Apply blackout periods for AW the same as AQ

There really needs to be a blackout period on rewards for anyone that joins a new alliance. My alliance usually stays in tier 2 where we win a little more than half the wars. If we ever go down to tier 3 we usually win all wars in the tier with ease. However, this past week we absolutely got steam rolled out of tier 2. Once we were in tier three, once again we got destroyed. We then went down to tier 4 for the first time in ages. First match, crushed once again. The alliances we faced were absolutely stacked, no doubt tier 1 material.

So I reached out to a few buddies that are in tier 1 alliances to see what is going on. Here to find out alliances are forming a secondary alliance. When one alliance is in tiers 4-2 they go to that crew while matchmaking is down. While they stuff their tier 1 alliance with beginner accounts. Then once the tiers of both alliances switch they follow.

He showed me screenshots of some of their more recent wars in tier 1. Alliances with 2200 war ratting but with less than 500k alliance rating. So I took it upon myself to go back on our war logs and see some of the alliances that we got steam rolled by. The ones that were now in tier 1 are filled with beginner accounts.

Kudos for the strategy but there should be a blackout period the same as AQ.

Comments

LocoMotives

Wouldn't change anything. Those allies are willing to sacrifice a week of AQ rewards, they would be willing to sacrifice AW rewards as well. Many of those allies go on extended winning streaks (obviously) after dropping down so losing 1k x 5* shards during blackout won't discourage.

KML15

The whole reason for doing it is to have a constant flow of shards.

LocoMotives

Yes, but winning 12-15 wars in a row (minus the initial 2 or 3 if blackout) gives greater rewards than 1 or 2 wins every week.

Feeney234

That is way too much work lol

Solrac_2

Blackout period for AW---no, that's way too drastic.

I remember seeing this once in a former alliance about 8 months ago. Our AW rating was around 2400, tier 1, and we faced an alliance with similar war rating but very weak champs and that had obviously swapped with another alliance.

I have a friend whose alliance does this too. They don't care about AQ blackout or being down an AQ tier either because many of them have expiring t4cc. They want easy 4 and 5 star shards. They just drop to an alliance with 1400 AW rating. They'll win 10 in a row or so and switch again once they're in tier 1. Then rinse and repeat.

Solrac_2

And because I'm feeling generous I'll give the alliance tag (they just switched last week): RHSHL

KML15

LocoMotives wrote: »

Yes, but winning 12-15 wars in a row (minus the initial 2 or 3 if blackout) gives greater rewards than 1 or 2 wins every week.

Of course but, They would more than likely not war at all that week (if there was a week blackout). Which in turn means there's a better chance for normal T4-2 alliances to have a fair matchup.

rwhack

Solrac_2 wrote: »

And because I'm feeling generous I'll give the alliance tag (they just switched last week): RHSHL

Those guys are absolute animals. We were at like 2600 war rating and they went 100% on all 3 BGs. If you face them do NOT spend. Interesting though, I think you violated some terms of the message board here. You may face your own blackout LOL.

Honestly, BG2 seemed to do the most damage. They killed everything they saw and rarely died. The weak link being some dude with Mordo as his avatar.

Solrac_2

Rwhack, you're hilarious---you're in that alliance.

LocoMotives

Why do I feel like he has Mordo as his profile pic...

rwhack

LocoMotives wrote: »

Why do I feel like he has Mordo as his profile pic...

Sig 100 Iceman.

rwhack

Solrac_2 wrote: »

Rwhack, you're hilarious---you're in that alliance.

I'm just saying BG2 rules and don't spend if you see us. Call it a public service.

DAVIDTH

rwhack wrote: »

Solrac_2 wrote: »

Rwhack, you're hilarious---you're in that alliance.

I'm just saying BG2 rules and don't spend if you see us. Call it a public service.

Then why were you refering to your alliance in 3rd person?

LeNoirFaineant

The only way to fix this that I can see is to use prestige as a significant factor in matchmaking. The fact that a 12 million alliance with a 1400 war rating, because they jumped, can be paired with a 6 million alliance that also has a 1400 war rating is a joke.

