match against lower alliances. They get the right to avoid matching with you. If you find no one wants to match with you, your inability to find willing victims would be no one's fault but yours.
In our view, this simply goes back to the problem of penalising players from exercising their rights to play at a certain desired level. We consider that it is unfair and inappropriate to compel players to continuously play at a high level just because they have, in the past, earned that spot and their rosters. Strong players are entitled to play in whatever league they want to, and most can understand that players should be given the fundamental right to play a game at their own pace.
The system provides for matchmaking based on war rating, but it equally provides for rewards based on an easily calculable median and maximum possible score in a season. If it is deemed unfair that any alliance can get high rewards from winning 12-0 in a season, then our view is that that should be changed.
Intent is relevant to this discussion. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting a break from the grind and joining a gold 1 or low platinum alliance hurts no one. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting the same rewards and joining a shell alliance to get easy wars against inferior opponents hurts both players and Kabam. Players are hurt because they get unfair wars against superior opponents (master level AW defenses in tier 2-3) and Kabam is hurt because they make less $ from AW item use.
Players leaving higher war rating alliances to join a shell alliance with the goal of getting easier wars with significantly reduced item use for the same AW Season rank rewards is no where near the same thing as the same level of players joining a lower war rating alliance to get a break from the AW Seasons grind. I don't how to implement something to differentiate between these two vastly different things. @DNA3000 had previously said an MCOC developer who had told him one of the main goals of AW Seasons was to increase spending among the game's top players. That makes me think Kabam has a vested interest in finding a way to differentiate between high-level players taking a break and joining a shell alliance to get the same rewards by screwing over lower-level players while reducing AW Seasons' revenue.
I don’t know if this has been mentioned before or not in this extremely long thread but what if they took away the 50k win bonus? It would make it less attractive to swap out for sandbagging purposes because the multiplier would then be the most important.
Not in this thread, but in another thread discussing a parallel topic I mentioned in response to a suggestion by @Rektor that on top of a multiplier swap (see the post) that the victory bonus should be lowered slightly and also adjusted based on relative strength. In other words, you'd get more points for beating an alliance of higher tier, and less points for beating an alliance of lower tier.
@DNA3000 had previously said an MCOC developer who had told him one of the main goals of AW Seasons was to increase spending among the game's top players.
I responded to him to say that during the AW early access preview, the developer presumably in charge of AW development at the time said that was no longer a priority, and had not been for a while, due the issue being essentially resolved (the issue being too many wars ending with both sides fully exploring the map and increasing the likelihood of a tie).
I'm actually a little skeptical that a game developer would say such a thing even if it was true, and even off the record, to someone they just met in a public venue. It is the sort of thing that can get you fired if it blows up in someone's face later. I've seen people in the games industry get fired for saying less controversial things.
@DNA3000 had previously said an MCOC developer who had told him one of the main goals of AW Seasons was to increase spending among the game's top players.
I responded to him to say that during the AW early access preview, the developer presumably in charge of AW development at the time said that was no longer a priority, and had not been for a while, due the issue being essentially resolved (the issue being too many wars ending with both sides fully exploring the map and increasing the likelihood of a tie).
I'm actually a little skeptical that a game developer would say such a thing even if it was true, and even off the record, to someone they just met in a public venue. It is the sort of thing that can get you fired if it blows up in someone's face later. I've seen people in the games industry get fired for saying less controversial things.
Just for clarity, the thing that was no longer a priority was stopping 100% clearing the map, not the spending thing. And I thought the same thing @DNA3000. Can't imagine a dev stating that getting top alliances to spend was an AW goal even if it were true.
In our view, this simply goes back to the problem of penalising players from exercising their rights to play at a certain desired level. We consider that it is unfair and inappropriate to compel players to continuously play at a high level just because they have, in the past, earned that spot and their rosters. Strong players are entitled to play in whatever league they want to, and most can understand that players should be given the fundamental right to play a game at their own pace.
Let's be perfectly clear here, these "rights to play at a certain desired level" is something you just made up and you're using it as a strawman argument.
It doesn't exist in any pvp game with a matchmaking system.
