Also, no offense to Kabam, but we all know that issues can and do occur. You really want to trust the banning process to an automated algorithm with no dispute for actions?
Computers wouldn’t be biased to protect spenders accts I trust a computer far more then I trust the guy getting paid to look the other way yes
You must be new.
Nah I quit like a year ago over **** like this came back maybe 3 weeks ago and tada still the same ****
Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won
It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.
The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.
I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.
But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.
And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?
I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.
If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?
How on earth does that make sense to you?
Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
Alliances get free wins from other alliances tanking, not bothering actually competing, etc... all the time. It's not like every result outside of matching cheaters is fair to surrounding alliances. If those don't matter enough to be addressed, then neither does awarding wins to alliances that lost to docked opponents
That's not free Wins as a result of the system. That's Alliances manipulating it. While I'm with you on the problem it creates (I've said all along it should be separate from off-season), that's not Kabam giving a free Win. Bottom line is there's no reward for not breaking the rules. I get the reward of not going to jail for not robbing a bank.
I didn't say it was Kabam giving free wins. They're free wins regardless and have the same exact impact. They either matter or they don't.
Also, no offense to Kabam, but we all know that issues can and do occur. You really want to trust the banning process to an automated algorithm with no dispute for actions?
Computers wouldn’t be biased to protect spenders accts I trust a computer far more then I trust the guy getting paid to look the other way yes
You must be new.
Nah I quit like a year ago over **** like this came back maybe 3 weeks ago and tada still the same ****
What I meant by that is there have been many issues. Things can go wrong. When you say you trust a computer, there have been a number of things that have happened because of said computer. While it's unfortunate, it's possible. That's not something you can trust to be responsible for bans.
Also, no offense to Kabam, but we all know that issues can and do occur. You really want to trust the banning process to an automated algorithm with no dispute for actions?
Computers wouldn’t be biased to protect spenders accts I trust a computer far more then I trust the guy getting paid to look the other way yes
You must be new.
Nah I quit like a year ago over **** like this came back maybe 3 weeks ago and tada still the same ****
What I meant by that is there have been many issues. Things can go wrong. When you say you trust a computer, there have been a number of things that have happened because of said computer. While it's unfortunate, it's possible. That's not something you can trust to be responsible for bans.
Im not saying a computer is perfect but it’s better then someone getting paid by the cheaters for sure.
All cheating alliances should have their season point total slashed back to zero and removed from leaderbord. Entire alliance get zero season rewards. It's the only way to stop the cheating.
I disagree because not every member of the alliance is aware that other members of the alliance were cheating
All cheating alliances should have their season point total slashed back to zero and removed from leaderbord. Entire alliance get zero season rewards. It's the only way to stop the cheating.
I disagree because not every member of the alliance is aware that other members of the alliance were cheating
They benefit from the cheat they deserve to be punished for the cheat. That’s an actual fair way to address it. Otherwise I can run 29 legit players and cheat to win on my alt that I don’t care about
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but the solution seems like it should be very straight forward.
Take five hypothetical alliances, A through E.
Alliance A finishes the season in 1st place. Alliance B in 2nd, Alliance C in 3rd, and so on.
If Alliance A is found to have a single member who cheated, that member is banned (some number of days for a first offense, that number of days time two for a second offense, and permanently for a third offense), and Alliance A forfeits all season rewards, effectively finishing in a new bracket without season rewards (simply moving them to last still yields rewards which they shouldn't receive).
Now that Alliance A has moved down, each Alliance beneath them moves up, making Alliance B the new 1st place alliance. If Alliance D, once in 4th place at the beginning of this scenario, now in 3rd, was also found to have a cheater, they move to the cheater bracket as well. Alliance E, originally in 5th place, is now in 3rd.
In this scenario, no one beneath a cheating alliance is penalized, alleviating @DNA3000 concern.
These alliances found to have cheaters should NOT have their war rating changed, as that would effectively make them steam roll all their competition in the next season.
