Preventing alliance swapping

reckless442

In the last few PVPs and the last PVE, we have seen some alliances swap members shortly before the end of the event to gain point boosts over their competition. With the advent of "junior" alliances, it seems that some alliances will cherry-pick the players with the highest scores from their junior alliances and place them in the "top" alliance. This gives the top alliance a better score and forces out an existing member (or "encourages" that member to leave). This seems highly unfair to other alliances that stick with the same 20 people, gives certain alliances an unfair advantage since they can use certain players to score high in PVP and others to score high in PVE, and hurts the player who is demoted and potentially the remaining members of the junior alliance who have lost a high-scoring member of their team. It also undermines the competitive aspect of the PVP game because opponents can't be certain they are targeting players who will actually be in the final alliance composition when the event ends.

One solution would be to reinstate the cool-down period for joining alliances. It doesn't have to be the ridiculous multi-day period that it was originally, but alliance jumping could be curbed heavily if there were rule that: (1) a player who leaves an alliance cannot join an existing alliance for 12 hours; and (2) an alliance that forces out a member cannot add a new member for 6 hours (the forced-out member could join a new alliance immediately). Those rules would prevent replacing alliance members at the last minute of an event to boost an alliance score and force alliances to actually compete for a fair amount of the event with their existing membership.

Unknown

I concur.

12-36 hour cooldown.

Unknown

reckless442 wrote:

In the last few PVPs and the last PVE, we have seen some alliances swap members shortly before the end of the event to gain point boosts over their competition. With the advent of "junior" alliances, it seems that some alliances will cherry-pick the players with the highest scores from their junior alliances and place them in the "top" alliance. This gives the top alliance a better score and forces out an existing member (or "encourages" that member to leave). This seems highly unfair to other alliances that stick with the same 20 people, gives certain alliances an unfair advantage since they can use certain players to score high in PVP and others to score high in PVE, and hurts the player who is demoted and potentially the remaining members of the junior alliance who have lost a high-scoring member of their team. It also undermines the competitive aspect of the PVP game because opponents can't be certain they are targeting players who will actually be in the final alliance composition when the event ends.

This sounds more like a vested concern rather than an actual problem.

There is no unfair advantage going on here. It's only unfair if there are rules preventing other alliances from doing the same. Nothing is stopping any alliance from player swapping, so we're all on a level playing field here. Just because an alliance insists on sticking with the same 20 players doesn't mean they must not be disadvantaged by that decision. I might as well suggest that we limit the number of shields used per PvP to five because that's as many as I'm willing to spend.

There are good reasons why alliances need to retain the right to kick non-productive or inactive members. If a player plans to play in the final hours but is unable to because of unforeseen circumstances, the alliance should not be penalized for wanting replace him with an active player. The role of alliances is to match teams with multiple players against each other, not to match a list specific names against another list.

And of course it does not undermine the competitive aspect of the game. This is a barrel-scrapping argument. You want to be certain that you are targeting the players who would make up the final alliance? Well, click on the tab and target the top 15 guys. They aren't gonna go anywhere. No one targets the bottom scorers in PvP anyway, you get too little points for a risk of a massive retal loss. You know that well.

So erm, this is moot, I think. We can all move along.

Unknown

In part I agreed with you lycra any other alliance can do what you guys did in terms of setting up 5 alliances and using your members as and when you require. personally I have no issue with it. However I also see the point Reckless is making as even in sports when you use a loan system or have a feeder club their are restrictions. If 15 of your members didn't produce in one event would you change the 15 members and if you did should that actually be allowed. Its a good debate.

Personally I even said it to our alliance that you guys did the recruitment, everyone knows you operate 5 alliances, you invested in the set up and if you have done all that you can do as you please nothing is stopping anyone else from doing it but how would you feel if because shield were 5000k ahead we lent members to x-men so that they could overtake you out of top 2. Recks idea would prevent this in part because we want a level playing field I believe maybe restricting the number of swaps which can be conducted would be another option. personally it doesn't bother me because our alliance follows the principle we win as a team we'll lose as a team. its a game at the end of the day and sometimes you just cant win.

