Can we get a TANKING CLARIFICATION from a mod

Cranmer00Cranmer00 Posts: 521 ★★
Could someone clear up the 50% thing, there’s stuff all on the forum how they interpret it, but would like clarification.
«134

Comments

  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 2,797 ★★★★
    They did clarify if t5 no wr change. If tx-t4 50% wr.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 2,797 ★★★★
    edited July 18
    Drooped2 said:

    They did clarify if t5 no wr change. If tx-t4 50% wr.

    If tier 6 increase to tier 5 rating but tier 5 doesnt fall thus making alot of tier 5 and 6 edge even who gets the tier 5 multiplier come season cause tiers
    Hold a static amount of allainces.

    Say tier 1 is 10 (I'm gonna make up numbers here cause I dont track this data
    Tier 2 is 30
    Tier 3 is 50
    Tier 4 is 100
    Tier 5 is 200
    This is where the issue is( if the cur for tier 5 is war rating 2100 and they cant go down
    Tier 6 is 500
    (The top 150 or so of these allainces can easily grow to 2100)
    Burntier 5 is full leaving 150 allainces with the same tier 5 war rating and a tier 6 multiplier.

    O want clarification on that breakdown
    It’s simple, refer to my first post. And tiers are not a static number they are a % of alliances who participate in AW.

    *just realized i got t4 wrong replace with t6.
  • Cranmer00Cranmer00 Posts: 521 ★★
    edited July 18
    So if an alliance is using a shell alliance don’t they automatically go to tier 1-2when season starts with their calculated prestige/war rating, whatever. Because all the Shell alliances with a 2700 war rating go automatically to tier 2 wars when they search their first war..

    I don’t understand what this does to anything if it’s done How everyone is explaining

    Wouldn’t you just make sure your shell alliance doesn’t go to tier 6, which it doesn’t ever in first place for the top tier alliances, only th placement tier does of stone gold platinum etc, but the actual #’d tier willnstay with war rating
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    edited July 18
    They're reducing the amount of War Rating that can either increase or decrease by 50%. This is for Tiers 6-9 only. Tiers 1-5 won't move.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 2,797 ★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    They did clarify if t5 no wr change. If tx-t4 50% wr.

    If tier 6 increase to tier 5 rating but tier 5 doesnt fall thus making alot of tier 5 and 6 edge even who gets the tier 5 multiplier come season cause tiers
    Hold a static amount of allainces.

    Say tier 1 is 10 (I'm gonna make up numbers here cause I dont track this data
    Tier 2 is 30
    Tier 3 is 50
    Tier 4 is 100
    Tier 5 is 200
    This is where the issue is( if the cur for tier 5 is war rating 2100 and they cant go down
    Tier 6 is 500
    (The top 150 or so of these allainces can easily grow to 2100)
    Burntier 5 is full leaving 150 allainces with the same tier 5 war rating and a tier 6 multiplier.

    O want clarification on that breakdown
    It’s simple, refer to my first post. And tiers are not a static number they are a % of alliances who participate in AW.
    A percent of total is static unless more allainces form.and play wars there will always be a swt.amount in the tier some out with the same rating.


    You think the number of alliances that participate in AW is static? It fluctuates.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 2,797 ★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    Tier 5 is 5% of the total allaince war metric.
    Say 30000 allys (made up number)

    So max 1500 allainces can be in tier 5 and if they cant go down.
    But tier 6 can join them.
    1500 becomes 1650 but the total amount of allainces didnt change from 30000.

    So 5 percent is locked at 1500. Not 1650 war rating be damned.

    Given 6 wars off season tier 6 (at a 50 percent increase per win but no loss)
    Win half those wars is 3 wins (90 war rating)
    So if tier 5 was 2100 rating then any allaince in tier 6 that was around the 2k mark just tied tier 5 but cant get a spot

    They can be pushed down. You can win an off season war and lose a tier under this system but will be a war away from regaining your position. This has the potential to make those who push up at those cutoff WRs face more difficult matches while giving those who cannot push up easier matches to start the season but at the same time you will not see too wild of a disparity in matches there.

