**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.

Season ending early [Merged Threads]

1…67891012»

Comments

  • DragonUnleashedDragonUnleashed Posts: 62 ★
    Canrdboy36 said:

    @Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit @Kabam Vydious @Kabam Lyra @Kabam Porthos since rewards have not come in yet for season, if we have someone to boot (who rightfully earned rewards) do we have to keep them until rewards come in?

    Yes,

    They stated if you leave the alliance beforehand, they'll miss out on rewards
  • DragonUnleashedDragonUnleashed Posts: 62 ★

  • Canrdboy36Canrdboy36 Posts: 74 ★
    DragonUnleashed said:


    Thank you, u guess I missed that part, got so wrapped up in all the issues ya know 😂
  • IcejrIcejr Posts: 431 ★★★
    Canrdboy36 said:

    DragonUnleashed said:


    Thank you, u guess I missed that part, got so wrapped up in all the issues ya know 😂
    Thats why i asked to kabam to lock the kick button until rewards out
  • IcejrIcejr Posts: 431 ★★★
    Still leaderboard did not changed ,
    Dont know when this story will finish
    And how long kabam need to fix ,
    Still game buggy too
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,649 Guardian
    ContestOfNoobs said:

    12 wars is the standard now for many season.

    i was there when it was 24 wars,
    Made masters Season 2,

    but thats not the case, nor is it the subject.

    DNA3000 said:

    ContestOfNoobs said:

    I never said we deserve 2nd lol, all i said is that 6 wars to determine master is to short.

    If by that you mean that the results might have been different had the season gone longer, that's true. But that would also be true if the season went on for 18 wars, or 30 wars.

    There's nothing magical about 12 wars. Seasons used to be 24 wars long. They were shortened because players were getting burned out on the long season. Reducing the length of the season reduces the number of wars you have to "decide" placement, and that increases the variability. But there's a trade off between how many match ups help determine placement, and how many people are willing to tolerate. The choice is mostly arbitrary, in that it depends on subjective factors and not quantitative ones.

    We compromised from 24 to 12 not because 12 is a better number, but simply because players didn't want to fight 24. This season we're compromising from 12 to 6 because of a catastrophic corruption bug. It is less wars than we normally fight, but it isn't less fair, because there's nothing special about 12 that makes it "enough." If everyone was getting burned out on 12 war seasons, it could very well be 6 war seasons now, whether it was "enough" or not.

    Also, 2^6 = 64. That's more than twice as large as the master's bracket (including the top three). Mathematically speaking, that's enough match ups to "resolve" the master's bracket, at least to a first order approximation. That's not the same thing as "deciding" the master's bracket with certainty, but it is enough to say it isn't completely off the wall.
    noone said it was magical.

    12 wars is the standard now for many seasons.

    i was there when it was 24 wars,
    Made masters Season 2,

    but thats not the case, nor is it the subject.

    i Simply posted that 6 wars is to short to crown masters allaince especially when
    Rank #1 and #2 never faced each other this season
    You did imply 12 was magical, because by saying 6 is not enough you imply 12 is enough. But there's no such thing as "enough." There's no justifiable criteria for asserting that 12 passes a test that a fair and reasonable competition must have.

    The fact that rank 1 and rank 2 did not face each other (I'll take your word for that) is not a specific knock on the shorter season. That is always a possibility in the kind of matching system we have. It is always theoretically possible for an alliance to climb into second place from a much lower ranking after one war, after two wars, after nine wars, and if they happen to do so in the last war of the season, they will never face #1 because they were never high enough to face them during the season, and the only time they are high enough the season is over.

    Really, this is almost inevitably going to happen in any competition in which rank changes during the competition and match ups dynamically change with rank. That's why in the real world, this rarely happens. Competitions happen with tournaments, and rankings aren't recalculated during the tournament (at least, not for the purposes of match ups).
  • ContestOfNoobsContestOfNoobs Posts: 1,454 ★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    ContestOfNoobs said:

    12 wars is the standard now for many season.

    i was there when it was 24 wars,
    Made masters Season 2,

    but thats not the case, nor is it the subject.

    DNA3000 said:

    ContestOfNoobs said:

    I never said we deserve 2nd lol, all i said is that 6 wars to determine master is to short.

    If by that you mean that the results might have been different had the season gone longer, that's true. But that would also be true if the season went on for 18 wars, or 30 wars.

