Sandbagging for the new AW season

Awesome kabam fixed the new matchmaking, but where did two of the top 7 master alliances go? 30 members to 1-3 and 27+ of them are now elsewhere...

Not naming anyone here but hmmmmmm

Comments

DocJC

2 masters alliances broke up

The other is sand bagging in a new much lower rated alliance.

PaytoPlay

Probably because they can no longer intentionally match with tier 2 alliance to keep top spots.

rwhack

Alright like I said the new system makes it bad to have a high Aw rating. Said this over and over. One master alliance who has finished at the top said it by moving to a shell with a lower rating.

New system created a problem. Market is finding a solution.

@Kabam Miike how does the game plan to address that having a high AW rating is a bad thing?

Said it before in kabams new world this is what it looks like if it was football/

Mount Union College can go undefeated playing DIII

Alabama can lose two games playing DI.

The national champion in kabams world is Mount Union.

Alliances are recognizing it and dropping down.

What solution do you have?

Ultra8529

How can we prove that people are sandbagging? That is a question as to their subjective intentions. It cannot be ruled out that members in one ally had to move to another because they wanted to oust a leader.. could have transferred leadership to someone who then caused problems.

Col66

They could decrease the war rating of any alliance that misses a season. Making the shells too difficult to build back up in the off season.

There are plenty of empty alliances in the leaderboard that are effectively taking up space in higher tiers. It’s like getting in the pool but in reverse

BigPoppaCBONE

I haven’t seen a compelling reason to put effort into AW at all in the off-season. It doesn’t count for anything worthwhile and it’s beneficial to lose. Stupid love of competition/spirit of the game foolishness is not worth spending resources on.

Ultra8529

BigPoppaCBONE wrote: »

I haven’t seen a compelling reason to put effort into AW at all in the off-season. It doesn’t count for anything worthwhile and it’s beneficial to lose. Stupid love of competition/spirit of the game foolishness is not worth spending resources on.

Fully agreed

chunkyb

Bright side is the matches they get vs p1 alliances should theoretically be harder than the matches vs shells and p2 alliances they've had thru the last seasons 😂😂😂

Cranmer00

Ultra8529 wrote: »

How can we prove that people are sandbagging? That is a question as to their subjective intentions. It cannot be ruled out that members in one ally had to move to another because they wanted to oust a leader.. could have transferred leadership to someone who then caused problems.

Because every all 25+ players are there plus the leader

Keep an eye on Sensu this season

New_Noob168

Cranmer00 wrote: »

Ultra8529 wrote: »

How can we prove that people are sandbagging? That is a question as to their subjective intentions. It cannot be ruled out that members in one ally had to move to another because they wanted to oust a leader.. could have transferred leadership to someone who then caused problems.

Because every all 25+ players are there plus the leader

Keep an eye on Sensu this season

You mean Sensai or do you mean Blythe or Tram Runner?

Uppercut

Yes top 5 alliance moved to 2900 rated shell to get easy wars first 3 weeks of next season. Kabam won’t do much because they didn’t break any TOS. It is however against the competitive spirit of the contest but some will always find loopholes

THX135

@Uppercut you saying all top 5 alliances moved to shell or a few within top5 alliances moved to shell?

I checked leaderboard and a few top 5 alliances are still the same members.

_tokio_

Imo he said top5 Alliance. He is not talking about all 5 of them. ,)

CoatHang3r

Kabam you need a policy on sandbagging with clear punishments for the practice. People are going to find ways to subvert any system you put in place and IMO the only sure fire way to stop it is to punish it to a degree where people will just not even think twice about gaming the system and if they do then they can’t particpate and ruin it for other people. 12.0 these clowns, yeah I just wished 12.0 on someone god help me. 🤣😂

THX135

There was a suggestion in another post to make war rating tied to each individual sumilar to prestige. That way if an entire alliance jumps to a shell the war rating would be the same.

LeNoirFaineant

12.0 these clowns! LMAO @CoatHang3r. Couldn't agree more

Uppercut

THX135 wrote: »

@Uppercut you saying all top 5 alliances moved to shell or a few within top5 alliances moved to shell?

I checked leaderboard and a few top 5 alliances are still the same members.

We can’t name alliances here. One alliance that happened to finish in top 5 master bracket last season swapped all members to an alliance that’s right at the bottom of tier 1 rating. This way they will get easier wars when season starts (and others around that rating will most likely lose unfortunately). I really hope there will be some kind of action taken, if there is no solution in place their AW rating should be reset IMO.

Lormif

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Worknprogress

Lormif wrote: »

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Not if all they did was move to a shell at the bottom of tier 1.... How does that equal less points?

GroundedWisdom

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best way to stop it is to separate Seasons progress from Off-Season.

Lormif

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Not if all they did was move to a shell at the bottom of tier 1.... How does that equal less points?

That would not help them either. When a new war starts we all have 0 points, the first ranking, after the first weeks are based on how you did. If you are still in tier 1 you will be matched with other tier 1 alliances, so it is not a sandbag. In order to sandbag you would have to drop a tier, to be matched with similarly rated aliances, which would then drop your point gain. The lower you drop to have more easy fights the slower your point growth in that season.

Worknprogress

Lormif wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Not if all they did was move to a shell at the bottom of tier 1.... How does that equal less points?

