AW Season 13: the overlooked players

245

Comments

  • This content has been removed.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Look, my alliance casually runs 1 bg in aw, because our member strength is all over the place.

    How can you possibly think it is absurd to switch out members during the season in this case? I could have very well lost my 20 weakest members during aw 7 and have 20 strong armed freeloaders join before enlistment ends for aw 8 allowing us to run 3 bg's.

    Are you trying to tell me alliances that only casually play aw for whatever reason are like a rare thing? And even then it's a rare occasion for them to switch players well inside the given timeframe for season reward qualification?

    Get real.

    Where did I say it was absurd to switch out remembers, you just accused me of misrepresenting you when I did not, now you are doubling/tripling down on the misrepresentation. I never claimed only causal alliances do something, I said it is a rare event, and that is true.

    Get real yourself, stop making up strawmen to try and justify your arguments. We all lost something in this situation, every single one of us. not everyone will be happy.
  • edited November 2019
    This content has been removed.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    However there are far too many players who thought the same, joined a new alliance, and were unable to participate in any wars at all due to getting unlucky with the enlistment bug.

    You would have had to have faced the enlistment bug twice for that to have happened, and that number of people is really small
    I’ve acknowledged this here:

    Although they exist in the minority, there are still many players who are being excluded from AW season rewards through no fault of their own.

    That number may be small in a relative sense, but from what I’ve gathered in the merged threads it’s a more common predicament than one might think. Maybe I’m biased as there are two such players in my current alliance. Regardless, I believe it to be an issue that warrants some recognition.
    Not jsut small in a relative sense, it is small in a general sense, and the more I think about it the smaller it gets.

    1) They had to join before war 8 started, as joining between war 8 and 9 would not have granted you 5 total wars.
    2) You could not join between war 7 and 8 because of the downtime, once the servers came back up enslistment started, and the issues of down time started at the end of war 7.
    3) this means the people who could legit claim this are people who joined during an active war, so the alliance had to have not been in that war or lost members during the war, both of which is very small.
    Until the maintenance started in friday there were still about 2-3 hours left for players to join an open alliance and for said alliance to initiate matchmaking.

    That's what he's talking about. Those people would have been well inside the timeframe.

    Add to those the players that even tried to not do this in the last possible instance, joining an alliance during aw 7 only for that alliance to be unenlisted on aw 8 and 9.

    This is a legitimate concern, even if the number of people affected in this way might be small. However, how exactly would you know that?

    The number of alliances that reported to have been unenlisted on both aw 8 and aw 9 was quite astonishing. And now consider how not every single alliance even reported this on the forum.

    How many percent of the player base actually frequently use the forum? There is genuinely no factual information for you to base a general judgement on regarding the amount of players affected in this way.
    Except a war was already going on during that time, so again the only people it would have affected are those who joined while the war was happening, meaning the alliance had to lose someone in the middle of the war, or were not enlisted in the war. Both of which is highly limited. You dont have to look at the people unenlisted to realize this is small, you just have to understand how alliance swaps happen. You can pretty much ignore anyone who was not fighting in war 7. That leaves people who joined while the alliance was still fighting, again this number is small, because alliances do not typically kick during a war and people dont typically leave during a war.
    Mate... Again, not every alliance runs 3 full bg's. Running 2 bg's on war 7 leaves up to 10 spots open to be filled before the enlistment period of war 8 ends.
    And you really think that makes the number of people affected by this huge? I mean if they only run 1 or 2 then you probably are not going to be on the war team when you first join, you will be a backup, which means no rewards in a normal season either.
    Considering how you approached your judgement of the amount of people affected by this, the number should definitely be higher than you figured in your first comment here.

    Please restrain from misrepresenting me, I don't say it's huge. I say it's impossible to know how many people were affected this way.

    And it is really naive to try and argue OP's point with such a restricted picture of how people could have ended up in this situation.

    An alliance with 20 members on aw 7 gets 10 new members before aw 7 ends, all of them eager to qualify for season rewards, all of them eager to participate.
    Now it's supposed to be unlikely that that alliance is going to run 3 bg's for aw 8?

    You try to paint this as something absurd, while there really are a lot of possible scenarios, again, hinting at a way bigger number than what you seem to still think.
    please restrain from misrepresenting me, I didnt say you claimed it would be huge, I questioned your meaning, hence the ? at the end. Also I already covered the "join alliance while war is going scenario", how large do you really, honestly think that number is, I would wager less than a couple hundred people affected, probably less than 100.
    At the end of the day, neither of us know with ang certainty the number nor the relative proportion of players affected in this manner.

    What we do know is that such players do exist, and I am simply expressing their perspective in the hope that it gets recognised by the admins and passed on as feedback, regardless of whether or not it enacts any immediate change. @Lormif This was the point of my post, which you seem to have somewhat missed.
    I dont argue against the number being greater than 0, I argue it is not as large as people make it out to be. I assume that the general compensation will cover this, we will see. After all not everyone can be 100% happy.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    However there are far too many players who thought the same, joined a new alliance, and were unable to participate in any wars at all due to getting unlucky with the enlistment bug.

    You would have had to have faced the enlistment bug twice for that to have happened, and that number of people is really small
    I’ve acknowledged this here:

    Although they exist in the minority, there are still many players who are being excluded from AW season rewards through no fault of their own.

    That number may be small in a relative sense, but from what I’ve gathered in the merged threads it’s a more common predicament than one might think. Maybe I’m biased as there are two such players in my current alliance. Regardless, I believe it to be an issue that warrants some recognition.
    Not jsut small in a relative sense, it is small in a general sense, and the more I think about it the smaller it gets.

    1) They had to join before war 8 started, as joining between war 8 and 9 would not have granted you 5 total wars.
    2) You could not join between war 7 and 8 because of the downtime, once the servers came back up enslistment started, and the issues of down time started at the end of war 7.
    3) this means the people who could legit claim this are people who joined during an active war, so the alliance had to have not been in that war or lost members during the war, both of which is very small.
    Until the maintenance started in friday there were still about 2-3 hours left for players to join an open alliance and for said alliance to initiate matchmaking.

    That's what he's talking about. Those people would have been well inside the timeframe.

    Add to those the players that even tried to not do this in the last possible instance, joining an alliance during aw 7 only for that alliance to be unenlisted on aw 8 and 9.

    This is a legitimate concern, even if the number of people affected in this way might be small. However, how exactly would you know that?

    The number of alliances that reported to have been unenlisted on both aw 8 and aw 9 was quite astonishing. And now consider how not every single alliance even reported this on the forum.