Why? Because such a "right" would contradict itself the minute it is exercise. If high level players have a right to choose to stomp on low level players, they are by definition immediately violating the same rights of the low level player to choose to not get stomped on by high level players. You can't have it both ways. That's why the goal of every pvp matchmaking system is to move you rapidly to the point where you are playing people of equal skill.
So no, strong players are not "entitled to play in whatever league they want." That would be ridiculous.
Could just remove seasons and give t2a and t5b frags for winning in higher tiers. The problem with the current system is if you push it to the max you will inevitably find yourself without a paddle relative to the competition and your alliance will suffer the consequences of failure when you spend an entire season losing because your rating is too high to be sustained and you start losing players to more favourable situations. Guys are doing what they have to do to be competitive within the confines that Kabam has created. If your options are to fail miserably or play the shell game it’s no question which is better for the group.
I've said that AW seasons have killed much of the enjoyment of this game. You have to go hard for 12 straight wars to get the rewards you need. That instinctively leads to all the cheating we've seen plus all the BS that goes on for everyone in competitive alliances with the constant cycle of kicking the worst players to try to get better players. It's led to so much burnout and distrust amongst the community.
If they did away with seasons and just broke up the rewards into the war rewards it would solve so many issues. Each war would be so much less important and if, for example, there is a war running on Christmas or New Years (I know that's a silly thought because no smart company would put mandatory content on those two days) you could just choose to not do them and not sacrifice an entire season of rewards.
I think the points from winning should be removed altogether. This would allow all seasons standing to rely solely on diversity and attacker bonus points. Tanking and shell swapping will be moot when tier multipliers make a larger difference than the amount of wins.
Also a system where you stay within the same bracket all season and the top/bottom teams in that bracket get promoted/relegated like in the English Premier League. Alliances within the same bracket only match with other alliances in that bracket. So master vs master, plat 1 vs plat 1. At the end of the season the best plat 1 alliances will be in master the next season and the worst master alliances move down to plat 1
In our view, this simply goes back to the problem of penalising players from exercising their rights to play at a certain desired level. We consider that it is unfair and inappropriate to compel players to continuously play at a high level just because they have, in the past, earned that spot and their rosters. Strong players are entitled to play in whatever league they want to, and most can understand that players should be given the fundamental right to play a game at their own pace.
Let's be perfectly clear here, these "rights to play at a certain desired level" is something you just made up and you're using it as a strawman argument.
It doesn't exist in any pvp game with a matchmaking system.
Why? Because such a "right" would contradict itself the minute it is exercise. If high level players have a right to choose to stomp on low level players, they are by definition immediately violating the same rights of the low level player to choose to not get stomped on by high level players. You can't have it both ways. That's why the goal of every pvp matchmaking system is to move you rapidly to the point where you are playing people of equal skill.
So no, strong players are not "entitled to play in whatever league they want." That would be ridiculous.
You're assuming that higher players "stomping" on lower level players will entitle them to the same rewards. It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It is a trade off, as in real life - if a professional plays in the amateur league, he gets easy wins but little in prizes by comparison. It is the standard risk vs reward trade-off. To the extent that this is not line with community expectations, then the scoring system should be fixed; the solution is not to deprive players of the right as to the level they wish to compete.
It is not a "strawman argument" but a perfectly legitimate one.
Your idea of a parallel right for lower players to "choose to not get stomped one" is misconceived. There is no right to a particular opponent. I am not saying that a stronger player has the right to choose to fight a weak player every time he wants. All I am saying is merely that players should have the choice to play in a certain league - their actual match ups is not within their control. The lower level player has the equal right to choose to play in the hardest league available to him, or to go to an easier one if he wants to take a break. You must bear in mind that this right to choose your level of competition does not apply only to master players wanting to take a break, but even gold players who may (for whatever reason) want to take a break from gold and drop to, say, silver. My conception is consistent throughout - all players, regardless of tier, should have the right to choose whether to compete at the highest level, or to take it easier.
The right to play in whatever level people want is not a right. Not when the strength of people is vastly greater than those they come up against. That's not a fair situation at all. "We may be 3x as strong, but it's our right to play where we want.". That doesn't hold.