    For being someone who is dgaf about AW and anti-cheat/manipulation you seem to be a little too interested in this change.

    Personally Kabam needs a rule that flat out punishes shellers (the other part of this anticompetitive behavior) to go along with these changes.
  • Cranmer00Cranmer00 Posts: 521 ★★

    They're reducing the amount of War Rating that can either increase or decrease by 50%. This is for Tiers 6-9 only. Tiers 1-5 won't move.

    So this effects no alliances that swap alliances then, which is the Tier 1-2 alliances, because no one drops their war rating under tier 3 for the swap ally in the first place.

    That makes no sense

  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 2,797 ★★★★
    edited July 18
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Tier 5 is 5% of the total allaince war metric.
    Say 30000 allys (made up number)

    So max 1500 allainces can be in tier 5 and if they cant go down.
    But tier 6 can join them.
    1500 becomes 1650 but the total amount of allainces didnt change from 30000.

    So 5 percent is locked at 1500. Not 1650 war rating be damned.

    Given 6 wars off season tier 6 (at a 50 percent increase per win but no loss)
    Win half those wars is 3 wins (90 war rating)
    So if tier 5 was 2100 rating then any allaince in tier 6 that was around the 2k mark just tied tier 5 but cant get a spot

    They can be pushed down. You can win an off season war and lose a tier under this system but will be a war away from regaining your position. This has the potential to make those who push up at those cutoff WRs face more difficult matches while giving those who cannot push up easier matches to start the season but at the same time you will not see too wild of a disparity in matches there.

    For being someone who is dgaf about AW and anti-cheat/manipulation you seem to be a little too interested in this change.

    Personally Kabam needs a rule that flat out punishes shellers (the other part of this anticompetitive behavior) to go along with these changes.
    Im interested in math and logic. More then the game itself honestly.
    People were using the offseason in a destructive manner and something needed to change for the sake of the game. There is your logic, math be damned because a tiny portion of the population is inconvenienced by it while the whole population is allowed to play the off season at their discretion without reservation.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    Cranmer00 said:

    They're reducing the amount of War Rating that can either increase or decrease by 50%. This is for Tiers 6-9 only. Tiers 1-5 won't move.

    So this effects no alliances that swap alliances then, which is the Tier 1-2 alliances, because no one drops their war rating under tier 3 for the swap ally in the first place.

    That makes no sense

    What's being countered is Tanking.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 2,797 ★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Tier 5 is 5% of the total allaince war metric.
    Say 30000 allys (made up number)

    So max 1500 allainces can be in tier 5 and if they cant go down.
    But tier 6 can join them.
    1500 becomes 1650 but the total amount of allainces didnt change from 30000.

    So 5 percent is locked at 1500. Not 1650 war rating be damned.

    Given 6 wars off season tier 6 (at a 50 percent increase per win but no loss)
    Win half those wars is 3 wins (90 war rating)
    So if tier 5 was 2100 rating then any allaince in tier 6 that was around the 2k mark just tied tier 5 but cant get a spot

    They can be pushed down. You can win an off season war and lose a tier under this system but will be a war away from regaining your position. This has the potential to make those who push up at those cutoff WRs face more difficult matches while giving those who cannot push up easier matches to start the season but at the same time you will not see too wild of a disparity in matches there.

    For being someone who is dgaf about AW and anti-cheat/manipulation you seem to be a little too interested in this change.

    Personally Kabam needs a rule that flat out punishes shellers (the other part of this anticompetitive behavior) to go along with these changes.
    Im interested in math and logic. More then the game itself honestly.
    People were using the offseason in a destructive manner and something needed to change for the sake of the game. There is your logic, math be damned because a tiny portion of the population is inconvenienced by it while the whole population is allowed to play the off season at their discretion without reservation.
    Remove the population that abused it from the game.
    Boom hammer dropped.
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Tier 5 is 5% of the total allaince war metric.
    Say 30000 allys (made up number)

    So max 1500 allainces can be in tier 5 and if they cant go down.
    But tier 6 can join them.
    1500 becomes 1650 but the total amount of allainces didnt change from 30000.