    How many percent of the player base actually frequently use the forum? There is genuinely no factual information for you to base a general judgement on regarding the amount of players affected in this way.
    Except a war was already going on during that time, so again the only people it would have affected are those who joined while the war was happening, meaning the alliance had to lose someone in the middle of the war, or were not enlisted in the war. Both of which is highly limited. You dont have to look at the people unenlisted to realize this is small, you just have to understand how alliance swaps happen. You can pretty much ignore anyone who was not fighting in war 7. That leaves people who joined while the alliance was still fighting, again this number is small, because alliances do not typically kick during a war and people dont typically leave during a war.
    Mate... Again, not every alliance runs 3 full bg's. Running 2 bg's on war 7 leaves up to 10 spots open to be filled before the enlistment period of war 8 ends.
    And you really think that makes the number of people affected by this huge? I mean if they only run 1 or 2 then you probably are not going to be on the war team when you first join, you will be a backup, which means no rewards in a normal season either.
    Considering how you approached your judgement of the amount of people affected by this, the number should definitely be higher than you figured in your first comment here.

    Please restrain from misrepresenting me, I don't say it's huge. I say it's impossible to know how many people were affected this way.

    And it is really naive to try and argue OP's point with such a restricted picture of how people could have ended up in this situation.

    An alliance with 20 members on aw 7 gets 10 new members before aw 7 ends, all of them eager to qualify for season rewards, all of them eager to participate.
    Now it's supposed to be unlikely that that alliance is going to run 3 bg's for aw 8?

    You try to paint this as something absurd, while there really are a lot of possible scenarios, again, hinting at a way bigger number than what you seem to still think.
    please restrain from misrepresenting me, I didnt say you claimed it would be huge, I questioned your meaning, hence the ? at the end. Also I already covered the "join alliance while war is going scenario", how large do you really, honestly think that number is, I would wager less than a couple hundred people affected, probably less than 100.
    At the end of the day, neither of us know with ang certainty the number nor the relative proportion of players affected in this manner.

    What we do know is that such players do exist, and I am simply expressing their perspective in the hope that it gets recognised by the admins and passed on as feedback, regardless of whether or not it enacts any immediate change. @Lormif This was the point of my post, which you seem to have somewhat missed.
    I dont argue against the number being greater than 0, I argue it is not as large as people make it out to be. I assume that the general compensation will cover this, we will see. After all not everyone can be 100% happy.
    Once again, this is not the point I am making. It is also difficult to “argue that it is not as large as people make it out to be” without access to an accurate insight of who was and wasn’t affected in this way, something which we both lack. Your best estimates are, unfortunately, just estimates.

    I’ll say it once more. I am simply pointing out that such players exist - nothing more, nothing less - and I am brining it up on the forums in the hopes that it is taken into consideration by the Kabam team if similar incidences were to occur in future.
    It is also not that hard to argue it using deductive reasoning, using the reasons already pointed out. You had to have joined during war 7 because of how it went down. If you joined before war 7 it is hard to argue you were planning to do 5 wars but decided to skip some. It is possible but also not possible to verify.

    So it comes down to people who joined an alliance during a war already running, and how many people you think that is likely to be given how alliances are typically run

    This is a niche case, and they cannot cover all niches.
  • TgtalexTgtalex Member Posts: 44

    Tgtalex said:

    Was going to post the exact same. We’ve got a guy who joined us with 6 wars left, presuming he had enough time to complete the required amount of wars to get his Plat4 rewards. After completing 3 wars he is not going to get anything!
    Needs sorting as it’s not his fault.

    Thankfully in this case he should be able to claim rewards! You only need to have participated in one war with your current alliance to be eligible for the early end-of-season rewards.
    I read the announcement as the season only counting for the first six wars. I’m hoping your interpretation is correct.

  • This content has been removed.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    However there are far too many players who thought the same, joined a new alliance, and were unable to participate in any wars at all due to getting unlucky with the enlistment bug.

    You would have had to have faced the enlistment bug twice for that to have happened, and that number of people is really small
    I’ve acknowledged this here:

    Although they exist in the minority, there are still many players who are being excluded from AW season rewards through no fault of their own.

    That number may be small in a relative sense, but from what I’ve gathered in the merged threads it’s a more common predicament than one might think. Maybe I’m biased as there are two such players in my current alliance. Regardless, I believe it to be an issue that warrants some recognition.
    Not jsut small in a relative sense, it is small in a general sense, and the more I think about it the smaller it gets.

    1) They had to join before war 8 started, as joining between war 8 and 9 would not have granted you 5 total wars.
    2) You could not join between war 7 and 8 because of the downtime, once the servers came back up enslistment started, and the issues of down time started at the end of war 7.
    3) this means the people who could legit claim this are people who joined during an active war, so the alliance had to have not been in that war or lost members during the war, both of which is very small.
    Until the maintenance started in friday there were still about 2-3 hours left for players to join an open alliance and for said alliance to initiate matchmaking.

    That's what he's talking about. Those people would have been well inside the timeframe.

    Add to those the players that even tried to not do this in the last possible instance, joining an alliance during aw 7 only for that alliance to be unenlisted on aw 8 and 9.

    This is a legitimate concern, even if the number of people affected in this way might be small. However, how exactly would you know that?

    The number of alliances that reported to have been unenlisted on both aw 8 and aw 9 was quite astonishing. And now consider how not every single alliance even reported this on the forum.

    How many percent of the player base actually frequently use the forum? There is genuinely no factual information for you to base a general judgement on regarding the amount of players affected in this way.
    Except a war was already going on during that time, so again the only people it would have affected are those who joined while the war was happening, meaning the alliance had to lose someone in the middle of the war, or were not enlisted in the war. Both of which is highly limited. You dont have to look at the people unenlisted to realize this is small, you just have to understand how alliance swaps happen. You can pretty much ignore anyone who was not fighting in war 7. That leaves people who joined while the alliance was still fighting, again this number is small, because alliances do not typically kick during a war and people dont typically leave during a war.
    Mate... Again, not every alliance runs 3 full bg's. Running 2 bg's on war 7 leaves up to 10 spots open to be filled before the enlistment period of war 8 ends.
    And you really think that makes the number of people affected by this huge? I mean if they only run 1 or 2 then you probably are not going to be on the war team when you first join, you will be a backup, which means no rewards in a normal season either.
    Considering how you approached your judgement of the amount of people affected by this, the number should definitely be higher than you figured in your first comment here.

