Preventing alliance swapping

djpt05

Sooo why not just have a seperate field that tracks how many points a player has contributed to an event since they joined the alliance ? Players would still have their personal score, but if they join an alliance midway through an event the only points that would go towards the alliance would be from that joining point and on?

Assuming that the goal of an alliance from the devs perspective is to maintain a constant group of the same active players (that could be a big assumption)

reckless442

I want to go back to my original suggestion of the cool-down period. The goal in that proposal was to create a system whereby teams are fixed for at least the last six hours of an event. That seems like a fair balance between allowing alliances to make necessary changes for non-performing members and to accommodate scheduling issues; for alliances with "farm" teams to bring up better performing players from their farm teams; and avoiding last-minute surprises to opponents.

I have never said that there is anything inherently problematic with the farm team structure. What I question and think goes against the spirit of fair-play is the way players are swapped out in the last few hours of an event. As the game has grown more competitive and alliance strategies have evolved, it is obvious that we pay attention to who we attack and what alliances they are in. Sometimes, you may attack a player because they are in an alliance you are actively competing with. Other times, you may deliberately avoid that player so as not to give them a valuable retaliation. That is part of the strategy.

That all becomes moot when the player you are attacking may be swapped out if his score drops too low or if the player you attack instead later becomes part of the alliance you were competing against. And seeing 5DVs vault in front of X-Men in the last two PVPs not because its existing players improved their scores, but because 5DVs added higher scorers to its roster strikes me as a problem with the alliance system.

As other people have pointed out, while professional leagues have farm systems and transfer windows, they all require that rosters be set by a certain deadline in the season. That is effectively what I am proposing, but using the cool-down method because MPQ has constantly running events.

I also think my proposal would help in one other area. When an alliance has more than a set 20 members to choose from, it has the ability to swap out members for PVE and PVP when they end at different times. So you can have 10 core members, 10 members that focus on PVE, and 10 members that focus on PVP. Need a high PVE score? Add the 10 PVE specialists. Need a high PVP score? Swap out the PVE specialists for the PVP specialists. As long as the events don't end at the exact same time, you can completely manipulate the roster to win top rewards in both events within hours of each other. So, in effect, that alliance does become a 100-member alliance, which exceeds the limits created by the developers.

Even with the cool-down period, the 100-member alliance will have plenty of benefits. It can choose to swap members outside the cool-down window, though that may require it to make some decisions about whether to aim for PVE or PVP points (or look for a balance). It will have a clear idea of who is available should one of its main alliance members have issues that prevent him or her from playing. And it can strategize with more members able to carry out those strategies. So my proposal hardly defeats the work that has been done to build those alliances.

Nonce Equitaur 2

There's a wikipedia page for the list of fallacies. However -- I am being off topic. The thread is about alliance swapping.

I'm fine with my own post here because it's short, and likely won't derail the thread. My own personal pet peeve is long off topic posts. When a series of long fallacious off-topic posts occur in sequence, and the whole page goes red from the number of people reporting it, that draws my attention.

But this is all off-topic, otherwise known as the red herring fallacy. This post should be ignored.

HailMary

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.

You're basically saying "Literally all rules are perfectly fine as long as they technically apply equally to everyone." I don't think you need someone to actually explain to you why that's absurd.

I don't much care about manic member swapping between the 5DX's. I mean, describing it as a "portfolio" rather than an "alliance" would seem far more accurate, but those are just words, right? If you wish to essentially establish an ad-hoc intra-group competition system, where placement rewards consist of temporary membership in "good, better, betterer" alliances, go for it. Sure, it commoditizes players, but if that's what your assets want, and the game allows you to do so for now, more power to you.

That said, dismissively declaring that something should be legal simply because it is legal is utterly ridiculous. Similarly ridiculous is the notion that shuffling point bundles at the eleventh hour is a tactic that's somehow categorically "fair" to the point of dismissing any discussion of the matter. Since we seem to be such fans of real-world analogies, I'll note that a company playing musical chairs with its assets right before the end of an earnings reporting cycle to hide losses and inflate profits is generally considered, at the very least, a highly suspicious business practice.

