Tanking...

The 2* wars a collusion problem and that’s totally different

LeNoirFaineant

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

We disagree on the definition of wrong. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

The 2* wars a collusion problem and that’s totally different

It's not different at all.

oh I know the difference between right and wrong. This just doesn’t fall on the side of wrong. There is a grey area of things people do and don’t do and this falls into that area.

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon
We disagree on the definition of wrong. There is no point in continuing this discussion.

Yeah I should just walk away. Some people think right is whatever they can get away with. It speaks volumes.

DNA3000

I’m not justifying it at all, I’m stating that it’s not something to get upset about and not technically wrong at this point and time.
Debating whether or not it is something to get upset about is pointless. Telling someone who is upset that they ought not to be is annoying. And it's an exploit, currently punished or not, so you are wrong. Cheers.

That's probably going a step too far. I think Kabam is correct in stating that some of this behavior run contrary to the spirit of the game, but I think the reason why nothing is being done about it yet is that this has more to do with intent than with gameplay. It can be very difficult to distinguish between an alliance not trying as hard as possible, and deliberately trying to lose. At the moment there are many instances where it is obvious, but it is only obvious because no one is trying real hard to make it not obvious, because there's currently no punishment for this type of activity. If there were, it wouldn't be hard to deliberately lose in a way virtually impossible to distinguish from playing under speed. And especially at the highest levels of competition, it seems to me impossible to tell the difference between an honest mistake and a deliberate attempt to lose a fight.

There's no way to force alliances to spend as much as possible and play as hard as possible. So this type of behavior has to be attacked in a non-conventional way. There are ways to nullify or greatly reduce the benefit of deliberately losing during the off season, but they tend to be complex or require significant changes to the way the match making or ratings systems function. I've read every single suggestion that purports to solve this "simply" and the simpler they are, the more broken they tend to be.

The current match system is broken in a number of ways I (and others) have documented; this problem is so much more nuanced and complicated to solve than, say, giving alliances the right map and the right multiplier. So i'm not holding my breath that this particular issue is high on Kabam's list of priorities, nor do I think it even should be. This would be fixing the hood ornament on a car that is currently on fire.

The point is, we get unfair matches all the times, especially at lower levels. Did I whine that I got matched up with a 10 mil alliance when we’re 3 mil? No way. It was a totally unfair advantage, and I didn’t whine to Kabam to make them use 3* defenders. And they didn’t go easy on us. The entire game is chock full of unfair advantages, and the war system is designed that one alliance wins and one loses. Does this make me amoral that I want to tank? Maybe. But saving resources and stress and time are far more important many to me then some noobs not getting 100 shards. Give me a break.

DNA3000

harm
noun
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
Where to start. First, you only quoted the very first line of the definition, which is only a partial definition. The full definition states that harm is a) physical injury, b) material damage, or c) actual or potential ill effect or danger.

Second, even that clipped definition states "especially" when deliberate, it doesn't define harm to be "deliberate physical injury." So your own improper out of context quote disagrees with you.

Third, you quoted the definition of the noun "harm" but "I’ll make sure to have 911 on speed dial the next time I get harmed by a tanking alliance" uses the word as a verb. The verb definition from the exact same source you improperly quoted (Google) states:

verb
verb: harm; 3rd person present: harms; past tense: harmed; past participle: harmed; gerund or present participle: harming
1.
physically injure.
"the villains didn't harm him"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve
damage the health of.
"smoking when pregnant can harm your baby"
have an adverse effect on.
"this could harm his Olympic prospects"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve

So basically: to harm is to a) physically injury, b) damage the health of, or c) have an adverse effect on. This is something that I don't think we really needed to use a dictionary for, as I'm pretty sure everyone reading has the general idea of what "to harm" means, and generally agrees with that definition. Except you.
Dude you need to chill out haha

Why do you project anger upon demonstrations of nothing more than literacy? Were you raised by a twitter bot? Should I even be using the past-tense there?

I’m not justifying it at all, I’m stating that it’s not something to get upset about and not technically wrong at this point and time.
Debating whether or not it is something to get upset about is pointless. Telling someone who is upset that they ought not to be is annoying. And it's an exploit, currently punished or not, so you are wrong. Cheers.
That's probably going a step too far. I think Kabam is correct in stating that some of this behavior run contrary to the spirit of the game, but I think the reason why nothing is being done about it yet is that this has more to do with intent than with gameplay. It can be very difficult to distinguish between an alliance not trying as hard as possible, and deliberately trying to lose. At the moment there are many instances where it is obvious, but it is only obvious because no one is trying real hard to make it not obvious, because there's currently no punishment for this type of activity. If there were, it wouldn't be hard to deliberately lose in a way virtually impossible to distinguish from playing under speed. And especially at the highest levels of competition, it seems to me impossible to tell the difference between an honest mistake and a deliberate attempt to lose a fight.