To the concern raised by @Worknprogress regarding intentional tanking, perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems this is a bigger concern during off-season, and as others have pointed out, you can simply freeze war ratings in the off-season. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than the current one.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but the solution seems like it should be very straight forward.
Take five hypothetical alliances, A through E.
Alliance A finishes the season in 1st place. Alliance B in 2nd, Alliance C in 3rd, and so on.
If Alliance A is found to have a single member who cheated, that member is banned (some number of days for a first offense, that number of days time two for a second offense, and permanently for a third offense), and Alliance A forfeits all season rewards, effectively finishing in a new bracket without season rewards (simply moving them to last still yields rewards which they shouldn't receive).
Now that Alliance A has moved down, each Alliance beneath them moves up, making Alliance B the new 1st place alliance. If Alliance D, once in 4th place at the beginning of this scenario, now in 3rd, was also found to have a cheater, they move to the cheater bracket as well. Alliance E, originally in 5th place, is now in 3rd.
In this scenario, no one beneath a cheating alliance is penalized, alleviating @DNA3000 concern.
This addresses the question of penalizing cheating alliances. The other half is what to do with the people they cheated against. Let's use your hypothettical: we have five alliances, A through E. At the end of the season they finish A B C D E. Then we discover that in one war A cheated against E. How do we fix that?
Here's a simple way to do this, that has a problem. A should be punished. We dock A's points and see where A places. Let's say that when we do that, A ends up below C and above D in terms of total points. We're lowering A, so we move everyone else up. The new order becomes B C A D E.
Now we look at E. E lost a fight against a cheater. So E is lower than it likely should be. We can never know where E should have landed, or for that matter all the secondary and tertiary ripple effects of that loss. But we can try to at least provide some remedy to E. So we give E compensatory points to partially compensate them for having faced a cheater. Those extra points would cause E to go up in rankings. Suppose that with those compensatory points E now falls between B and C. So the new order would be B E C A D.
Notice that in this scenario, D went from fourth to fifth (last) place. That's a problem. No one should get less rewards when you try to offer compensation for cheating. Remember: we aren't "correcting" the scores. We can't do that, because that is an unknowable. We are *compensating* the alliances who had to face cheaters, while penalizing the cheating alliances for being cheaters, and trying to not hurt anyone else in the process. No one should come away with less, except for the cheaters.
So how I would do this is different. The way I would do it is first, I would *eliminate* all the cheating alliances from the score board. So A B C D E becomes B C D E. Then I dock A's points by however much I want, and I look to see where A would have placed in the order. If A's points are now between C and D, then if C is in second place I give A third place rewards. Notice that I'm not changing the order, and D is still getting third place rewards. A is being removed, and A's rewards drop from first place to third place, but everyone else behaves as if A doesn't exist at all. No matter where we calculate A to be, A never displaces anyone.
Now we look at E. E was cheated against, so E should get some compensation for that. We compensate them by adding some specified amount of compensatory points to E, and then we see where that would place E. If we see that E now has between B and C's points, then we award E second place rewards. Again, we don't bump C or D. C still gets second place rewards.
Under this scenario, every alliance that cheats gets less points (and presumably less rewards) than they would otherwise have gotten, so they are punished for cheating. No alliance that plays fair (presumable) gets less than they would otherwise have gotten. And every alliance that has to face a cheater gets compensated by getting more points, and presumably more rewards as a result.
Usually these situations aren't just a secret decision to run a Mod and get a few kills. The chances of Alliances not being aware are slim. Rarely would it be some secretive thing. If Joe Smith in my Ally is taking down heavy Nodes without losing Health, Imma know.
I agree, if you screen people properly it is obvious when guys are moding.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but the solution seems like it should be very straight forward.
Take five hypothetical alliances, A through E.
Alliance A finishes the season in 1st place. Alliance B in 2nd, Alliance C in 3rd, and so on.
If Alliance A is found to have a single member who cheated, that member is banned (some number of days for a first offense, that number of days time two for a second offense, and permanently for a third offense), and Alliance A forfeits all season rewards, effectively finishing in a new bracket without season rewards (simply moving them to last still yields rewards which they shouldn't receive).