Nemek

beemand2g wrote:

In part I agreed with you lycra any other alliance can do what you guys did in terms of setting up 5 alliances and using your members as and when you require. personally I have no issue with it. However I also see the point Reckless is making as even in sports when you use a loan system or have a feeder club their are restrictions. If 15 of your members didn't produce in one event would you change the 15 members and if you did should that actually be allowed. Its a good debate.

Personally I even said it to our alliance that you guys did the recruitment, everyone knows you operate 5 alliances, you invested in the set up and if you have done all that you can do as you please nothing is stopping anyone else from doing it but how would you feel if because shield were 5000k ahead we lent members to x-men so that they could overtake you out of top 2. Recks idea would prevent this in part because we want a level playing field I believe maybe restricting the number of swaps which can be conducted would be another option. personally it doesn't bother me because our alliance follows the principle we win as a team we'll lose as a team. its a game at the end of the day and sometimes you just cant win.

Oh gosh, can we please do this?

If in the last 5 minutes of the next event, the SHIELD lead over 5DV is higher than the 5DV lead over X-Men, swap Reckless out with one of the X-Men to boost them?

I guess we'll have to add it to the agenda for the next World Domination bi-weekly meeting...

(But, uh...I'm...kidding...)

Unknown

beemand2g wrote:

In part I agreed with you lycra any other alliance can do what you guys did in terms of setting up 5 alliances and using your members as and when you require. personally I have no issue with it. However I also see the point Reckless is making as even in sports when you use a loan system or have a feeder club their are restrictions. If 15 of your members didn't produce in one event would you change the 15 members and if you did should that actually be allowed. Its a good debate.

Personally I even said it to our alliance that you guys did the recruitment, everyone knows you operate 5 alliances, you invested in the set up and if you have done all that you can do as you please nothing is stopping anyone else from doing it but how would you feel if because shield were 5000k ahead we lent members to x-men so that they could overtake you out of top 2. Recks idea would prevent this in part because we want a level playing field I believe maybe restricting the number of swaps which can be conducted would be another option. personally it doesn't bother me because our alliance follows the principle we win as a team we'll lose as a team. its a game at the end of the day and sometimes you just cant win.

Sorry I couldn't add to this earlier, I was suffering from ridiculous ban-itis. I think it's good for Shield to have a challenge, and if this mechanism spurs competition then it is fine. It's clearly not cheating and well within the rules. If you swap out reckless to xmen, you will lose the next PVP, so by all means go for it... Don't be concerned SHIELD, it's ok if you have to work for your #1 finish.

Unknown

Saw this coming and I raised this issue before. The consensus then seems to be okay with the idea of cherry-picking. Of course, stakes are raised now that there are seasons.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5772

Unknown

I don't think this is a huge deal for single PvP tournaments, but I think this a really good idea for the Season event. I can see people getting kicked during the last 5 minutes of the season and getting stuck without an alliance reward they'd been helping work toward for the past month. I think that's probably the worst scenario that swapping would lead toward. If there was a cooldown of a couple hours as suggested, that'd at least give the ejected player time to join another alliance and get some alliance reward out of the season.

Nemek

klingsor wrote:

If you swap out reckless to xmen, you will lose the next PVP, so by all means go for it... Don't be concerned SHIELD, it's ok if you have to work for your #1 finish.

I have no idea how swapping a member for 5 minutes would affect the PvP that ends 2 and a half days later...

Either way, I'm not particularly worried about it. If any alliance wants to put in the effort for it, I'm all for it.

Dormammu

I'm not against alliances cherry-picking and swapping members to score higher. Do what you gotta do, I guess. But I suspect the competition has gotten out of hand for a few folks. It's gone beyond friendly and into the realm of necessary for them. But whatever. I suspect in the end it will lead to more hurt feelings than anything else, as members become kicked with less and less justification - all because certain players have grown obsessed. It will also lead to fatigue, as alliance members begin to feel as though MPQ is more of a job than a leisure activity, where members feel constant pressure to perform. It sounds awful to me.

