Preventing alliance swapping

Unknown

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.

That's what I'm afraid of, in the long run it will destroy the whole alliance concept.

To elaborate, let's just assume we want to game the alliance mechanism to it's extreme, with all players joining in to get the maximum benefit for every individual. That means not joining any alliance at all until the last few minutes of an event, at which point some (semi)automated process fills up all existing alliances in sequence based on players scores, highest score first. It doesn't really matter which alliance gets which players, one will get the twenty players with the highest score, the next one the players with the highest scores after that, and so on. Awards would obviously be handed out in sequence of global individual performance, causing alliances to degenerate into a somewhat clunky loot distribution system.

It really just takes a handful of people to get the ball rolling into this direction, I wouldn't be surprised for such "get the most rewards out of your personal score"-alliances to start advertising soon, slowly evolving into a single anonymous super alliance. As soon as somebody figures out how to automate the whole score based invitation process, staying within a real alliance basically ensures you'll never see an alliance based reward again. I recall reading about bot programs to automatically play prologue missions, so the API to achieve this seems to be available.

Dormammu

charlesjbarry wrote:

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.

Actually, it affects 18 thousand other alliances. This is supposed to be competitive, and while I think we can all agree you're not breaking any rules as they currently stand, you're removing the competition. Imagine a competitive sports league where 'Team A' has four farm teams and all the other teams had none. Team A decides one of their players isn't playing very well, so they grab a player from one of their farm teams and swap the two players out in the middle of a game. Does that sound fair? Does that seem competitive?

I don't think most people are going to care that an alliance has X amount of 'farm alliances'. Hey, if you have the time and resources to manage such a thing - more power to you. But shifting people around in the middle of a tournament is removing any sense of competition outside of the five monster alliance-conglomerates who always place top five. That would be like the Lakers figuring out Kobe Bryant only has 20 points this game, but Joe Blow has 30 points in his game; they swap them out when there's 30 seconds left so they can win. Then they say "Hey, we're not breaking the rules, we're just manipulating the score to our advantage. Anyone can do it."

How many people would be fans of such a sport? Competitive leagues all over the world employ farm systems and allow teams to swap players. But that system of swapping is restricted as to when and how often it can happen. It certainly doesn't happen in the middle of a game.

I believe this thread's suggestion is a valid one that the developers need to take a close look at.

Unknown

Grazzt wrote:

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

Having a pool of 80 people to draw from to mix and match points in the final hours of an event isn't how the spirit of alliances was intended to be.

So, I don't have a problem with alliances having a 'farm system', especially in a game where burnout is going to happen or real-life is going to interfere on someone competing in a 9 day event. But a simple, small cooldown eliminates any potential last-minute abuse and insures equality for all parties.

This problem is especially acute in PvE events where an active player's point total is all relatively about the same. There isn't much wiggle room to 'outhustle' everyone else like you can in PvP. So, the swing of one player's score can mean the difference between 7th or 1st place in the waning hours.

JamieMadrox

Riggy wrote:

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).

I'll agree on that. Player defection is something everyone may have to deal with at some point and nobody should be adversely impacted by it.

Riggy wrote:

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.

If a goalie in hockey lets in 5 goals in the first two periods and the team is behind by 1 or 2 goals then the coach will sub in a better goaltender to beef up the team and allow them to score more goals without letting any more in. Similarly, if a top scorer isn't performing well the coach will sub someone that's having a good streak in the hopes of getting more goals. Player swapping doesn't guarantee a win. The alliance as a whole still has to perform better than the other alliances.

Riggy wrote:

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 b/c that's what the game wants).

Good for the US. I'm glad to see that once again you feel that your 1/14th of the global population speaks for the rest of the planet. Your rules aren't the be all and end all and are far from perfect.

Riggy wrote:

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.

I like to play devil's advocate/minor troll too and I'm in the same boat as you. My personal feelings match my trolling comments. I'm not one to complain when someone plays smarter than me within the rules. Especially when I have the option of playing smarter and winning the next time.

I want to see alliance play thrive too and I really don't see this as something that is going to hurt that. At some point members of 5D will progress to the point where all of the alliances are top alliances. At that point I fully expect some members to leave and form their own, highly competitive alliances that compete with 5D et al. Accelerating that doesn't seem to be so bad to me as a whole.

Unknown

Riggy wrote:

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.