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.

Sorry to disappoint you, but some people don't equate "being stupid" to "not treating alliance members as hot-swappable point generators." That may be a foundational value for your "team" or "family," but many other alliances disagree with those priorities. You'd think that someone who snipes about goshdarn American hubris would know better than to type such arrogant absurdities out loud, so to speak.

I suppose Django did contemplate such a strategy at some point, but simply as an observation of 5DX, and in a "Man, I'm glad we're not so utterly cutthroat" way.

Twysta

Oh wow, this thread...

I think the main topic in this thread which as far as I'm aware hasn't been mentioned is sportsmanship.
If you don't get the reference... that speaks for itself.

If members are happy to swap out though and get lesser rewards because they were inactive and you did not deem them worthy enough then that's their/your perogative I guess.
For now it's allowed in the rules so for now we will deal with the punches.

Personally I'm glad I'm in an alliance which doesn't have this kind of structure wherein if someone is busy or unable to participate in one event they're off the team.
- I like the fact that it seems if one member isn't performing in one event for some reason or other the others almost take it upon themselves (through their own diligence) to support that player and make up for their absence.

PorkBelly

You can act within the spirit of the rules or within the strict letter of the rules.

While not expressly cheating, this clearly does not operate within the spirit of the rules which are that alliance rewards were supposed to be rewards between groups of a maximum of 20 individuals.

Rotating in the top 20 individuals from a pool of 100 possible is definitely a violation of the intent of the rules and should be addressed.

Unknown

It's likely that my opinion on this matter will be viewed as protecting SHIELD's positioning in PvP, and that's understandable. But untrue - the difference between 250 HP and 100 at this point is not even close to defraying the costs of the additional shield hopping that most top level players across alliances are engaging in right now due to the impact of positioning themselves for Season 1 placement.

Here's my concern with this issue. Team X sees that they are within 500-1000 pts. of Team V. Team X thinks, "Team V is pushing hard, but if we can shield hop a few extra times at the end, we may be able to close the gap." Team X drops another 150-225 per member on shields and braves the horde in an attempt to make it happen. Team V swaps out members and nullifies the effort.

My issue isn't that Team V secures 2nd place. They've worked within the rules, and while I feel bad for those that get swapped out and miss out on the additional rewards, Team V has played their hand well. Where I take issue, is that now not only has Team X lost out the 150 HP difference in prize tiers, but likely that 150-225 additional spent in shields fighting the good fight. In essence, this tactic makes placing 3rd less lucrative than placing 50th (or even 2500th).

A few more repetitions of this strategy, and you have once again de-incentivized the competition for the top spots, as those teams on the verge will choose to conserve HP by and large, knowing that they're likely to get jumped or left in the dust at the buzzer. The same monopoly of the top spots you've always had is the result.

Even an hour or 2 moratorium on swapping before the end of an event would be sufficient in my mind. Plenty of leeway for teams where members experience emergencies, etc. to get a sub on the field, but also allowing for the most exciting part of a close race to be preserved. I love the meta decisions that happen in the final hours of elite tourneys and alliance based PvPs. Stay shielded or unshield? Do I use a speed team to limit risk, or a stronger defensive team to ward off/slow down retals? Watching people bravely charge into the storm at the last minute is part of the drama that makes this whole structure/game fun. If this practice continues as currently constituted, it will likely return to the outcome being determined long before this period, depriving us all of those grab-your-popcorn moments that make the endgame worth playing and watching.

I'm not calling out Team V for engaging in the practice. It isn't cheating. But it also isn't good for the competition at the top.

Jonny1Punch

Awesome idea Reckless I support it 100%. As always you and walkyourpath are class-acts and deserving of the top spot. WYP I also agree with you 100%. Great job with this topic!!!