Now that Alliance A has moved down, each Alliance beneath them moves up, making Alliance B the new 1st place alliance. If Alliance D, once in 4th place at the beginning of this scenario, now in 3rd, was also found to have a cheater, they move to the cheater bracket as well. Alliance E, originally in 5th place, is now in 3rd.
In this scenario, no one beneath a cheating alliance is penalized, alleviating @DNA3000 concern.
This addresses the question of penalizing cheating alliances. The other half is what to do with the people they cheated against. Let's use your hypothettical: we have five alliances, A through E. At the end of the season they finish A B C D E. Then we discover that in one war A cheated against E. How do we fix that?
Here's a simple way to do this, that has a problem. A should be punished. We dock A's points and see where A places. Let's say that when we do that, A ends up below C and above D in terms of total points. We're lowering A, so we move everyone else up. The new order becomes B C A D E.
Now we look at E. E lost a fight against a cheater. So E is lower than it likely should be. We can never know where E should have landed, or for that matter all the secondary and tertiary ripple effects of that loss. But we can try to at least provide some remedy to E. So we give E compensatory points to partially compensate them for having faced a cheater. Those extra points would cause E to go up in rankings. Suppose that with those compensatory points E now falls between B and C. So the new order would be B E C A D.
Notice that in this scenario, D went from fourth to fifth (last) place. That's a problem. No one should get less rewards when you try to offer compensation for cheating. Remember: we aren't "correcting" the scores. We can't do that, because that is an unknowable. We are *compensating* the alliances who had to face cheaters, while penalizing the cheating alliances for being cheaters, and trying to not hurt anyone else in the process. No one should come away with less, except for the cheaters.
So how I would do this is different. The way I would do it is first, I would *eliminate* all the cheating alliances from the score board. So A B C D E becomes B C D E. Then I dock A's points by however much I want, and I look to see where A would have placed in the order. If A's points are now between C and D, then if C is in second place I give A third place rewards. Notice that I'm not changing the order, and D is still getting third place rewards. A is being removed, and A's rewards drop from first place to third place, but everyone else behaves as if A doesn't exist at all. No matter where we calculate A to be, A never displaces anyone.
Now we look at E. E was cheated against, so E should get some compensation for that. We compensate them by adding some specified amount of compensatory points to E, and then we see where that would place E. If we see that E now has between B and C's points, then we award E second place rewards. Again, we don't bump C or D. C still gets second place rewards.
Under this scenario, every alliance that cheats gets less points (and presumably less rewards) than they would otherwise have gotten, so they are punished for cheating. No alliance that plays fair (presumable) gets less than they would otherwise have gotten. And every alliance that has to face a cheater gets compensated by getting more points, and presumably more rewards as a result.
Agreed except one flaw of a cheated in a way a should be removed from the rewards system Making the new order bede
So if a gold medal winner in the Olympics gets caught juicing they don’t get moved to the silver medal spot. Same should apply here. You cheat you lose that seasons rewards plain and simple
Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won
It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.
The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.
I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.
But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.
And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?
I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.
If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?
How on earth does that make sense to you?
Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
Uhmm everyone always assumes they were cheated now too. You could easily automate these bans and adjustments. Kabam is and always has been weak on tos violations and fair play
You can't automate them. You have to verify the data. As for being weak, I'd have to say I disagree.
Computers can verify data you don’t need people to look at it at all.
And yes very very weak on cheaters historically.
There is always bias in data. Which leads to biased algorithms.
There is never bias in data. The bias is in our collection, interpretation, and thereby our use of data.
Technically speaking, there can be corrupted data, but it's rare in cases where it's compiled and analyzed repeatedly in these cases. The issue here is the algorithm, which undoubtedly can fail and the possibility of banning people mistakenly is present. That's not something you should ever really leave as an automated process.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but the solution seems like it should be very straight forward.
Take five hypothetical alliances, A through E.
Alliance A finishes the season in 1st place. Alliance B in 2nd, Alliance C in 3rd, and so on.