    Please restrain from misrepresenting me, I don't say it's huge. I say it's impossible to know how many people were affected this way.

    And it is really naive to try and argue OP's point with such a restricted picture of how people could have ended up in this situation.

    An alliance with 20 members on aw 7 gets 10 new members before aw 7 ends, all of them eager to qualify for season rewards, all of them eager to participate.
    Now it's supposed to be unlikely that that alliance is going to run 3 bg's for aw 8?

    You try to paint this as something absurd, while there really are a lot of possible scenarios, again, hinting at a way bigger number than what you seem to still think.
    please restrain from misrepresenting me, I didnt say you claimed it would be huge, I questioned your meaning, hence the ? at the end. Also I already covered the "join alliance while war is going scenario", how large do you really, honestly think that number is, I would wager less than a couple hundred people affected, probably less than 100.
    At the end of the day, neither of us know with ang certainty the number nor the relative proportion of players affected in this manner.

    What we do know is that such players do exist, and I am simply expressing their perspective in the hope that it gets recognised by the admins and passed on as feedback, regardless of whether or not it enacts any immediate change. @Lormif This was the point of my post, which you seem to have somewhat missed.
    I dont argue against the number being greater than 0, I argue it is not as large as people make it out to be. I assume that the general compensation will cover this, we will see. After all not everyone can be 100% happy.
    Once again, this is not the point I am making. It is also difficult to “argue that it is not as large as people make it out to be” without access to an accurate insight of who was and wasn’t affected in this way, something which we both lack. Your best estimates are, unfortunately, just estimates.

    I’ll say it once more. I am simply pointing out that such players exist - nothing more, nothing less - and I am brining it up on the forums in the hopes that it is taken into consideration by the Kabam team if similar incidences were to occur in future.
    It is also not that hard to argue it using deductive reasoning, using the reasons already pointed out. You had to have joined during war 7 because of how it went down. If you joined before war 7 it is hard to argue you were planning to do 5 wars but decided to skip some. It is possible but also not possible to verify.

    So it comes down to people who joined an alliance during a war already running, and how many people you think that is likely to be given how alliances are typically run

    This is a niche case, and they cannot cover all niches.
    Respectfully - your reasoning is likely flawed, as pointed out by @UmbertoDelRio , and likely also more than a little biased given your reputation for jumping on any opportunity to present skeptical and contrarian arguments on the forums.

    For what it’s worth, the two affected members in my alliance joined just before war 6, after the end of the AQ cycle. They did not participate in war 6, due to the two BGs already being allocated and filled. Wars 7 and 8 were not an option for any of us in our alliance, due to the enlistment bug, and we did not bother enlisting for war 9.

    And one final time - you are missing the point of my original post (please feel free to refer back to it). I am not asking the team to cover this case and compensate such players, I am aware this is highly unlikely to occur. The post exists largely for Kabam’s acknowledgement, and less so for your speculation.
    The problem is your wars are off. War 7 was not affected by the enlistment bug, only wars 8 and 9 were. War 7 was affected by the loop bug, at the very end. If they joined just before war 6 they still had 2 wars they could have legit play in without prior knowledge of the effect. also I never counted that they should not be made aware, they have been now, me countering your argument does not make that go away.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    However there are far too many players who thought the same, joined a new alliance, and were unable to participate in any wars at all due to getting unlucky with the enlistment bug.

    You would have had to have faced the enlistment bug twice for that to have happened, and that number of people is really small
    I’ve acknowledged this here:

    Although they exist in the minority, there are still many players who are being excluded from AW season rewards through no fault of their own.

    That number may be small in a relative sense, but from what I’ve gathered in the merged threads it’s a more common predicament than one might think. Maybe I’m biased as there are two such players in my current alliance. Regardless, I believe it to be an issue that warrants some recognition.
    Not jsut small in a relative sense, it is small in a general sense, and the more I think about it the smaller it gets.

    1) They had to join before war 8 started, as joining between war 8 and 9 would not have granted you 5 total wars.
    2) You could not join between war 7 and 8 because of the downtime, once the servers came back up enslistment started, and the issues of down time started at the end of war 7.
    3) this means the people who could legit claim this are people who joined during an active war, so the alliance had to have not been in that war or lost members during the war, both of which is very small.
    Until the maintenance started in friday there were still about 2-3 hours left for players to join an open alliance and for said alliance to initiate matchmaking.

    That's what he's talking about. Those people would have been well inside the timeframe.

    Add to those the players that even tried to not do this in the last possible instance, joining an alliance during aw 7 only for that alliance to be unenlisted on aw 8 and 9.

    This is a legitimate concern, even if the number of people affected in this way might be small. However, how exactly would you know that?

    The number of alliances that reported to have been unenlisted on both aw 8 and aw 9 was quite astonishing. And now consider how not every single alliance even reported this on the forum.

    How many percent of the player base actually frequently use the forum? There is genuinely no factual information for you to base a general judgement on regarding the amount of players affected in this way.
    Except a war was already going on during that time, so again the only people it would have affected are those who joined while the war was happening, meaning the alliance had to lose someone in the middle of the war, or were not enlisted in the war. Both of which is highly limited. You dont have to look at the people unenlisted to realize this is small, you just have to understand how alliance swaps happen. You can pretty much ignore anyone who was not fighting in war 7. That leaves people who joined while the alliance was still fighting, again this number is small, because alliances do not typically kick during a war and people dont typically leave during a war.
    Mate... Again, not every alliance runs 3 full bg's. Running 2 bg's on war 7 leaves up to 10 spots open to be filled before the enlistment period of war 8 ends.
    And you really think that makes the number of people affected by this huge? I mean if they only run 1 or 2 then you probably are not going to be on the war team when you first join, you will be a backup, which means no rewards in a normal season either.
    Considering how you approached your judgement of the amount of people affected by this, the number should definitely be higher than you figured in your first comment here.

    Please restrain from misrepresenting me, I don't say it's huge. I say it's impossible to know how many people were affected this way.

    And it is really naive to try and argue OP's point with such a restricted picture of how people could have ended up in this situation.

    An alliance with 20 members on aw 7 gets 10 new members before aw 7 ends, all of them eager to qualify for season rewards, all of them eager to participate.
    Now it's supposed to be unlikely that that alliance is going to run 3 bg's for aw 8?

