Throwing this idea out now to hopefully spark Kabam into making changes to the unethical behavior of alliance swapping to lower war rating. We’ve seen they’re open to community ideas in the past.
Instead of making War Rating a value attributed solely to an alliance, make War Rating a value assigned to EVERY summoner (like an ELO). The alliance’s war rating would be the collective average of all players in the alliance. The War Rating stat would be something every player carries around individually, losing and gaining whenever they win/lose an alliance war. Very similar to how every player carries around their own prestige and the alliance’s prestige is an average of all players.
This would stop alliance swapping to match easier opponents dead in tracks, because the swapped alliance would have the same war rating as before. Sure you could try to tank your war rating but you’d be missing out on many rewards and it likely would not end up worth it. There may be a small few with multiple accounts who try to manipulate this more, but a few low war ratings in an alliance won’t be enough to push all 30 members down significantly. If a player hasn’t fought in an alliance war for a while, their war rating would stay the same (or introduce the same ‘war rating decay’ for them).
This has been suggested before: it focuses too much on one specific kind of exploit at the expense of opening the door to many others. You are in effect allowing alliances to change their rating by substituting players. So now an alliance could arbitrarily lower their rating by adding filler accounts with low or even zero ratings.
It would be very tough for an alliance to significantly lower their war rating with multiple accounts against 30, without sacrificing a bunch of rewards along the way. It wouldn't be hard to have some outlier detection where a 0 war rating account isn't counted against a bunch of 3000+ accounts.
People said the same thing about swapping: turns out it is not hard enough. And while it is always possible to counter every corner case problem with an exception, the point is that for every suggestion like this you make, I can come up with yet another exploit that counters them, because as long as you hand me control of rating by any means other than winning and losing, I will break that system. Because that's what giving me control automatically does. And if I can think of a way to do it, there will be alliances that attempt it.
It doesn't have to be zero rating, it could be a rating of one, or one hundred. I could deliberately create an alliance of secondary accounts and deliberately idle-play them into stone 3 so their ratings are valid: takes no time at all compared to other manipulation, then shift them into the main alliance. I could split my main alliance into two connected alliances where our main thirty accounts are split between them, and then secondaries are used as fillers. In fact this system allows a single thirty person alliance to be expanded to a pseudo-alliance of forty people, split into two twenty person alliances, with ten fillers each.
Whatever limits you make, I could do one of two things. I could skate just above them, or I could exploit the fact that the limits are so high that they create other problems. For example, I could keep my multiplier high even after losing by replacing one member with a higher rated filler account that would keep our multiplier high even when losing would otherwise lower rating. I could dodge ratings penalties by swapping players back and forth. You could keep making more and more exceptions, but for these rules to work you have to specify them before they get exploited, not after.
All of those situations revolve around a center theme: having multiple accounts and people willing to constantly swap. You could make 30 alt accounts and swap them in to lower your rating, but guess what you won't be winning wars lol. When the season rolls along, all people want to do is win. Having some stone or lowly accounts in the alliance to slightly lower your rating will be doing more harm than good.
If this were actually true, swapping wouldn't be a problem either. Because swapping only works if you swap into a lower rated alliance, and if you don't actually engineer losing you eventually swap yourself back and forth into two high tier alliances. Swapping works because one alliance wins and that's where the rewards are, and one alliance is manipulated into losing just enough to lower rating to the right point to be the proper launchpad for the next season. Shell alliances are not an unlimited resource unless you manage them.
Pilot tablets seemed ridiculous until people started doing it. I don't see this as taking any more resources or effort. And I should point out that it is critical not to conflate the strength of the account with the war rating or bracket they are in. It takes virtually zero effort to make a stacked secondary account with low war rating. Just shove them all into a shell and start match making, then sit back and don't do anything.
Beyond that, I'd rather not lay out the step by step process of manipulating this kind of system with trivial effort and almost zero risk, but it is definitely possible.