LeNoirFaineant

@rwhack doesn't it get boring fighting nothing but low alliances in war? You're giving a public service for alliances with 1500 war ratings to not spend if they get matched up with your 12 million alliance? LMAO

DrOctavius2_2

Agreed gives players an uneven playing field to get extra 5* shards by switching alliances and getting easier match ups. However this is Kabam we are dealing with , so I don't even bother complaining because they don't care.

DrOctavius2_2

There's always gonna be freeloaders in games who wanna take advantage of things, wish Kabam would be fair and do something about this

Horror_punk

This is what i'm saying way back
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/11950/rewards-timer-for-war-same-as-aq#latest

Horror_punk

keep on bumping it guys

Immortal

Refer to a previous post by Mr. Verus of MMX

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/13600/new-game-format-alliance-wars-brackets

Temporary solution would be to incorporate AQ with AW. A cost / resource of some sort that can only be earned in AQ which is required to join AW.

Maybe some sort of penalty system for losing. To make it competitive!

You want shards? Must fight and earn it. None of that DO NOT SPEND bs. All out WAR!

LeNoirFaineant

Immortal wrote: »

Refer to a previous post by Mr. Verus of MMX

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/13600/new-game-format-alliance-wars-brackets

Temporary solution would be to incorporate AQ with AW. A cost / resource of some sort that can only be earned in AQ which is required to join AW.

Maybe some sort of penalty system for losing. To make it competitive!

You want shards? Must fight and earn it. None of that DO NOT SPEND bs. All out WAR!

@Immortal how would this be a solution for high powered alliances jumping to low alliances so that they can win every war by having easy matchups? You want to punish the low alliance who just got destroyed?

Immortal

It definitely angers me that there are many alliances that are jumping ships in order to win this so called "easy war" because our normal wait time in queue average around 3-5 hours or so. If by changing this, it will speed up the speed in which games are matched, I am all for it.

Now the so called low alliance who gets destroyed... aren't you all doing the SAME EXACT thing by not giving it your all each war so eventually you get to match against us?

Like the saying... you can't have your cake and eat it too...

KML15

A T4 alliance shouldn't have to face a normal T1 alliance. How can that alliance steadily reach T1 or even T2 when they keep going up against monsters.

LocoMotives

If they can't beat a tier 1 alliance, then they aren't a tier 1 alliance. Pretty simple, I think.

Allies always end up in the tier they belong. Nothing has changed now. You lose this one and win the next instead of win this one and lose the next. No long term changes have happened.

Immortal

Disregard my previous suggestion.

Mirk_var

Another senseless crying post

Kronos987654321

Alliances that do this move to a shell and reap rewards for weeks. Missing one week will be meaningless and stop nothing. This only hurts the people who actually just moved alliances. I think AQ blackouts are completely useless now too with the new brackets.

Kronos987654321

Immortal wrote: »

Refer to a previous post by Mr. Verus of MMX

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/13600/new-game-format-alliance-wars-brackets

Temporary solution would be to incorporate AQ with AW. A cost / resource of some sort that can only be earned in AQ which is required to join AW.

Maybe some sort of penalty system for losing. To make it competitive!

You want shards? Must fight and earn it. None of that DO NOT SPEND bs. All out WAR!

You want us to pay more for something we already have? How about no. I bet you just want it based on prestige like AQ so you can reap the rewards of simply having higher prestige champs

KML15

LocoMotives wrote: »

If they can't beat a tier 1 alliance, then they aren't a tier 1 alliance. Pretty simple, I think.

Allies always end up in the tier they belong. Nothing has changed now. You lose this one and win the next instead of win this one and lose the next. No long term changes have happened.

I'd like to see a normal and honest T4 alliance beat a standard T1 alliance.

LocoMotives

KML15 wrote: »

LocoMotives wrote: »

If they can't beat a tier 1 alliance, then they aren't a tier 1 alliance. Pretty simple, I think.

Allies always end up in the tier they belong. Nothing has changed now. You lose this one and win the next instead of win this one and lose the next. No long term changes have happened.

I'd like to see a normal and honest T4 alliance beat a standard T1 alliance.

Your statement was that a T4 ally can't progress to T1 because of these allies swapping. I'm saying if they can't beat a T1, then they would never make it to T1 anyway. So nothing changed, they just faced a better ally this war.