    There's nothing magical about 12 wars. Seasons used to be 24 wars long. They were shortened because players were getting burned out on the long season. Reducing the length of the season reduces the number of wars you have to "decide" placement, and that increases the variability. But there's a trade off between how many match ups help determine placement, and how many people are willing to tolerate. The choice is mostly arbitrary, in that it depends on subjective factors and not quantitative ones.

    We compromised from 24 to 12 not because 12 is a better number, but simply because players didn't want to fight 24. This season we're compromising from 12 to 6 because of a catastrophic corruption bug. It is less wars than we normally fight, but it isn't less fair, because there's nothing special about 12 that makes it "enough." If everyone was getting burned out on 12 war seasons, it could very well be 6 war seasons now, whether it was "enough" or not.

    Also, 2^6 = 64. That's more than twice as large as the master's bracket (including the top three). Mathematically speaking, that's enough match ups to "resolve" the master's bracket, at least to a first order approximation. That's not the same thing as "deciding" the master's bracket with certainty, but it is enough to say it isn't completely off the wall.
    noone said it was magical.

    12 wars is the standard now for many seasons.

    i was there when it was 24 wars,
    Made masters Season 2,

    but thats not the case, nor is it the subject.

    i Simply posted that 6 wars is to short to crown masters allaince especially when
    Rank #1 and #2 never faced each other this season
    You did imply 12 was magical, because by saying 6 is not enough you imply 12 is enough. But there's no such thing as "enough." There's no justifiable criteria for asserting that 12 passes a test that a fair and reasonable competition must have.

    The fact that rank 1 and rank 2 did not face each other (I'll take your word for that) is not a specific knock on the shorter season. That is always a possibility in the kind of matching system we have. It is always theoretically possible for an alliance to climb into second place from a much lower ranking after one war, after two wars, after nine wars, and if they happen to do so in the last war of the season, they will never face #1 because they were never high enough to face them during the season, and the only time they are high enough the season is over.

    Really, this is almost inevitably going to happen in any competition in which rank changes during the competition and match ups dynamically change with rank. That's why in the real world, this rarely happens. Competitions happen with tournaments, and rankings aren't recalculated during the tournament (at least, not for the purposes of match ups).
    DNA3000 said:

    ContestOfNoobs said:

    12 wars is the standard now for many season.

    i was there when it was 24 wars,
    Made masters Season 2,

    but thats not the case, nor is it the subject.

    DNA3000 said:

    ContestOfNoobs said:

    I never said we deserve 2nd lol, all i said is that 6 wars to determine master is to short.

    If by that you mean that the results might have been different had the season gone longer, that's true. But that would also be true if the season went on for 18 wars, or 30 wars.

    There's nothing magical about 12 wars. Seasons used to be 24 wars long. They were shortened because players were getting burned out on the long season. Reducing the length of the season reduces the number of wars you have to "decide" placement, and that increases the variability. But there's a trade off between how many match ups help determine placement, and how many people are willing to tolerate. The choice is mostly arbitrary, in that it depends on subjective factors and not quantitative ones.

    We compromised from 24 to 12 not because 12 is a better number, but simply because players didn't want to fight 24. This season we're compromising from 12 to 6 because of a catastrophic corruption bug. It is less wars than we normally fight, but it isn't less fair, because there's nothing special about 12 that makes it "enough." If everyone was getting burned out on 12 war seasons, it could very well be 6 war seasons now, whether it was "enough" or not.

    Also, 2^6 = 64. That's more than twice as large as the master's bracket (including the top three). Mathematically speaking, that's enough match ups to "resolve" the master's bracket, at least to a first order approximation. That's not the same thing as "deciding" the master's bracket with certainty, but it is enough to say it isn't completely off the wall.
    noone said it was magical.

    12 wars is the standard now for many seasons.

    i was there when it was 24 wars,
    Made masters Season 2,

    but thats not the case, nor is it the subject.

    i Simply posted that 6 wars is to short to crown masters allaince especially when
    Rank #1 and #2 never faced each other this season
    You did imply 12 was magical, because by saying 6 is not enough you imply 12 is enough. But there's no such thing as "enough." There's no justifiable criteria for asserting that 12 passes a test that a fair and reasonable competition must have.