Unknown

There is always going to be an advantage for having greater numbers, and that advantage come at the cost of greater logistics/coordination. If 100 guys working together can't beat 20 guys working together in a game where there's really no meaningful way to distinguish yourself at the top aside from spending more money (and even that has limits), that'd actually be pretty weird. The strategy strikes me as dubious, but as pointed out, the guys in 5DV can easily say using a lot of shields is dubious/P2W too. I feel that the long term PvP competition between the top is not very healthy for the game at the moment, but having 5DV at the top does not make the game inherently more or less unhealthy compared to before.

Unknown

This all breaks down to pride & strategy
everyone at the top wants to win. If you are a top 20 or better regularly as an individual or in an alliance, then you are playing to get better & win regularly
The season 1 rewards are almost worthless to those top players because most have maxed out rosters & all those tokens will be iso (80%+ at least). People are playing Season 1 events tougher because they want the pride of saying "I won Season 1" as an individual or a team

As an individual or alliance, you need to have a strategy (or even better several strategies) on how to win at events. There are tons of strategies like grinding, playing at soft times, rubber band, targeted attacks etc. Many valid ways to do well individually that everyone knows and can achieve.

Top alliances have different strategies on how to win that are based off of their communal advanatges. Shield likes to leverage the fact that one can break a shield to fight
& reshield after because they have lots of HP from winning a whole lot. If shields had countdown timers, Shield would change up what they do in pvp & still find a way to succeed. 5DV likes to allow members time off & reward sister alliance members who are strong players & intracommunity leaders (sister alliances never release a player if it will alter their reward structure & only release players who have performed well enough to truly deserve a better reward they could never get otherwise). We would change our strategy of allowing free time (which would be lame cause real life stuff comes up & its nice not to have to burden your teammates with your real life issues) & find something else that lets us win. Deadpool & Django always show up strong & X-Men are on the move, so I suspect they all have their own team strategies to help them.

As far as reckless' idea about some restrictions, I have two comments. First, I actually agree w Reckless in having some restrictions. 6 hr per swap & none in the last 6 hrs seems reasonable to me. The big problem w restrictions is that hitting nodes late in pve is everything. If someone has to miss the end from a real life emergency (kids, work, etc), it can be very detrimental & not necessarily known much before.
Second, it is a bit self serving to complain about the strategy another alliance uses that is within the rules. The game has literal glitches that shield benefited greatly from like hitting kyip to 1400 apiece and the great falcon giveaway. Were you complaining about the unfair advantages you received? I think not. In fact I seem to recall many post written about "how things should be left alone from these glitches". I thought both events were quite unfortunate & altered the game balance.

Using the rules of the game & not glitches, we have grown our alliances to the point where they are sister alliances and not junior alliances. That switch happened a little over a month ago when we all saw how well they were all doing. Each one is a top 100 alliance. That took a lot work to do to coordinate 100 people & has become a core strength because it allows us to have increased flexibility.

Another thing that our swapping helps fix is game issues. We currently have a player whose pve nodes started off at lvl321. The very first nodes! This is the second straight pve for him like that. Its frustrating for him to play the event at all, as can be understood by anyone. CS has not yet sorted this out & its a big problem because it affects a whole alliance. The removing bottom 2 scores suggestion would help with this but that's not available as an option. Its good for him & us that we have something to help, because the devs aren't fixing this fast enough or efficiently enough either. He is still playing the event but we all have different expectations for his score now. Its a real shame because he is a very good player that has great dedication to the team. I hope the devs fix his problem soon.

Unknown

walkyourpath wrote:

It's likely that my opinion on this matter will be viewed as protecting SHIELD's positioning in PvP, and that's understandable. But untrue - the difference between 250 HP and 100 at this point is not even close to defraying the costs of the additional shield hopping that most top level players across alliances are engaging in right now due to the impact of positioning themselves for Season 1 placement.

