AW Season 13: the overlooked players

Lormif

_ASDF_ said:

Lormif said:

_ASDF_ said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack 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:

Octoberstack said:

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.

GW left a small vacuum for someone to take up the mantle of standing up for the little guy, Kabam. He hand off his pompoms?

I am not defending anyone, please leave the stawmen at home.

I’m addressing you which is not by definition a straw man argument. I see your trying to present yourself as a “thinker”. Try again?

You are claiming I am doing something I am not, and have not implied doing.

Octoberstack

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack 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:

Octoberstack said:

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.

I’ve spelled it out plenty of times. This post was made simply to convey the frustration felt by a minority of the playerbase to the Kabam team (this is what I meant by “recognised”, “acknowledged”, since you asked).

“Claiming the number does not matter is absurd’

It is not. The number doesn’t matter here. What matters is that such cases exist in the first place, and that has been conveyed in my original post.

As I’ve said many, many times now - I am not fighting for extra compensation that covers this minority. I made the post for Kabam to see, and hopefully respond to - nothing more, nothing less. You made the choice to fabricate the need for an argument around numbers and semantics. That was all you Lormif.

So you need kabam to specifically state that they know not all summoners will be made whole by this above and beyond where they have already stated as much? my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is. They have already stated that a lot of people will not be made whole by these specific compensations but that should be made up with the general compensation.

Again what exactly more than that are you expecting?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

"my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is"

It's starting to dawn on me that, in your haste to respond, you are either misreading or not reading what I am saying. Just one more time, to be clear - I am not asking for anything. As I've literally just said in my previous post, the purpose of this post was to convey a minority group's frustrations, not to argue a certain point, not to ask for something to be done differently, and not to place criticism on their response.

And no Lormif, lets not humour ourselves - you are arguing numbers and semantics as it's the only way for you to keep this misplaced argument going.

"Again what exactly more than that are you expecting"

Absolutely nothing, please see my point above

You are literally fabricating an entire scenario where I am demanding something for a small group of people. I'm honestly quite baffled that you're being so obtuse about the point of this post.

Do you really need to always get the last word in, even though the entire foundation of your argument is frankly irrelevant to the point I was originally trying to raise?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

you want them to respond to you, but not to make a statement, how is that not contradictory? responding to you would be making a statement.

you are asking for something, you are asking them to make a statement on this, something they have already made a general sttement on, and you are demanding it.

I am arguing semantics because that is the most important part of a discussion. If you dont understand what you yourself is asking and saying then how can anyone else.

I understand what I am saying. I think we can all agree it's you who's doing the misunderstanding.

I'm more than happy to humour your need to discuss semantics, if you really want to.

I don't "want" anyone to respond to anything - I said that it would be nice for them to respond or comment on what they thought about the situation I outlined. This could take the form of literally anything. When I said I am not looking for a statement, I was referring to the fact that I do not expect or need Kabam to officially release a statement saying that this minority of players will not be separately compensated. This I already know, thus do not need.

Since I am merely HOPING for someone from the team to comment any insight, seeing as I merely said that this would be great to see - where am I asking for anything or demanding anything?

Hope this cleared up your confusion, happy to clarify anything else I said.

If you hope something will happen then you want that thing to happen, a synonym for hope is literally an expectation. It is like I am speaking to people who do not understand English and just want to argue for the same of arguing.

A hope is a wish, not an expectation. For instance, I can hope and wish to win the lottery, but I absolutely do not expect it given the odds.

"a synonym for hope is literally an expectation" - I think we can safely say this is false.

For your information, I'm a second generation Asian living in the UK, and English is my not my native tongue. And it's quite literally you who is arguing for the sake of arguing, I am simply clarifying the areas where you've misunderstood what I've said.

My post was a message to Kabam, you invited yourself into an argument that wasn't necessary in the first place, as it contributed nothing to the point I was trying to raise.

CoatHang3r

Worknprogress said:

Man you guys sure have a whole lot to say about something that has yet to even be finalized yet. How about everyone wait until we see what's done at the end before going on for pages about hypotheticals? We still have no idea what is being done for anyone so while I know it sounds crazy, why don't we just have some patience and see what happens before you spend 3k words arguing about nothing?

While I agree with you it sounds like they are baking us a pie and buying lotto tickets for us. Do you like pie and gambling?

