Legitimate 3v3 Teams Banned by Blizzard

Q u o t e:
Blizzard doesn't do real investigations, they just BAN people at random for getting 2050 for fighting other teams on the server.

Our investigations are quite thorough, I assure you.

I'm unable to go into detail at the moment due to our privacy policies, but I can say this: If these teams very clearly planned to fight one another, that is one of the reasons why an investigation might have been undertaken.

Whether they were 'truly' fighting during the battle is subject to interpretation. The intentions and results are what contribute to a determination in a case like this.

The simple fact is, that intentionally queuing against another team is going to ring bells. Win-trading, via intentionally queuing versus another team, is against our policies and it can land those engaging in the practice in very uncomfortable circumstances. Particularly when one team reaps the reward of hitting a threshold - such as a title change, or gear eligibility.

Ultimately, the only recourse for a player affected by this account action is to send email to [email protected] from the email address registered to their World of Warcraft account.

If the match is rated, and teams are intentionally queuing against one another, our investigations will reflect that. There's a high likelihood that such behavior will be interpreted as win-trading.

Just as note, unlike many other offenses - it is very possible that we will 'patrol' for, and actively pursue win-trading. It does not require a report.

Q u o t e:
so scheduling to play against someone good because the only teams you are getting are terrible players who are 300 rating below you is against the rules now?

When did you ever get the impression that intentionally queuing against another team was okay? The queueing system will pick up teams that are at roughly the same rating in most circumstances. I find it hard to take this statement seriously, to be completely honest.

Aside from which, plenty of legitimate competition is available at each rating level. It is relatively very rare for a team to be queued against an opponent more than 50 rating away from themselves short of the players at the top of the battlegroup.

Q u o t e:
thanks for showing us the stance blizzard takes on competitive arena. perhaps those who went to WWI and MLG events accounts' should also be looked into then.

These two situations are wholly un-related. Of course we encourage competition (which is why win-trading is a violation of our policies.)

I fail to see why you would draw a parallel between say, one team intentionally queuing against, and winning, ten times in a row vs. another team (from the same realm, no less), and teams that are selected and invited to a sanctioned tournament event.

Regardless, debate here isn't productive. I've already provided the only correct course of action for the players that are directly involved in this situation.

Q u o t e:

Okay, Again I point out the fact that they didn't queue against each other or time their queues or anything. They knew they were in a queue, and they queued.

Unfortunately, the evidence in this case suggests quite the opposite.

Q u o t e:

And how can you say it's all QUITE thorough when we have 2 vengeglad teams who were banned 2 days before still log on on tuesday with the Vengeglad title? :(

Failing to remove a title in the wake of an investigation would be simple human error. It is un-related to how thorough or complete the initial investigation was. Even the best investigation is subject to human error and additional review. We don't want to take action against those that are truly innocent, and we're more than willing to give a case another look.

I've already provided the means to acquire such a review.

Regardless, without the names of those players, and the realm they are from, I couldn't say for certain what occurred, nor would I be in a position to comment in any case. Nor would it be relevant to this situation.

If it looks to you like there may have been an error of some sort, please feel free to alert our staff, either by sending an email to [email protected] or submitting an in-game petition. If you've had an experience with our staff you wish to comment on (whether positive or negative), then you can send an email to [email protected].

Q u o t e:
As for "subject to interpretation" How can a ban be placed when there should be no proof of win-trading. 1 team banned actually STOPPED the other from getting a rating threshold ;(

That is not, unfortunately, what the record suggests =(. Some cases are hazier than others. Some, not so much.

You seem quite convinced though, so I hope that the Account Administration review of this situation arrives at the best and most just conclusion for those involved.

Q u o t e:

I find it hard to take your statement seriously, to be completely honest. no offense but you obviously do not know what it's like so i don't know why you are talking about it like you do.

Clearly I've never competed at those levels. Do low point games happen? Yes, yes they do. Do they happen frequently this early in the season, which is what we were discussing? No. Not so much. Competition is still quite fierce.

Clearly, I can't see exactly who each team faced for the last several weeks, what realm that team is from, its constituent members, how long those matches took, the relative rating of those teams, the stats on those matches, and the conclusions of those matches.

Clearly, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Hyperbole, and misinformation really isn't going to serve in this case. Purely and simply, I have a much broader perspective on this situation than you seem to think I do.

Once more though: debate with me serves no purpose. Discourse with Account Administration is the only appropriate course of action at this point.

Q u o t e:
i am being completely honest with you, look at the amount of teams on bg9 at the moment above 2050. theres like 30 total. then you take into account different timezones, and what being australian has to do with my queue times. low point games happening? I got 15 point games until the 1800's. since then i have gotten sub 11 point games bar a few 13 point games on one day. as my rating got higher the poitns gained were lower and lower until we hit 0-3 points a game and we stopped queuing.

but on another note, thanks for talking to a paying customer with a sarcastic tone. shows how much respect you give your players. /endsarcasm.

I actually have a great deal of respect for our players, and their abilities. I'm grateful that they've chosen to play World of Warcraft, and I understand that it's a pleasure to compete against highly skilled opponents. The tone of the post I referenced expressed a certain derision and skepticism about my qualifications to comment on the matter, and cited information which I have clear evidence to repudiate. I was sarcastic, though, and I do apologize for that.