If Alliance A is found to have a single member who cheated, that member is banned (some number of days for a first offense, that number of days time two for a second offense, and permanently for a third offense), and Alliance A forfeits all season rewards, effectively finishing in a new bracket without season rewards (simply moving them to last still yields rewards which they shouldn't receive).
Now that Alliance A has moved down, each Alliance beneath them moves up, making Alliance B the new 1st place alliance. If Alliance D, once in 4th place at the beginning of this scenario, now in 3rd, was also found to have a cheater, they move to the cheater bracket as well. Alliance E, originally in 5th place, is now in 3rd.
In this scenario, no one beneath a cheating alliance is penalized, alleviating @DNA3000 concern.
This addresses the question of penalizing cheating alliances. The other half is what to do with the people they cheated against. Let's use your hypothettical: we have five alliances, A through E. At the end of the season they finish A B C D E. Then we discover that in one war A cheated against E. How do we fix that?
Here's a simple way to do this, that has a problem. A should be punished. We dock A's points and see where A places. Let's say that when we do that, A ends up below C and above D in terms of total points. We're lowering A, so we move everyone else up. The new order becomes B C A D E.
Now we look at E. E lost a fight against a cheater. So E is lower than it likely should be. We can never know where E should have landed, or for that matter all the secondary and tertiary ripple effects of that loss. But we can try to at least provide some remedy to E. So we give E compensatory points to partially compensate them for having faced a cheater. Those extra points would cause E to go up in rankings. Suppose that with those compensatory points E now falls between B and C. So the new order would be B E C A D.
Notice that in this scenario, D went from fourth to fifth (last) place. That's a problem. No one should get less rewards when you try to offer compensation for cheating. Remember: we aren't "correcting" the scores. We can't do that, because that is an unknowable. We are *compensating* the alliances who had to face cheaters, while penalizing the cheating alliances for being cheaters, and trying to not hurt anyone else in the process. No one should come away with less, except for the cheaters.
So how I would do this is different. The way I would do it is first, I would *eliminate* all the cheating alliances from the score board. So A B C D E becomes B C D E. Then I dock A's points by however much I want, and I look to see where A would have placed in the order. If A's points are now between C and D, then if C is in second place I give A third place rewards. Notice that I'm not changing the order, and D is still getting third place rewards. A is being removed, and A's rewards drop from first place to third place, but everyone else behaves as if A doesn't exist at all. No matter where we calculate A to be, A never displaces anyone.
Now we look at E. E was cheated against, so E should get some compensation for that. We compensate them by adding some specified amount of compensatory points to E, and then we see where that would place E. If we see that E now has between B and C's points, then we award E second place rewards. Again, we don't bump C or D. C still gets second place rewards.
Under this scenario, every alliance that cheats gets less points (and presumably less rewards) than they would otherwise have gotten, so they are punished for cheating. No alliance that plays fair (presumable) gets less than they would otherwise have gotten. And every alliance that has to face a cheater gets compensated by getting more points, and presumably more rewards as a result.
Agreed except one flaw of a cheated in a way a should be removed from the rewards system Making the new order bede
A no longer exists
I wouldn't do that for the simple reason that unless I know the entire alliance was cheating, I wouldn't nullify all of the rewards from all of the members of the alliance. This is a compromise between letting the alliance benefit from cheating by not penalizing them at all (beyond a member getting banned) and allowing one person to completely evaporate everyone's rewards in an alliance. It is an imperfect balance, and you could argue both ways, but that's how I would attempt to balance those two issues.
Just cause they cheated and you lost that war. Doesnt mean 100% that if they didn't cheat you would've won
It's great to see some alliances get stung again for cheating but I still don't think this should matter. I don't care if an alliance would have gotten obliterated in a straight up fight, if one of the two gets caught and punished for cheating, that should be an automatic win for the other. I'll never agree with how this is handled
if it was just that war, I would agree. But during seasons, handing more points to an alliance than they would have gotten doesn't just prevent them from falling in the standings, it actually causes them to rise higher than they would have otherwise. Which means every single alliance they bump downward is now a new victim of this cheating. If we could magically know what the points would have been had the cheating not taken place, awarding those points would leave every alliance where they should be. But handing an alliance more points because they were the "victim" creates new victims. It is just an unfortunate problem that alliances who fight cheaters score less than they should, but we can't just give them more points if it will cause other alliance who did nothing wrong to place lower than they would have otherwise.
