**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options

“Corrective Effect”: What does this mean?

DrZolaDrZola Posts: 8,547 ★★★★★
in General Discussion


I’m trying to tease out what this is supposed to imply. Any help would be appreciated.

Dr. Zola

Comments

  • Options
    DabNation1DabNation1 Posts: 22 ★
    edited March 2020
    Yeah i don’t like how that last discussion got closed. Only fixing the points for an alliance who tied or lost just does not seem right. Especially since Miike said that war rating would not be effected for that war.

    Some automatically lost that war getting knocked into a lower tier. Then it took two wins to get back into that tier. You lose more rating points when you lose a war then you gain when you win a war. Allowing an ally to keep their war rating from and automatic win, and them fighting in a higher tier for 3-4 wars because of it does not “correct it self”. Since the tiers are setup in a point system that are relative to the other allies, allowing half the allies to keep their win points, and only giving back the points lost for a loss makes it so around half the allies in the game are a war behind in tier points vs all the others in the game. I understand that it’s a mess and extremely hard to fix mathematically but it’s unfair to fix the issue in the way kabam is attempting to.
  • Options
    ThecurlerThecurler Posts: 840 ★★★★
    The fairest way to resolve it would have been to end the season.
    It's blatantly obvious the decision to continue the season means some will unfairly lose out.
    It's Kabam's game so no surprise they've taken a decision that means they don't lose out (despite the issues being their fault).
    It is what it is.
  • Options
    DrZolaDrZola Posts: 8,547 ★★★★★
    edited March 2020
    I’m not trying to lay blame, and I would suggest others refrain from that as well. Better to remain constructive and propose reasonable fixes.

    The thoughts expressed here about the meaning of “collective effect” comport with my own assumptions.

    But I would submit that simply “letting things run their course” in the belief that it all evens out in the end seems off-base. Perhaps, if the season were months long and there was a broader base of wars to play, there would be a longer run for things to level out.

    As it stands, there isn’t. Everything, from war rating to scores to tier multiplier, is faulty.

    The only way to begin to adjust for that is to target the individual alliances who were negatively affected in any way by “short” wars at seasons end and remediate the error.

    That’s honestly the only corrective effect that has a chance of approximating fairness.

    Dr. Zola
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,247 ★★★★★
    What he means is it will align people back into the spots they "belong" (which I use loosely because no one belongs anywhere by default). It will have a corrective effect for placements. That's what I understood.
  • Options
    Kabam MiikeKabam Miike Posts: 8,215
    As we also said in that thread, we will keep an eye on this and if there is further action required, we will take it.
This discussion has been closed.