I really don't think there is that big of a difference between a #1 finish and a #100 finish. Yeah the extra ISO is nice, but it's not like there is a shortage of ISO out there. Yeah the extra HP is nice, but is it really worth it? To me it's about getting the 3* cover award.

My alliance is about 20 people acting as a team. We scrape and claw to place in the 90s and get that 3* cover reward. In the most recent Doom tournament we finished ranked 99th - and we felt damn good about it because we accomplished it together. We have members who don't even have maxed 2* teams who are out there grabbing every point they can so our rosters can grow better collectively. As the sole commander I would never kick a single one of them unless they went completely inactive, because I know they are fighting to get whatever they are able to get. I can't imagine being so ruthless as to kick a member out, or ask them to step away, because they can't achieve X amount of points in whatever tournament. If that's what it takes to reach #1 me and my alliance members will keep placing 99th - and at the end of the day we'll pat each other on the back and be happy with what we accomplished together.

Unknown

klingsor wrote:

beemand2g wrote:

In part I agreed with you lycra any other alliance can do what you guys did in terms of setting up 5 alliances and using your members as and when you require. personally I have no issue with it. However I also see the point Reckless is making as even in sports when you use a loan system or have a feeder club their are restrictions. If 15 of your members didn't produce in one event would you change the 15 members and if you did should that actually be allowed. Its a good debate.

Personally I even said it to our alliance that you guys did the recruitment, everyone knows you operate 5 alliances, you invested in the set up and if you have done all that you can do as you please nothing is stopping anyone else from doing it but how would you feel if because shield were 5000k ahead we lent members to x-men so that they could overtake you out of top 2. Recks idea would prevent this in part because we want a level playing field I believe maybe restricting the number of swaps which can be conducted would be another option. personally it doesn't bother me because our alliance follows the principle we win as a team we'll lose as a team. its a game at the end of the day and sometimes you just cant win.

Sorry I couldn't add to this earlier, I was suffering from ridiculous ban-itis. I think it's good for Shield to have a challenge, and if this mechanism spurs competition then it is fine. It's clearly not cheating and well within the rules. If you swap out reckless to xmen, you will lose the next PVP, so by all means go for it... Don't be concerned SHIELD, it's ok if you have to work for your #1 finish.

No one said it was cheating, the debate is whether it should have some restriction. If I am honest I think what your doing is fine but I also see it from reckless's point of view. Props to you for using your resources, you invested in your alliances and you manage them all which is a lot of time and effort. All good for me but life is full of different views which we can acknowledge and although I agree with you and I really do I can see it from others perspective.

Unknown

Dormammu wrote:

I'm not against alliances cherry-picking and swapping members to score higher. Do what you gotta do, I guess. But I suspect the competition has gotten out of hand for a few folks. It's gone beyond friendly and into the realm of necessary for them. But whatever. I suspect in the end it will lead to more hurt feelings than anything else, as members become kicked with less and less justification - all because certain players have grown obsessed. It will also lead to fatigue, as alliance members begin to feel as though MPQ is more of a job than a leisure activity, where members feel constant pressure to perform. It sounds awful to me.

I really don't think there is that big of a difference between a #1 finish and a #100 finish. Yeah the extra ISO is nice, but it's not like there is a shortage of ISO out there. Yeah the extra HP is nice, but is it really worth it? To me it's about getting the 3* cover award.

My alliance is about 20 people acting as a team. We scrape and claw to place in the 90s and get that 3* cover reward. In the most recent Doom tournament we finished ranked 99th - and we felt damn good about it because we accomplished it together. We have members who don't even have maxed 2* teams who are out there grabbing every point they can so our rosters can grow better collectively. As the sole commander I would never kick a single one of them unless they went completely inactive, because I know they are fighting to get whatever they are able to get. I can't imagine being so ruthless as to kick a member out, or ask them to step away, because they can't achieve X amount of points in whatever tournament. If that's what it takes to reach #1 me and my alliance members will keep placing 99th - and at the end of the day we'll pat each other on the back and be happy with what we accomplished together.