The only way to remedy this in a way that doesn't create new victims that I can think of is with a special post-season correction mechanism. What you do is calculate everyone's season rewards at the end of the season. Then freeze their brackets. Every alliance that doesn't cheat and did not face a cheater is now guaranteed to get *at least* the rewards they currently place for. Now look at every cheating alliance and penalize them. If this drops them to a lower bracket, their rewards go down. If this bumps an alliance upward into a higher bracket, their rewards go up to the new bracket, even if that means there are more alliances in that bracket than normal. Now award compensation points to every alliance that faced them and lost. If this raises them to a higher bracket their rewards go up. Everyone else remains the same, again even if these adjustments alter the cutoffs for the various brackets.
I'd support this, because no innocent bystanders get penalized during cheating corrections. Everyone gets the rewards they would have gotten if there was no cheating or better to a first order approximation (you can't literally know how an entire season would go if cheating was eliminated, that would require a time machine). But I wouldn't hand points to cheaters without this mechanism, because it could cause other alliances to lose rewards that had nothing to do with cheating. I wouldn't trade the one for the other.
It's not creating new victims, that's ridiculous. It basically becomes a forfeit like when alliances don't place defenses when tanking. No one is going in and removing the winners points in those wars.
But when the punishment comes at the end of the season, there ARE potential ramifications you need to consider. DNA makes a good point. Another consideration was had the other alliance won that war instead of the cheaters, their AWR would go up and they would face tougher opponents. They could win that war as well, but they are less likely to.
And as far as alliances bumping other alliances down, we were frozen in our bracket for the last war, so we decided to rush the boss in order to save some members items for the last war. Our decision may have changed if we had a chance at a higher bracket. Alternatively, what happens if your suggestion causes us to now be in a lower bracket?
I'm fine where we are to be clear, but that is still something to consider by not doing the changes in real time. As far as I can tell, freezing rankings first is the best solution to remedying the alliance that lost while ensuring that no other parties that played fairly are adversely affected.
Okay then, you need to also go through and correct every war an alliance matches against someone that doesn't place defense, boss rushes bc they don't care about war in general or that specific result, is tanking for next season, etc... bc all of those things have the same exact effect as just giving the opponents of docked alliances the win and even more in most cases.
If that not something people think is worth doing or needs to be done, then that whole point is basically moot.
One is a group of people who broke the rules, and another is a group of people who play within the rules in a less competitive manner than others would like them to play. How on earth do you find these comparable?
So you're okay with people getting free win bonuses from alliances that aren't cheating but think it's out of order to give them to alliances that lost to cheaters?
How on earth does that make sense to you?
Wow the lengths some people go to defend or protect cheaters amazes me. 1 war 1 cheater should result in the entire allaince being banned from season rewards at the least
What about anything I said leads you to the ridiculous conclusion I want to protect cheaters? I want to give the alliances that lost to them the win along with banning the cheating alliances....
Giving free Wins doesn't work either. That's defaulting up the ladder.
There are tons of free wins given all throughout the season.
Free Wins given? Not sure I follow. Giving Wins to Alliances as the result of others cheating is a Pandora's Box. You can't assume they would have won, and Rewards are based on performance. Proof comes retroactively, and that's just a nightmare of adjustments. Not to mention the Forum and Support would be bombarded if word got out it was a free Win. Everyone and their dog would see a cheater. Allegedly.
Uhmm everyone always assumes they were cheated now too. You could easily automate these bans and adjustments. Kabam is and always has been weak on tos violations and fair play
You can't automate them. You have to verify the data. As for being weak, I'd have to say I disagree.
Computers can verify data you don’t need people to look at it at all.
And yes very very weak on cheaters historically.
There is always bias in data. Which leads to biased algorithms.