    You try to paint this as something absurd, while there really are a lot of possible scenarios, again, hinting at a way bigger number than what you seem to still think.
    please restrain from misrepresenting me, I didnt say you claimed it would be huge, I questioned your meaning, hence the ? at the end. Also I already covered the "join alliance while war is going scenario", how large do you really, honestly think that number is, I would wager less than a couple hundred people affected, probably less than 100.
    At the end of the day, neither of us know with ang certainty the number nor the relative proportion of players affected in this manner.

    What we do know is that such players do exist, and I am simply expressing their perspective in the hope that it gets recognised by the admins and passed on as feedback, regardless of whether or not it enacts any immediate change. @Lormif This was the point of my post, which you seem to have somewhat missed.
    I dont argue against the number being greater than 0, I argue it is not as large as people make it out to be. I assume that the general compensation will cover this, we will see. After all not everyone can be 100% happy.
    Once again, this is not the point I am making. It is also difficult to “argue that it is not as large as people make it out to be” without access to an accurate insight of who was and wasn’t affected in this way, something which we both lack. Your best estimates are, unfortunately, just estimates.

    I’ll say it once more. I am simply pointing out that such players exist - nothing more, nothing less - and I am brining it up on the forums in the hopes that it is taken into consideration by the Kabam team if similar incidences were to occur in future.
    It is also not that hard to argue it using deductive reasoning, using the reasons already pointed out. You had to have joined during war 7 because of how it went down. If you joined before war 7 it is hard to argue you were planning to do 5 wars but decided to skip some. It is possible but also not possible to verify.

    So it comes down to people who joined an alliance during a war already running, and how many people you think that is likely to be given how alliances are typically run

    This is a niche case, and they cannot cover all niches.
    Respectfully - your reasoning is likely flawed, as pointed out by @UmbertoDelRio , and likely also more than a little biased given your reputation for jumping on any opportunity to present skeptical and contrarian arguments on the forums.

    For what it’s worth, the two affected members in my alliance joined just before war 6, after the end of the AQ cycle. They did not participate in war 6, due to the two BGs already being allocated and filled. Wars 7 and 8 were not an option for any of us in our alliance, due to the enlistment bug, and we did not bother enlisting for war 9.

    And one final time - you are missing the point of my original post (please feel free to refer back to it). I am not asking the team to cover this case and compensate such players, I am aware this is highly unlikely to occur. The post exists largely for Kabam’s acknowledgement, and less so for your speculation.
    The problem is your wars are off. War 7 was not affected by the enlistment bug, only wars 8 and 9 were. War 7 was affected by the loop bug, at the very end. If they joined just before war 6 they still had 2 wars they could have legit play in without prior knowledge of the effect. also I never counted that they should not be made aware, they have been now, me countering your argument does not make that go away.
    Oh come on... If someone left their alliance after war 6, considering they didn't nessecarily have a new alliance to join right away, it's safe to assume that they could have missed war 7 in their new alliance, which was of no concern to them at that point, since there were still 5 wars left officially.

    You're viewing this in such a narrow minded fashion.

    The whole timeframe between aw 6 and the maintenance is to be considered. If you don't want to consider this then your picture is flawed.
    I never said this was impossible, you are again misrepresnting what I said.Even this outlook takes into account what I stated earlier, that the only way this person could have joined an alliance during war 7 while it was still running. yuou keep trying to add groups of people as though I did not take them into account, but I already did.

    The only way to give a war package to take into account every niche situation like you want is to give it to all alliances ever registered for a war based on their rankings after war 6, if they registered for a war or not. That is absurdly vastly over compensating.
  • Zuko_ILCZuko_ILC Member Posts: 1,514 ★★★★★
    This is the one time I think they need to exclude this restriction completely. Give the rewards to everyone that was in an alliance at that time. If you jumped and got locked out you miss them. This was at no fault to the players so I would hope that they would see that and just get rid of the silly rule this one time.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Vdh2008Vdh2008 Member Posts: 966 ★★★★
    Lormif said:

    Look, my alliance casually runs 1 bg in aw, because our member strength is all over the place.

    How can you possibly think it is absurd to switch out members during the season in this case? I could have very well lost my 20 weakest members during aw 7 and have 20 strong armed freeloaders join before enlistment ends for aw 8 allowing us to run 3 bg's.

    Are you trying to tell me alliances that only casually play aw for whatever reason are like a rare thing? And even then it's a rare occasion for them to switch players well inside the given timeframe for season reward qualification?

    Get real.

    We all lost something in this situation, every single one of us. not everyone will be happy.
    That's just it, though... with the RIGHT compensation everyone can be happy. They need to think about what they would consider proper comp, then quadruple it at least (based on previous less than desirable compensation efforts), and everyone should be happy.

    With AQ, AW, Quests, AND Arena all impacted by this for almost a full day for some people, we really should be looking at the highest, best "compensation" we've ever seen.

    Not optimistic about this though. We'll likely see comp that would be "good" in 2016.

  • This content has been removed.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    However there are far too many players who thought the same, joined a new alliance, and were unable to participate in any wars at all due to getting unlucky with the enlistment bug.

    You would have had to have faced the enlistment bug twice for that to have happened, and that number of people is really small
    I’ve acknowledged this here:

    Although they exist in the minority, there are still many players who are being excluded from AW season rewards through no fault of their own.

    That number may be small in a relative sense, but from what I’ve gathered in the merged threads it’s a more common predicament than one might think. Maybe I’m biased as there are two such players in my current alliance. Regardless, I believe it to be an issue that warrants some recognition.
    Not jsut small in a relative sense, it is small in a general sense, and the more I think about it the smaller it gets.

    1) They had to join before war 8 started, as joining between war 8 and 9 would not have granted you 5 total wars.
    2) You could not join between war 7 and 8 because of the downtime, once the servers came back up enslistment started, and the issues of down time started at the end of war 7.
    3) this means the people who could legit claim this are people who joined during an active war, so the alliance had to have not been in that war or lost members during the war, both of which is very small.
    Until the maintenance started in friday there were still about 2-3 hours left for players to join an open alliance and for said alliance to initiate matchmaking.

    That's what he's talking about. Those people would have been well inside the timeframe.

    Add to those the players that even tried to not do this in the last possible instance, joining an alliance during aw 7 only for that alliance to be unenlisted on aw 8 and 9.

    This is a legitimate concern, even if the number of people affected in this way might be small. However, how exactly would you know that?

    The number of alliances that reported to have been unenlisted on both aw 8 and aw 9 was quite astonishing. And now consider how not every single alliance even reported this on the forum.