    The fact that rank 1 and rank 2 did not face each other (I'll take your word for that) is not a specific knock on the shorter season. That is always a possibility in the kind of matching system we have. It is always theoretically possible for an alliance to climb into second place from a much lower ranking after one war, after two wars, after nine wars, and if they happen to do so in the last war of the season, they will never face #1 because they were never high enough to face them during the season, and the only time they are high enough the season is over.

    Really, this is almost inevitably going to happen in any competition in which rank changes during the competition and match ups dynamically change with rank. That's why in the real world, this rarely happens. Competitions happen with tournaments, and rankings aren't recalculated during the tournament (at least, not for the purposes of match ups).
    Lol there u go again trying to twist everything to your favor.

    12 has been the standard and it has been working, the thing is matchmaking is very flawed.

    I know it first hand, top master allainces used to "avoid" each other by not matching at the same time, believe it or not.
    On top of alliances trying to lose war rating on purpose during the off season.

    There are chats where people would get together just so they can not play each other and match other weaker allainces, but to bad kabam doesnt approve of 3rd party chats.

    That resulted in how allaince wars is now, where it all you need to do is get into the pool.

    the system needs to take account who faces who and its current rankings, war by war.

    Even if you did do 12 wars, and #1 and #2 havent faced each.
    For THIS season, it happened, I am sure that would get attention if it did happen in a 12 war season.

    Stop saying what if and what nots, this is what happened for this 6 war season is the final product of what happen, that is what am trying to say.



  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,649 Guardian
    ContestOfNoobs said:

    Stop saying what if and what nots, this is what happened for this 6 war season is the final product of what happen, that is what am trying to say.

    If that's all you were trying to say there would be no problem. What happened happened. But that's not all you're trying to say. You're trying to say that what happened was somehow wrong and attempting to shut down anyone discussing that point as just speculating. But you're speculating when you say it is wrong, because you are making the claim that anything else would have been better. Except apparently only you are allowed to speculate on what might have happened, and no one else has the right to speculate any differently.

    It seems to me I'm not the one trying to twist things into my favor. I'm not even sure what "my favor" is here. It seems you're the one with the agenda, you're the one trying to gain favor, and you're singularly responsible for completely failing in that regard.
  • ContestOfNoobsContestOfNoobs Posts: 1,454 ★★★★
    edited November 2019
    DNA3000 said:

    ContestOfNoobs said:

    Stop saying what if and what nots, this is what happened for this 6 war season is the final product of what happen, that is what am trying to say.

    If that's all you were trying to say there would be no problem. What happened happened. But that's not all you're trying to say. You're trying to say that what happened was somehow wrong and attempting to shut down anyone discussing that point as just speculating. But you're speculating when you say it is wrong, because you are making the claim that anything else would have been better. Except apparently only you are allowed to speculate on what might have happened, and no one else has the right to speculate any differently.

    It seems to me I'm not the one trying to twist things into my favor. I'm not even sure what "my favor" is here. It seems you're the one with the agenda, you're the one trying to gain favor, and you're singularly responsible for completely failing in that regard.
    but thats what happened right? the season was cut down to 6 wars, but
    some things arent perfect, but thats way i saw it when season was cut short.

    If we was told earlier that season was gona be cut short, then so be it I would of been fine,
    but we continue to win wars then those 3 wars didn't count, after we won our 7th war, we had a good chance in trying to get top 3, but at the end of the day we didnt because of what went down. some alliances didnt face each other that made it pretty far in 6 wars, It's not hard to track down who played who, especially when its less than handful of allainces that wana see if they can get top 3.

    but we still made masters none the less.
    Noone said:

    @ContestOfNoobs your a broken record dude and your just coming off salty that you got pushed out of top3. Matchmaking is how it is you have to play who you match and deal with it. And you don’t know why alliance I’m in but iv seen your ally die so much in 2 war no way you deserve top3

    Na not really, im quite happy where im at, we didnt get top 3, its not the end of the world lol.
    Someone has to be 4th place, just like it is every season.

    At the end of the day we still an master allaince, and the guys here did what they could.
    I already told u and backup my proof, we was 2nd place after 7th war.

    So anything could of happen if season went with 12 wars, my only argument was #2 never played with any of the top 5. The season was cut short, kabam never told anyone after the 9th war. and then suddenly announced only 6 wars was being counted.