NotStarving

Worknprogress said:

Man you guys sure have a whole lot to say about something that has yet to even be finalized yet. How about everyone wait until we see what's done at the end before going on for pages about hypotheticals? We still have no idea what is being done for anyone so while I know it sounds crazy, why don't we just have some patience and see what happens before you spend 3k words arguing about nothing?

Well, there's nothing wrong with them arguing over this matter though? It is interesting and both parties seem to be civil enough even if they can't seem to agree. Who are you to come in and tell them to stop? Why does it bother you so much that you can't just ignore the conversation and move on?

Octoberstack

CoatHang3r said:

Worknprogress said:

Man you guys sure have a whole lot to say about something that has yet to even be finalized yet. How about everyone wait until we see what's done at the end before going on for pages about hypotheticals? We still have no idea what is being done for anyone so while I know it sounds crazy, why don't we just have some patience and see what happens before you spend 3k words arguing about nothing?

While I agree with you it sounds like they are baking us a pie and buying lotto tickets for us. Do you like pie and gambling?

Please clearly state your preferred type of pie and your 7 lottery numbers (+1 lucky number). We'll send you a confirmation receipt by pigeon, you can expect it within 5-7 working days.

Worknprogress

CoatHang3r said:

Worknprogress said:

Man you guys sure have a whole lot to say about something that has yet to even be finalized yet. How about everyone wait until we see what's done at the end before going on for pages about hypotheticals? We still have no idea what is being done for anyone so while I know it sounds crazy, why don't we just have some patience and see what happens before you spend 3k words arguing about nothing?

While I agree with you it sounds like they are baking us a pie and buying lotto tickets for us. Do you like pie and gambling?

Well you have a point, hard to disagree with pie and gambling. Carry on then lads

Worknprogress

UmbertoDelRio said:

Worknprogress said:

Man you guys sure have a whole lot to say about something that has yet to even be finalized yet. How about everyone wait until we see what's done at the end before going on for pages about hypotheticals? We still have no idea what is being done for anyone so while I know it sounds crazy, why don't we just have some patience and see what happens before you spend 3k words arguing about nothing?

According to all the available information OP's point is absolutely valid.

I don't really get what you're trying to say. They clearly stated who will be eligible for season rewards under which circumstances.

This thread is showing a concern based on that.

Contradictory posts were also made by them as well. I need to try to find it again but Miike originally posted that anyone participating in one war would get rewards but then also posted later that anyone that joined the alliance between wars 7-9 would be eligible but didnt mention having to actually be in a war.

So as I said, how about we just wait to see what happens

Worknprogress

Worknprogress

Granted that's not clear whether that only applies if they actually made it into 1 war, it's also not clear that it doesnt

Tehsigzorz

Why do people feel the need to enter convos they have not the slightest knowledge of and then double down on their own illogical arguments?

Worknprogress

UmbertoDelRio said:

Worknprogress said:

I believe someone asked for clarification on this after that and he said you need to have participated at least once in your new alliance.

Yeah I scanned through it quickly when I saw that last night and again when I found it. I didn't see any clarification but I may have missed it. If the people who joined but were never actually able to participate wind up ineligible, then yes I agree it's absolutely a problem. Until we either see what's issued to who or get clear clarification, I just don't see the point in going round and round about it. The situation has been brought up enough that I'm pretty confident that Kabam will be aware of it at this point

Worknprogress

UmbertoDelRio said:

Worknprogress said:

I believe someone asked for clarification on this after that and he said you need to have participated at least once in your new alliance.

I just looked again and couldn't find anything from Miike on that after he posted it. A few people asked him about it but I couldn't find anything but player responses

Kabam Vydious

Hey y'all -

Wanted to jump in here and address the core issue being brought forward about Summoners who weren't able to even enlist in ONE war meaning they missed out on the new limit we placed for all of this. Unfortunately these folks won't be able to receive the rewards they would've gotten if they'd been able to enlist. We understand this is frustrating, but keep in mind we're aware that there isn't a perfect solution for all of this and we had to draw the line somewhere. That line fell onto Summoners who didn't play any war at all. We apologize for the disappointment that is going to come with this, but we're working hard to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Worknprogress

Wow that's pretty bad

Octoberstack

Kabam Vydious said:

Hey y'all -

Wanted to jump in here and address the core issue being brought forward about Summoners who weren't able to even enlist in ONE war meaning they missed out on the new limit we placed for all of this. Unfortunately these folks won't be able to receive the rewards they would've gotten if they'd been able to enlist. We understand this is frustrating, but keep in mind we're aware that there isn't a perfect solution for all of this and we had to draw the line somewhere. That line fell onto Summoners who didn't play any war at all. We apologize for the disappointment that is going to come with this, but we're working hard to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Thanks for the response! I’ll pass it onto folks who aren’t as active on the forums.