    So 5 percent is locked at 1500. Not 1650 war rating be damned.

    Given 6 wars off season tier 6 (at a 50 percent increase per win but no loss)
    Win half those wars is 3 wins (90 war rating)
    So if tier 5 was 2100 rating then any allaince in tier 6 that was around the 2k mark just tied tier 5 but cant get a spot

    They can be pushed down. You can win an off season war and lose a tier under this system but will be a war away from regaining your position. This has the potential to make those who push up at those cutoff WRs face more difficult matches while giving those who cannot push up easier matches to start the season but at the same time you will not see too wild of a disparity in matches there.

    For being someone who is dgaf about AW and anti-cheat/manipulation you seem to be a little too interested in this change.

    Personally Kabam needs a rule that flat out punishes shellers (the other part of this anticompetitive behavior) to go along with these changes.
    Im interested in math and logic. More then the game itself honestly.
    People were using the offseason in a destructive manner and something needed to change for the sake of the game. There is your logic, math be damned because a tiny portion of the population is inconvenienced by it while the whole population is allowed to play the off season at their discretion without reservation.
    Remove the population that abused it from the game.
    Boom hammer dropped.
    How many people are playing this game you developed? Take your iron fist of destruction elsewhere.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    Cranmer00 said:

    They're reducing the amount of War Rating that can either increase or decrease by 50%. This is for Tiers 6-9 only. Tiers 1-5 won't move.

    So this effects no alliances that swap alliances then, which is the Tier 1-2 alliances, because no one drops their war rating under tier 3 for the swap ally in the first place.

    That makes no sense

    What's being countered is Tanking.
    Sigh you dont counter a problem by multiplying a different problem rho that's the issue here.

    This will have literally zero net gain on fairplay
    They need to address both in one motion which I broke down in another thread on how it could be done without even banning people (which for me is blasphemous)
    Multiply what? Shells have been going on a long time now. This isn't multpying anything. If you're trying to say they should allow the system to be manipulated both ways because it's better than one which has been going on indefinitely, I'm going to have to hard disagree. I'm against both for the record. I just don't agree that stopping one from taking place is better than allowing both.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 2,797 ★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Tier 5 is 5% of the total allaince war metric.
    Say 30000 allys (made up number)

    So max 1500 allainces can be in tier 5 and if they cant go down.
    But tier 6 can join them.
    1500 becomes 1650 but the total amount of allainces didnt change from 30000.

    So 5 percent is locked at 1500. Not 1650 war rating be damned.

    Given 6 wars off season tier 6 (at a 50 percent increase per win but no loss)
    Win half those wars is 3 wins (90 war rating)
    So if tier 5 was 2100 rating then any allaince in tier 6 that was around the 2k mark just tied tier 5 but cant get a spot

    They can be pushed down. You can win an off season war and lose a tier under this system but will be a war away from regaining your position. This has the potential to make those who push up at those cutoff WRs face more difficult matches while giving those who cannot push up easier matches to start the season but at the same time you will not see too wild of a disparity in matches there.

    For being someone who is dgaf about AW and anti-cheat/manipulation you seem to be a little too interested in this change.

    Personally Kabam needs a rule that flat out punishes shellers (the other part of this anticompetitive behavior) to go along with these changes.
    Im interested in math and logic. More then the game itself honestly.
    People were using the offseason in a destructive manner and something needed to change for the sake of the game. There is your logic, math be damned because a tiny portion of the population is inconvenienced by it while the whole population is allowed to play the off season at their discretion without reservation.
    Remove the population that abused it from the game.
    Boom hammer dropped.
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Tier 5 is 5% of the total allaince war metric.
    Say 30000 allys (made up number)

    So max 1500 allainces can be in tier 5 and if they cant go down.
    But tier 6 can join them.
    1500 becomes 1650 but the total amount of allainces didnt change from 30000.

    So 5 percent is locked at 1500. Not 1650 war rating be damned.