    How many percent of the player base actually frequently use the forum? There is genuinely no factual information for you to base a general judgement on regarding the amount of players affected in this way.
    Except a war was already going on during that time, so again the only people it would have affected are those who joined while the war was happening, meaning the alliance had to lose someone in the middle of the war, or were not enlisted in the war. Both of which is highly limited. You dont have to look at the people unenlisted to realize this is small, you just have to understand how alliance swaps happen. You can pretty much ignore anyone who was not fighting in war 7. That leaves people who joined while the alliance was still fighting, again this number is small, because alliances do not typically kick during a war and people dont typically leave during a war.
    Mate... Again, not every alliance runs 3 full bg's. Running 2 bg's on war 7 leaves up to 10 spots open to be filled before the enlistment period of war 8 ends.
    And you really think that makes the number of people affected by this huge? I mean if they only run 1 or 2 then you probably are not going to be on the war team when you first join, you will be a backup, which means no rewards in a normal season either.
    Considering how you approached your judgement of the amount of people affected by this, the number should definitely be higher than you figured in your first comment here.

    Please restrain from misrepresenting me, I don't say it's huge. I say it's impossible to know how many people were affected this way.

    And it is really naive to try and argue OP's point with such a restricted picture of how people could have ended up in this situation.

    An alliance with 20 members on aw 7 gets 10 new members before aw 7 ends, all of them eager to qualify for season rewards, all of them eager to participate.
    Now it's supposed to be unlikely that that alliance is going to run 3 bg's for aw 8?

    You try to paint this as something absurd, while there really are a lot of possible scenarios, again, hinting at a way bigger number than what you seem to still think.
    please restrain from misrepresenting me, I didnt say you claimed it would be huge, I questioned your meaning, hence the ? at the end. Also I already covered the "join alliance while war is going scenario", how large do you really, honestly think that number is, I would wager less than a couple hundred people affected, probably less than 100.
    At the end of the day, neither of us know with ang certainty the number nor the relative proportion of players affected in this manner.

    What we do know is that such players do exist, and I am simply expressing their perspective in the hope that it gets recognised by the admins and passed on as feedback, regardless of whether or not it enacts any immediate change. @Lormif This was the point of my post, which you seem to have somewhat missed.
    I dont argue against the number being greater than 0, I argue it is not as large as people make it out to be. I assume that the general compensation will cover this, we will see. After all not everyone can be 100% happy.
    Once again, this is not the point I am making. It is also difficult to “argue that it is not as large as people make it out to be” without access to an accurate insight of who was and wasn’t affected in this way, something which we both lack. Your best estimates are, unfortunately, just estimates.

    I’ll say it once more. I am simply pointing out that such players exist - nothing more, nothing less - and I am brining it up on the forums in the hopes that it is taken into consideration by the Kabam team if similar incidences were to occur in future.
    It is also not that hard to argue it using deductive reasoning, using the reasons already pointed out. You had to have joined during war 7 because of how it went down. If you joined before war 7 it is hard to argue you were planning to do 5 wars but decided to skip some. It is possible but also not possible to verify.

    So it comes down to people who joined an alliance during a war already running, and how many people you think that is likely to be given how alliances are typically run

    This is a niche case, and they cannot cover all niches.
    Your deductive reasoning leaves out all the non competitive casual less than 3 bg alliances open to be joined by or even actively looking for freeloaders.

    Elementary, lormif.
    It does not.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    Vdh2008 said:

    Lormif said:

    Look, my alliance casually runs 1 bg in aw, because our member strength is all over the place.

    How can you possibly think it is absurd to switch out members during the season in this case? I could have very well lost my 20 weakest members during aw 7 and have 20 strong armed freeloaders join before enlistment ends for aw 8 allowing us to run 3 bg's.

    Are you trying to tell me alliances that only casually play aw for whatever reason are like a rare thing? And even then it's a rare occasion for them to switch players well inside the given timeframe for season reward qualification?

    Get real.

    We all lost something in this situation, every single one of us. not everyone will be happy.
    That's just it, though... with the RIGHT compensation everyone can be happy. They need to think about what they would consider proper comp, then quadruple it at least (based on previous less than desirable compensation efforts), and everyone should be happy.

    With AQ, AW, Quests, AND Arena all impacted by this for almost a full day for some people, we really should be looking at the highest, best "compensation" we've ever seen.

    Not optimistic about this though. We'll likely see comp that would be "good" in 2016.

    No they would not, someone will always be unhappy, there are already some people upset that people are suposedly getting too much, you cannot please everyone.
  • This content has been removed.
  • OctoberstackOctoberstack Member Posts: 872 ★★★★
    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    However there are far too many players who thought the same, joined a new alliance, and were unable to participate in any wars at all due to getting unlucky with the enlistment bug.

    You would have had to have faced the enlistment bug twice for that to have happened, and that number of people is really small
    I’ve acknowledged this here:

    Although they exist in the minority, there are still many players who are being excluded from AW season rewards through no fault of their own.

    That number may be small in a relative sense, but from what I’ve gathered in the merged threads it’s a more common predicament than one might think. Maybe I’m biased as there are two such players in my current alliance. Regardless, I believe it to be an issue that warrants some recognition.
    Not jsut small in a relative sense, it is small in a general sense, and the more I think about it the smaller it gets.

    1) They had to join before war 8 started, as joining between war 8 and 9 would not have granted you 5 total wars.
    2) You could not join between war 7 and 8 because of the downtime, once the servers came back up enslistment started, and the issues of down time started at the end of war 7.
    3) this means the people who could legit claim this are people who joined during an active war, so the alliance had to have not been in that war or lost members during the war, both of which is very small.
    Until the maintenance started in friday there were still about 2-3 hours left for players to join an open alliance and for said alliance to initiate matchmaking.

    That's what he's talking about. Those people would have been well inside the timeframe.

    Add to those the players that even tried to not do this in the last possible instance, joining an alliance during aw 7 only for that alliance to be unenlisted on aw 8 and 9.

    This is a legitimate concern, even if the number of people affected in this way might be small. However, how exactly would you know that?

    The number of alliances that reported to have been unenlisted on both aw 8 and aw 9 was quite astonishing. And now consider how not every single alliance even reported this on the forum.