You're assuming that higher players "stomping" on lower level players will entitle them to the same rewards. It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It is a trade off, as in real life - if a professional plays in the amateur league, he gets easy wins but little in prizes by comparison. It is the standard risk vs reward trade-off. To the extent that this is not line with community expectations, then the scoring system should be fixed; the solution is not to deprive players of the right as to the level they wish to compete.
@Ultra8529 Have you been keeping up with Reddit and YouTube this AW Season? 3200+ war rating alliances matching against 2500-2700 war rating alliances is the norm for season 6. Part of my previous comment was inaccurate and I'm sorry for that. I'll copy and paste the other parts, what are you thoughts on this:
Intent is relevant to this discussion. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting a break from the grind and joining a gold 1 or low platinum alliance hurts no one. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting the same rewards and joining a shell alliance to get easy wars against inferior opponents hurts both players and Kabam. Players are hurt because they get unfair wars against superior opponents (master level AW defenses in tier 2-3) and Kabam is hurt because they make less $ from AW item use.
Players leaving higher war rating alliances to join a shell alliance with the goal of getting easier wars with significantly reduced item use for the same AW Season rank rewards is no where near the same thing as the same level of players joining a lower war rating alliance to get a break from the AW Seasons grind.
In our view, this simply goes back to the problem of penalising players from exercising their rights to play at a certain desired level. We consider that it is unfair and inappropriate to compel players to continuously play at a high level just because they have, in the past, earned that spot and their rosters. Strong players are entitled to play in whatever league they want to, and most can understand that players should be given the fundamental right to play a game at their own pace.
Let's be perfectly clear here, these "rights to play at a certain desired level" is something you just made up and you're using it as a strawman argument.
It doesn't exist in any pvp game with a matchmaking system.
Why? Because such a "right" would contradict itself the minute it is exercise. If high level players have a right to choose to stomp on low level players, they are by definition immediately violating the same rights of the low level player to choose to not get stomped on by high level players. You can't have it both ways. That's why the goal of every pvp matchmaking system is to move you rapidly to the point where you are playing people of equal skill.
So no, strong players are not "entitled to play in whatever league they want." That would be ridiculous.
You're assuming that higher players "stomping" on lower level players will entitle them to the same rewards. It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It is a trade off, as in real life - if a professional plays in the amateur league, he gets easy wins but little in prizes by comparison. It is the standard risk vs reward trade-off. To the extent that this is not line with community expectations, then the scoring system should be fixed; the solution is not to deprive players of the right as to the level they wish to compete.
It is not a "strawman argument" but a perfectly legitimate one.
Your idea of a parallel right for lower players to "choose to not get stomped one" is misconceived. There is no right to a particular opponent. I am not saying that a stronger player has the right to choose to fight a weak player every time he wants. All I am saying is merely that players should have the choice to play in a certain league - their actual match ups is not within their control. The lower level player has the equal right to choose to play in the hardest league available to him, or to go to an easier one if he wants to take a break. You must bear in mind that this right to choose your level of competition does not apply only to master players wanting to take a break, but even gold players who may (for whatever reason) want to take a break from gold and drop to, say, silver. My conception is consistent throughout - all players, regardless of tier, should have the right to choose whether to compete at the highest level, or to take it easier.
I think you're still conflating season bracket with war tier. No one fights in "gold." They fight in tier 6 or tier 10. You cannot pick your bracket, your points at the end of the season determine your bracket. There's no way to choose to fight in Gold, it isn't just not an option in the game but a literal impossibility. You could theoretically freeze *rating* - it is at least technologically possible for the game to present the players with the option to always fight in tier 6, or tier 9, or whatever. But that's a fundamentally different kind of competition, and although it is easy to hand-wave away the problems with that kind of competition by just saying "just change the scoring to make it work" in practice this is extremely difficult.