    Given 6 wars off season tier 6 (at a 50 percent increase per win but no loss)
    Win half those wars is 3 wins (90 war rating)
    So if tier 5 was 2100 rating then any allaince in tier 6 that was around the 2k mark just tied tier 5 but cant get a spot

    They can be pushed down. You can win an off season war and lose a tier under this system but will be a war away from regaining your position. This has the potential to make those who push up at those cutoff WRs face more difficult matches while giving those who cannot push up easier matches to start the season but at the same time you will not see too wild of a disparity in matches there.

    For being someone who is dgaf about AW and anti-cheat/manipulation you seem to be a little too interested in this change.

    Personally Kabam needs a rule that flat out punishes shellers (the other part of this anticompetitive behavior) to go along with these changes.
    Im interested in math and logic. More then the game itself honestly.
    People were using the offseason in a destructive manner and something needed to change for the sake of the game. There is your logic, math be damned because a tiny portion of the population is inconvenienced by it while the whole population is allowed to play the off season at their discretion without reservation.
    Remove the population that abused it from the game.
    Boom hammer dropped.
    How many people are playing this game you developed? Take your iron fist of destruction elsewhere.
    K turn a blind eye to manipulation nobody needs to be punished ever.

    That's the recipe for success
    Nothing of that sort was said and frankly removing the easiest form of manipulation by locking/reducing WR in the offseason shows they are looking right at it and not with eyes closed as you suggest. Irrational. Thought you were a fan of logic?

    Don’t think you’re accounting for the logistics of what you want to see happen.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    To be honest, if anything, stopping one from happening highlights the other to be dealt with. Progress, not perfection.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    This is the only community I've ever seen that was this nice to cheaters.
    Sorry they have no place in the world.
    Fair play or no play

    Who's being nice? One problem is being dealt with. Which is a heck of a lot better than not.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    This is the only community I've ever seen that was this nice to cheaters.
    Sorry they have no place in the world.
    Fair play or no play

    Who's being nice? One problem is being dealt with. Which is a heck of a lot better than not.
    Let's see no punishment for 10 seasons of abuse seems pretty nice to me.

    Like coming home to find your wife sleeping with your brother and your response is so where should we get dinner
    So what do you propose? Ban them all?
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 2,797 ★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    This is the only community I've ever seen that was this nice to cheaters.
    Sorry they have no place in the world.
    Fair play or no play

    Who's being nice? One problem is being dealt with. Which is a heck of a lot better than not.
    Let's see no punishment for 10 seasons of abuse seems pretty nice to me.

    Like coming home to find your wife sleeping with your brother and your response is so where should we get dinner
    So what do you propose? Ban them all?
    Ban cheaters? Oh the horrors seriously what's wrong with removing cancer?

    Even if not perm bans. Yes ban from aq for a season even letting them play other aspects whatever but this oh cheat cheat cheat no punishment is a terrible plan
    Again you are displaying an ignorance of the logistics you propose.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,471 ★★★★★
    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Drooped2 said:

    This is the only community I've ever seen that was this nice to cheaters.
    Sorry they have no place in the world.
    Fair play or no play

    Who's being nice? One problem is being dealt with. Which is a heck of a lot better than not.
    Let's see no punishment for 10 seasons of abuse seems pretty nice to me.

    Like coming home to find your wife sleeping with your brother and your response is so where should we get dinner
    So what do you propose? Ban them all?
    Ban cheaters? Oh the horrors seriously what's wrong with removing cancer?

    Even if not perm bans. Yes ban from aq for a season even letting them play other aspects whatever but this oh cheat cheat cheat no punishment is a terrible plan
    There's a difference you're not seeing. Shell Alliances are harder to address. With Tanking, that's an intentional violation. You can see that people are manipulating War Rating and causing adverse effects to the system. With Shells, people can join and leave whatever Ally they choose. Addressing the issue is more complicated because of how subversive the manipulation is. Don't get me wrong. I've suggested ideas to resolve this. However, when you start punishing people for leaving Allies, that opens up a whole other can of worms.
Sign In or Register to comment.