Here's my concern with this issue. Team X sees that they are within 500-1000 pts. of Team V. Team X thinks, "Team V is pushing hard, but if we can shield hop a few extra times at the end, we may be able to close the gap." Team X drops another 150-225 per member on shields and braves the horde in an attempt to make it happen. Team V swaps out members and nullifies the effort.

My issue isn't that Team V secures 2nd place. They've worked within the rules, and while I feel bad for those that get swapped out and miss out on the additional rewards, Team V has played their hand well. Where I take issue, is that now not only has Team X lost out the 150 HP difference in prize tiers, but likely that 150-225 additional spent in shields fighting the good fight. In essence, this tactic makes placing 3rd less lucrative than placing 50th (or even 2500th).

A few more repetitions of this strategy, and you have once again de-incentivized the competition for the top spots, as those teams on the verge will choose to conserve HP by and large, knowing that they're likely to get jumped or left in the dust at the buzzer. The same monopoly of the top spots you've always had is the result.

Even an hour or 2 moratorium on swapping before the end of an event would be sufficient in my mind. Plenty of leeway for teams where members experience emergencies, etc. to get a sub on the field, but also allowing for the most exciting part of a close race to be preserved. I love the meta decisions that happen in the final hours of elite tourneys and alliance based PvPs. Stay shielded or unshield? Do I use a speed team to limit risk, or a stronger defensive team to ward off/slow down retals? Watching people bravely charge into the storm at the last minute is part of the drama that makes this whole structure/game fun. If this practice continues as currently constituted, it will likely return to the outcome being determined long before this period, depriving us all of those grab-your-popcorn moments that make the endgame worth playing and watching.

I'm not calling out Team V for engaging in the practice. It isn't cheating. But it also isn't good for the competition at the top.

Fair point WYP. For competition to thrive, players must believe that efforts are meaningful in the end. But I think you're underestimating the self-belief of the competition. [I'll use actual names for a more concrete context]. If 5DV continue last-minute player swapping, the X-Men can do one of two things: 1) pack it in and go "what's the point of trying really?" or 2) knuckle down and make sure that their 20 members out-performs our top 20 members, which renders our strategy pointless. This, by the way, is the option SHIELD are taking, because you guys have full condifidence in your ability to beat our top 20, and also because you guys are pretty much crazy, as far as I can tell.

A quick glance at the current leaderboard gives me a sense of which option the X-Men are taking. Make no mistake, competition is fiercer than ever right now, the top alliances are all upping their game, and the benefits trickle down to the entire player base.

But I take your point about tail-end drama. We want the strategies we employ in the game to be efficacious, and last minute swapping subtracts from that. An hour is sufficient in your mind, as it is in mine. I really can't argue with that. If the 5Deadlys can't grant that concession, we are something else indeed.

On a different note, I would appreciate that others in the forums don't caricature the 5Deadlys as a soul-less machine that feeds on the points and fears of its members. I'm sensing that quite a bit from the very people who in the same breath proudly champion "fairness" and "sportsmanship". I hope that irony isn't entirely lost. We can be pretty decent people when we're not trying to wind up Jozier. And we do thrive a lot on camaraderie. And though I grant that we experience more drama than most alliances, most alliances don't have to accommodate the opinions of 100 players.

We are not perfect, and we can be downright trolls every once in a while. Like public farts, it happens, but that doesn't mean we're proud of it. At the end of the day, like most everyone else, we're doing our best to play well, fight for top honours and enjoy the game. And it would add to our enjoyment if it doesn't seem so fashionable to take pop shots at us.