    How many percent of the player base actually frequently use the forum? There is genuinely no factual information for you to base a general judgement on regarding the amount of players affected in this way.
    Except a war was already going on during that time, so again the only people it would have affected are those who joined while the war was happening, meaning the alliance had to lose someone in the middle of the war, or were not enlisted in the war. Both of which is highly limited. You dont have to look at the people unenlisted to realize this is small, you just have to understand how alliance swaps happen. You can pretty much ignore anyone who was not fighting in war 7. That leaves people who joined while the alliance was still fighting, again this number is small, because alliances do not typically kick during a war and people dont typically leave during a war.
    Mate... Again, not every alliance runs 3 full bg's. Running 2 bg's on war 7 leaves up to 10 spots open to be filled before the enlistment period of war 8 ends.
    And you really think that makes the number of people affected by this huge? I mean if they only run 1 or 2 then you probably are not going to be on the war team when you first join, you will be a backup, which means no rewards in a normal season either.
    Considering how you approached your judgement of the amount of people affected by this, the number should definitely be higher than you figured in your first comment here.

    Please restrain from misrepresenting me, I don't say it's huge. I say it's impossible to know how many people were affected this way.

    And it is really naive to try and argue OP's point with such a restricted picture of how people could have ended up in this situation.

    An alliance with 20 members on aw 7 gets 10 new members before aw 7 ends, all of them eager to qualify for season rewards, all of them eager to participate.
    Now it's supposed to be unlikely that that alliance is going to run 3 bg's for aw 8?

    You try to paint this as something absurd, while there really are a lot of possible scenarios, again, hinting at a way bigger number than what you seem to still think.
    please restrain from misrepresenting me, I didnt say you claimed it would be huge, I questioned your meaning, hence the ? at the end. Also I already covered the "join alliance while war is going scenario", how large do you really, honestly think that number is, I would wager less than a couple hundred people affected, probably less than 100.
    At the end of the day, neither of us know with ang certainty the number nor the relative proportion of players affected in this manner.

    What we do know is that such players do exist, and I am simply expressing their perspective in the hope that it gets recognised by the admins and passed on as feedback, regardless of whether or not it enacts any immediate change. @Lormif This was the point of my post, which you seem to have somewhat missed.
    I dont argue against the number being greater than 0, I argue it is not as large as people make it out to be. I assume that the general compensation will cover this, we will see. After all not everyone can be 100% happy.
    Once again, this is not the point I am making. It is also difficult to “argue that it is not as large as people make it out to be” without access to an accurate insight of who was and wasn’t affected in this way, something which we both lack. Your best estimates are, unfortunately, just estimates.

    I’ll say it once more. I am simply pointing out that such players exist - nothing more, nothing less - and I am brining it up on the forums in the hopes that it is taken into consideration by the Kabam team if similar incidences were to occur in future.
    It is also not that hard to argue it using deductive reasoning, using the reasons already pointed out. You had to have joined during war 7 because of how it went down. If you joined before war 7 it is hard to argue you were planning to do 5 wars but decided to skip some. It is possible but also not possible to verify.

    So it comes down to people who joined an alliance during a war already running, and how many people you think that is likely to be given how alliances are typically run

    This is a niche case, and they cannot cover all niches.
    Your deductive reasoning leaves out all the non competitive casual less than 3 bg alliances open to be joined by or even actively looking for freeloaders.

    Elementary, lormif.
    It does not.
    At this point, it appears you are simply disagreeing to avoid losing face after initiating a misplaced argument which fails to recognise the point I was making in my original post.

    And you’re not really countering my argument, as my argument is that players affected in these ways exist, and should be recognised. What you’re doing is mostly speculating, and then taking a defensive stance when people aren’t agreeing with your estimates and opinions. But then again, that is your modus operandi, so I’m more than happy to let you have your fun here.

    Also, I'm not even talking about compensation right now. This is still not the point of this thread, which OP told you at least twice now.

    The amount of people affected by this is essentially irrelevant to OP's point.

    No one was throwing estimates arround, simply because that is silly, considering what one would need for an even somewhat legit estimate. What you do is lowballing the number of affected people to argue a point OP never made.

    Great job, lormif.
    This is all that really needs to be said here. Thank you for reading my post.
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    edited November 2019

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    However there are far too many players who thought the same, joined a new alliance, and were unable to participate in any wars at all due to getting unlucky with the enlistment bug.

    You would have had to have faced the enlistment bug twice for that to have happened, and that number of people is really small
    I’ve acknowledged this here:

    Although they exist in the minority, there are still many players who are being excluded from AW season rewards through no fault of their own.

    That number may be small in a relative sense, but from what I’ve gathered in the merged threads it’s a more common predicament than one might think. Maybe I’m biased as there are two such players in my current alliance. Regardless, I believe it to be an issue that warrants some recognition.
    Not jsut small in a relative sense, it is small in a general sense, and the more I think about it the smaller it gets.

    1) They had to join before war 8 started, as joining between war 8 and 9 would not have granted you 5 total wars.
    2) You could not join between war 7 and 8 because of the downtime, once the servers came back up enslistment started, and the issues of down time started at the end of war 7.
    3) this means the people who could legit claim this are people who joined during an active war, so the alliance had to have not been in that war or lost members during the war, both of which is very small.
    Until the maintenance started in friday there were still about 2-3 hours left for players to join an open alliance and for said alliance to initiate matchmaking.

    That's what he's talking about. Those people would have been well inside the timeframe.

    Add to those the players that even tried to not do this in the last possible instance, joining an alliance during aw 7 only for that alliance to be unenlisted on aw 8 and 9.

    This is a legitimate concern, even if the number of people affected in this way might be small. However, how exactly would you know that?

    The number of alliances that reported to have been unenlisted on both aw 8 and aw 9 was quite astonishing. And now consider how not every single alliance even reported this on the forum.

    How many percent of the player base actually frequently use the forum? There is genuinely no factual information for you to base a general judgement on regarding the amount of players affected in this way.
    Except a war was already going on during that time, so again the only people it would have affected are those who joined while the war was happening, meaning the alliance had to lose someone in the middle of the war, or were not enlisted in the war. Both of which is highly limited. You dont have to look at the people unenlisted to realize this is small, you just have to understand how alliance swaps happen. You can pretty much ignore anyone who was not fighting in war 7. That leaves people who joined while the alliance was still fighting, again this number is small, because alliances do not typically kick during a war and people dont typically leave during a war.
    Mate... Again, not every alliance runs 3 full bg's. Running 2 bg's on war 7 leaves up to 10 spots open to be filled before the enlistment period of war 8 ends.
    And you really think that makes the number of people affected by this huge? I mean if they only run 1 or 2 then you probably are not going to be on the war team when you first join, you will be a backup, which means no rewards in a normal season either.
    Considering how you approached your judgement of the amount of people affected by this, the number should definitely be higher than you figured in your first comment here.