Your defintion of alliance swapping is different from what I'm referring to. There are not 2 alliances of 60 players total who agree to swap every season. That's the old T4CC swapping method from years ago. I'm referring strictly to swapping into shell alliances, where during the season an alt account just hits war search once every other day to lower the rating to whatever rating they like, then swap into that alliance for the next season and do the same thing with the old alliance. That's a big difference in resource and effort when it comes to hitting the search button 3 times a week vs maintaing 5+ alternate accounts so they're good enough to come join your alliance when you need them.
It is your definition of "big" that seems significantly different from mine.
The point I'm making is that the current system has much more potential for war rating abuse via alliance swapping than the individual war rating idea suggested would have. Neither are perfect but one would do the job better. If it's worth the effort to make that big of a change is another question though.
I am unsure if there would be much benifit at all.
It will certainly create other issues like when semi-retired players step down to a lower allies.
It will become veryhard for someone with a strong account to step back up to full time hard wars after taking a break as their lower war rating will be frowned upon by strong allies.
But regardless of all the pros and cons it would be a hell of effort to change from one flawed exploitable system to another flawed exploitable system for minute gains.
So whilst this system may be better than current system it is not good enough to warrent the chamge imo
Teams are always trying to lower their war rating. 1 guy in 30 wouldn't make much difference anyway, but why would a personal lower war rating keep a good player with a good team out of higher tier war? @MaatMan
Teams are always trying to lower their war rating. 1 guy in 30 wouldn't make much difference anyway, but why would a personal lower war rating keep a good player with a good team out of higher tier war? @MaatMan
Just the same as some alliances will not recruit someone based on prestige.
If your prestige is too low some alliances wont touch you due to the detriment it has to aq scores.
It could very well act the same. An alliance may find your lower rating to be detrimental to theor war scoring and not want to take you onboard @LeNoirFaineant
Teams are always trying to lower their war rating. 1 guy in 30 wouldn't make much difference anyway, but why would a personal lower war rating keep a good player with a good team out of higher tier war? @MaatMan
Just the same as some alliances will not recruit someone based on prestige.
If your prestige is too low some alliances wont touch you due to the detriment it has to aq scores.
It could very well act the same. An alliance may find your lower rating to be detrimental to theor war scoring and not want to take you onboard @LeNoirFaineant
Assuming an alliance of 2700 ratings takes in a player with 0 war rating. The new war rating under this system will be 2610. Will that matter a lot? Idk. But the complexity of how ratings, aw points, season scores etc interact makes it so that people are less likely to game the system.
Prestige on the other hand is tricky as it’s a guaranteed reward for those who are doing 6x5 now with the highest prestige.
@MaatMan with regards to your concerns about how higher tiered semi retired players step down to lower alliances, the matter of fact is, that’s EXACTLY how the system should be working.
For example, a player who plays in tier 1-2 regularly steps down to a tier 6-7 alliance. Did the overall war ability of the alliance increase? You bet it did. How is this increase reflected? By the increase in war ratings of the alliance.
Teams are always trying to lower their war rating. 1 guy in 30 wouldn't make much difference anyway, but why would a personal lower war rating keep a good player with a good team out of higher tier war? @MaatMan
Just the same as some alliances will not recruit someone based on prestige.
If your prestige is too low some alliances wont touch you due to the detriment it has to aq scores.
It could very well act the same. An alliance may find your lower rating to be detrimental to theor war scoring and not want to take you onboard @LeNoirFaineant
Assuming an alliance of 2700 ratings takes in a player with 0 war rating. The new war rating under this system will be 2610. Will that matter a lot? Idk. But the complexity of how ratings, aw points, season scores etc interact makes it so that people are less likely to game the system.
Prestige on the other hand is tricky as it’s a guaranteed reward for those who are doing 6x5 now with the highest prestige.
@MaatMan with regards to your concerns about how higher tiered semi retired players step down to lower alliances, the matter of fact is, that’s EXACTLY how the system should be working.
For example, a player who plays in tier 1-2 regularly steps down to a tier 6-7 alliance. Did the overall war ability of the alliance increase? You bet it did. How is this increase reflected? By the increase in war ratings of the alliance.
Whilst i understand exactly where you are coming from these are questions that would need an answer.
Would 2700 v 2610 be a big difference????
IDK is not really good answer when putting acrross a new system.
Would need to answer for sure that it wouldnt and why it wouldnt.