First, they wouldn't call it cheating if it's within the rules of the game. Second, we are not poaching from an opposing team, its more akin to employing the substitutes that sports teams do. When sports teams substitute a player, they are bringing in the potential of goals/points that the players is capable of producing. This time, we are bringing in his actual production. There's a difference no doubt, but it only does not happen in the real world, because it negates the element of uncertainty and drama that fans crave for. And in the real world, keeping the fans (i.e. non-participating spectators) happy is everything.

Sure, if MPQ is screened on TV, this last min swapping would make for duller entertainment, because the scores are mostly predictable before the final whistle. And the Devs might be concerned. But that isn't not the point in this game.

Riggy wrote:

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).

Anti-competitive laws restrict behaviours that prevent competition. That is, if what we are doing inherently prevents another alliance from doing the same, in order to obtain the same competitive edge, it should rightly be forbidden. Again, nothing of what we are doing prevents others from doing the same. Whether you refuse to do it on the basis of 'principle' or an unwillingness to invest the requisite effort, it has nothing to do with fairness or anti-competitive behaviour. So not every advantageous strategy employed in the world should be construed as anti-competition.

Dormammu wrote:

How many people would be fans of such a sport? Competitive leagues all over the world employ farm systems and allow teams to swap players. But that system of swapping is restricted as to when and how often it can happen. It certainly doesn't happen in the middle of a game.

Again, mpq is not about entertaining the public. If it were, you might have an argument there. Also, we are swapping players from a squad. And most substitutions do happen in the middle of a match.

I am hearing a lot about 'unfairness' and 'anti-competitive behaviour', because we have 80-95 more players to choose from than the average alliance. The reality is that every alliance commander has 100,000 + active players to choose from, if you are willing and able to reach them. Just because the 5 Deadly alliance have coordinated access to 100 of them does not make us anti-competitive, just more purposeful administrators. If you guys can get pass the envy (which I feel is where most of these posts stem from), perhaps you can find it in you to give credit where credit's due.

Unknown

charlesjbarry wrote:

Riggy wrote:

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.

If a goalie in hockey lets in 5 goals in the first two periods and the team is behind by 1 or 2 goals then the coach will sub in a better goaltender to beef up the team and allow them to score more goals without letting any more in. Similarly, if a top scorer isn't performing well the coach will sub someone that's having a good streak in the hopes of getting more goals. Player swapping doesn't guarantee a win. The alliance as a whole still has to perform better than the other alliances.

Yes, but that sub comes from within the team. Hence my comments on the typical solution being alternate scoring methods involving average of active players or of top 5. Your solution only works if you bring in the opposing team's goalie. Which still doesn't work b/c the goalie doesn't bring over his team's score as well.

charlesjbarry wrote:

Riggy wrote:

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 b/c that's what the game wants).

Good for the US. I'm glad to see that once again you feel that your 1/14th of the global population speaks for the rest of the planet. Your rules aren't the be all and end all and are far from perfect.

Way to utterly fail to answer the argument I made. Insulting the US and myself in an attempted sarcastic character assassination while ignoring the actual quality of the argument is the worst form of rhetoric. I assert that my point still stands. For the record, India has 1/6th of the world's population and also has laws in place to prevent anti-competitive behavior, and oh look, there's quite a bit of overlap with those in the US and the EU (1/11th of the world's population).

charlesjbarry wrote:

Riggy wrote:

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.

I like to play devil's advocate/minor troll too and I'm in the same boat as you. My personal feelings match my trolling comments. I'm not one to complain when someone plays smarter than me within the rules. Especially when I have the option of playing smarter and winning the next time.

I want to see alliance play thrive too and I really don't see this as something that is going to hurt that. At some point members of 5D will progress to the point where all of the alliances are top alliances. At that point I fully expect some members to leave and form their own, highly competitive alliances that compete with 5D et al. Accelerating that doesn't seem to be so bad to me as a whole.

There is a world of difference b/w trolling and playing devil's advocate. I will challenge your ideas and expect you to challenge mine as well. I will not engage in trolling, which in my mind is posting purely to aggravate someone. I'm not perfect, and I have had to delete posts of mine before for crossing some invisible threshold (which is honestly higher for me b/c some people can't see past my green name, or don't remember me as a poster prior to my volunteering to moderate).