    Please restrain from misrepresenting me, I don't say it's huge. I say it's impossible to know how many people were affected this way.

    And it is really naive to try and argue OP's point with such a restricted picture of how people could have ended up in this situation.

    An alliance with 20 members on aw 7 gets 10 new members before aw 7 ends, all of them eager to qualify for season rewards, all of them eager to participate.
    Now it's supposed to be unlikely that that alliance is going to run 3 bg's for aw 8?

    You try to paint this as something absurd, while there really are a lot of possible scenarios, again, hinting at a way bigger number than what you seem to still think.
    please restrain from misrepresenting me, I didnt say you claimed it would be huge, I questioned your meaning, hence the ? at the end. Also I already covered the "join alliance while war is going scenario", how large do you really, honestly think that number is, I would wager less than a couple hundred people affected, probably less than 100.
    At the end of the day, neither of us know with ang certainty the number nor the relative proportion of players affected in this manner.

    What we do know is that such players do exist, and I am simply expressing their perspective in the hope that it gets recognised by the admins and passed on as feedback, regardless of whether or not it enacts any immediate change. @Lormif This was the point of my post, which you seem to have somewhat missed.
    I dont argue against the number being greater than 0, I argue it is not as large as people make it out to be. I assume that the general compensation will cover this, we will see. After all not everyone can be 100% happy.
    Once again, this is not the point I am making. It is also difficult to “argue that it is not as large as people make it out to be” without access to an accurate insight of who was and wasn’t affected in this way, something which we both lack. Your best estimates are, unfortunately, just estimates.

    I’ll say it once more. I am simply pointing out that such players exist - nothing more, nothing less - and I am brining it up on the forums in the hopes that it is taken into consideration by the Kabam team if similar incidences were to occur in future.
    It is also not that hard to argue it using deductive reasoning, using the reasons already pointed out. You had to have joined during war 7 because of how it went down. If you joined before war 7 it is hard to argue you were planning to do 5 wars but decided to skip some. It is possible but also not possible to verify.

    So it comes down to people who joined an alliance during a war already running, and how many people you think that is likely to be given how alliances are typically run

    This is a niche case, and they cannot cover all niches.
    Respectfully - your reasoning is likely flawed, as pointed out by @UmbertoDelRio , and likely also more than a little biased given your reputation for jumping on any opportunity to present skeptical and contrarian arguments on the forums.

    For what it’s worth, the two affected members in my alliance joined just before war 6, after the end of the AQ cycle. They did not participate in war 6, due to the two BGs already being allocated and filled. Wars 7 and 8 were not an option for any of us in our alliance, due to the enlistment bug, and we did not bother enlisting for war 9.

    And one final time - you are missing the point of my original post (please feel free to refer back to it). I am not asking the team to cover this case and compensate such players, I am aware this is highly unlikely to occur. The post exists largely for Kabam’s acknowledgement, and less so for your speculation.
    The problem is your wars are off. War 7 was not affected by the enlistment bug, only wars 8 and 9 were. War 7 was affected by the loop bug, at the very end. If they joined just before war 6 they still had 2 wars they could have legit play in without prior knowledge of the effect. also I never counted that they should not be made aware, they have been now, me countering your argument does not make that go away.
    Oh come on... If someone left their alliance after war 6, considering they didn't nessecarily have a new alliance to join right away, it's safe to assume that they could have missed war 7 in their new alliance, which was of no concern to them at that point, since there were still 5 wars left officially.

    You're viewing this in such a narrow minded fashion.

    The whole timeframe between aw 6 and the maintenance is to be considered. If you don't want to consider this then your picture is flawed.
    I never said this was impossible, you are again misrepresnting what I said.Even this outlook takes into account what I stated earlier, that the only way this person could have joined an alliance during war 7 while it was still running. yuou keep trying to add groups of people as though I did not take them into account, but I already did.

    The only way to give a war package to take into account every niche situation like you want is to give it to all alliances ever registered for a war based on their rankings after war 6, if they registered for a war or not. That is absurdly vastly over compensating.
    Oof... I didn't even use the word "impossible". You legitimately just needed to misrepresent what I said to claim I misrepresented your position.

    Also, I'm not even talking about compensation right now. This is still not the point of this thread, which OP told you at least twice now.

    When you first stepped into this thread you literally only considered a small amount of possible scenarios for people missing out on at least 1 participation in their current alliance.

    I've presented several additional nuances and you still hang on to an absolutely laughable estimate of about 100 people. But even then. Let me just give that to you.

    The amount of people affected by this is essentially irrelevant to OP's point.

    No one was throwing estimates arround, simply because that is silly, considering what one would need for an even somewhat legit estimate. What you do is lowballing the number of affected people to argue a point OP never made.

    Great job, lormif.
    So you are now saying it is huge after claiming you were not making that, or atleast larger than mine.

    I consider a small number of possible scenarios for people who would have legitimately gotten a reward and lost out on that, the people I leave out are the people who it would be hard to argue they should get a reward. It is hard to argue that people who have been in teh same alliance and made no war attempts would have been eligible at the end of the season. is it possible they would, sure, but that is highly unlikely. the people who have a legit argument are those who joined during war 7 and lost out on registering, if you did not register for war 7 in your current then it is difficult to argue that you would have. Not impossible mind you, but very difficult. Again I listed the only way to satisfy the niches that you want covered, and that is to give everyone alliance in the game the rewards based on their placement after war 6 if they registered for a war or not, ever in the season.

    Also I never claimed you said it is impossible
  • LormifLormif Member Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    Lormif said:

    However there are far too many players who thought the same, joined a new alliance, and were unable to participate in any wars at all due to getting unlucky with the enlistment bug.

    You would have had to have faced the enlistment bug twice for that to have happened, and that number of people is really small
    I’ve acknowledged this here:

    Although they exist in the minority, there are still many players who are being excluded from AW season rewards through no fault of their own.

    That number may be small in a relative sense, but from what I’ve gathered in the merged threads it’s a more common predicament than one might think. Maybe I’m biased as there are two such players in my current alliance. Regardless, I believe it to be an issue that warrants some recognition.
    Not jsut small in a relative sense, it is small in a general sense, and the more I think about it the smaller it gets.

    1) They had to join before war 8 started, as joining between war 8 and 9 would not have granted you 5 total wars.
    2) You could not join between war 7 and 8 because of the downtime, once the servers came back up enslistment started, and the issues of down time started at the end of war 7.
    3) this means the people who could legit claim this are people who joined during an active war, so the alliance had to have not been in that war or lost members during the war, both of which is very small.
    Until the maintenance started in friday there were still about 2-3 hours left for players to join an open alliance and for said alliance to initiate matchmaking.