Cus i dare say it very well might.
It could very well make enough of a difference in multiplier to make the differencer between platinum and master,
Or
Platinum and gold.
And if it was possible that with this person you would drop out of platinum and into gold then you would bot recruit them.
Also i can tell you how to easily game the system.
I have 3 accounts. 1 of them is level 6 with nothing at all.
Why not get an ally with half useless lvl 14 accounts. With 0 WR
And then half good ones.
Do this in 2 allies.
15 main and 15 seconds. Playing wars. Both getting easy matchups.
At the end of season switch all 30 main to the ally with the best placement for the best rewards.
Only the last few wars will be tough...:
As i suggested before.
Kabam should set up auto defender placement.
there should be no need for 20hr placment phase.
Just give a 12hr defence adjustment window for officers and then a longer attack phase.
You get all the benifits from the fixed time system.
Without the potential timezone issues.
Everyones defence will be auto placed.
You select your defenders and nodes in the war screen and they stay that way for everywar until u change it.
Honestly why do we need placement????
This would make things sooooo easy for everyone
Teams are always trying to lower their war rating. 1 guy in 30 wouldn't make much difference anyway, but why would a personal lower war rating keep a good player with a good team out of higher tier war? @MaatMan
Just the same as some alliances will not recruit someone based on prestige.
If your prestige is too low some alliances wont touch you due to the detriment it has to aq scores.
It could very well act the same. An alliance may find your lower rating to be detrimental to theor war scoring and not want to take you onboard @LeNoirFaineant
Assuming an alliance of 2700 ratings takes in a player with 0 war rating. The new war rating under this system will be 2610. Will that matter a lot? Idk. But the complexity of how ratings, aw points, season scores etc interact makes it so that people are less likely to game the system.
Prestige on the other hand is tricky as it’s a guaranteed reward for those who are doing 6x5 now with the highest prestige.
@MaatMan with regards to your concerns about how higher tiered semi retired players step down to lower alliances, the matter of fact is, that’s EXACTLY how the system should be working.
For example, a player who plays in tier 1-2 regularly steps down to a tier 6-7 alliance. Did the overall war ability of the alliance increase? You bet it did. How is this increase reflected? By the increase in war ratings of the alliance.
Whilst i understand exactly where you are coming from these are questions that would need an answer.
Would 2700 v 2610 be a big difference????
IDK is not really good answer when putting acrross a new system.
Would need to answer for sure that it wouldnt and why it wouldnt.
Cus i dare say it very well might.
It could very well make enough of a difference in multiplier to make the differencer between platinum and master,
Or
Platinum and gold.
And if it was possible that with this person you would drop out of platinum and into gold then you would bot recruit them.
Also i can tell you how to easily game the system.
I have 3 accounts. 1 of them is level 6 with nothing at all.
Why not get an ally with half useless lvl 14 accounts. With 0 WR
And then half good ones.
Do this in 2 allies.
15 main and 15 seconds. Playing wars. Both getting easy matchups.
At the end of season switch all 30 main to the ally with the best placement for the best rewards.
Only the last few wars will be tough...:
Cause all 30 mains will be at a tier where the war win rewards don’t matter much to them and they will have difficulty clearing the paths with 5 mains and 5 alts per BG.
Add to that they’ll have problem attaining glory for t2a and t5b in the glory store as they have 15 crappy alts at low prestige pushing their scores down.
Not to mention the time and effort needed to be spent to acquire such relatively mediocre rewards when they could simply get more for their mains by staying put.
Putting it into context. Let’s say an alliance of 3000 war rating follows what you suggested and splits 50:50 with alts of 0 war rating. Do you think those mains will bother with war win rewards earned from 1.5k war rating wars? That’s a drop from tier 1 to tier 7. Also, given the multiplier of tier 7, it is very highly unlikely that either of the alliances will rank as high as the original alliance playing at 3000 war rating, even at below 50% win rate.
Putting it into context. Let’s say an alliance of 3000 war rating follows what you suggested and splits 50:50 with alts of 0 war rating. Do you think those mains will bother with war win rewards earned from 1.5k war rating wars? That’s a drop from tier 1 to tier 7. Also, given the multiplier of tier 7, it is very highly unlikely that either of the alliances will rank as high as the original alliance playing at 3000 war rating, even at below 50% win rate.