To your actual point, there is a difference b/w alliances thriving and alliances of alliances thriving. I refer back to my anti-competition in business comments (which by the way, exist in Ind

Unknown

charlesjbarry wrote:

If a goalie in hockey lets in 5 goals in the first two periods and the team is behind by 1 or 2 goals then the coach will sub in a better goaltender to beef up the team and allow them to score more goals without letting any more in. Similarly, if a top scorer isn't performing well the coach will sub someone that's having a good streak in the hopes of getting more goals. Player swapping doesn't guarantee a win. The alliance as a whole still has to perform better than the other alliances.

Not a good analogy, it's based on expected future performance, not on reassigning past performance. Current behavior is to swap in the player of another team, getting credited the goals he already scored there.

Unknown

I think the solution is simple: a tournament shall just ignore alliance composition changes that happens in the last 10% of the tournament time. (the number can be tweaked using point gain patterns).

That way you can swap all you want but members can enjoy chat and whatever but points will be assigned using a roster snapshot taken at time before the final push happens -- and allowing enough time for everyone to rank up looking at realistic tables.

It's not completely trivial to implement but not hard either and I don't see much downside -- hosing last-minute swap shenanigans I consider as a benefit really.

Unknown

Moghwyn wrote:

charlesjbarry wrote:

If a goalie in hockey lets in 5 goals in the first two periods and the team is behind by 1 or 2 goals then the coach will sub in a better goaltender to beef up the team and allow them to score more goals without letting any more in. Similarly, if a top scorer isn't performing well the coach will sub someone that's having a good streak in the hopes of getting more goals. Player swapping doesn't guarantee a win. The alliance as a whole still has to perform better than the other alliances.

Not a good analogy, it's based on expected future performance, not on reassigning past performance. Current behavior is to swap in the player of another team, getting credited the goals he already scored there.

Yep, a good analogy would be if you could swap the *result* of half-time with one from a different match retroactively, so if by the end losing by 2 goals could swap the 0-5 first half with another game's 3-2 one where you lost anyway, but here suddenly looking at a serious lead.

Unknown

Lycra wrote:

Riggy wrote:

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.

First, they wouldn't call it cheating if it's within the rules of the game. Second, we are not poaching from an opposing team, its more akin to employing the substitutes that sports teams do. When sports teams substitute a player, they are bringing in the potential of goals/points that the players is capable of producing. This time, we are bringing in his actual production. There's a difference no doubt, but it only does not happen in the real world, because it negates the element of uncertainty and drama that fans crave for. And in the real world, keeping the fans (i.e. non-participating spectators) happy is everything.

Bringing in the potential points is a far cry from bringing in the actual points. That's where the analogy falls apart. But one of the things fans need is a sense of fairness - that's the discussion taking place here. Is this fair? You say yes b/c everyone can do it. That argument has never worked in the real world b/c it's a logical fallacy; just b/c everyone can do it doesn't make it competitive. Also, you're working outside the controlled rules of the game b/c none of your network management happens within the game itself. If they added gameplay mechanics to manage networks of alliance, I'd agree with you, but they haven't, and I doubt they will (b/c that violates their presumed reasoning for limiting alliances to 20-man.

And everyone who participates in this game is a spectator as well. I'm not in a top 50 alliance let alone a top 20, and I enjoy the spectating of the top 10 as much as anyone else. And I watch the forum antics along with everyone else here. Can you claim that we're not spectators (many of us paying) to the competitive drama?

Sure, if MPQ is screened on TV, this last min swapping would make for duller entertainment, because the scores are mostly predictable before the final whistle. And the Devs might be concerned. But that isn't not the point in this game.

Lycra wrote:

Riggy wrote:

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).

Anti-competitive laws restrict behaviours that prevent competition. That is, if what we are doing inherently prevents another alliance from doing the same, in order to obtain the same competitive edge, it should rightly be forbidden. Again, nothing of what we are doing prevents others from doing the same. Whether you refuse to do it on the basis of 'principle' or an unwillingness to invest the requisite effort, it has nothing to do with fairness or anti-competitive behaviour. So not every advantageous strategy employed in the world should be construed as anti-competition.

Your argument hinges on the idea that b/c everyone can do it, it's no longer anti-competitive. See my argument about mergers of telecoms. If you look at the number of large financial institutions (and again, I'm looking at the US b/c that's what I'm most familiar with), the numbers from the last 25 years show a very telling story. And very few people will say that the financial market is more competitive now than it was 25 years ago (most everyone agrees that it's worse). The same thing can be seen in the airline industry. Which is another market where competition is notably lessened by mergers.