Our alliance is about 100 people acting as a team. When we won the last PvE, we felt really good about it too. I congratulated the guys and one of the first thing i said was "it was a team effort". Because it was. The 5Deadly alliance just has a team of 100 rather than 20. Everyone is doing their part, and we feel good about it when it all comes together for a win.

And just like you, we will never kick a player out who is "fighting to get whatever they are able to get". That would be crazy. Because look at the 5DV rosters. If anyone of our guys fights hard to grab every point they can, they would be getting tourney winning scores. There'll be no reason to relocate them.

Our set-up actually helps players be rewarded for their efforts. I see some other alliances with members scoring monster points but getting mediocre alliance rewards because not all their members are active. How fair is that? In our alliance, if you fight hard and score well, you can be assured of top tier rewards.

As you may have noticed, the competition top 2 is fierce. Most of the time, SHIELD already takes up one spot. You must understand that our mentality is slightly different from other alliances. The 5DV was created for players who want to win top tier rewards, not to casually play and "see how far we can go". In any competitive sport, you get taken off the field and are substituted by a squad player if you aren't performing. That's not being unfair. It's giving a chance to those who are deserving.

So, I agree with how your alliance operates. Fair play to you, and I'm glad that you guys are enjoying it too. But we operate differently. Not wrongly or poorly, I think, just differently.

Unknown

Lycra wrote:

In any competitive sport, you get taken off the field and are substituted by a squad player if you aren't performing. That's not being unfair. It's giving a chance to those who are deserving.

One the other hand, competitive sports seem to impose restrictions on the number of your squad players and the point in time you are allowed to substitute them in. That's also not unfair, it's giving a chance to those deserving who can't sustain a backup force several times the team size. One might even argue it helps to promote competitiveness, because it puts a focus on skill and endurance rather than numbers.

I guess I wouldn't mind a system where you are committed to your cause for the duration of an event. Something like your score getting credited to the alliance you were member in at the start of the event, for the whole duration of the event, no matter if you stay or move on. That would still give a well deserved competitive advantage to 5D*, they have a large pool of players to set up teams with. It just restricts that advantage to a reasonable level, no replacing the marathon runner if he fails to live up to expectations halfway to the finish line.

Dormammu

Lycra wrote:

Our alliance is about 100 people acting as a team.

This is why some people think it's unfair. Alliances were designed to have 20 members. Do you honestly feel that you have accomplished anything by placing in the top 2 when you have a pool of players 5x the size to choose from as a straight 5-20 person alliance? I'd be really surprised if we don't see the developers eventually enact something very similar to what Reckless originally suggested in this thread.

Unknown

This topic has come up before in various guises: kicking under-performers, mercenaries helping with alliance rewards (theoretically with alliance progression rewards), swapping between alliances to boost overall scores, and fixing the rankings. On the surface, some of those sound less innocuous than others, but they all rely on the same mechanism of removing an alliance-mate and replacing them. I suspect this tactic employed by the 5D's and other alliances will be an unfortunate casualty in the attempt to keep those other "problems" in check.

The other popular suggestion as a solution (besides a cooldown) is to only count points earned while with a particular alliance. I find that to be more acceptable to a cooldown b/c it would still allow alliances to coordinate things like vacation schedules, but dis-allows swapping based on performance after the fact.

JamieMadrox

Riggy wrote:

The other popular suggestion as a solution (besides a cooldown) is to only count points earned while with a particular alliance. I find that to be more acceptable to a cooldown b/c it would still allow alliances to coordinate things like vacation schedules, but dis-allows swapping based on performance after the fact.

It wouldn't allow for alliances to deal with issues such as two members leaving for another alliance Half way through an event. Or a real life emergency that prevents one or more players from participating after an event starts.