That's way too extreme. A more credible attempt at manipulation would try to reduce rating from, say, 3200 to 2800. That can be done with one or two replacements per BG (five or so total), one of which would be the back up attacker in each BG and probably not hurt their performance by much. it is a lot easier to compensate for one slightly weaker attacker (and a backup) than four or five.
Putting it into context. Let’s say an alliance of 3000 war rating follows what you suggested and splits 50:50 with alts of 0 war rating. Do you think those mains will bother with war win rewards earned from 1.5k war rating wars? That’s a drop from tier 1 to tier 7. Also, given the multiplier of tier 7, it is very highly unlikely that either of the alliances will rank as high as the original alliance playing at 3000 war rating, even at below 50% win rate.
That's way too extreme. A more credible attempt at manipulation would try to reduce rating from, say, 3200 to 2800. That can be done with one or two replacements per BG (five or so total), one of which would be the back up attacker in each BG and probably not hurt their performance by much. it is a lot easier to compensate for one slightly weaker attacker (and a backup) than four or five.
Having 5 dummy accounts is 1000% not worth it. That's be a terrible strategy.
Putting it into context. Let’s say an alliance of 3000 war rating follows what you suggested and splits 50:50 with alts of 0 war rating. Do you think those mains will bother with war win rewards earned from 1.5k war rating wars? That’s a drop from tier 1 to tier 7. Also, given the multiplier of tier 7, it is very highly unlikely that either of the alliances will rank as high as the original alliance playing at 3000 war rating, even at below 50% win rate.
That's way too extreme. A more credible attempt at manipulation would try to reduce rating from, say, 3200 to 2800. That can be done with one or two replacements per BG (five or so total), one of which would be the back up attacker in each BG and probably not hurt their performance by much. it is a lot easier to compensate for one slightly weaker attacker (and a backup) than four or five.
Having 5 dummy accounts is 1000% not worth it. That's be a terrible strategy.
Buying pilot tablets is also completely ludicrous. There are much better ways to pilot untraceably, while that one is actually traceable in theory. I don't presume people will do only optimal things.
But to be honest, these kinds of manipulations affect me not at all, so maybe I should just let it go and watch the fun. I mean, if everyone either thinks these kinds of manipulations are impossible, or are planning on executing them, then letting it go makes everyone happy. Temporarily.
Putting it into context. Let’s say an alliance of 3000 war rating follows what you suggested and splits 50:50 with alts of 0 war rating. Do you think those mains will bother with war win rewards earned from 1.5k war rating wars? That’s a drop from tier 1 to tier 7. Also, given the multiplier of tier 7, it is very highly unlikely that either of the alliances will rank as high as the original alliance playing at 3000 war rating, even at below 50% win rate.
That's way too extreme. A more credible attempt at manipulation would try to reduce rating from, say, 3200 to 2800. That can be done with one or two replacements per BG (five or so total), one of which would be the back up attacker in each BG and probably not hurt their performance by much. it is a lot easier to compensate for one slightly weaker attacker (and a backup) than four or five.
Having 5 dummy accounts is 1000% not worth it. That's be a terrible strategy.
I already have 4 accounts.
My missus has 3 accounts.
Yes we dint play them all but could easily get back into one of these weak accounts for war if we wanted.
We will not and these accounts are not good but there are others that will....
How many people cureently run 2,3,4 or even more accounts?
Or hace old disused accounts they could get going again
Putting it into context. Let’s say an alliance of 3000 war rating follows what you suggested and splits 50:50 with alts of 0 war rating. Do you think those mains will bother with war win rewards earned from 1.5k war rating wars? That’s a drop from tier 1 to tier 7. Also, given the multiplier of tier 7, it is very highly unlikely that either of the alliances will rank as high as the original alliance playing at 3000 war rating, even at below 50% win rate.
That's way too extreme. A more credible attempt at manipulation would try to reduce rating from, say, 3200 to 2800. That can be done with one or two replacements per BG (five or so total), one of which would be the back up attacker in each BG and probably not hurt their performance by much. it is a lot easier to compensate for one slightly weaker attacker (and a backup) than four or five.