Doomsfist79

Kabam Vydious said:

Hey y'all -

Wanted to jump in here and address the core issue being brought forward about Summoners who weren't able to even enlist in ONE war meaning they missed out on the new limit we placed for all of this. Unfortunately these folks won't be able to receive the rewards they would've gotten if they'd been able to enlist. We understand this is frustrating, but keep in mind we're aware that there isn't a perfect solution for all of this and we had to draw the line somewhere. That line fell onto Summoners who didn't play any war at all. We apologize for the disappointment that is going to come with this, but we're working hard to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Absolutely a cutoff is needed... however.. the reason they were not able to participate was of no fault of their own but because of problems on Kabams end.. so in a sense they are being punished because kabam (hardware/servers) malfunctioned.. never mind unfair.. this is simply wrong..

Lormif

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack 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:

Octoberstack said:

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.

I’ve spelled it out plenty of times. This post was made simply to convey the frustration felt by a minority of the playerbase to the Kabam team (this is what I meant by “recognised”, “acknowledged”, since you asked).

“Claiming the number does not matter is absurd’

It is not. The number doesn’t matter here. What matters is that such cases exist in the first place, and that has been conveyed in my original post.

As I’ve said many, many times now - I am not fighting for extra compensation that covers this minority. I made the post for Kabam to see, and hopefully respond to - nothing more, nothing less. You made the choice to fabricate the need for an argument around numbers and semantics. That was all you Lormif.

So you need kabam to specifically state that they know not all summoners will be made whole by this above and beyond where they have already stated as much? my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is. They have already stated that a lot of people will not be made whole by these specific compensations but that should be made up with the general compensation.

Again what exactly more than that are you expecting?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

"my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is"

It's starting to dawn on me that, in your haste to respond, you are either misreading or not reading what I am saying. Just one more time, to be clear - I am not asking for anything. As I've literally just said in my previous post, the purpose of this post was to convey a minority group's frustrations, not to argue a certain point, not to ask for something to be done differently, and not to place criticism on their response.

And no Lormif, lets not humour ourselves - you are arguing numbers and semantics as it's the only way for you to keep this misplaced argument going.

"Again what exactly more than that are you expecting"

Absolutely nothing, please see my point above

You are literally fabricating an entire scenario where I am demanding something for a small group of people. I'm honestly quite baffled that you're being so obtuse about the point of this post.

Do you really need to always get the last word in, even though the entire foundation of your argument is frankly irrelevant to the point I was originally trying to raise?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

you want them to respond to you, but not to make a statement, how is that not contradictory? responding to you would be making a statement.

you are asking for something, you are asking them to make a statement on this, something they have already made a general sttement on, and you are demanding it.

I am arguing semantics because that is the most important part of a discussion. If you dont understand what you yourself is asking and saying then how can anyone else.

I understand what I am saying. I think we can all agree it's you who's doing the misunderstanding.

I'm more than happy to humour your need to discuss semantics, if you really want to.

I don't "want" anyone to respond to anything - I said that it would be nice for them to respond or comment on what they thought about the situation I outlined. This could take the form of literally anything. When I said I am not looking for a statement, I was referring to the fact that I do not expect or need Kabam to officially release a statement saying that this minority of players will not be separately compensated. This I already know, thus do not need.

Since I am merely HOPING for someone from the team to comment any insight, seeing as I merely said that this would be great to see - where am I asking for anything or demanding anything?

Hope this cleared up your confusion, happy to clarify anything else I said.

If you hope something will happen then you want that thing to happen, a synonym for hope is literally an expectation. It is like I am speaking to people who do not understand English and just want to argue for the same of arguing.

A hope is a wish, not an expectation. For instance, I can hope and wish to win the lottery, but I absolutely do not expect it given the odds.

"a synonym for hope is literally an expectation" - I think we can safely say this is false.