You keep analogizing this to choosing a league, but this is a completely broken analogy. There is only one league in MCOC alliance wars - and I'm saying that as the only person to the best of my knowledge that has even suggested an actual structure for making more than one separate alliance war league. Unless and until they actually make genuinely segregated competitive groups (ne: leagues) then choosing your own match rating cannot be made fair with just scoring tweaks. The problem is those tiers do not directly align with season brackets and thus season rewards, which makes it virtually impossible to eliminate unfair manipulation.
You're not asking for the right to change leagues. You're asking for the right for individual players to simply make up their own leagues. There is no "gold league." There is no "platinum league." The alliances that end up in those brackets do not all have identical war ratings or war tiers or win/loss records. There are multiple paths to those brackets based on points scoring. And if you change scoring so that any alliance that "chooses gold" cannot escape gold's rewards, you doom any alliance that happens to be in any tier that could finish as gold from escaping gold.
To put it more directly, if you manipulate the scoring system so that an alliance with 2800 rating that has a bunch of "want to take a break" players cannot get any higher than a certain reward level, then alliances with 2800 rating that have a bunch of players that actually want to advance higher won't be able to. Arithmetic can't distinguish between the difference. This is fundamentally so broken that I'm really only saying this for the record: I have absolutely no fear of Kabam doing this on their worst brain damaged design day.
@Kabam Miike@Kabam Lyra@Kabam Zibiit@Kabam Vydious due to this we have already lost 2 wars this season. If this goes on aw will have no point to it.It is just mid tier alliance falling to lower tier and lower tier Alliance losing against the mid tier alliance.
And to those who are saying "what if they are taking a break from competitive wars" the whole alliance don't have to shift to an other alliance to take break. They can do that being in the same alliance
You're assuming that higher players "stomping" on lower level players will entitle them to the same rewards. It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It is a trade off, as in real life - if a professional plays in the amateur league, he gets easy wins but little in prizes by comparison. It is the standard risk vs reward trade-off. To the extent that this is not line with community expectations, then the scoring system should be fixed; the solution is not to deprive players of the right as to the level they wish to compete.
@Ultra8529 Have you been keeping up with Reddit and YouTube this AW Season? 3200+ war rating alliances matching against 2500-2700 war rating alliances is the norm for season 6. Part of my previous comment was inaccurate and I'm sorry for that. I'll copy and paste the other parts, what are you thoughts on this:
Intent is relevant to this discussion. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting a break from the grind and joining a gold 1 or low platinum alliance hurts no one. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting the same rewards and joining a shell alliance to get easy wars against inferior opponents hurts both players and Kabam. Players are hurt because they get unfair wars against superior opponents (master level AW defenses in tier 2-3) and Kabam is hurt because they make less $ from AW item use.
Players leaving higher war rating alliances to join a shell alliance with the goal of getting easier wars with significantly reduced item use for the same AW Season rank rewards is no where near the same thing as the same level of players joining a lower war rating alliance to get a break from the AW Seasons grind.
I do not actually disagree with you; in fact I think the concerns you have expressed are entirely fair. On the one hand, like you have said, players wanting to take a break and join a lower alliance hurts no one. But on the other hand, we want to prevent alliance swapping so lower alliances are not unfairly punished.
My contention is that there is no good way to distinguish the two, with the result that any method will involve banning entirely the idea of a player who want to take it easy. As I have mentioned some time above, there is no bright line to draw. What if 5 players move to a lower alliance? Or 10? or 15? Which is considered swapping, and which is considered a 'group' of players that want to stick together out of friendship, but also want to take it easier in the game? I just don't see a workable rule without imposing extreme limitations on the freedom of players to move around alliances.
In our view, this simply goes back to the problem of penalising players from exercising their rights to play at a certain desired level. We consider that it is unfair and inappropriate to compel players to continuously play at a high level just because they have, in the past, earned that spot and their rosters. Strong players are entitled to play in whatever league they want to, and most can understand that players should be given the fundamental right to play a game at their own pace.
Let's be perfectly clear here, these "rights to play at a certain desired level" is something you just made up and you're using it as a strawman argument.
It doesn't exist in any pvp game with a matchmaking system.