    That's what he's talking about. Those people would have been well inside the timeframe.

    Add to those the players that even tried to not do this in the last possible instance, joining an alliance during aw 7 only for that alliance to be unenlisted on aw 8 and 9.

    This is a legitimate concern, even if the number of people affected in this way might be small. However, how exactly would you know that?

    The number of alliances that reported to have been unenlisted on both aw 8 and aw 9 was quite astonishing. And now consider how not every single alliance even reported this on the forum.

    How many percent of the player base actually frequently use the forum? There is genuinely no factual information for you to base a general judgement on regarding the amount of players affected in this way.
    Except a war was already going on during that time, so again the only people it would have affected are those who joined while the war was happening, meaning the alliance had to lose someone in the middle of the war, or were not enlisted in the war. Both of which is highly limited. You dont have to look at the people unenlisted to realize this is small, you just have to understand how alliance swaps happen. You can pretty much ignore anyone who was not fighting in war 7. That leaves people who joined while the alliance was still fighting, again this number is small, because alliances do not typically kick during a war and people dont typically leave during a war.
    Mate... Again, not every alliance runs 3 full bg's. Running 2 bg's on war 7 leaves up to 10 spots open to be filled before the enlistment period of war 8 ends.
    And you really think that makes the number of people affected by this huge? I mean if they only run 1 or 2 then you probably are not going to be on the war team when you first join, you will be a backup, which means no rewards in a normal season either.
    Considering how you approached your judgement of the amount of people affected by this, the number should definitely be higher than you figured in your first comment here.

    Please restrain from misrepresenting me, I don't say it's huge. I say it's impossible to know how many people were affected this way.

    And it is really naive to try and argue OP's point with such a restricted picture of how people could have ended up in this situation.

    An alliance with 20 members on aw 7 gets 10 new members before aw 7 ends, all of them eager to qualify for season rewards, all of them eager to participate.
    Now it's supposed to be unlikely that that alliance is going to run 3 bg's for aw 8?

    You try to paint this as something absurd, while there really are a lot of possible scenarios, again, hinting at a way bigger number than what you seem to still think.
    please restrain from misrepresenting me, I didnt say you claimed it would be huge, I questioned your meaning, hence the ? at the end. Also I already covered the "join alliance while war is going scenario", how large do you really, honestly think that number is, I would wager less than a couple hundred people affected, probably less than 100.
    At the end of the day, neither of us know with ang certainty the number nor the relative proportion of players affected in this manner.

    What we do know is that such players do exist, and I am simply expressing their perspective in the hope that it gets recognised by the admins and passed on as feedback, regardless of whether or not it enacts any immediate change. @Lormif This was the point of my post, which you seem to have somewhat missed.
    I dont argue against the number being greater than 0, I argue it is not as large as people make it out to be. I assume that the general compensation will cover this, we will see. After all not everyone can be 100% happy.
    Once again, this is not the point I am making. It is also difficult to “argue that it is not as large as people make it out to be” without access to an accurate insight of who was and wasn’t affected in this way, something which we both lack. Your best estimates are, unfortunately, just estimates.

    I’ll say it once more. I am simply pointing out that such players exist - nothing more, nothing less - and I am brining it up on the forums in the hopes that it is taken into consideration by the Kabam team if similar incidences were to occur in future.
    It is also not that hard to argue it using deductive reasoning, using the reasons already pointed out. You had to have joined during war 7 because of how it went down. If you joined before war 7 it is hard to argue you were planning to do 5 wars but decided to skip some. It is possible but also not possible to verify.

    So it comes down to people who joined an alliance during a war already running, and how many people you think that is likely to be given how alliances are typically run

    This is a niche case, and they cannot cover all niches.
    Respectfully - your reasoning is likely flawed, as pointed out by @UmbertoDelRio , and likely also more than a little biased given your reputation for jumping on any opportunity to present skeptical and contrarian arguments on the forums.

    For what it’s worth, the two affected members in my alliance joined just before war 6, after the end of the AQ cycle. They did not participate in war 6, due to the two BGs already being allocated and filled. Wars 7 and 8 were not an option for any of us in our alliance, due to the enlistment bug, and we did not bother enlisting for war 9.

    And one final time - you are missing the point of my original post (please feel free to refer back to it). I am not asking the team to cover this case and compensate such players, I am aware this is highly unlikely to occur. The post exists largely for Kabam’s acknowledgement, and less so for your speculation.
    The problem is your wars are off. War 7 was not affected by the enlistment bug, only wars 8 and 9 were. War 7 was affected by the loop bug, at the very end. If they joined just before war 6 they still had 2 wars they could have legit play in without prior knowledge of the effect. also I never counted that they should not be made aware, they have been now, me countering your argument does not make that go away.
    Oh come on... If someone left their alliance after war 6, considering they didn't nessecarily have a new alliance to join right away, it's safe to assume that they could have missed war 7 in their new alliance, which was of no concern to them at that point, since there were still 5 wars left officially.

    You're viewing this in such a narrow minded fashion.

    The whole timeframe between aw 6 and the maintenance is to be considered. If you don't want to consider this then your picture is flawed.
    I never said this was impossible, you are again misrepresnting what I said.Even this outlook takes into account what I stated earlier, that the only way this person could have joined an alliance during war 7 while it was still running. yuou keep trying to add groups of people as though I did not take them into account, but I already did.

    The only way to give a war package to take into account every niche situation like you want is to give it to all alliances ever registered for a war based on their rankings after war 6, if they registered for a war or not. That is absurdly vastly over compensating.
    The amount of people affected by this is essentially irrelevant to OP's point.

    No one was throwing estimates arround, simply because that is silly, considering what one would need for an even somewhat legit estimate. What you do is lowballing the number of affected people to argue a point OP never made.

    Great job, lormif.
    @Lormif This is precisely the crux of the matter that you are missing. I understand you feel the need to continue arguing but you need you realise this.
    who does the number not matter? how do you expect them to be "recognized", by giving them war rewards? wll that takes effort, and to get to 100% coverage of everyone affected by this can take A LOT of effort. Claiming the number does not matter is absurd in that regard. At some point the effort to help everyone becomes a losing battle and it is better to just cover that in the general compensation. if you mean in some other way then you need to spell that out.
This discussion has been closed.