There's no way to force alliances to spend as much as possible and play as hard as possible. So this type of behavior has to be attacked in a non-conventional way. There are ways to nullify or greatly reduce the benefit of deliberately losing during the off season, but they tend to be complex or require significant changes to the way the match making or ratings systems function. I've read every single suggestion that purports to solve this "simply" and the simpler they are, the more broken they tend to be.

The current match system is broken in a number of ways I (and others) have documented; this problem is so much more nuanced and complicated to solve than, say, giving alliances the right map and the right multiplier. So i'm not holding my breath that this particular issue is high on Kabam's list of priorities, nor do I think it even should be. This would be fixing the hood ornament on a car that is currently on fire.

This we can agree on, it’s such a hard issue to deal with that it will probably never be solved hence why I think people should stop being upset about it and just deal with the stuff they have control over. Fight your hardest and hope for the best.

LeNoirFaineant

The point is, we get unfair matches all the times, especially at lower levels. Did I whine that I got matched up with a 10 mil alliance when we’re 3 mil? No way. It was a totally unfair advantage, and I didn’t whine to Kabam to make them use 3* defenders. And they didn’t go easy on us. The entire game is chock full of unfair advantages, and the war system is designed that one alliance wins and one loses. Does this make me amoral that I want to tank? Maybe. But saving resources and stress and time are far more important many to me then some noobs not getting 100 shards. Give me a break.

You can save resources, stress, and time without manipulating matchmaking to get you low alliances to smash. You just can't get the higher rewards you want by playing on a level playing field. Justify it however you want. It's lame.

No one said they will never deal with it. Just that it's precarious. I've given a few suggestions on how to deal with it, and based on observations during the last Season, it seemed to have been working. What's taking place in the Off-Season is curious to me, but I certainly wouldn't suggest people keep doing it under the assumption that it will never be dealt with. There are ways.

harm
noun
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
Where to start. First, you only quoted the very first line of the definition, which is only a partial definition. The full definition states that harm is a) physical injury, b) material damage, or c) actual or potential ill effect or danger.

Second, even that clipped definition states "especially" when deliberate, it doesn't define harm to be "deliberate physical injury." So your own improper out of context quote disagrees with you.

Third, you quoted the definition of the noun "harm" but "I’ll make sure to have 911 on speed dial the next time I get harmed by a tanking alliance" uses the word as a verb. The verb definition from the exact same source you improperly quoted (Google) states:

verb
verb: harm; 3rd person present: harms; past tense: harmed; past participle: harmed; gerund or present participle: harming
1.
physically injure.
"the villains didn't harm him"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve
damage the health of.
"smoking when pregnant can harm your baby"
have an adverse effect on.
"this could harm his Olympic prospects"
synonyms: injure, hurt, wound, maltreat, mistreat, misuse, ill-treat, ill-use, abuse, molest, inflict pain on, inflict suffering on, handle/treat roughly, do violence to, lay a finger on; More
antonyms: benefit, improve

So basically: to harm is to a) physically injury, b) damage the health of, or c) have an adverse effect on. This is something that I don't think we really needed to use a dictionary for, as I'm pretty sure everyone reading has the general idea of what "to harm" means, and generally agrees with that definition. Except you.
Dude you need to chill out haha
Why do you project anger upon demonstrations of nothing more than literacy? Were you raised by a twitter bot? Should I even be using the past-tense there?

You were just getting over literal about a joke I made. It was a waste of time haha

It’s not really an unfair advantage when you can easily do the same thing and gain the same advantage. The only reason you think it’s unfair is because you say it is. Is it unfair to place an IMIW as war boss if the other alliances don’t have the skill or champs to beat him? It’s an unfair advantage built into the mechanics of the game, just like tanking a season is.
So Stealing is not wrong because everyone who is stolen from can do it too? That's awesome. I have to go now. See you in 5-10.
Ethics 101 - stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child.

Tanking a season to save resources, stress and time to spend quality time with loved ones.

Just don’t play then. If we are going to use such simplistic logic and spending more time with people you “love” not playing at all is the only option.

It’s not really an unfair advantage when you can easily do the same thing and gain the same advantage. The only reason you think it’s unfair is because you say it is. Is it unfair to place an IMIW as war boss if the other alliances don’t have the skill or champs to beat him? It’s an unfair advantage built into the mechanics of the game, just like tanking a season is.
So Stealing is not wrong because everyone who is stolen from can do it too? That's awesome. I have to go now. See you in 5-10.
Ethics 101 - stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child.

Tanking a season to save resources, stress and time to spend quality time with loved ones.
Just don’t play then. If we are going to use such simplistic logic and spending more time with people you “love” not playing at all is the only option.

Sounds great. I’ll also start stealing thousands of loaves of bread to feed ALL the hungry children, lol.