Then instead of worry about war rating manipulation, have war rating matter as part of Season score multiplier. Remove the incentive to lower war ratings by making them count towards the score.
Putting it into context. Let’s say an alliance of 3000 war rating follows what you suggested and splits 50:50 with alts of 0 war rating. Do you think those mains will bother with war win rewards earned from 1.5k war rating wars? That’s a drop from tier 1 to tier 7. Also, given the multiplier of tier 7, it is very highly unlikely that either of the alliances will rank as high as the original alliance playing at 3000 war rating, even at below 50% win rate.
That's way too extreme. A more credible attempt at manipulation would try to reduce rating from, say, 3200 to 2800. That can be done with one or two replacements per BG (five or so total), one of which would be the back up attacker in each BG and probably not hurt their performance by much. it is a lot easier to compensate for one slightly weaker attacker (and a backup) than four or five.
Having 5 dummy accounts is 1000% not worth it. That's be a terrible strategy.
Buying pilot tablets is also completely ludicrous. There are much better ways to pilot untraceably, while that one is actually traceable in theory. I don't presume people will do only optimal things.
But to be honest, these kinds of manipulations affect me not at all, so maybe I should just let it go and watch the fun. I mean, if everyone either thinks these kinds of manipulations are impossible, or are planning on executing them, then letting it go makes everyone happy. Temporarily.
You're not making a lot of sense here. Piloting top accounts to earn top rewards makes a lot of sense. Running 5 dummy accounts in top tiers of AW, where the margin or wins and losses are a death or two makes zero sense.
@Kabam Miike placement phase started hours sooner than it is supposed to, but still only shows 20 hours for the phase. Is attack going to be started extra earlier than its supposed to (not the 11 pst time)? Because that's an incredibly difficult time to work with when people are going to be asleep, or just starting their work day.
@Kabam Miike placement phase started hours sooner than it is supposed to, but still only shows 20 hours for the phase. Is attack going to be started extra earlier than its supposed to (not the 11 pst time)? Because that's an incredibly difficult time to work with when people are going to be asleep, or just starting their work day.
No different to the issues with it being at the stated time.
Just affects different people.
Some of us were complaining bout fixed start time already. Now it shows a lot that were not complaining were only not complaining as they were one if the lucky ones who kabams chosen time suited well. Now you can understand the exact frustrations that many of us have had sonce this announcment.
Furthermore hopefully kabam can see that a solution needs to be found.
My alliance always starts wars in the evening around 7-8pm CST because that’s the best way it works with everyone’s schedules. Not being able to have this flexibility for choosing what works best for the alliance is awful. Not to mention how it affects groups with a mix of international players, or those in other time zones.
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. We start our matchmaking between 4:30-5 PM EST. Mainly so we don't cross with AQ start end/times. It minimizes issues. This is gonna be problematic. In theory, it's nice. But when dealing with international players, this is gonna be ROUGH for some. Kabam, might want to rethink the timing brackets. Perhaps allow Alliances to provide their timing ahead of time, and then they stick with it. Automatically will start matchmaking at said time, every war.
We start later so war isn't ended mid day durning work on west coast, now our war will end at 1 pst. Another well thought out change by kabam. Smh
We also have people that joined our alliance… A couple of them before enlistment period Even started, one after enlistment started (Monday) what to be for matchmaking, Who are not able to join this war. Says they need to wait for the next one. Could this also an error caused by placement happening too soon…?
@Kabam Miike placement phase started hours sooner than it is supposed to, but still only shows 20 hours for the phase. Is attack going to be started extra earlier than its supposed to (not the 11 pst time)? Because that's an incredibly difficult time to work with when people are going to be asleep, or just starting their work day.
No different to the issues with it being at the stated time.
Just affects different people.
Some of us were complaining bout fixed start time already. Now it shows a lot that were not complaining were only not complaining as they were one if the lucky ones who kabams chosen time suited well. Now you can understand the exact frustrations that many of us have had sonce this announcment.
Furthermore hopefully kabam can see that a solution needs to be found.