Why? Because such a "right" would contradict itself the minute it is exercise. If high level players have a right to choose to stomp on low level players, they are by definition immediately violating the same rights of the low level player to choose to not get stomped on by high level players. You can't have it both ways. That's why the goal of every pvp matchmaking system is to move you rapidly to the point where you are playing people of equal skill.
So no, strong players are not "entitled to play in whatever league they want." That would be ridiculous.
You're assuming that higher players "stomping" on lower level players will entitle them to the same rewards. It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It is a trade off, as in real life - if a professional plays in the amateur league, he gets easy wins but little in prizes by comparison. It is the standard risk vs reward trade-off. To the extent that this is not line with community expectations, then the scoring system should be fixed; the solution is not to deprive players of the right as to the level they wish to compete.
It is not a "strawman argument" but a perfectly legitimate one.
Your idea of a parallel right for lower players to "choose to not get stomped one" is misconceived. There is no right to a particular opponent. I am not saying that a stronger player has the right to choose to fight a weak player every time he wants. All I am saying is merely that players should have the choice to play in a certain league - their actual match ups is not within their control. The lower level player has the equal right to choose to play in the hardest league available to him, or to go to an easier one if he wants to take a break. You must bear in mind that this right to choose your level of competition does not apply only to master players wanting to take a break, but even gold players who may (for whatever reason) want to take a break from gold and drop to, say, silver. My conception is consistent throughout - all players, regardless of tier, should have the right to choose whether to compete at the highest level, or to take it easier.
I think you're still conflating season bracket with war tier. No one fights in "gold." They fight in tier 6 or tier 10. You cannot pick your bracket, your points at the end of the season determine your bracket. There's no way to choose to fight in Gold, it isn't just not an option in the game but a literal impossibility. You could theoretically freeze *rating* - it is at least technologically possible for the game to present the players with the option to always fight in tier 6, or tier 9, or whatever. But that's a fundamentally different kind of competition, and although it is easy to hand-wave away the problems with that kind of competition by just saying "just change the scoring to make it work" in practice this is extremely difficult.
You keep analogizing this to choosing a league, but this is a completely broken analogy. There is only one league in MCOC alliance wars - and I'm saying that as the only person to the best of my knowledge that has even suggested an actual structure for making more than one separate alliance war league. Unless and until they actually make genuinely segregated competitive groups (ne: leagues) then choosing your own match rating cannot be made fair with just scoring tweaks. The problem is those tiers do not directly align with season brackets and thus season rewards, which makes it virtually impossible to eliminate unfair manipulation.
You're not asking for the right to change leagues. You're asking for the right for individual players to simply make up their own leagues. There is no "gold league." There is no "platinum league." The alliances that end up in those brackets do not all have identical war ratings or war tiers or win/loss records. There are multiple paths to those brackets based on points scoring. And if you change scoring so that any alliance that "chooses gold" cannot escape gold's rewards, you doom any alliance that happens to be in any tier that could finish as gold from escaping gold.
To put it more directly, if you manipulate the scoring system so that an alliance with 2800 rating that has a bunch of "want to take a break" players cannot get any higher than a certain reward level, then alliances with 2800 rating that have a bunch of players that actually want to advance higher won't be able to. Arithmetic can't distinguish between the difference. This is fundamentally so broken that I'm really only saying this for the record: I have absolutely no fear of Kabam doing this on their worst brain damaged design day.
I am not conflating war rating and season brackets. As I have mentioned further up in the thread, I use "gold", "platinum" and "master" as a form of shorthand to refer to general classes of war rating. Gold might be classified as around 1800 - 2400, Platinum around 2400 - 2900, and master from 2900 above. That is generally the war rating that corresponds to the relevant season score multiplier and lets most alliances in those regions of war rating end up in their respect season brackets.
You keep saying that there is only 1 league. But do you accept that there are clearly different war ratings at which an alliance competes, and clearly that affects the difficulty and level of competition? Whatever you want to call that - tiers, leagues, levels - its semantics. The point is, should a single player have the right to decide what ally and what tier/league/level he wishes to play at, or he is bound and shackled to a single level which the game has decided for him. Once you accept that a single player should have such a right, my point is that there is no clear line that can be drawn (refer to my answer right above this post).
