WHERE IS THE EXTRA LOYALTY

AlexanderiaAlexanderia Member Posts: 5 ★
in General Discussion
In some message from Kabam, he mentioned that they would give extra loyalty for fights and victories in alliance wars, but it did not arrive in the mail and there is an amount equal to what is commonly received.

Comments

  • AlexanderiaAlexanderia Member Posts: 5 ★
    There should be a solution to this, since certainly some allies take more fights and therefore tend to be more of an expense than others. @Kabam Miike
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,319 ★★★★★
    Pikolu said:

    The skirmish rewards tech works differently than how kabam thought it would, so that should be fixed sometime next year when kabam is back from holiday break :)

    I get the explanation here, and I’m not busting your chops personally—but does anyone else think the “it didn’t work the way we thought it would” explanation is a curious one?

    Dr. Zola
  • PikoluPikolu Member, Guardian Posts: 8,162 Guardian
    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    The skirmish rewards tech works differently than how kabam thought it would, so that should be fixed sometime next year when kabam is back from holiday break :)

    I get the explanation here, and I’m not busting your chops personally—but does anyone else think the “it didn’t work the way we thought it would” explanation is a curious one?

    Dr. Zola
    Have you worked in coding? I have a hard time understanding what I wrote, and just know that it works. The skirmish rewards tech is old and the dev who made probably doesn't even work there anymore. That means everyone else has to figure out how it works and looking at the code you can make inferences, but even then you are likely to be wrong with how it works.
  • BigBlueOxBigBlueOx Member Posts: 2,717 ★★★★★
    Pikolu said:

    The skirmish rewards tech works differently than how kabam thought it would, so that should be fixed sometime next year when kabam is back from holiday break :)

    🤣🤣🤣 mean while we get holiday wars with block damage that obliterates healthpools.

    Merry Xmas and Happy Holidays all!
  • BringPopcornBringPopcorn Member Posts: 6,693 ★★★★★
    WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING!!!
  • PikoluPikolu Member, Guardian Posts: 8,162 Guardian
    Bugmat78 said:

    Pikolu said:

    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    The skirmish rewards tech works differently than how kabam thought it would, so that should be fixed sometime next year when kabam is back from holiday break :)

    I get the explanation here, and I’m not busting your chops personally—but does anyone else think the “it didn’t work the way we thought it would” explanation is a curious one?

    Dr. Zola
    Have you worked in coding? I have a hard time understanding what I wrote, and just know that it works. The skirmish rewards tech is old and the dev who made probably doesn't even work there anymore. That means everyone else has to figure out how it works and looking at the code you can make inferences, but even then you are likely to be wrong with how it works.
    Still doesn't change the fact that all off-season it was the way they said it would be, then suddenly first war of the new season it's not - what was changed andd why wasn't it left alone? Winning a war where I did about 7 fights gave me 7k loyalty in total. If there were issues they should have noticed it in off-season and made us aware.

    What's worse is people asked for the annual holiday break, and didn't get it. That was the time they should've checked their code and made sure it was ready.

    All I want to know now is will we get comp...yeah I'm going to say it..ensation for this? Too many things like this happen with too little explanation.
    It wasn't working correctly all of the offseason. If you talked with your alliance mates, you would have found out that everyone got the exact same amountnof loyalty. This is because it took the amount of fights done, divided it by how many people were in there, and then sent that loyalty out. So if you did 10 fights, you got just as much loyalty as the dude who literally did 0 fights. That's the issue with the system atm
  • Amms90Amms90 Member Posts: 362 ★★★
    Pikolu said:

    Bugmat78 said:

    Pikolu said:

    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    The skirmish rewards tech works differently than how kabam thought it would, so that should be fixed sometime next year when kabam is back from holiday break :)

    I get the explanation here, and I’m not busting your chops personally—but does anyone else think the “it didn’t work the way we thought it would” explanation is a curious one?

    Dr. Zola
    Have you worked in coding? I have a hard time understanding what I wrote, and just know that it works. The skirmish rewards tech is old and the dev who made probably doesn't even work there anymore. That means everyone else has to figure out how it works and looking at the code you can make inferences, but even then you are likely to be wrong with how it works.
    Still doesn't change the fact that all off-season it was the way they said it would be, then suddenly first war of the new season it's not - what was changed andd why wasn't it left alone? Winning a war where I did about 7 fights gave me 7k loyalty in total. If there were issues they should have noticed it in off-season and made us aware.

    What's worse is people asked for the annual holiday break, and didn't get it. That was the time they should've checked their code and made sure it was ready.