For your information, I'm a second generation Asian living in the UK, and English is my not my native tongue. And it's quite literally you who is arguing for the sake of arguing, I am simply clarifying the areas where you've misunderstood what I've said.

My post was a message to Kabam, you invited yourself into an argument that wasn't necessary in the first place, as it contributed nothing to the point I was trying to raise.

You wish for things you dont want? you hope for things you dont want?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hope

achievement
ambition
anticipation
aspiration
belief
concern
confidence
desire
expectation

Timone147

Kabam Vydious said:

Hey y'all -

Wanted to jump in here and address the core issue being brought forward about Summoners who weren't able to even enlist in ONE war meaning they missed out on the new limit we placed for all of this. Unfortunately these folks won't be able to receive the rewards they would've gotten if they'd been able to enlist. We understand this is frustrating, but keep in mind we're aware that there isn't a perfect solution for all of this and we had to draw the line somewhere. That line fell onto Summoners who didn't play any war at all. We apologize for the disappointment that is going to come with this, but we're working hard to ensure this doesn't happen again.

So I guess we just don’t understand why. Why does there need to be a line this round of season. Why not just give everyone in the alliance the rewards. They were within guidelines. For those in our alliances with this issue I just don’t see why this “line” is needed.

Timone147

Last post on this.

Keep in mind the bugs prevented them from enlisting in the war on the last day they could move to qualify for season rewards.

I’ll never personally understand why a “line” is needed here as if we are upholding some principles in this completely botched season of AW.

BananaGrant

I was affected by this personnally.
I moved my main account over to join my alt in a Silver 3/2 ally with time for 5 wars left.

Because of the bug on Friday, my main didn't get a war in before they ended the season, meaning I don't get rewards.

I don't find that fair, and I do hope Kabam realizes why.

Octoberstack

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack 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:

Octoberstack said:

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.

I’ve spelled it out plenty of times. This post was made simply to convey the frustration felt by a minority of the playerbase to the Kabam team (this is what I meant by “recognised”, “acknowledged”, since you asked).

“Claiming the number does not matter is absurd’

It is not. The number doesn’t matter here. What matters is that such cases exist in the first place, and that has been conveyed in my original post.

As I’ve said many, many times now - I am not fighting for extra compensation that covers this minority. I made the post for Kabam to see, and hopefully respond to - nothing more, nothing less. You made the choice to fabricate the need for an argument around numbers and semantics. That was all you Lormif.

So you need kabam to specifically state that they know not all summoners will be made whole by this above and beyond where they have already stated as much? my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is. They have already stated that a lot of people will not be made whole by these specific compensations but that should be made up with the general compensation.

Again what exactly more than that are you expecting?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

"my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is"

It's starting to dawn on me that, in your haste to respond, you are either misreading or not reading what I am saying. Just one more time, to be clear - I am not asking for anything. As I've literally just said in my previous post, the purpose of this post was to convey a minority group's frustrations, not to argue a certain point, not to ask for something to be done differently, and not to place criticism on their response.

And no Lormif, lets not humour ourselves - you are arguing numbers and semantics as it's the only way for you to keep this misplaced argument going.

"Again what exactly more than that are you expecting"

Absolutely nothing, please see my point above

You are literally fabricating an entire scenario where I am demanding something for a small group of people. I'm honestly quite baffled that you're being so obtuse about the point of this post.

Do you really need to always get the last word in, even though the entire foundation of your argument is frankly irrelevant to the point I was originally trying to raise?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

you want them to respond to you, but not to make a statement, how is that not contradictory? responding to you would be making a statement.

you are asking for something, you are asking them to make a statement on this, something they have already made a general sttement on, and you are demanding it.

I am arguing semantics because that is the most important part of a discussion. If you dont understand what you yourself is asking and saying then how can anyone else.

I understand what I am saying. I think we can all agree it's you who's doing the misunderstanding.

I'm more than happy to humour your need to discuss semantics, if you really want to.

I don't "want" anyone to respond to anything - I said that it would be nice for them to respond or comment on what they thought about the situation I outlined. This could take the form of literally anything. When I said I am not looking for a statement, I was referring to the fact that I do not expect or need Kabam to officially release a statement saying that this minority of players will not be separately compensated. This I already know, thus do not need.