Comments
This is exactly what I've been getting at. So the people in gold tier alliances like war rating 2000 are feeling upset that people from Platinum tiers are dropping down to fight them, but the reality is that the platinum tier people are escaping exactly the same problem (namely, Master tier alliances totally destroying them).
As @Shrimkins said - the problem lies in the scoring system placing too much emphasis on wins. The problem is in scoring and not in people's choice in where they wish to compete.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. They can both be problems lol
I don't believe anyone suggested inhibiting where people move. What I'm saying is it's not as benign as just taking a break. That's not what's happening here. Even if that is the motivation, the end result is #### rolls downhill, and people are doing to others what you claim is being done to them. That's not a justification.
We're not just talking about differences in War Rating. We're talking about people intentionally moving to peck off lower Allies.
Any such scoring system "solves" the problem of manipulation by making any similar behavior that is *not* due to manipulation impossible. That trades the problem of penalizing manipulators with penalizing strong gameplay.
That's fundamentally worse because it doesn't actually attack the problem, it incorrectly defines the problem as one of scoring capability and not of intent to manipulate. A 2000 rating alliance that wins all of its matches is fundamentally different from a 3800 alliance that swaps into a 2000 shell and wins all of its matches. Most players can perceive the difference. The unfairness is not in the fact that the alliance is winning, it is the fact that the second alliance is deliberately subverting the system.
This isn't arbitrary. However imperfect the AW match making system is, it has the intent of trying to match alliances with other alliances of similar strength. There's no way for a computer to magically know how strong an alliance is, so it uses win/loss record as the proxy for measuring win/loss strength. The more you win, the stronger you must be. This presumes you are fighting alliances of similar strength in the first place. Initially, the system can't be sure that everyone is really as strong as their war rating implies, but over time wins and losses will correct imbalances. But this presumes that alliances history of wins and losses reasonably aligns with the actual strength of the alliance.
When one person moves from one alliance to another alliance, that disrupts that history. The implicit history of the alliance, which is baked into the alliance rating, no longer matches the members because one member wasn't there for that history. But that difference is usually small and will usually self-correct over time. We concede that we have to allow players to switch alliances, and so long as those switches are for legitimate reasons any problems will continue to self-correct over time. It isn't perfect, but nothing in the real world is.
Shell swapping completely destroys these presumptions, because the system is being deliberately subverted in a way that its intrinsic self-corrections will never have an opportunity to function. And it is being deliberately done with that intent. It isn't always easy to be *certain* that you're seeing a swap and not simply a matter of players wanting to change alliances, but once it is reasonably certain that a swap is happening there's no slippery slope: swapping to subvert the intent of the game to attempt to match equal strength alliances - however imperfect the system currently is - is harmful to the competition of the game. Game operators have the right, and even the responsibility to penalize those actions.
In our view, this simply goes back to the problem of penalising players from exercising their rights to play at a certain desired level. We consider that it is unfair and inappropriate to compel players to continuously play at a high level just because they have, in the past, earned that spot and their rosters. Strong players are entitled to play in whatever league they want to, and most can understand that players should be given the fundamental right to play a game at their own pace.
The system provides for matchmaking based on war rating, but it equally provides for rewards based on an easily calculable median and maximum possible score in a season. If it is deemed unfair that any alliance can get high rewards from winning 12-0 in a season, then our view is that that should be changed.
You have no right to choose your competition. But if you want to frame this as a question of rights, then my solution to that problem is to allow any alliance to flag themselves deliberately to fight at any rating level lower than their intrinsic win/loss computed level. Any rating level at all, right down to zero.
Everyone will also get the right to refuse to match with anyone who sets that flag to any level other than their intrinsic level. That preserves everyone's rights. You get the right to match against lower alliances. They get the right to avoid matching with you. If you find no one wants to match with you, your inability to find willing victims would be no one's fault but yours.
