PG favoritism benefits exploitation?

Hello, it’s me again!

Just a general question. I realize @PGJared touches on this in another post, but I’m bringing it up again.

A team disbanded, and for the life of me, I can’t think of another time when a team was able to disband, reform, and somehow retain all of their infrastructure despite being a newly formed team in bronze.

Setting aside the rather outrageous favoritism displayed by PG in allowing this team to retain their castles after exploiting a known loophole to take advantage of the game, I know that PG announced they would retain their access until the next evaluation of teams for eligibility blah blah.

But how exactly did they keep their infrastructure too? And not basic sets, but maxed sets. And what about guards? Does this bronze team now have an insane advantage against other similarly ranked teams by having 300m guards stored up that they shouldn’t have? Maxed infra that they shouldn’t have? And that team is offering merges to other teams in an attempt to sell that advantage to others that don’t have it?

Idk about you, but that doesn’t sound like an attempt to rebuild after some mishap. That sounds like blatant exploitation.

Is every team that disbands going to have this option now? Or is this just more favoritism for that team since they spent a lot of money?

It sets a really bad precedent for the game to allow a team that blatantly exploited a loophole to not only retain their access but also land, Infra, guards, or any other resources. I mean, I’ve lost infra due to putting two sets on due to lag, and never got my stuff back. But this team can completely disband and get everything back?

:man_shrugging:t2: Just my thoughts. Does the community agree?

@PGGalileo

23 Likes

They did say they were “looking into it”, not sure what that means though tbh. It is a fairly vague term. I would guess, they went in fast with minimal information and took action. Then said they made a mistake, and now theyre not going to touch anything as a way to “offset” the initial move. So likely, what you see is what you get, and you are just going to have to learn to live with it.

1 Like

I’ve said similar when all this blew up in the first place.

They’re technically a new team. Date of team creation confirms that. New teams do not get atlas access until a minimum of 3 weeks in sapphire (or whatever the measurement is, cause it seems to fluctuate). IF they’re the big bada**es that they claim their legacy to be, then they should have no problem getting back to sapphire and earning back atlas.

The new LD was clearly created to exploit the loophole of retaining atlas access and infrastructure.

4 Likes

Unless and until it becomes impossible to buy, borrow or beg to take over an inactive Atlas team (which includes all of their infrastructure), this is just the same thing. Semantics to call them different imo.

Except it’s not. It’s a new team that wasn’t supposed to have access at all, let alone infra and guards.

Not the same at all, as it happened as a result of a deliberate attempt to exploit a game loophole

2 Likes

Hmmmm well since u brought this up , I think they did spent a ton of money and probably spending the moment we speak

The only difference is that one team didn’t press the disband button so they could hang out, clutter stuff up or have a team of alts or inactive players and is passing infrastructure off to players that in no way shape or form had anything to do with the original team… which is worse for the game imo than an active team with some players contributed to the infrastructure attached to that team.

So no I don’t buy it that they are that different.

Edit: I’ll be clear, I’m not attached to issue, either for or against.

1 Like

Theyre just going to change that too then :smiley:

But they are? Whatever happened, there was a big enough internal issue and it was played out over the forums a bit some of the reasons. That the decision was made. So the fact that DID occur does make it different. Perhaps not from a game side but from a personnel side. And while it is their right for sure, PG basically stepped in and decided to interpret what the leadership of that team wanted is all. I doubt theyll do it again and this LD gets a one time pass, but it is what it is.

1 Like

Its happened before, PG were meant to have stipped the ability for that glitch to work. Think it may have even happened twice before :thinking:

As I said I’m not too attached to the issue, can’t say I really care one way or the other. However, I do feel that the two situations are of the same cloth and the current policy as it relates to both should be addressed with an outcome that is the same.

1 Like

The thing is, making accusations is just that, no proof that it was done deliberately, they could well have just wanted to keep the name going. After all a lot of the old players didn’t want to disband. Especially as this loophole was meant to be fixed by PG.

Whether they kept it or not is down to PG, but whats done is done. No changing that. And no additional posts will make a difference. PG can not and will not change their decision now.

4 Likes

Lol they didn’t make a final decision. But the fact that they’ve rolled back decisions goes to show you have no idea what you’re talking about.

These aren’t accusations, they’re facts.

Lethal disbanded, as such should not have access to atlas.

Lethal reformed as a new bronze league team, and as such should not have atlas, but an exception was made by PG to allow them to keep access until the next evaluation period, at which time their activity will determine if they keep it. Per their announcement, they would review other details and it could be subject to change.

It’s unfair for them to have castle infrastructure or guards to deploy on any castles they gain. They’re a NEW team, and as such should be subject to all the rules and requirements of other new teams.

Personal feelings aside, a team disbanded and exploited a loophole to get back. And now PG is showing blatant favoritism by allowing them to keep resources they shouldn’t have. :man_shrugging:t2: That’s not ok and sets a bad precedent for future issues.

3 Likes

Did they “technically” disband or were they “technically” all kicked out of their team?

“Technically” I don’t store towers during pvp to exploit the event.

“Technically” PG can do w/e they want and there’s “technically” nothing we can do about it.

Disclaimer: I “technically” have no horse in this race.

3 Likes

For the record, I don’t disagree that they connect to a similar root issue. But still think of them as distinct problems.

PG could resolve both issues by removing those teams from atlas.

1 Like

Thats a bit harsh dont you think? Did I deserve that? They won’t change their minds because they will lose face. Period. There was a final decision as they sent a mail about it. LD was to keep atlas.

Where is the proof that they deliberetely created the same named team, knowing they were using a exploit in order to keep castles and infra?

@moderators can we close this thread as its already been done twice since it happened so no point having a 3rd.

1 Like

My opinion (my only knowledge of this situation being what has been presented on these forums) is that PG would do well to limit the power of the Leader position. With Atlas offering sustained benefits for sustained team participation, it seems ludicrous to me that one member should have the ability to negate it all on a whim-- and in such a short timeframe.

1 Like

It’s a separate issue. But I’m glad you think you get to determine if it needs to be closed. Got some skin in the game bro?

This post is specifically about the fact that they have infrastructure they should have, guards they shouldn’t have, and are attempting to sell that advantage to others by offering merges.

Not to mention their blatant attempts to sell packs, rubies, timers etc to players on line chat. But since PG doesnt do anything there I won’t share the screenshots of their players soliciting others to give logins and load packs.

The team is cheating, and it needs to be addressed.

This is not how the game should be played. PG needs to actually do something to prevent these things from occurring more and more. Playing favorites with them because they’ve spent money before doesnt send a good image to the rest of the community.

Or was TheMovement full of crap and just a hypocritical stance against dread?

(Wait I know the answer to that…)

Well one thing to look at, just from an objective stats perspective. Everyone is saying it is “LD”, but is it? Is it even 50% of the old team from the day they were kicked/disbanded?

I would guess no. So, in fact, it is like maybe 10 people and 40 who are gaining access to things they had literally no part in achieving. I dont think that will have any bearing on the outcome but if it was all these people had such a bad time and just wanted to come back, where are they?

5 Likes

Time between pvp rounds I love reading about politics :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

2 Likes