Since I am merely HOPING for someone from the team to comment any insight, seeing as I merely said that this would be great to see - where am I asking for anything or demanding anything?

Hope this cleared up your confusion, happy to clarify anything else I said.

If you hope something will happen then you want that thing to happen, a synonym for hope is literally an expectation. It is like I am speaking to people who do not understand English and just want to argue for the same of arguing.

A hope is a wish, not an expectation. For instance, I can hope and wish to win the lottery, but I absolutely do not expect it given the odds.

"a synonym for hope is literally an expectation" - I think we can safely say this is false.

For your information, I'm a second generation Asian living in the UK, and English is my not my native tongue. And it's quite literally you who is arguing for the sake of arguing, I am simply clarifying the areas where you've misunderstood what I've said.

My post was a message to Kabam, you invited yourself into an argument that wasn't necessary in the first place, as it contributed nothing to the point I was trying to raise.

You wish for things you dont want? you hope for things you dont want?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hope

achievement
ambition
anticipation
aspiration
belief
concern
confidence
desire
expectation

I can wish for things I don’t expect. ”want” wasn’t present in what I was differentiating between.

And really Lormif? Using a thesaurus site as an arguing point? I expected better from you I have to admit.

Read over this again:

A hope is a wish, not an expectation. For instance, I can hope and wish to win the lottery, but I absolutely do not expect it given the odds.

I think we’re done here, thanks for tuning in folks.

Sn1pes130

Kabam Vydious said:

Hey y'all -

Wanted to jump in here and address the core issue being brought forward about Summoners who weren't able to even enlist in ONE war meaning they missed out on the new limit we placed for all of this. Unfortunately these folks won't be able to receive the rewards they would've gotten if they'd been able to enlist. We understand this is frustrating, but keep in mind we're aware that there isn't a perfect solution for all of this and we had to draw the line somewhere. That line fell onto Summoners who didn't play any war at all. We apologize for the disappointment that is going to come with this, but we're working hard to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Yeah screw the people that couldn’t play war because Kabam messed up, they should’ve known better. Since it’s your guys screw up how about you guys just make it right by everyone and give anyone in an alliance the rewards, wether they played a war or not. That would be the fair way to fix this epic mistake you guys caused.

Kenny262000

Hey guys, just wanted to chime in as I’m one of the players that fall into this category.

I made it known to my previous alliance that I would be leaving after we finished aq last Friday before the emergency maintenance period started. My main reason was that I enjoy fighting in aw and they had no intention of fighting in aw on a regular basis. Prior to the emergency maintenance we had only fought in 2 wars throughout the season. With an hour left in our aq I had already started preparing to leave. Said my goodbyes, left the line chat, had another alliance ready to receive me and was just waiting for aq to end. With 40 minutes left in aq the game went down.

Once the game came back up I moved to the new alliance. Sadly, I was too late to participate in their war. Then their enrollment into the next war was cancelled.

So, no war for me unfortunately. I’ve come to terms with it and while I would’ve gotten my 5 wars in had I moved when I intended to I also realize that I could have moved to an alliance that participated in war earlier in the season. It never pays to procrastinate and I certainly don’t fault kabam or expect anything from them.

Lormif

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack 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:

Octoberstack said:

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.

I’ve spelled it out plenty of times. This post was made simply to convey the frustration felt by a minority of the playerbase to the Kabam team (this is what I meant by “recognised”, “acknowledged”, since you asked).

“Claiming the number does not matter is absurd’

It is not. The number doesn’t matter here. What matters is that such cases exist in the first place, and that has been conveyed in my original post.

As I’ve said many, many times now - I am not fighting for extra compensation that covers this minority. I made the post for Kabam to see, and hopefully respond to - nothing more, nothing less. You made the choice to fabricate the need for an argument around numbers and semantics. That was all you Lormif.

So you need kabam to specifically state that they know not all summoners will be made whole by this above and beyond where they have already stated as much? my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is. They have already stated that a lot of people will not be made whole by these specific compensations but that should be made up with the general compensation.

Again what exactly more than that are you expecting?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

"my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is"

It's starting to dawn on me that, in your haste to respond, you are either misreading or not reading what I am saying. Just one more time, to be clear - I am not asking for anything. As I've literally just said in my previous post, the purpose of this post was to convey a minority group's frustrations, not to argue a certain point, not to ask for something to be done differently, and not to place criticism on their response.

