Locking down Coalition Rosters during Events

Sinirli

Hi Everyone,

I couldn't find another thread specifically for this topic so started this one. Apologies if it already exists.

I am of the opinion that Coalition rosters should be locked during events so that substitutions cannot take place mid-event to boost scores. I have heard that this has occurred in other games.

If we don't do this I believe eventually some Coalitions will find ways to exploit the system (if they aren't already) and then everyone will begin doing it.

If you are running a relay race and one guy falls over that's just bad luck, you shouldn't be able to helicopter in a replacement.

Coalition teams are supposed to consist of 20 people only. In the interests of fair play and competition changing the roster shouldn't be allowed during Events.

Whats everyone's elses thoughts on this?

For or against?

Ohboy

Sinirli wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I couldn't find another thread specifically for this topic so started this one. Apologies if it already exists.

I am of the opinion that Coalition rosters should be locked during events so that substitutions cannot take place mid-event to boost scores. I have heard that this has occurred in other games.

If we don't do this I believe eventually some Coalitions will find ways to exploit the system (if they aren't already) and then everyone will begin doing it.

If you are running a relay race and one guy falls over that's just bad luck, you shouldn't be able to helicopter in a replacement.

Coalition teams are supposed to consist of 20 people only. In the interests of fair play and competition changing the roster shouldn't be allowed during Events.

Whats everyone's elses thoughts on this?

For or against?

No point. The issue is coalition being unofficially bigger than 20 players, so they are always at full strength even if some players want to take a break or can't make an event.

There's no way to prevent this short of locking up rosters on a time basis, like monthly. Even then it's not a complete solution.

Since there's no way to convince people not to do this by themselves, the best alternative is to even the field by increasing coalition sizes and only counting the scores of the first X players, giving every coalition an official reserve team.

Sinirli

Certainly, overhauling the Coalition system as suggested would be much better. That should be posted somewhere, (I wasn't sure where to post this one, Events, Coalitions, Suggestion & Feedback?) i would rate it.

But I'm not entirely convinced that locking the rosters is pointless. Seems an easy change to implement in the short-term and would at least prevent rotating in players during events with full node charges to inflate total scores.

bk1234

Coalitions who operate with integrity wouldn't take advantage of this -- but thanks for putting bad ideas in the heads of other coalitions.

As someone who works with a lot of players and a lot of coalitions, you're not considering a bigger picture.

First, some players can't join an event on time. If they aren't in a regular coalition and just want to jump in and play, they aren't going to have any good options.

Second, on every communication channel there is for this game, you see coalitions looking for players because it's mid event, and someone ghosted or had a life emergencies -- except the top 10 -- they handle their rosters and have backup plans. Locking rosters gives an unfair advantage to coalitions with outside communication sources and good organization and hurts coalitions who are trying to become more competitive.

I have several more reasons -- but it sucks to type mobile on this forum and I have to get back to the 96 game grind --- because it's really real at this point.

Ohboy

bken1234 wrote:

Coalitions who operate with integrity wouldn't take advantage of this -- but thanks for putting bad ideas in the heads of other coalitions.

As someone who works with a lot of players and a lot of coalitions, you're not considering a bigger picture.

First, some players can't join an event on time. If they aren't in a regular coalition and just want to jump in and play, they aren't going to have any good options.

Second, on every communication channel there is for this game, you see coalitions looking for players because it's mid event, and someone ghosted or had a life emergencies -- except the top 10 -- they handle their rosters and have backup plans. Locking rosters gives an unfair advantage to coalitions with outside communication sources and good organization and hurts coalitions who are trying to become more competitive.

I have several more reasons -- but it sucks to type mobile on this forum and I have to get back to the 96 game grind --- because it's really real at this point.

Will I get flamed again for pointing out irony?

OP : action A is unfair and should be stopped
You : stopping it would be unfair to the people who have made good plans to do action A.

In any case locking down mid event is pointless because there's already a penalty for someone joining in mid event... Their contribution to the coalition starts at point of entry, not at the start of event. So any coalition who has people changing in mid event suffers a loss of potential points.

bk1234

Ohboy wrote:

bken1234 wrote:

Coalitions who operate with integrity wouldn't take advantage of this -- but thanks for putting bad ideas in the heads of other coalitions.

As someone who works with a lot of players and a lot of coalitions, you're not considering a bigger picture.

First, some players can't join an event on time. If they aren't in a regular coalition and just want to jump in and play, they aren't going to have any good options.

Second, on every communication channel there is for this game, you see coalitions looking for players because it's mid event, and someone ghosted or had a life emergencies -- except the top 10 -- they handle their rosters and have backup plans. Locking rosters gives an unfair advantage to coalitions with outside communication sources and good organization and hurts coalitions who are trying to become more competitive.

I have several more reasons -- but it sucks to type mobile on this forum and I have to get back to the 96 game grind --- because it's really real at this point.

Will I get flamed again for pointing out irony?