Unknown

I don't speak much on the forums but I'll this this, as the leader of the X-men let 5DV do their swapping I wish the best for their morale. Honesty that will be short lived, the game is what it is. We did make another chapter to keep the people close to use that want to see us succeed. Will we swap no, if someone wants to move from X1 to X2 because their play habits change that's what it's there for. As far as S.H.I.E.L.D goes I have a lot of respect for those guys and gals especially Reckless. I'm expecting a very close finish to season 1 and 5DV honestly I don't even factor them in. We did actually get a couple that where unhappy, and good friends with Johnny. Other than that some really great people over there we just couldn't except everyone that wanted to leave 5DV. I love what season 1 has to offer S.H.I.E.L.D and The X-Men in the way of competition, just wish there was a 3rd alliance to compete to make it a bit more interesting. Keep up the good fight S.H.I.E.L.D!!!!!

Unknown

nazerith wrote:

I don't speak much on the forums but I'll this this, as the leader of the X-men let 5DV do their swapping I wish the best for their morale. Honesty that will be short lived, the game is what it is. We did make another chapter to keep the people close to use that want to see us succeed. Will we swap no, if someone wants to move from X1 to X2 because their play habits change that's what it's there for. As far as S.H.I.E.L.D goes I have a lot of respect for those guys and gals especially Reckless. I'm expecting a very close finish to season 1 and 5DV honestly I don't even factor them in. We did actually get a couple that where unhappy, and good friends with Johnny. Other than that some really great people over there we just couldn't except everyone that wanted to leave 5DV. I love what season 1 has to offer S.H.I.E.L.D and The X-Men in the way of competition, just wish there was a 3rd alliance to compete to make it a bit more interesting. Keep up the good fight S.H.I.E.L.D!!!!!

You're a funny guy Nazerith. Usually people talk smack after actually accomplishing something. But you know, different strokes for different folks I suppose. All the best!

Unknown

Lycra wrote:

nazerith wrote:

I don't speak much on the forums but I'll this this, as the leader of the X-men let 5DV do their swapping I wish the best for their morale. Honesty that will be short lived, the game is what it is. We did make another chapter to keep the people close to use that want to see us succeed. Will we swap no, if someone wants to move from X1 to X2 because their play habits change that's what it's there for. As far as S.H.I.E.L.D goes I have a lot of respect for those guys and gals especially Reckless. I'm expecting a very close finish to season 1 and 5DV honestly I don't even factor them in. We did actually get a couple that where unhappy, and good friends with Johnny. Other than that some really great people over there we just couldn't except everyone that wanted to leave 5DV. I love what season 1 has to offer S.H.I.E.L.D and The X-Men in the way of competition, just wish there was a 3rd alliance to compete to make it a bit more interesting. Keep up the good fight S.H.I.E.L.D!!!!!

You're a funny guy Nazerith. Usually people talk smack after actually accomplishing something. But you know, different strokes for different folks I suppose. All the best!

That doesn't seem to have stopped you and yours from doing the same.

Unknown

nazerith wrote:

I don't speak much on the forums but I'll this this, as the leader of the X-men let 5DV do their swapping I wish the best for their morale. Honesty that will be short lived, the game is what it is. We did make another chapter to keep the people close to use that want to see us succeed. Will we swap no, if someone wants to move from X1 to X2 because their play habits change that's what it's there for. As far as S.H.I.E.L.D goes I have a lot of respect for those guys and gals especially Reckless. I'm expecting a very close finish to season 1 and 5DV honestly I don't even factor them in. We did actually get a couple that where unhappy, and good friends with Johnny. Other than that some really great people over there we just couldn't except everyone that wanted to leave 5DV. I love what season 1 has to offer S.H.I.E.L.D and The X-Men in the way of competition, just wish there was a 3rd alliance to compete to make it a bit more interesting. Keep up the good fight S.H.I.E.L.D!!!!!

nazerith, I am going to take a screenshot of your alliance membership right now and we will see if you do not swap members before the end. I feel you are full of ****, and as our biggest imitators the xmen have no place in this thread. I was going to ask the venoms to beat your sorry butts without swapping just to spite you, but I believe you will swap in order to win #2. How about we place a wager? Neither one of our alliances swaps, and whoever loses admits publicly on this thread that the other alliance is better. Something along the lines of: "I, Nazerith, admin that the 5DeadlyVenoms beat us and are the super alliance." Deal?