Oh no I've definitely been frustrated since the announcement. We've always run it in the evening so changing it to 1pm cst was already bad enough. Our war now is like three hours earlier than they said it would start, however. But also my biggest issue with this is that if war attack can fluctuate so much between that matchmaking phase war to War, it makes it incredibly difficult to get on a consistent schedule with alliance organization.
Echoing other posts above, as of when I write this, the current war shows 18:20 remaining in defense placement and 1:27 remaining to next enlistment, and it is 11:33am HST. Those are wonky times. Maybe this is partially due to this being the very first match making phase, but 1:27 to the next enlistment is 1:00pm my time, 3pm (15:00) Pacific time. That corresponds to I think when Defense 1 placement phase should start on the schedule, but the placement time remaining implies that the war attack phase should start on or about 6:00am HST, or 8am Pacific time. That's three hours earlier than the schedule asserts.
I think Defense 1 placement phase kicked off earlier than it should have: no one should have gotten matches until 15:00 California time if I understand the schedule correctly. Instead, alliances got matched and ejected from the match making phase immediately and put into defense placement. The fact that our defense placement timing doesn't even align with an hour boundary suggests that everyone might have gotten matched at slightly different times (basically, it matched from top to bottom and kicked off everyone's individual wars in order) and won't actually be aligned with the schedule, which seems to be completely wrong.
This is how the matchmaking system is meant to function, but we're sorry that our announcement post did not have enough detail. How the matchmaking system works is that everyone enters the matchmaking phase at the same time, but throughout the matchmaking period, once your Alliance has found a match, the Defense phase of the war will begin and the Attack phase will begin 20 hours later.
This somewhat staggered approach is necessary because of the server strain that would be caused if all wars began at exactly the same time.
We appreciate the feedback and will be monitoring Alliance activity in the case that adjustments need to be made in the future.
@Kabam Miike placement phase started hours sooner than it is supposed to, but still only shows 20 hours for the phase. Is attack going to be started extra earlier than its supposed to (not the 11 pst time)? Because that's an incredibly difficult time to work with when people are going to be asleep, or just starting their work day.
No different to the issues with it being at the stated time.
Just affects different people.
Some of us were complaining bout fixed start time already. Now it shows a lot that were not complaining were only not complaining as they were one if the lucky ones who kabams chosen time suited well. Now you can understand the exact frustrations that many of us have had sonce this announcment.
Furthermore hopefully kabam can see that a solution needs to be found.
Oh no I've definitely been frustrated since the announcement. We've always run it in the evening so changing it to 1pm cst was already bad enough. Our war now is like three hours earlier than they said it would start, however. But also my biggest issue with this is that if war attack can fluctuate so much between that matchmaking phase war to War, it makes it incredibly difficult to get on a consistent schedule with alliance organization.
This is bad. Very bad. Not having a choice is bad enough. But not knowing when is even worse
This is how the matchmaking system is meant to function, but we're sorry that our announcement post did not have enough detail. How the matchmaking system works is that everyone enters the matchmaking phase at the same time, but throughout the matchmaking period, once your Alliance has found a match, the Defense phase of the war will begin and the Attack phase will begin 20 hours later.
This somewhat staggered approach is necessary because of the server strain that would be caused if all wars began at exactly the same time.
We appreciate the feedback and will be monitoring Alliance activity in the case that adjustments need to be made in the future.
This is ludacris.
How are we supposed to be able to do wars prooerly when we dont even know when thay may start.
@Kabam Lyra we still haven't gotten any comment on how this can be very difficult on alliances that have always needed to schedule around everyone's personal lives. Especially with this new system, wars can start and end anywhere within a four hour window. That's a huge fluctuation to have to potentially adjust to every war, especially when that falls during people's work days or timezones.
This is how the matchmaking system is meant to function, but we're sorry that our announcement post did not have enough detail. How the matchmaking system works is that everyone enters the matchmaking phase at the same time, but throughout the matchmaking period, once your Alliance has found a match, the Defense phase of the war will begin and the Attack phase will begin 20 hours later.
This somewhat staggered approach is necessary because of the server strain that would be caused if all wars began at exactly the same time.