OP : action A is unfair and should be stopped
You : stopping it would be unfair to the people who have made good plans to do action A.

In any case locking down mid event is pointless because there's already a penalty for someone joining in mid event... Their contribution to the coalition starts at point of entry, not at the start of event. So any coalition who has people changing in mid event suffers a loss of potential points.

Again, do you ever have anything constructive or positive to say?

But in this case you are wrong. The fear of the masses is that people will play a 20+ player roster. Ie they will have one player the first 24 hours and then a second player come in with full nodes for the second 24 hours. This is an advantage as you start with 15 games versus 3.

However one of those two players would not get rewards.

Also it's unethical and basically a tinykitty thing to do -- and I hope that people respect this game more than to force such an action that would hurt new players and struggling coalitions.

Note: tinykitty was typed -- I'm my own censor.

BruceWayneDK

The points don't disappear when you leave a coalition mid event. It's a major loophole that needs to be closed plain and simple. No other game I've ever played has allowed roster churning during an event. Either the players points need to leave with them or rosters need to lock at start of event.

Pointing out a loophole in a game is what the community is supposed to do. This is a loophole. If you enjoy this game you should want a fair and level playing field. Just to exploit this and prove the point, maybe 4 of us should prove how you can beat a 20 person coalition? It's free charges, it's something that can be exploited and unfortunately the world doesn't work on scouts honor.

If it's not happening now it will. If the game is played long enough someone will figure it out. Let's cut it down now rather than later. What's the big deal if a player misses one event in a specific coalition?

If the rosters don't lock then the players points should be deducted from the coalition when they leave. That eliminates the advantage of roster churning. I'm not sure why the players wouldn't want to eliminate a potential exploitation.

majincob

BruceWayneDK wrote:

Just to exploit this and prove the point, maybe 4 of us should prove how you can beat a 20 person coalition?

I hate to nit-pick, but you don't take your previously earned points to a new coalition when you switch over, so you need more than 20 people to get higher than max score. Or am I missing something?

Irgy

I think the argument between draconian rule and abusable system is a false dichotomy. What they should do is fix the potential problem in a way that doesn't cause inconvenience to everyone in the process. Locking the coalitions for the whole event is a bad solution, especially considering some events run back to back and there's an event on as often as there isn't. More useful than arguing about it would be to come up with solutions that are better than either option.

Making the score the sum of the players in the coalition at the end of the event, rather than accumulated as you go, would solve a lot of problems. Though it would create a new problem that people could all rearrange themselves at the end of the event. You could solve that problem though by also requiring people to have been in the coalition for more than half the duration of the event in order for their score to count.

Irgy

majincob wrote:

BruceWayneDK wrote:

Just to exploit this and prove the point, maybe 4 of us should prove how you can beat a 20 person coalition?

I hate to nit-pick, but you don't take your previously earned points to a new coalition when you switch over, so you need more than 20 people to get higher than max score. Or am I missing something?

I'm pretty sure you don't, and that this is the point this thread was about, though they were trying to avoid spelling it out for everyone.

BruceWayneDK

Irgy wrote:

majincob wrote:

BruceWayneDK wrote:

Just to exploit this and prove the point, maybe 4 of us should prove how you can beat a 20 person coalition?

I hate to nit-pick, but you don't take your previously earned points to a new coalition when you switch over, so you need more than 20 people to get higher than max score. Or am I missing something?

I'm pretty sure you don't, and that this is the point this thread was about, though they were trying to avoid spelling it out for everyone.

Yes...I'm trying not to spell it out step by step. I just noticed something during an event and then tested it myself. It's really not an exploit to me to rotate someone in for a better prize; that's on the coalition and their leadership. Im pretty sure it's a simple fix to attach the points to the player. They stay or go with the player and that should solve the exploit. This way rosters won't lock and the benefit to joining a coalition mid event is for the individual player.

Corn_Noodles

BruceWayneDK wrote:

If the rosters don't lock then the players points should be deducted from the coalition when they leave. That eliminates the advantage of roster churning. I'm not sure why the players wouldn't want to eliminate a potential exploitation.

I agree with this. If you leaving during an event, the points you contributed for that event should disappear and they should not transfer to any new coalition you join mid-event.

Ohboy

bken1234 wrote:

Ohboy wrote:

bken1234 wrote:

Coalitions who operate with integrity wouldn't take advantage of this -- but thanks for putting bad ideas in the heads of other coalitions.

As someone who works with a lot of players and a lot of coalitions, you're not considering a bigger picture.

First, some players can't join an event on time. If they aren't in a regular coalition and just want to jump in and play, they aren't going to have any good options.

Second, on every communication channel there is for this game, you see coalitions looking for players because it's mid event, and someone ghosted or had a life emergencies -- except the top 10 -- they handle their rosters and have backup plans. Locking rosters gives an unfair advantage to coalitions with outside communication sources and good organization and hurts coalitions who are trying to become more competitive.

I have several more reasons -- but it sucks to type mobile on this forum and I have to get back to the 96 game grind --- because it's really real at this point.