I don't see the need to "fix" this as there is nothing being done by one alliance that isn't possible for any other alliance to do. In fact, I'd be surprised if other alliances didn't start following the 5D model of building an empire and managing it effectively for maximum benefit of all members.

To go further, I just assume that anything we (5D) do to gain an advantage (real or perceived) is being done by or contemplated by other top alliances too. You don't get to the top by being stupid and assuming that 5D is any smarter than the X-Men or S.H.I.E.L.D or DjangoUnbuffed or anyone else would be folly.

Unknown

Just because others may or may be thinking about doing something doesn't make it right.

In fact, it's the very reason why rules are put into place in a competition to insure equality for all.

Unknown

Toxicadam wrote:

Just because others may or may be thinking about doing something doesn't make it right.

In fact, it's the very reason why rules are put into place in a competition to insure equality for all.

I don't see any inequality here, it's not 5dv have more than 20 people at the same time, right?

JamieMadrox

Toxicadam wrote:

Just because others may or may be thinking about doing something doesn't make it right.

In fact, it's the very reason why rules are put into place in a competition to insure equality for all.

There's no rules preventing anyone from changing alliance members at any time for any reason and it really doesn't affect anyone except for the top 3 alliances so there's no reason to change it for those 60 people when there are over 18k alliances participating in events.

Unknown

beemand2g wrote:

No one said it was cheating

Sorry, but Reckless here thought we were cheating in one of her posts.

Unknown

charlesjbarry wrote:

Riggy wrote:

The other popular suggestion as a solution (besides a cooldown) is to only count points earned while with a particular alliance. I find that to be more acceptable to a cooldown b/c it would still allow alliances to coordinate things like vacation schedules, but dis-allows swapping based on performance after the fact.

It wouldn't allow for alliances to deal with issues such as two members leaving for another alliance Half way through an event. Or a real life emergency that prevents one or more players from participating after an event starts.

No, but every alliance deals with that, and every alliance likely has an equal chance of that happening. The general solution for that scenario is to use the top 5 scores, or the median/average score of all active participants. More generally, the solutions proposed does not involve working out a solution outside the mechanics of the game (and thus outside the control of the developers to maintain a level playing field).

charlesjbarry wrote:

To go further, I just assume that anything we (5D) do to gain an advantage (real or perceived) is being done by or contemplated by other top alliances too. You don't get to the top by being stupid and assuming that 5D is any smarter than the X-Men or S.H.I.E.L.D or DjangoUnbuffed or anyone else would be folly.

Come up with any analogy in competitive games (sports, e-sports, or whatever) where you wait until after the scoring is 90% done and then arrange the teams based on how the individual performers have done. Every sports analyst in the world would call that cheating. The major difference is that most sports teams have alts and subs. Which is great - if someone can't play for whatever reason, bring someone else in. They don't, however, go to the opposing team and bring their star player (and all the runs he scored so far in that game) to take over. The first half of that sentiment I'm actually ok with, but the second part makes zero sense.

charlesjbarry wrote:

I don't see the need to "fix" this as there is nothing being done by one alliance that isn't possible for any other alliance to do. In fact, I'd be surprised if other alliances didn't start following the 5D model of building an empire and managing it effectively for maximum benefit of all members.

In the U.S., we have laws against this sort of anti-competitive behavior in the business world. The resulting mergers and escalations that would have to occur in the alliances of alliances to remain competitive would look like the telecom, airline, and cable mergers of the 80's and 90's. You'd be left with 3 dominant forces in the market, you'd have no competition, and most of the people even within that organization still get the shaft (as only the top 20 or 40 players would get the top prize(s) b/c that's what the game offers).

I often play devil's advocate for most suggestions (test everything, keep what is good), but in this case, the devil's advocate and my personal opinion match. I don't see how working outside the game mechanics to try and one-up the competition is fair. I want to see alliance play thrive, but what you're suggesting and advocating actually takes the gap b/w 5-man and 20-man alliances and extends that gap on a macro scale.