But wait, you are at 19/20 right now? So did you just happen to decide to remove a member? I don't suppose you will fill the gap with the strongest perfoming member of Xmen2 will you? How is that any different? You were 20/20 and are changing your roster to meet your goals. I had no issue with it until you decided to join the me 2 wagon.

Edit: my public relations crew decided i was being too aggro with my response so I edited to remove the edgier bits (Since i don't want to be banned again by the Banwagon.)

Unknown

So alliance swaparoos

reckless442

JoshBot3000 wrote:

This all breaks down to pride & strategy
everyone at the top wants to win. If you are a top 20 or better regularly as an individual or in an alliance, then you are playing to get better & win regularly
The season 1 rewards are almost worthless to those top players because most have maxed out rosters & all those tokens will be iso (80%+ at least). People are playing Season 1 events tougher because they want the pride of saying "I won Season 1" as an individual or a team

As an individual or alliance, you need to have a strategy (or even better several strategies) on how to win at events. There are tons of strategies like grinding, playing at soft times, rubber band, targeted attacks etc. Many valid ways to do well individually that everyone knows and can achieve.

Top alliances have different strategies on how to win that are based off of their communal advanatges. Shield likes to leverage the fact that one can break a shield to fight
& reshield after because they have lots of HP from winning a whole lot. If shields had countdown timers, Shield would change up what they do in pvp & still find a way to succeed. 5DV likes to allow members time off & reward sister alliance members who are strong players & intracommunity leaders (sister alliances never release a player if it will alter their reward structure & only release players who have performed well enough to truly deserve a better reward they could never get otherwise). We would change our strategy of allowing free time (which would be lame cause real life stuff comes up & its nice not to have to burden your teammates with your real life issues) & find something else that lets us win. Deadpool & Django always show up strong & X-Men are on the move, so I suspect they all have their own team strategies to help them.

As far as reckless' idea about some restrictions, I have two comments. First, I actually agree w Reckless in having some restrictions. 6 hr per swap & none in the last 6 hrs seems reasonable to me. The big problem w restrictions is that hitting nodes late in pve is everything. If someone has to miss the end from a real life emergency (kids, work, etc), it can be very detrimental & not necessarily known much before.
Second, it is a bit self serving to complain about the strategy another alliance uses that is within the rules. The game has literal glitches that shield benefited greatly from like hitting kyip to 1400 apiece and the great falcon giveaway. Were you complaining about the unfair advantages you received? I think not. In fact I seem to recall many post written about "how things should be left alone from these glitches". I thought both events were quite unfortunate & altered the game balance.

Using the rules of the game & not glitches, we have grown our alliances to the point where they are sister alliances and not junior alliances. That switch happened a little over a month ago when we all saw how well they were all doing. Each one is a top 100 alliance. That took a lot work to do to coordinate 100 people & has become a core strength because it allows us to have increased flexibility.

Another thing that our swapping helps fix is game issues. We currently have a player whose pve nodes started off at lvl321. The very first nodes! This is the second straight pve for him like that. Its frustrating for him to play the event at all, as can be understood by anyone. CS has not yet sorted this out & its a big problem because it affects a whole alliance. The removing bottom 2 scores suggestion would help with this but that's not available as an option. Its good for him & us that we have something to help, because the devs aren't fixing this fast enough or efficiently enough either. He is still playing the event but we all have different expectations for his score now. Its a real shame because he is a very good player that has great dedication to the team. I hope the devs fix his problem soon.

I'm only going to respond to a few things.