Lycra wrote:

I am hearing a lot about 'unfairness' and 'anti-competitive behaviour', because we have 80-95 more players to choose from than the average alliance. The reality is that every alliance commander has 100,000 + active players to choose from, if you are willing and able to reach them. Just because the 5 Deadly alliance have coordinated access to 100 of them does not make us anti-competitive, just more purposeful administrators. If you guys can get pass the envy (which I feel is where most of these posts stem from), perhaps you can find it in you to give credit where credit's due.

This is the basis of your argument. That because everyone can do it, it's not anti-competitive. There is a fallacy here in that A does not imply B. In fact, A proves B. History has shown us this time and time again. More mergers means fewer competitors. The argument for this practice is that while there are fewer competitors, the competition will be more intense. The premise has never proven itself to be true. What invariably ends up happening is an arms race where more mergers need to occur so that you can be bigger than your nearest competitor. And then they respond in kind.

Make me an argument that doesn't hinge on a subjective and historically dis-proven premise: just b/c everyone can do it, doesn't mean that it's competitive. On the contrary, I'm providing historical examples that more than suggest otherwise.

Unknown

Guys, we have been placing top 2 from the beginning, so it's not like we just appeared out of nowhere because of our advanced swapping strategies. So That addresses dormammu's comment.

As far as what Nemek said, I was implying that Shield didn't have enough of a leeway to afford to give up reckless score's in a pvp ending. If Shield wants to engage in any strategy it's their business. They could also agree to Ally themselves with X-Men and not attack each other and target Venoms exclusively. Should we make a rule to prevent that? How about if I start another 5 alliances so I have 200 people, and then make it the alliance rule to only target Shield and Xmen members? Should we have a rule against that?

To the person that brought up the US law example, I say excessive regulation stifles competition. And this is about competiting with the Best alliance in the game Shield, using every resource available. The only Reason this thread is full of Shield members chiming in it's because we have become a challenge to their power Hegemony. There is no reason why you guys need to have a guaranteed #1 spot, just like we shouldn't have a guaranteed #2 spot either. I didn't cry when Xmen was going to kick our butt. You know what I did? i changed strategies on the fly and kicked their butts instead. This is competition.

Finally there are a lot of real work scenarios that I have to address when I manage a group of 100. I had 2 people with the flu. People who lose pets and are having a hard time. Weddings, work, deployments. I have to be flexible and organized enough to be able to react to all of these scenarios and being able to swap members in an out is the only way. You can't stop me from changing the alliance roster of the alliance we paid for with the members we choose. And you can't decide for me whether a swap is 'valid' because the person is sick or 'invalid' because it's meant to boost a score. Look, we didn't pick the 20 strongest members, we swapped out the 2 at the bottom and one wasn't active. It's hard enough to move people around in 5 alliances. X-men have two alliances as well, and people aren't crying a river about them (especially not me.) You guys want to play Sim-Alliance and manage N groups? Go for it. Our own alliance member had a unique suggestion to fix fairness in events concerns and prevent the need for swapping in the first place. Simply ignore the bottom 2 scores of every alliance. that way you could always have two people sick or in vacation or taking a break. Problem solved. Don't institute ridiculous timed bans because you are afraid you might come in second.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

I think the solution is simple: a tournament shall just ignore alliance composition changes that happens in the last 10% of the tournament time. (the number can be tweaked using point gain patterns).

It's not quite that simple. The way PvE events are structured it's usually very clear who's going to score top that close to the end. It's even already pretty clear at the halfway mark, barring some rare unexpected difficulties. I really think you should be required to commit yourself right at the start of each event. Think you won't be able to handle a 10 day Hunt well? If your alliance insists on playing competitively, don't drag your team down, let somebody better suited take the spot. If you still participate and don't play for a few days, bad luck for alliance, maybe they'll come up with a better team composition the next time.

Unknown

Grazzt wrote:

beemand2g wrote:

No one said it was cheating

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

Which I clarified and said I didn't think it was, Reckless felt it was slightly against fair play, again I said you were well within your rights to do so. Look at end of the day you formed 5 alliances you invested HP, your members know the score and at present there is no restriction on how you swap members. I think you guys made a smart play but in most sports there are restrictions and that is what is being discussed whether we have restrictions. I couldn't care less if you swap one member who scores 800pts for one with 1100pts from one your other alliances. I play the game to have fun and I think you guys need to stop taking this as if it was some professional circuit its not like you get paid a wage to win top prizes. Just lighten up and have fun and accept different parties will have a different opinion to what your doing.