That would not help them either. When a new war starts we all have 0 points, the first ranking, after the first weeks are based on how you did. If you are still in tier 1 you will be matched with other tier 1 alliances, so it is not a sandbag. In order to sandbag you would have to drop a tier, to be matched with similarly rated aliances, which would then drop your point gain. The lower you drop to have more easy fights the slower your point growth in that season.

Not really. Far more likely to match with someone mid to low tier 2 while at the bottom of 1 than if you were at the top

Lormif

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Not if all they did was move to a shell at the bottom of tier 1.... How does that equal less points?

That would not help them either. When a new war starts we all have 0 points, the first ranking, after the first weeks are based on how you did. If you are still in tier 1 you will be matched with other tier 1 alliances, so it is not a sandbag. In order to sandbag you would have to drop a tier, to be matched with similarly rated aliances, which would then drop your point gain. The lower you drop to have more easy fights the slower your point growth in that season.

Not really. Far more likely to match with someone mid to low tier 2 while at the bottom of 1 than if you were at the top

1) you dont really know where in the rankings for a tier you are
2) Even if you did the new system helps stop that.

Worknprogress

Lormif wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Not if all they did was move to a shell at the bottom of tier 1.... How does that equal less points?

That would not help them either. When a new war starts we all have 0 points, the first ranking, after the first weeks are based on how you did. If you are still in tier 1 you will be matched with other tier 1 alliances, so it is not a sandbag. In order to sandbag you would have to drop a tier, to be matched with similarly rated aliances, which would then drop your point gain. The lower you drop to have more easy fights the slower your point growth in that season.

Not really. Far more likely to match with someone mid to low tier 2 while at the bottom of 1 than if you were at the top

1) you dont really know where in the rankings for a tier you are
2) Even if you did the new system helps stop that.

I don't think the new system separates the tiers. Just pools everyone to match at once to make it far more likely to get a similarly rated match. Also most of the top tiers have a general idea where each start/stop

It's not a fool proof way to get an easier match but it would still work most of the time more than likely

Lormif

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Not if all they did was move to a shell at the bottom of tier 1.... How does that equal less points?

That would not help them either. When a new war starts we all have 0 points, the first ranking, after the first weeks are based on how you did. If you are still in tier 1 you will be matched with other tier 1 alliances, so it is not a sandbag. In order to sandbag you would have to drop a tier, to be matched with similarly rated aliances, which would then drop your point gain. The lower you drop to have more easy fights the slower your point growth in that season.

Not really. Far more likely to match with someone mid to low tier 2 while at the bottom of 1 than if you were at the top

1) you dont really know where in the rankings for a tier you are
2) Even if you did the new system helps stop that.

I don't think the new system separates the tiers. Just pools everyone to match at once to make it far more likely to get a similarly rated match. Also most of the top tiers have a general idea where each start/stop

It's not a fool proof way to get an easier match but it would still work most of the time more than likely

It does not guarantee that the tiers are separated, but it does a vastly better job. The new system should help to ensure that in each round at most only 1 alliance in a higher tier will get matched against someone in a lower tier, so only one alliance can "sandbag", and you better hope you are on your game with it.

gohard123

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best way to stop it is to separate Seasons progress from Off-Season.

New alliances would take ages to catch up in rating

gohard123

Lormif wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Not if all they did was move to a shell at the bottom of tier 1.... How does that equal less points?

That would not help them either. When a new war starts we all have 0 points, the first ranking, after the first weeks are based on how you did. If you are still in tier 1 you will be matched with other tier 1 alliances, so it is not a sandbag. In order to sandbag you would have to drop a tier, to be matched with similarly rated aliances, which would then drop your point gain. The lower you drop to have more easy fights the slower your point growth in that season.

Lol 3500 is very different from 3000. 3000 War rating is basically bottom of tier 1 or high tier 2

Lormif

gohard123 wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

Worknprogress wrote: »

Lormif wrote: »

That will hurt them in the long run, as they will get less points with the lower rating, I am not sure 12 matches is enough time to overcome that deficit.

Not if all they did was move to a shell at the bottom of tier 1.... How does that equal less points?

That would not help them either. When a new war starts we all have 0 points, the first ranking, after the first weeks are based on how you did. If you are still in tier 1 you will be matched with other tier 1 alliances, so it is not a sandbag. In order to sandbag you would have to drop a tier, to be matched with similarly rated aliances, which would then drop your point gain. The lower you drop to have more easy fights the slower your point growth in that season.

Lol 3500 is very different from 3000. 3000 War rating is basically bottom of tier 1 or high tier 2

Am not sure what your point is... With the new system very few people should get paired out of tier, and it is nearly impossible to know where you are in the tier very reliably.

Also you are way off, we are middle of gold one, top 1500 alliances, and at tier 5, so I am not sure where you think top 3k alliance would be tier 1 or 2.

Ilovecrystals

Not sure if it will help them at all guess we will see how seasons play out. I would like to see all allys that dont participate in aws to have war rating drop a decent amout each aw week. This way shell alliances go away.

B1gG4z

The best way to fix it is to freeze the war rating at the end of the season, the off season matches are based on what rating you finished on. The new season then starts again exactly where you left off from the previous season rating wise.