The point is, we get unfair matches all the times, especially at lower levels. Did I whine that I got matched up with a 10 mil alliance when we’re 3 mil? No way. It was a totally unfair advantage, and I didn’t whine to Kabam to make them use 3* defenders. And they didn’t go easy on us. The entire game is chock full of unfair advantages, and the war system is designed that one alliance wins and one loses. Does this make me amoral that I want to tank? Maybe. But saving resources and stress and time are far more important many to me then some noobs not getting 100 shards. Give me a break.

Right here is a perfect example of why it’s wrong and harmful.

This person who is suggesting that playing the game in a non-manipulative way actually causes stress, costs real resources, and robs them of time with their family.

Those harmful impacts would not exist if taking on purpose was not allowed. Granted spending resources to win wars is a personal choice as well as not spending time with people they “love” but the stress associated with those choices as a result of this tanking phenomenon are a real and harmful thing. Proven by someone who supports tanking.

Quit the game, save your resources, spend time with those loved ones, and de stress.

BTW, since when is recognizing people doing something dumb crying.

It’s not really an unfair advantage when you can easily do the same thing and gain the same advantage. The only reason you think it’s unfair is because you say it is. Is it unfair to place an IMIW as war boss if the other alliances don’t have the skill or champs to beat him? It’s an unfair advantage built into the mechanics of the game, just like tanking a season is.
So Stealing is not wrong because everyone who is stolen from can do it too? That's awesome. I have to go now. See you in 5-10.
Ethics 101 - stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child.

Tanking a season to save resources, stress and time to spend quality time with loved ones.
Just don’t play then. If we are going to use such simplistic logic and spending more time with people you “love” not playing at all is the only option.
Sounds great. I’ll also start stealing thousands of loaves of bread to feed ALL the hungry children, lol.

Why do that when you could just make it on your own with less stress and more time with loved ones.

What about this....what if tanking the AW off season allowed you the ability to travel back in time and kill Hitler as an innocent child. Would it be immoral then?

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

Which is why you do it.

Rap

Anything goes! What the heck do ethics and scruples have to do with heros? Tanking? Buy things from Russian sex slavers? It all just good fun huh? Anything for the win! Go team!

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon
Which is why you do it.

Nope my alliance has never tanked, we see no value in it and enjoy the rewards. We just don’t use items or our best champs in offseason and still win

What about this....what if tanking the AW off season allowed you the ability to travel back in time and kill Hitler as an innocent child. Would it be immoral then?

Of course. Don’t be stupid. If time travel is possible the events that allowed the system in which he developed is where you start. Or maybe look at the geopolitical systems that value WMD’s and perpetual war instead of one baby.

Why worry about hitler when western civilization obviously made a wrong turn hundreds if not thousands of years before he showed up.

Again highlighting the shortsightedness of tanking with poor hypotheticals and worse analogies.

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon

It’s not wrong until they punish people for it. Until then it is frowned upon
Which is why you do it.
Nope my alliance has never tanked, we see no value in it and enjoy the rewards. We just don’t use items or our best champs in offseason and still win

When you say your best Champs, that entirely depends. If you mean you keep your Top Champs and place your next best, that's one thing. If you're intentionally placing sub-par Champs, or even 3*s or 2*s, that would be Tanking.
Tanking involves intentionally and willfully taking a dive for an advantage when Seasons begin. Using Items has always been elective. That's different when people are playing honestly and just going until they K.O. What we're talking about is lowering Rating on purpose to face easier Matches for Seasons. That's Tanking, and it's not jusitifed by "taking it easy".

Keenmonkey_5

Never mess with time travel. I've seen enough movies to know it's not a good idea. The whole butterfly effect. Killing Hitler as a child may in some way create something much worse. Who knows how the world as a whole would have turned out. But that's a conversation for another time.

Best champs as in the 5-8 best champs people use for questing and AQ during offseason. Some guys still put their best defenders in on defense if they don’t quest with them but a lot of guys will put other champs in. One guy has a bunch of 6*s he doesn’t quest with but doesn’t normally put those 6*s on defense but during offseason he will.....also you missed the part where I said we still win haha

I was clarifying that wouldn't be Tanking. Just saying there's a difference. That's reasonable.

You tank buddy. No way around it. Maybe not as blatant but your arguments don’t make sense with regards to content and champ use. There is plenty of time that explore content at full strength during the season.

You tank buddy. No way around it. Maybe not as blatant but your arguments don’t make sense with regards to content and champ use. There is plenty of time that explore content at full strength during the season.

I might agree if there was Loss involved. If he's maintaining that they Fight fairly and gain Wins, that wouldn't be Tanking.

St. Peter: looks like you devoted your life to Jesus and helping other less fortunate....but you tanked AW! Off to hell you go.

Moral absolutism is exactly why nobody likes Captain America or Superman.

You tank buddy. No way around it. Maybe not as blatant but your arguments don’t make sense with regards to content and champ use. There is plenty of time that explore content at full strength during the season.

That look like a tanking defense? haha