    I didnt die to kenob or ny, i did my part but its a team effort.

    I havent seen or heard of you at all, but its good to know people like to talk, especially when you dont have anything to back up your claims, you're not even in these allainces.

    big mouth coming from someone who clearly wants to just to bad mouth me lol.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,234 ★★★★★
    From what I've been following, there was no way to tell people ahead of time that only 6 would count. That's the conclusion they came to after looking at the issue. Not all Alliances were able to compete for anything above that. Some did. Some didn't. In the spirit of fairness, they cut it at the last working round. I'm not sure why that point was made, but this wasn't something that was planned. They couldn't tell people ahead of time. It wasn't even a decision until the issue persisted.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,234 ★★★★★
    Jester123 said:

    In truth if kabam h

    GroundedWisdom said:

    From what I've been following, there was no way to tell people ahead of time that only 6 would count. That's the conclusion they came to after looking at the issue. Not all Alliances were able to compete for anything above that. Some did. Some didn't. In the spirit of fairness, they cut it at the last working round. I'm not sure why that point was made, but this wasn't something that was planned. They couldn't tell people ahead of time. It wasn't even a decision until the issue persisted.

    Kabam were very slow at acting on the problem, it took them days to finally reach a decision after 1 war couldn’t be finished by all because the game went down then 2 more wars of alliances being kicked out, so they made a problem worse and yes that’s there fault.
    There was countless posts on here from Friday onwards, so they knew and they decided to ignore the issue hoping it would go away.
    Everyone that was effected has the right to complain.
    I never said anything about people not having the right to complain. They can't announce a decision before they've made it. What they decided was to count as many functional Wars as they could. I doubt that was only based on reporting. They likely see how many ran clean for everyone on their end. Obviously people aren't happy, which is fair. However, I don't think it makes sense to fault them for not telling people what will count and what won't when they didn't even know what resolution they were going to make.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,234 ★★★★★
    Fredhorst23 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Jester123 said:

    In truth if kabam h

    GroundedWisdom said:

    From what I've been following, there was no way to tell people ahead of time that only 6 would count. That's the conclusion they came to after looking at the issue. Not all Alliances were able to compete for anything above that. Some did. Some didn't. In the spirit of fairness, they cut it at the last working round. I'm not sure why that point was made, but this wasn't something that was planned. They couldn't tell people ahead of time. It wasn't even a decision until the issue persisted.

    Kabam were very slow at acting on the problem, it took them days to finally reach a decision after 1 war couldn’t be finished by all because the game went down then 2 more wars of alliances being kicked out, so they made a problem worse and yes that’s there fault.
    There was countless posts on here from Friday onwards, so they knew and they decided to ignore the issue hoping it would go away.
    Everyone that was effected has the right to complain.
    I never said anything about people not having the right to complain. They can't announce a decision before they've made it. What they decided was to count as many functional Wars as they could. I doubt that was only based on reporting. They likely see how many ran clean for everyone on their end. Obviously people aren't happy, which is fair. However, I don't think it makes sense to fault them for not telling people what will count and what won't when they didn't even know what resolution they were going to make.
    I dont think anyone here is mad that kabam didnt say wars 7+ wouldn't count before they had determined as much, people are mad because the discussion between wars 7 and 9 on kabams side had no transparency. While they discussed their next moves, they let the players get into a rage at what was happening being met with no real explanations. Now, whether that decision was the lesser of 2 evils, considering what could have happened if they announced the possibility of an early ending, can never be known. But people being mad about it is certainly justifiable.
    Actually, I was responding to the comment that had the effect of "if they told us ahead of time". From what I understand, they were working on resolving the issue, and closed Wars down and came up with this because it was still persisting. Meaning they had every intention of resolving it until they shut the Season down. I don't think the expectation is taking the process into account. They were working on fixing it, and due to the fact that it was ongoing and creating more problems, they decided the best thing to do was end the Season early, and count the Wars that functioned properly. I haven't been on here very much, but from my viewpoint, they couldn't forewarn people about a decision that hadn't even come to pass yet.
  • ContestOfNoobsContestOfNoobs Posts: 1,454 ★★★★
    Whatever happen to 3rd best aw alliance last season?

    This what happebs when people jump ship every alliance war season to another alliance.




Sign In or Register to comment.