Will I get flamed again for pointing out irony?

OP : action A is unfair and should be stopped
You : stopping it would be unfair to the people who have made good plans to do action A.

In any case locking down mid event is pointless because there's already a penalty for someone joining in mid event... Their contribution to the coalition starts at point of entry, not at the start of event. So any coalition who has people changing in mid event suffers a loss of potential points.

Again, do you ever have anything constructive or positive to say?

But in this case you are wrong. The fear of the masses is that people will play a 20+ player roster. Ie they will have one player the first 24 hours and then a second player come in with full nodes for the second 24 hours. This is an advantage as you start with 15 games versus 3.

However one of those two players would not get rewards.

Also it's unethical and basically a tinykitty thing to do -- and I hope that people respect this game more than to force such an action that would hurt new players and struggling coalitions.

Note: tinykitty was typed -- I'm my own censor.

Ah I get it now. I always thought a player leaving meant the coalition lost his points.

So, what's your ethics safeguard against scoring more than a potential coalition max score when you sub in players mid game?

bk1234

Ohboy wrote:

Ah I get it now. I always thought a player leaving meant the coalition lost his points.

So, what's your ethics safeguard against scoring more than a potential coalition max score when you sub in players mid game?

In my land of sunshine and rainbows, people just wouldn't do it -- but I've recently found out that some coalitions nerf their decks for each other, so my ethical utopia is a bit blurred at the moment.

Glad to be part of TeamReckless where we win or lose against GunBunny's decks the way they are.

Saintbenn

I personally believe that anyone caught exploiting the game or events should have consequences. Warning, temp ban, then permanent ban. Cheating is cheating and should not be tolerated.

Ohboy

bken1234 wrote:

Ohboy wrote:

Ah I get it now. I always thought a player leaving meant the coalition lost his points.

So, what's your ethics safeguard against scoring more than a potential coalition max score when you sub in players mid game?

In my land of sunshine and rainbows, people just wouldn't do it -- but I've recently found out that some coalitions nerf their decks for each other, so my ethical utopia is a bit blurred at the moment.

Glad to be part of TeamReckless where we win or lose against GunBunny's decks the way they are.

I can't help but point out again that you support pseudo over 20 member coalitions.

That's a pretty arbitrary line in the sand you're drawing.

If the strongest argument for coalition shenanigans is that effort is put in to do it and should be rewarded, then it justifies everything you just pointed out, and a lot of ugliness that will no doubt emerge in future.

losdamianos

Subject: Locking down Coalition Rosters during Events

Saintbenn wrote:

I personally believe that anyone caught exploiting the game or events should have consequences. Warning, temp ban, then permanent ban. Cheating is cheating and should not be tolerated.

Instead of leaving loophole and hoping some of our glorious moderators will catch cheating coalition who magically at the end of an event have players at the bottom with equal amount of points to full charges at the start of event (5 charges x 3 planeswarkes x 8 points)
Why not close the loophole to ensure cheating wont be permited? Unfortunately this is real life not a fairy land and poeple if they can will exploit the game.

Please give me a reason why we should keep coalition who's end points in event consisted of MORE than 20 players ? how is that fair to "solo" coalitions.

There should not be any discussion against it this is plain and simple exploit which should be stopped

Szamsziel

Actually I'd rather:
Check coalition score.
Sum score of each player ofthis coalition after event.
If sum > coalition score + (some arbitrary number like potential score of one player in half day of the event) then warning.
Few warnings - temp ban of all coalition members.

But the suggestion to take score of x members with highest score and in ties take following players seems to be more fair. Even for smaller coalition would be able to compete. (byt also I would add bracket for coalitions to spread a bit)

jimilinho_

The real issue with this is that coalitions keep the points when someone leaves. That just doesn't really make any sense.

Change this and everything else wouldn't be a problem, if someone goes mid-event their points go with them, easy.

losdamianos

Subject: Locking down Coalition Rosters during Events

Corn Noodles wrote:

BruceWayneDK wrote:

If the rosters don't lock then the players points should be deducted from the coalition when they leave. That eliminates the advantage of roster churning. I'm not sure why the players wouldn't want to eliminate a potential exploitation.

I agree with this. If you leaving during an event, the points you contributed for that event should disappear and they should not transfer to any new coalition you join mid-event.

I think that would be the fairest solution
Even if something happens to a player who cannot continue, and this player leaves he leaves with their points so the final score will always consist of 20 players

buscemi

BruceWayneDK wrote:

Pointing out a loophole in a game is what the community is supposed to do. This is a loophole. If you enjoy this game you should want a fair and level playing field. Just to exploit this and prove the point, maybe 4 of us should prove how you can beat a 20 person coalition?

We in GoblinPile have been aware of this exploit for a while. We have not been using it, but we have been messaging the dev team privately about it in the hope of it being fixed, because we feared that posting it publically on the forums might cause a total collapse of the coalition systm.

I guess we'll see what happens now.