Unknown

Riggy wrote:

This is the basis of your argument. That because everyone can do it, it's not anti-competitive. There is a fallacy here in that A does not imply B. In fact, A proves B. History has shown us this time and time again. More mergers means fewer competitors. The argument for this practice is that while there are fewer competitors, the competition will be more intense. The premise has never proven itself to be true. What invariably ends up happening is an arms race where more mergers need to occur so that you can be bigger than your nearest competitor. And then they respond in kind.

Make me an argument that doesn't hinge on a subjective and historically dis-proven premise: just b/c everyone can do it, doesn't mean that it's competitive. On the contrary, I'm providing historical examples that more than suggest otherwise.

Nice attempt Riggy. By the way, are you the one that keeps throwing out fallacy-this, fallacy-that rhetoric? I know I've seen a mod use that before, always came across as a bit pretentious. Just to me, of course, subjectively. I am in no way implying that you are, in fact, that mod or pretentious.

Anyway, back to the argument. You realise that the historical examples you raise occur in market conditions right? Where elements include finite resources, supply and demand, goods and service providers and consumers and all that sort of 'markety' stuff? Of course mergers of large corporations which lead to monopolies of goods and services lead to anti-competition. Consumers have no choice but to purchase from this monopolies/oligopolies.

This game however, is not like that. All that needs to exists in order for a practice to not be anti-competitive in this game is that others are able to employ the same strategy as well. And what 5DV does in no way restricts the ability of other alliances to do the same. That's all that is required for a level-playing field do you realise?

So make me an argument that does not hinge on market conditions and provide mmo game examples that argue against my premise.

Unknown

Lycra wrote:

Nice attempt Riggy. By the way, are you the one that keeps throwing out fallacy-this, fallacy-that rhetoric? I know I've seen a mod use that before, always came across as a bit pretentious. Just to me, of course, subjectively. I am in no way implying that you are, in fact, that mod or pretentious.

I'm going to jump on Riggy's defense and say it's not him. While I realize that differentiating one entitled, pretentious mod from another is difficult, Riggy is truly the creme the la creme. I believe the comedic character you are referring to is Nonce Equitaur 2. He needs to actually read a book on logic before claiming that something is a fallacy or not, but that's besides the point. I would like for moderators to keep their nonsense out of this thread before I get banned for week.

Guys, refer to my previous post on the subject. Venoms, please stop boosting this silly thread. It needs to die out in peace. You guys can suggest all you want, but alliance swapping is valid. Take it, and go!

Unknown

Lycra wrote:

This game however, is not like that. All that needs to exists in order for a practice to not be anti-competitive in this game is that others are able to employ the same strategy as well. And what 5DV does in no way restricts the ability of other alliances to do the same. That's all that is required for a level-playing field do you realise?

Except that it doesn't work out. This approach ultimately results in having global player placement rewards instead of global alliance placement rewards. Well, I guess I wouldn't really mind D3P going into this direction, just please automate it instead requiring all the manual alliance shuffling to achieve the same.

Unknown

klingsor wrote:

I'm going to jump on Riggy's defense and say it's not him. While I realize that differentiating one entitled, pretentious mod from another is difficult, Riggy is truly the creme the la creme. I believe the comedic character you are referring to is Nonce Equitaur 2. He needs to actually read a book on logic before claiming that something is a fallacy or not, but that's besides the point. I would like for moderators to keep their nonsense out of this thread before I get banned for week.

Could we please keep it civil and leave personal insults out of this discussion?

klingsor wrote:

You guys can suggest all you want, but alliance swapping is valid. Take it, and go!

I guess we all agree that it is valid. I also guess chances aren't bad it no longer will be once all suggestions have been reviewed. Keep going at it!

Dormammu

Lycra wrote:

So make me an argument that does not hinge on market conditions and provide mmo game examples that argue against my premise.

Alliances in MPQ were not designed to promote cherry-picking/swapping or whatever you want to call it. The fact that none of that activity can be coordinated in-game is the argument.