Intent is relevant to this discussion. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting a break from the grind and joining a gold 1 or low platinum alliance hurts no one. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting the same rewards and joining a shell alliance to get easy wars against inferior opponents hurts both players and Kabam. Players are hurt because they get unfair wars against superior opponents (master level AW defenses in tier 2-3) and Kabam is hurt because they make less $ from AW item use.
Players leaving higher war rating alliances to join a shell alliance with the goal of getting easier wars with significantly reduced item use for the same AW Season rank rewards is no where near the same thing as the same level of players joining a lower war rating alliance to get a break from the AW Seasons grind. I don't how to implement something to differentiate between these two vastly different things. @DNA3000 had previously said an MCOC developer who had told him one of the main goals of AW Seasons was to increase spending among the game's top players. That makes me think Kabam has a vested interest in finding a way to differentiate between high-level players taking a break and joining a shell alliance to get the same rewards by screwing over lower-level players while reducing AW Seasons' revenue.
Not in this thread, but in another thread discussing a parallel topic I mentioned in response to a suggestion by @Rektor that on top of a multiplier swap (see the post) that the victory bonus should be lowered slightly and also adjusted based on relative strength. In other words, you'd get more points for beating an alliance of higher tier, and less points for beating an alliance of lower tier.
Original post: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/669121/#Comment_669121
Actually, that was @THX135 in this post: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/665619/#Comment_665619
I responded to him to say that during the AW early access preview, the developer presumably in charge of AW development at the time said that was no longer a priority, and had not been for a while, due the issue being essentially resolved (the issue being too many wars ending with both sides fully exploring the map and increasing the likelihood of a tie).
I'm actually a little skeptical that a game developer would say such a thing even if it was true, and even off the record, to someone they just met in a public venue. It is the sort of thing that can get you fired if it blows up in someone's face later. I've seen people in the games industry get fired for saying less controversial things.
Just for clarity, the thing that was no longer a priority was stopping 100% clearing the map, not the spending thing. And I thought the same thing @DNA3000. Can't imagine a dev stating that getting top alliances to spend was an AW goal even if it were true.
Let's be perfectly clear here, these "rights to play at a certain desired level" is something you just made up and you're using it as a strawman argument.
It doesn't exist in any pvp game with a matchmaking system.
Why? Because such a "right" would contradict itself the minute it is exercise. If high level players have a right to choose to stomp on low level players, they are by definition immediately violating the same rights of the low level player to choose to not get stomped on by high level players. You can't have it both ways. That's why the goal of every pvp matchmaking system is to move you rapidly to the point where you are playing people of equal skill.
So no, strong players are not "entitled to play in whatever league they want." That would be ridiculous.
I think Seatin read my post, lol.
It would be like a championship.
You're assuming that higher players "stomping" on lower level players will entitle them to the same rewards. It shouldn't, and it doesn't. It is a trade off, as in real life - if a professional plays in the amateur league, he gets easy wins but little in prizes by comparison. It is the standard risk vs reward trade-off. To the extent that this is not line with community expectations, then the scoring system should be fixed; the solution is not to deprive players of the right as to the level they wish to compete.
It is not a "strawman argument" but a perfectly legitimate one.
Your idea of a parallel right for lower players to "choose to not get stomped one" is misconceived. There is no right to a particular opponent. I am not saying that a stronger player has the right to choose to fight a weak player every time he wants. All I am saying is merely that players should have the choice to play in a certain league - their actual match ups is not within their control. The lower level player has the equal right to choose to play in the hardest league available to him, or to go to an easier one if he wants to take a break. You must bear in mind that this right to choose your level of competition does not apply only to master players wanting to take a break, but even gold players who may (for whatever reason) want to take a break from gold and drop to, say, silver. My conception is consistent throughout - all players, regardless of tier, should have the right to choose whether to compete at the highest level, or to take it easier.
@Ultra8529 Have you been keeping up with Reddit and YouTube this AW Season? 3200+ war rating alliances matching against 2500-2700 war rating alliances is the norm for season 6. Part of my previous comment was inaccurate and I'm sorry for that. I'll copy and paste the other parts, what are you thoughts on this:
Intent is relevant to this discussion. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting a break from the grind and joining a gold 1 or low platinum alliance hurts no one. Players who've previously ranked in master wanting the same rewards and joining a shell alliance to get easy wars against inferior opponents hurts both players and Kabam. Players are hurt because they get unfair wars against superior opponents (master level AW defenses in tier 2-3) and Kabam is hurt because they make less $ from AW item use.