And no Lormif, lets not humour ourselves - you are arguing numbers and semantics as it's the only way for you to keep this misplaced argument going.

"Again what exactly more than that are you expecting"

Absolutely nothing, please see my point above

You are literally fabricating an entire scenario where I am demanding something for a small group of people. I'm honestly quite baffled that you're being so obtuse about the point of this post.

Do you really need to always get the last word in, even though the entire foundation of your argument is frankly irrelevant to the point I was originally trying to raise?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

you want them to respond to you, but not to make a statement, how is that not contradictory? responding to you would be making a statement.

you are asking for something, you are asking them to make a statement on this, something they have already made a general sttement on, and you are demanding it.

I am arguing semantics because that is the most important part of a discussion. If you dont understand what you yourself is asking and saying then how can anyone else.

I understand what I am saying. I think we can all agree it's you who's doing the misunderstanding.

I'm more than happy to humour your need to discuss semantics, if you really want to.

I don't "want" anyone to respond to anything - I said that it would be nice for them to respond or comment on what they thought about the situation I outlined. This could take the form of literally anything. When I said I am not looking for a statement, I was referring to the fact that I do not expect or need Kabam to officially release a statement saying that this minority of players will not be separately compensated. This I already know, thus do not need.

Since I am merely HOPING for someone from the team to comment any insight, seeing as I merely said that this would be great to see - where am I asking for anything or demanding anything?

Hope this cleared up your confusion, happy to clarify anything else I said.

If you hope something will happen then you want that thing to happen, a synonym for hope is literally an expectation. It is like I am speaking to people who do not understand English and just want to argue for the same of arguing.

A hope is a wish, not an expectation. For instance, I can hope and wish to win the lottery, but I absolutely do not expect it given the odds.

"a synonym for hope is literally an expectation" - I think we can safely say this is false.

For your information, I'm a second generation Asian living in the UK, and English is my not my native tongue. And it's quite literally you who is arguing for the sake of arguing, I am simply clarifying the areas where you've misunderstood what I've said.

My post was a message to Kabam, you invited yourself into an argument that wasn't necessary in the first place, as it contributed nothing to the point I was trying to raise.

You wish for things you dont want? you hope for things you dont want?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hope

achievement
ambition
anticipation
aspiration
belief
concern
confidence
desire
expectation

I can wish for things I don’t expect. ”want” wasn’t present in what I was differentiating between.

And really Lormif? Using a thesaurus site as an arguing point? I expected better from you I have to admit.

Read over this again:

A hope is a wish, not an expectation. For instance, I can hope and wish to win the lottery, but I absolutely do not expect it given the odds.

I think we’re done here, thanks for tuning in folks.

Would you prefer merrian webster, you know oneof the primary dictionaries?



to cherish a desire with anticipation : to want something to happen or be true
: to desire with expectation of obtainment or fulfillment
: desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hope?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

What the problem really is is that you are confusing want and require , you dont require those things you want them, but you painted yourslf into a corner, so now you need to argue the irrational argument that you can hope for things you dont want, when it is really you hope for them but dont require.

Lormif

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

UmbertoDelRio said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack said:

Lormif said:

Octoberstack 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:

Octoberstack said:

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.

I’ve spelled it out plenty of times. This post was made simply to convey the frustration felt by a minority of the playerbase to the Kabam team (this is what I meant by “recognised”, “acknowledged”, since you asked).

“Claiming the number does not matter is absurd’

It is not. The number doesn’t matter here. What matters is that such cases exist in the first place, and that has been conveyed in my original post.

As I’ve said many, many times now - I am not fighting for extra compensation that covers this minority. I made the post for Kabam to see, and hopefully respond to - nothing more, nothing less. You made the choice to fabricate the need for an argument around numbers and semantics. That was all you Lormif.

So you need kabam to specifically state that they know not all summoners will be made whole by this above and beyond where they have already stated as much? my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is. They have already stated that a lot of people will not be made whole by these specific compensations but that should be made up with the general compensation.

Again what exactly more than that are you expecting?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

"my talking about the amount is because what you are asking for is very vague, you have not even defined what you feel the lacking response is"

It's starting to dawn on me that, in your haste to respond, you are either misreading or not reading what I am saying. Just one more time, to be clear - I am not asking for anything. As I've literally just said in my previous post, the purpose of this post was to convey a minority group's frustrations, not to argue a certain point, not to ask for something to be done differently, and not to place criticism on their response.