There is never bias in data. The bias is in our collection, interpretation, and thereby our use of data.
Technically speaking, there can be corrupted data, but it's rare in cases where it's compiled and analyzed repeatedly in these cases. The issue here is the algorithm, which undoubtedly can fail and the possibility of banning people mistakenly is present. That's not something you should ever really leave as an automated process.
Just to add an example, Facebook is a mess now. They have algorithms for banning. They've become increasingly diligent over the years, but more so since Mark was on the hot seat for not closing a Group associated with a shooter. So new regulations have come into play. Problem is, people are getting Zucked for the most benign things, and there's no way to dispute it.
Hi All! Discussing account actions in the forums is not allowed. If you were banned or know of someone who was banned, you can direct them here for further information.
Comments
Take five hypothetical alliances, A through E.
Alliance A finishes the season in 1st place.
Alliance B in 2nd, Alliance C in 3rd, and so on.
If Alliance A is found to have a single member who cheated, that member is banned (some number of days for a first offense, that number of days time two for a second offense, and permanently for a third offense), and Alliance A forfeits all season rewards, effectively finishing in a new bracket without season rewards (simply moving them to last still yields rewards which they shouldn't receive).
Now that Alliance A has moved down, each Alliance beneath them moves up, making Alliance B the new 1st place alliance. If Alliance D, once in 4th place at the beginning of this scenario, now in 3rd, was also found to have a cheater, they move to the cheater bracket as well. Alliance E, originally in 5th place, is now in 3rd.
In this scenario, no one beneath a cheating alliance is penalized, alleviating @DNA3000 concern.
These alliances found to have cheaters should NOT have their war rating changed, as that would effectively make them steam roll all their competition in the next season.
To the concern raised by @Worknprogress regarding intentional tanking, perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems this is a bigger concern during off-season, and as others have pointed out, you can simply freeze war ratings in the off-season. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than the current one.
I'm not saying this because we just missed Gold 1 by 21 places...
Here's a simple way to do this, that has a problem. A should be punished. We dock A's points and see where A places. Let's say that when we do that, A ends up below C and above D in terms of total points. We're lowering A, so we move everyone else up. The new order becomes B C A D E.
Now we look at E. E lost a fight against a cheater. So E is lower than it likely should be. We can never know where E should have landed, or for that matter all the secondary and tertiary ripple effects of that loss. But we can try to at least provide some remedy to E. So we give E compensatory points to partially compensate them for having faced a cheater. Those extra points would cause E to go up in rankings. Suppose that with those compensatory points E now falls between B and C. So the new order would be B E C A D.
Notice that in this scenario, D went from fourth to fifth (last) place. That's a problem. No one should get less rewards when you try to offer compensation for cheating. Remember: we aren't "correcting" the scores. We can't do that, because that is an unknowable. We are *compensating* the alliances who had to face cheaters, while penalizing the cheating alliances for being cheaters, and trying to not hurt anyone else in the process. No one should come away with less, except for the cheaters.
So how I would do this is different. The way I would do it is first, I would *eliminate* all the cheating alliances from the score board. So A B C D E becomes B C D E. Then I dock A's points by however much I want, and I look to see where A would have placed in the order. If A's points are now between C and D, then if C is in second place I give A third place rewards. Notice that I'm not changing the order, and D is still getting third place rewards. A is being removed, and A's rewards drop from first place to third place, but everyone else behaves as if A doesn't exist at all. No matter where we calculate A to be, A never displaces anyone.
Now we look at E. E was cheated against, so E should get some compensation for that. We compensate them by adding some specified amount of compensatory points to E, and then we see where that would place E. If we see that E now has between B and C's points, then we award E second place rewards. Again, we don't bump C or D. C still gets second place rewards.
Under this scenario, every alliance that cheats gets less points (and presumably less rewards) than they would otherwise have gotten, so they are punished for cheating. No alliance that plays fair (presumable) gets less than they would otherwise have gotten. And every alliance that has to face a cheater gets compensated by getting more points, and presumably more rewards as a result.
Making the new order bede
A no longer exists