Players leaving higher war rating alliances to join a shell alliance with the goal of getting easier wars with significantly reduced item use for the same AW Season rank rewards is no where near the same thing as the same level of players joining a lower war rating alliance to get a break from the AW Seasons grind.
I think you're still conflating season bracket with war tier. No one fights in "gold." They fight in tier 6 or tier 10. You cannot pick your bracket, your points at the end of the season determine your bracket. There's no way to choose to fight in Gold, it isn't just not an option in the game but a literal impossibility. You could theoretically freeze *rating* - it is at least technologically possible for the game to present the players with the option to always fight in tier 6, or tier 9, or whatever. But that's a fundamentally different kind of competition, and although it is easy to hand-wave away the problems with that kind of competition by just saying "just change the scoring to make it work" in practice this is extremely difficult.
You keep analogizing this to choosing a league, but this is a completely broken analogy. There is only one league in MCOC alliance wars - and I'm saying that as the only person to the best of my knowledge that has even suggested an actual structure for making more than one separate alliance war league. Unless and until they actually make genuinely segregated competitive groups (ne: leagues) then choosing your own match rating cannot be made fair with just scoring tweaks. The problem is those tiers do not directly align with season brackets and thus season rewards, which makes it virtually impossible to eliminate unfair manipulation.
You're not asking for the right to change leagues. You're asking for the right for individual players to simply make up their own leagues. There is no "gold league." There is no "platinum league." The alliances that end up in those brackets do not all have identical war ratings or war tiers or win/loss records. There are multiple paths to those brackets based on points scoring. And if you change scoring so that any alliance that "chooses gold" cannot escape gold's rewards, you doom any alliance that happens to be in any tier that could finish as gold from escaping gold.
To put it more directly, if you manipulate the scoring system so that an alliance with 2800 rating that has a bunch of "want to take a break" players cannot get any higher than a certain reward level, then alliances with 2800 rating that have a bunch of players that actually want to advance higher won't be able to. Arithmetic can't distinguish between the difference. This is fundamentally so broken that I'm really only saying this for the record: I have absolutely no fear of Kabam doing this on their worst brain damaged design day.
And to those who are saying "what if they are taking a break from competitive wars" the whole alliance don't have to shift to an other alliance to take break. They can do that being in the same alliance
I do not actually disagree with you; in fact I think the concerns you have expressed are entirely fair. On the one hand, like you have said, players wanting to take a break and join a lower alliance hurts no one. But on the other hand, we want to prevent alliance swapping so lower alliances are not unfairly punished.
My contention is that there is no good way to distinguish the two, with the result that any method will involve banning entirely the idea of a player who want to take it easy. As I have mentioned some time above, there is no bright line to draw. What if 5 players move to a lower alliance? Or 10? or 15? Which is considered swapping, and which is considered a 'group' of players that want to stick together out of friendship, but also want to take it easier in the game? I just don't see a workable rule without imposing extreme limitations on the freedom of players to move around alliances.
I am not conflating war rating and season brackets. As I have mentioned further up in the thread, I use "gold", "platinum" and "master" as a form of shorthand to refer to general classes of war rating. Gold might be classified as around 1800 - 2400, Platinum around 2400 - 2900, and master from 2900 above. That is generally the war rating that corresponds to the relevant season score multiplier and lets most alliances in those regions of war rating end up in their respect season brackets.
You keep saying that there is only 1 league. But do you accept that there are clearly different war ratings at which an alliance competes, and clearly that affects the difficulty and level of competition? Whatever you want to call that - tiers, leagues, levels - its semantics. The point is, should a single player have the right to decide what ally and what tier/league/level he wishes to play at, or he is bound and shackled to a single level which the game has decided for him. Once you accept that a single player should have such a right, my point is that there is no clear line that can be drawn (refer to my answer right above this post).