We appreciate the feedback and will be monitoring Alliance activity in the case that adjustments need to be made in the future.
So you're saying that theoretically speaking an alliance could find its wars starting ANYWHERE between 11:00 and 15:00 Pacific time? Like an appliance repair man? And the alliance literally has no idea or control over when that might be? You might get matched faster today, slower tomorrow? The servers might be quicker tomorrow, slower next week?
If I could, I would literally push the revert button on this now. I'd burn all the development work and all the backups. I can literally think of no worse way to match than this one. We thought we went from everyone start when you want, to everyone start at the same time. But it is actually everyone start at a more or less random time?
Comments
Yo, the game is up here, man.
I am unsure if there would be much benifit at all.
It will certainly create other issues like when semi-retired players step down to a lower allies.
It will become veryhard for someone with a strong account to step back up to full time hard wars after taking a break as their lower war rating will be frowned upon by strong allies.
But regardless of all the pros and cons it would be a hell of effort to change from one flawed exploitable system to another flawed exploitable system for minute gains.
So whilst this system may be better than current system it is not good enough to warrent the chamge imo
Just the same as some alliances will not recruit someone based on prestige.
If your prestige is too low some alliances wont touch you due to the detriment it has to aq scores.
It could very well act the same. An alliance may find your lower rating to be detrimental to theor war scoring and not want to take you onboard @LeNoirFaineant
Assuming an alliance of 2700 ratings takes in a player with 0 war rating. The new war rating under this system will be 2610. Will that matter a lot? Idk. But the complexity of how ratings, aw points, season scores etc interact makes it so that people are less likely to game the system.
Prestige on the other hand is tricky as it’s a guaranteed reward for those who are doing 6x5 now with the highest prestige.
@MaatMan with regards to your concerns about how higher tiered semi retired players step down to lower alliances, the matter of fact is, that’s EXACTLY how the system should be working.
For example, a player who plays in tier 1-2 regularly steps down to a tier 6-7 alliance. Did the overall war ability of the alliance increase? You bet it did. How is this increase reflected? By the increase in war ratings of the alliance.
Whilst i understand exactly where you are coming from these are questions that would need an answer.
Would 2700 v 2610 be a big difference????
IDK is not really good answer when putting acrross a new system.
Would need to answer for sure that it wouldnt and why it wouldnt.
Cus i dare say it very well might.
It could very well make enough of a difference in multiplier to make the differencer between platinum and master,
Or
Platinum and gold.
And if it was possible that with this person you would drop out of platinum and into gold then you would bot recruit them.
Also i can tell you how to easily game the system.
I have 3 accounts. 1 of them is level 6 with nothing at all.
Why not get an ally with half useless lvl 14 accounts. With 0 WR
And then half good ones.
Do this in 2 allies.
15 main and 15 seconds. Playing wars. Both getting easy matchups.
At the end of season switch all 30 main to the ally with the best placement for the best rewards.
Only the last few wars will be tough...:
Kabam should set up auto defender placement.
there should be no need for 20hr placment phase.
Just give a 12hr defence adjustment window for officers and then a longer attack phase.
You get all the benifits from the fixed time system.
Without the potential timezone issues.
Everyones defence will be auto placed.
You select your defenders and nodes in the war screen and they stay that way for everywar until u change it.
Honestly why do we need placement????
This would make things sooooo easy for everyone
Cause all 30 mains will be at a tier where the war win rewards don’t matter much to them and they will have difficulty clearing the paths with 5 mains and 5 alts per BG.
Add to that they’ll have problem attaining glory for t2a and t5b in the glory store as they have 15 crappy alts at low prestige pushing their scores down.
Not to mention the time and effort needed to be spent to acquire such relatively mediocre rewards when they could simply get more for their mains by staying put.
Putting it into context. Let’s say an alliance of 3000 war rating follows what you suggested and splits 50:50 with alts of 0 war rating. Do you think those mains will bother with war win rewards earned from 1.5k war rating wars? That’s a drop from tier 1 to tier 7. Also, given the multiplier of tier 7, it is very highly unlikely that either of the alliances will rank as high as the original alliance playing at 3000 war rating, even at below 50% win rate.