It is rather ironic that you point out that S.H.I.E.L.D uses shields supposedly because it wins more HP. In direct response to the complaints about this so-called advantage S.H.I.E.L.D was getting, the rewards for PVP wins were reduced. So that actually highlights the fact that the devs will take action to address complaints that an in-game strategy is being abused by one alliance and hurting competition. As it is, several of us in S.H.I.E.L.D pointed out before the nerf to PVP rewards that the rewards did not really affect our shielding strategy. Those of us who shield to keep our scores high shielded before alliances -- and continue to shield after it. Those of us who don't use many shields still don't use many shields. And you know what? We are still doing the same after the rewards nerf.

Regarding the supposedly self-serving aspect of kyipgate, I think it's rather absurd for anyone in 5DVs to suggest anything nefarious about that event. By how much did 5DVs beat its prior best result? As I pointed out when people were arguing about the impact of kyip, points increased across the board. It wasn't just people who hit kyip that increased their points, but also people who were able to hit much higher-value targets when they were in the 1000s through 1200s. Thus, the impact of kyip was somewhat diluted since nearly all of the major alliances and most of the active players were able to take advantage of that glitch.

I also am struggling to be very sympathetic to your member who has scaling issues. You may have missed the fact, but I was one of the first posters on this board to hit 395s. And I've had them now in multiple PVE events and was at max-scaling levels before they raised them to 395. I've had to change the way I play and have abandoned any hope of actually winning my brackets because I generally cannot even clear all the nodes in the final sub of a PVE event. The same is true of several members of S.H.I.E.L.D, which is largely the reason why we are not competing for alliance wins in the PVE events. That you basically are saying that 5DVs has the ability to swap out members to avoid the impact of scaling, when other alliances have to minimize their PVE play and settle for lesser rewards, is yet more proof that alliance swapping is undermining the competition.

My last point concerns last-minute emergencies. Other alliances have to deal with members being unavailable at the end of PVEs for all sorts of reason and don't have any luxury of swapping. I've had conflicts for the ends of several PVEs due to attending theater and family events. That's life. Other members of S.H.I.E.L.D have had to deal with illness, family emergencies, moving, etc. All have cut into their ability to contribute to PVE. For 5DVs, those could mainly be avoided because they are foreseeable. My proposal would only prevent swapping for six hours before the end of the event. But on the rare occasion when a true emergency makes one member unavailable for the last few hours, 5DVs would be just like every other alliance that faces the same issues all the time. I don't see how that is in any way unfair.

Unknown

walkyourpath wrote:

It's likely that my opinion on this matter will be viewed as protecting SHIELD's positioning in PvP, and that's understandable. But untrue - the difference between 250 HP and 100 at this point is not even close to defraying the costs of the additional shield hopping that most top level players across alliances are engaging in right now due to the impact of positioning themselves for Season 1 placement.

Here's my concern with this issue. Team X sees that they are within 500-1000 pts. of Team V. Team X thinks, "Team V is pushing hard, but if we can shield hop a few extra times at the end, we may be able to close the gap." Team X drops another 150-225 per member on shields and braves the horde in an attempt to make it happen. Team V swaps out members and nullifies the effort.

My issue isn't that Team V secures 2nd place. They've worked within the rules, and while I feel bad for those that get swapped out and miss out on the additional rewards, Team V has played their hand well. Where I take issue, is that now not only has Team X lost out the 150 HP difference in prize tiers, but likely that 150-225 additional spent in shields fighting the good fight. In essence, this tactic makes placing 3rd less lucrative than placing 50th (or even 2500th).

A few more repetitions of this strategy, and you have once again de-incentivized the competition for the top spots, as those teams on the verge will choose to conserve HP by and large, knowing that they're likely to get jumped or left in the dust at the buzzer. The same monopoly of the top spots you've always had is the result.