I also understand that there's a threshold at which queuing results in only a few points until more teams populate the higher brackets (and that there are rating ranges where your choice of 'valid' opponents becomes very limited period). Even then, gains can be sporadic. It can get lonely on top.

Competition in the 1900s (the rating range at which most of these teams were competing when this occurred), is still reasonably thick, though. At least on this battlegroup, with these teams, in this situation - and I can see that this was the case.

Q u o t e:
Q u o t e:

When did you ever get the impression that intentionally queuing against another team was okay? The queueing system will pick up teams that are at roughly the same rating in most circumstances. I find it hard to take this statement seriously, to be completely honest.

Aside from which, plenty of legitimate competition is available at each rating level. It is relatively very rare for a team to be queued against an opponent more than 50 rating away from themselves.

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=6417383120&postId=64166159541&sid=1#0

Belfaire's post does not suggest that intentionally queuing against a particular opposing team is acceptable. It does, however, suggest that we will be happy to review a situation of this nature in the event of an error. Just as I have.

The rating brackets are intended to be organic. Intentionally queuing against highly rated players to artificially inflate your rating gains is a bad idea, despite some teams having chosen to do so.

Q u o t e:

it's quite funny because usually the results are splits in these games, with one team gaining like maybe 20 rating and the other losing that much, but in the end it doesn't even matter because you don't lose a title. you don't lose points (well like 4 points a week, i'm sure every rational person will agree no one cares). the reason people organize games is because playing against 0 point teams with 32 point losses are not fun, espieically when they are bad and not a challenge, yet you lose 32 to a disconnect.

I'm going to address this part of your post specifically, because it touches on the heart of this issue.

You are correct - it can be crushing to lose a large number of points to a much lower rated team.

On the other hand, that is also the risk that comes with being on top. You lose more points to lower rated opponents. You might run into a highly skilled (but lower rated) team, or a decent counter comp that gives you a rough time. A large number of highly rated teams, (the majority, really) don't participate in organized scheduled 'queuing events' and are far more subject to those kinds of losses. They have to take those risks, and after getting to the heights, they have to scrape their way up the ratings ladder on low point wins.

The guys that do engage in organized 'queueing events' can achieve huge ratings, and crushing advantages toward titles at the top while also dodging some of those trials. This is why we have policies regarding win-trading. Is avoiding a fight really in the spirit of competition? If a lower rated team defeats a much higher rated team, do they not deserve the points they earned?

I can say that our intent is not that players should organize fights versus one another in the arena - even purely for the sake of facing the best opponents possible, though I can respect that. The arena is there for open competition, come what may.

Q u o t e:


ok, i definetly see where you are coming from, and i suppose that can be answered with fair enough. however, the one thing i do want to say is, for example, my 5v5 team last season. being that we were the ONLY australian/hongkong team in the top 10, we never got any good matches queueing when we did. they were all 0-2 point wins to the point where that's what our team got accused of - that and dodging competition.

if you have a look at your records for season 2, i am sure it will show my team as gaining 6 rating a night after 15 games, with 0 losses. it got to the point, where i will openly admit, yes we did organize matches with other players, so we could queue at the same time they did and actually have some fun games. i mean, instead of queuing at our normal time, we would get up earlier on weekends and queue at american times.

i honestly do not consider that as win trading or doing wrong.

I get where you guys are coming from. I'm intimately aware of it, really. I hope you can see the other side of the coin though, and why our policies on win-trading exist to begin with.

Essentially, when you get to the point that a single loss accounts for many wins - that represents the 'peak' of the arena ladder. Issues arise when players artificially elevate the peak by selecting their competition. Even when they do so in earnest or merely to have some 'serious' competition. It becomes worse for them (a single loss represents a monumental loss of rating), and it becomes worse for those that aren't employing similar tactics. Also, regrettably, while I wish that all such arranged competition was pure-hearted in nature, the fact is that often, it isn't. It could be intended to secure a title or reach a rating threshold, for example.

What I'd like to see, though, are some ideas from the elite of the arena community regarding ways to improve the queuing system so that healthy competition between top rated teams is viable and doesn't artificially disrupt the arenas for all participants. Our Suggestions forum is NOT the black hole that some seem to think it is, and a post with some viable concepts could be a valuable source of inspiration. World of Warcraft is an evolving medium, and you are a part of that evolution.

It isn't the kind of thing that happens instantaneously, of course, but the concepts could be valuable nonetheless.

Q u o t e:
I'm sorry but that simply isn't true, (unless our definition of highly rated teams is different; teams in the 2100ish range can queue at nearly any time and get decent rating) I'm talking about the top 5-10 for the most part.

For the purposes of the discussion, let's reasonably call 'high rated' the top 5-10% of a bracket. That encompasses a fairly broad range of ratings. Our policies need to take into account all players - not merely the top 5 teams in a battlegroup =/.

I hope that the followup investigation of this situation produces an appropriate and fair conclusion for all the parties involved.

As this thread has attracted the attention of those that would seek to use it as an opportunity to grandstand against certain players, I will now be locking it.