That's way too extreme. A more credible attempt at manipulation would try to reduce rating from, say, 3200 to 2800. That can be done with one or two replacements per BG (five or so total), one of which would be the back up attacker in each BG and probably not hurt their performance by much. it is a lot easier to compensate for one slightly weaker attacker (and a backup) than four or five.
Having 5 dummy accounts is 1000% not worth it. That's be a terrible strategy.
Buying pilot tablets is also completely ludicrous. There are much better ways to pilot untraceably, while that one is actually traceable in theory. I don't presume people will do only optimal things.
But to be honest, these kinds of manipulations affect me not at all, so maybe I should just let it go and watch the fun. I mean, if everyone either thinks these kinds of manipulations are impossible, or are planning on executing them, then letting it go makes everyone happy. Temporarily.
I already have 4 accounts.
My missus has 3 accounts.
Yes we dint play them all but could easily get back into one of these weak accounts for war if we wanted.
We will not and these accounts are not good but there are others that will....
How many people cureently run 2,3,4 or even more accounts?
Or hace old disused accounts they could get going again
Then instead of worry about war rating manipulation, have war rating matter as part of Season score multiplier. Remove the incentive to lower war ratings by making them count towards the score.
So the Contest will be down for maintenance and unplayable for a FULL 24 hours, come Tuesday/Wednesday..?
If so.. That is ridiculous
Good way to lose players
What happens to the AQ and events that run through that time?
Ummmmm......
What??????
Where did you even read anything that would give you that assumption?????
You're not making a lot of sense here. Piloting top accounts to earn top rewards makes a lot of sense. Running 5 dummy accounts in top tiers of AW, where the margin or wins and losses are a death or two makes zero sense.
No different to the issues with it being at the stated time.
Just affects different people.
Some of us were complaining bout fixed start time already. Now it shows a lot that were not complaining were only not complaining as they were one if the lucky ones who kabams chosen time suited well. Now you can understand the exact frustrations that many of us have had sonce this announcment.
Furthermore hopefully kabam can see that a solution needs to be found.
We've had a few new members join since we enlisted, they were in the alliance before matchmaking started but now they can't place defence
Oh no I've definitely been frustrated since the announcement. We've always run it in the evening so changing it to 1pm cst was already bad enough. Our war now is like three hours earlier than they said it would start, however. But also my biggest issue with this is that if war attack can fluctuate so much between that matchmaking phase war to War, it makes it incredibly difficult to get on a consistent schedule with alliance organization.
I think Defense 1 placement phase kicked off earlier than it should have: no one should have gotten matches until 15:00 California time if I understand the schedule correctly. Instead, alliances got matched and ejected from the match making phase immediately and put into defense placement. The fact that our defense placement timing doesn't even align with an hour boundary suggests that everyone might have gotten matched at slightly different times (basically, it matched from top to bottom and kicked off everyone's individual wars in order) and won't actually be aligned with the schedule, which seems to be completely wrong.
This is how the matchmaking system is meant to function, but we're sorry that our announcement post did not have enough detail. How the matchmaking system works is that everyone enters the matchmaking phase at the same time, but throughout the matchmaking period, once your Alliance has found a match, the Defense phase of the war will begin and the Attack phase will begin 20 hours later.
This somewhat staggered approach is necessary because of the server strain that would be caused if all wars began at exactly the same time.
We appreciate the feedback and will be monitoring Alliance activity in the case that adjustments need to be made in the future.
This is bad. Very bad. Not having a choice is bad enough. But not knowing when is even worse
This is ludacris.
How are we supposed to be able to do wars prooerly when we dont even know when thay may start.
So you're saying that theoretically speaking an alliance could find its wars starting ANYWHERE between 11:00 and 15:00 Pacific time? Like an appliance repair man? And the alliance literally has no idea or control over when that might be? You might get matched faster today, slower tomorrow? The servers might be quicker tomorrow, slower next week?
If I could, I would literally push the revert button on this now. I'd burn all the development work and all the backups. I can literally think of no worse way to match than this one. We thought we went from everyone start when you want, to everyone start at the same time. But it is actually everyone start at a more or less random time?
No amount of match manipulation is worth this.