Unknown

Here are some other unfair things that happen in the world of MPQ:
1) people who finished first in a tournament got both magneto covers and free falcon covers. These covers were not retrieved so in effect, all of shield and half of 5dv and xmen have an artificially boosted falcon in the falcon event. Shield is not going to complain about this because it benefits them. How about we take all those covers back, in the spirit of fairness?
2) people abused a glitch where they could attack a shielded player over and over. The top alliances abused this glitch, and in spite of someones suggestion that it wouldn't make a difference, it does and it will. The number one person in my season bracket has a huge lead over me, because of that bug. That person is in my alliance, so I know he will continue to place at least as well as me or better, so there is no chance i will ever catch up to him, thanks to that bug. So unfair, waaa waa. Why don't we have those unfairly gained points withdrawn?
3) we have cheaters with bloated up rosters joining alliances, paying for slots, and killing shielded members. Oh, you paid for a shield? Well I have a packet msg that says you aren't shielded and I win, voila!

My point is there is actual cheating and exploitation going on in this game that requires the developers attention. While I respect everyone's point of view on this issue, it's just the drama of the day. Shield will continue to dominate, we will continue to chase them, and adding a ban or a timer is just going to create an inconvenience and solve nothing. If you read my post I explained why. At this point this thread is done as far as we are concerned.

Unknown

klingsor wrote:

Lycra wrote:

Nice attempt Riggy. By the way, are you the one that keeps throwing out fallacy-this, fallacy-that rhetoric? I know I've seen a mod use that before, always came across as a bit pretentious. Just to me, of course, subjectively. I am in no way implying that you are, in fact, that mod or pretentious.

I'm going to jump on Riggy's defense and say it's not him. While I realize that differentiating one entitled, pretentious mod from another is difficult, Riggy is truly the creme the la creme. I believe the comedic character you are referring to is Nonce Equitaur 2. He needs to actually read a book on logic before claiming that something is a fallacy or not, but that's besides the point. I would like for moderators to keep their nonsense out of this thread before I get banned for week.

1.) The moderators are random forum posters, just like you, but with additional responsibilities i.e. cleaning up kitchen spam. We're entitled to our opinions and strive to make it known that our green names should not inform the debate but rather let the quality of our arguments do so.
2.) You earn your bans by throwing out personal insults left and right.
3.) The logical fallacy used in your post is argumentum ad hominem, where in you claim to come to someone's defense and then insult them, rather than attack any of the actual arguments made. Perhaps you should go read a book on formal and informal fallacies.
4.) By arguing that we should let this thread die b/c what you're doing is not currently against the rules, you're trying to keep people from discussing whether it should be against the rules. I don't think that anyone is arguing that you can currently do what you're doing. The discussion here (originally) was about whether what you're doing is the right direction this game should take. That discussion should take place and this is an excellent venue for doing so.

Lycra wrote:

This game however, is not like that. All that needs to exists in order for a practice to not be anti-competitive in this game is that others are able to employ the same strategy as well. And what 5DV does in no way restricts the ability of other alliances to do the same. That's all that is required for a level-playing field do you realise?

So make me an argument that does not hinge on market conditions and provide mmo game examples that argue against my premise.

The game is exactly like that. Sure, barriers to entry and investment costs did have an impact on some of those mergers. However, from a higher level, we're seeing that there are fewer competitors overall in the markets from those mergers. You're suggesting that the number of competitors would remain the same, while simultaneously arguing that you don't compete with people in your network of alliances. And yet, if everyone formed these large alliances, there would be no drop in competition?

Perhaps we need to specify whether we're talking about the number of competitors vs. the quality of the competition. B/c I find it hard to argue that networked alliances would not cause a drop in competition. And your request for proof from mmos isn't 100% accurate. In mmo's team swapping mid-fight doesn't happen, and in the few cases I can think of where it does, the points scored previously don't carry over. However, we can look at King's Empire (a mobile mmo with a much larger playerbase) and see 1) networks of alliances and 2) a direct, known drop in competition due to those networks of alliances. For the record, it is also a game where players can swap alliances mid-event, and their points don't carry over. The points belong to the alliance, not the player. The player's score still remains the same and they earn personal rewards, but the points are kept separate.

I would also bring up a much older example (but one that I actually experienced) in the form of FFXI. What a terrible mmo that was, but I still remember giant networks of alliances indirectly competing by trying to camp the rare mob spawns. A PvE example and a highly competitive one, but one in which the number of competing factions was very low (b/c it was typically just a couple of groups with 80+ people in each group).