Even an hour or 2 moratorium on swapping before the end of an event would be sufficient in my mind. Plenty of leeway for teams where members experience emergencies, etc. to get a sub on the field, but also allowing for the most exciting part of a close race to be preserved. I love the meta decisions that happen in the final hours of elite tourneys and alliance based PvPs. Stay shielded or unshield? Do I use a speed team to limit risk, or a stronger defensive team to ward off/slow down retals? Watching people bravely charge into the storm at the last minute is part of the drama that makes this whole structure/game fun. If this practice continues as currently constituted, it will likely return to the outcome being determined long before this period, depriving us all of those grab-your-popcorn moments that make the endgame worth playing and watching.

I'm not calling out Team V for engaging in the practice. It isn't cheating. But it also isn't good for the competition at the top.

If you truly feel that strongly about it I don't really mind a 1 hour before event ends freeze on roster changes. As long as alliances are allowed to change their roster as they see fit during the rest of the tourney. I can understand you point of view but I see it as such as small issue that I am honestly surprised you came here to discuss. Here is the bottom line, we didn't do swapping as a tactic when the prizes for #1 mattered and the prizes for #2 didn't. People are acting like we just swapped our way to the top, and we both know that's simply not true. I understand a lot of people are rooting for the xmen here because they want to see change at the top. I am all for fair competition. But when the #3 alliance, xmen, is participating in this debate when they are equally involved in the practice is ludicrous. Also, I didn't go through the time and effort (plus serious HP expenditures) of setting up 5 alliances just so I could have people arbitrarily decide how to run them. If the consensus is that last minute swaps are anti-competitive, so be it, let the devs implement it. I guarantee that the last minute swap is not the game changer. It's the fact that I have 100 people to choose from and not 20. Still, I only have replaced the bottom two, not literally the top 20 placed together. Why? Because I want everyone to participate in the rewards. I have offered the leader of the xmen a wager and if he accepts we will freeze rosters for this pvp to prove a point. After this event ends though, all bets are off unless the devs decide to implement a coding change.

Bacon Pants

I read through some of this discussion...some of it was nonsense. Anywho, treat alliances like the transfer window in professional soccer and lock out transfers at the end of events. Of course, there is no perfect solution to this problem. But, being able to swap players in and out at will can present a distinct advantage over other alliances. Locking out transfers removes this advantage, but also screws you if a player cannot play in the final few hours of an event. So, a second proposition would be to only count the top 15 scores per alliance...or something along those lines.


I didn't see any good sports examples so I will provide two:

Man City is down a goal to United (never) and there are 5 minutes left. Man City pulls off the deal of the century and signs Neymar who happens to be in town. Neymar comes on to the pitch and scores twice for Man City and they win.

Or, Penguins goalie Marc Andre Fleury lets in 4 goals in the first period of a playoff game. The Pens trade for Tukka Rask in the second period and he shuts the door the rest of the way and the Pens come back to win.

That's essentially what's happening (or could happen) with Alliance Swapping.

Fun times indeed.

Unknown

klingsor wrote:

I can understand you point of view but I see it as such as small issue that I am honestly surprised you came here to discuss. Here is the bottom line, we didn't do swapping as a tactic when the prizes for #1 mattered and the prizes for #2 didn't.

Only speaking for myself, because I feel like you're taking my post further than I intended it. I went out of my way to say that I wasn't calling you all out for it, so we should be all good. Swapping isn't an issue to me, my only point was to say that last-minute swapping takes a bunch of the fun out of watching the leaderboard at the end and may encourage unnecessary HP spending from teams that are close to the top. Lycra agreed with that.

Just sharing an opinion and my experience with the last tourney. I've been very vocal in praising what your efforts have done to help good players get the rewards they deserve. I don't begrudge you having a pool of talent to develop and draw from; you've put in the work to make that happen. I'd just like to see the very ends of tourneys be a pure race between a set group of players, as it increases my viewing enjoyment. I joined the conversation because I felt some version of the proposed change would make my primary entertainment option more... well, entertaining. I feel it does so without nullifying the advantages your hard work in organizing a huge group of players provides to you. I'm not at all trying to say that 5DV wouldn't post great results without swapping. It's not an attack on the quality of your alliance.