And no Lormif, lets not humour ourselves - you are arguing numbers and semantics as it's the only way for you to keep this misplaced argument going.

"Again what exactly more than that are you expecting"

Absolutely nothing, please see my point above

You are literally fabricating an entire scenario where I am demanding something for a small group of people. I'm honestly quite baffled that you're being so obtuse about the point of this post.

Do you really need to always get the last word in, even though the entire foundation of your argument is frankly irrelevant to the point I was originally trying to raise?

Do I need Kabam to specifically state anything? No, I've just said that it for them to "see, and hopefully respond to". It's always illuminating to hear an admin make a comment on an issue, where did I express the need for Kabam to make a statement?

you want them to respond to you, but not to make a statement, how is that not contradictory? responding to you would be making a statement.

you are asking for something, you are asking them to make a statement on this, something they have already made a general sttement on, and you are demanding it.

I am arguing semantics because that is the most important part of a discussion. If you dont understand what you yourself is asking and saying then how can anyone else.

I understand what I am saying. I think we can all agree it's you who's doing the misunderstanding.

I'm more than happy to humour your need to discuss semantics, if you really want to.

I don't "want" anyone to respond to anything - I said that it would be nice for them to respond or comment on what they thought about the situation I outlined. This could take the form of literally anything. When I said I am not looking for a statement, I was referring to the fact that I do not expect or need Kabam to officially release a statement saying that this minority of players will not be separately compensated. This I already know, thus do not need.

Since I am merely HOPING for someone from the team to comment any insight, seeing as I merely said that this would be great to see - where am I asking for anything or demanding anything?

Hope this cleared up your confusion, happy to clarify anything else I said.

If you hope something will happen then you want that thing to happen, a synonym for hope is literally an expectation. It is like I am speaking to people who do not understand English and just want to argue for the same of arguing.

A hope is a wish, not an expectation. For instance, I can hope and wish to win the lottery, but I absolutely do not expect it given the odds.

"a synonym for hope is literally an expectation" - I think we can safely say this is false.

For your information, I'm a second generation Asian living in the UK, and English is my not my native tongue. And it's quite literally you who is arguing for the sake of arguing, I am simply clarifying the areas where you've misunderstood what I've said.

My post was a message to Kabam, you invited yourself into an argument that wasn't necessary in the first place, as it contributed nothing to the point I was trying to raise.

You wish for things you dont want? you hope for things you dont want?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hope

achievement
ambition
anticipation
aspiration
belief
concern
confidence
desire
expectation

I can wish for things I don’t expect. ”want” wasn’t present in what I was differentiating between.

And really Lormif? Using a thesaurus site as an arguing point? I expected better from you I have to admit.

Read over this again:

A hope is a wish, not an expectation. For instance, I can hope and wish to win the lottery, but I absolutely do not expect it given the odds.

I think we’re done here, thanks for tuning in folks.

Would you prefer merrian webster, you know oneof the primary dictionaries?



to cherish a desire with anticipation : to want something to happen or be true
: to desire with expectation of obtainment or fulfillment
: desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hope?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

What the problem really is is that you are confusing want and require , you dont require those things you want them, but you painted yourslf into a corner, so now you need to argue the irrational argument that you can hope for things you dont want, when it is really you hope for them but dont require.

You are making a parody of yourself at this point, buddy. As entertaining as it is, it's also somewhat saddening.

Maybe look up "self awareness" on one of your handy websites? You might even find a cool synonym for that.

I am very self aware of what I am doing, thank you very much, I am not sure you do.

Kabam Miike

This topic has been addressed, and will now be closed. For anybody that doesn't want to scroll back, Vydious said:

Wanted to jump in here and address the core issue being brought forward about Summoners who weren't able to even enlist in ONE war meaning they missed out on the new limit we placed for all of this. Unfortunately these folks won't be able to receive the rewards they would've gotten if they'd been able to enlist. We understand this is frustrating, but keep in mind we're aware that there isn't a perfect solution for all of this and we had to draw the line somewhere. That line fell onto Summoners who didn't play any war at all. We apologize for the disappointment that is going to come with this, but we're working hard to ensure this doesn't happen again.