    All I want to know now is will we get comp...yeah I'm going to say it..ensation for this? Too many things like this happen with too little explanation.
    It wasn't working correctly all of the offseason. If you talked with your alliance mates, you would have found out that everyone got the exact same amountnof loyalty. This is because it took the amount of fights done, divided it by how many people were in there, and then sent that loyalty out. So if you did 10 fights, you got just as much loyalty as the dude who literally did 0 fights. That's the issue with the system atm
    I understand this issue but I don't mind getting the same loyalty as a teammate who took less fights. It's still way more than what I get now........... I think who takes more fights than me feels the same way too...
  • ahmynutsahmynuts Member Posts: 8,004 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    The skirmish rewards tech works differently than how kabam thought it would, so that should be fixed sometime next year when kabam is back from holiday break :)

    I get the explanation here, and I’m not busting your chops personally—but does anyone else think the “it didn’t work the way we thought it would” explanation is a curious one?

    Dr. Zola
    As a software engineer, if "it didn't work the way I thought it would" wasn't a viable reason, there would be a massive problem in the workplace. There is a decent chance that whenever you're implementing something, even if it's well thought out and planned that it just doesn't work the way you thought it would for any reason under the sun, then you need to figure out if you can work around that reason why or if you need to scrap your idea entirely and pivot to a different method. Both of which are insanely time and resource-consuming
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 20,256 Guardian
    DrZola said:

    Pikolu said:

    The skirmish rewards tech works differently than how kabam thought it would, so that should be fixed sometime next year when kabam is back from holiday break :)

    I get the explanation here, and I’m not busting your chops personally—but does anyone else think the “it didn’t work the way we thought it would” explanation is a curious one?

    Dr. Zola
    I can’t imagine anyone in IT thinking it was a particularly unusual one.

    Literally a week ago I had support for a SAN tell me almost those exact words. It didn’t do what they thought it should do when it decided to just turn off and not come back. And this was the engineering team saying this. Still waiting on the FAR.

    I’ve spent so much of the last thirty years of my professional life listening to people tell me “huh, it shouldn’t do that” that it’s actually pretty refreshing when they start that phrase with “wow” instead.
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,319 ★★★★★
    edited December 2023
    These are interesting perspectives. I suppose I didn’t appreciate how much imprecision and error seem to be hallmarks of the field.

    How understanding are your clients of all this?

    Dr. Zola

    Edit: That’s not meant to be a swipe at software engineering. Just that it would seem like getting everything working in the end product would be a big deal.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 20,256 Guardian
    DrZola said:

    These are interesting perspectives. I suppose I didn’t appreciate how much imprecision and error seem to be hallmarks of the field.

    How understanding are your clients of all this?

    Dr. Zola

    Edit: That’s not meant to be a swipe at software engineering. Just that it would seem like getting everything working in the end product would be a big deal.

    I suppose that’s a relative thing. I’m not especially understanding about it myself, but my options are limited.

    The problem here isn’t imprecision or error (although there’s plenty of that). The problem is MCOC is a product that has been made once and exists nowhere else in the world. No one hired by Kabam can have any experience operating a Marvel Contest of Champions. There’s nine years of cumulative code in there. No one can possibly learn how all of it works. If they did mandatory hand off every time someone was hired the on boarding process for new employees would be two years long. Instead, people learn what they have to learn to be productive.

    And that means when they have to tackle something no one has touched in a while, the people who built it might be long gone and any existing documentation may no longer be entirely reliable - because it was written when the rest of the surrounding game was itself completely different. Sometimes the only institutional knowledge is anecdotal - Bob told me it used to work that way before he left - and like all anecdotes, it could be wrong.

    I’m not saying you should always just shrug and say oh well every time this happens. I in particular have a reputation for not going away quietly in professional settings. But I am saying I’m not surprised when this happens, and the question then becomes which battles do you decide to fight, and which ones do you decide to let slide.
  • DrZolaDrZola Member Posts: 9,319 ★★★★★
    edited December 2023
    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    These are interesting perspectives. I suppose I didn’t appreciate how much imprecision and error seem to be hallmarks of the field.

    How understanding are your clients of all this?

    Dr. Zola

    Edit: That’s not meant to be a swipe at software engineering. Just that it would seem like getting everything working in the end product would be a big deal.

    I suppose that’s a relative thing. I’m not especially understanding about it myself, but my options are limited.

    The problem here isn’t imprecision or error (although there’s plenty of that). The problem is MCOC is a product that has been made once and exists nowhere else in the world. No one hired by Kabam can have any experience operating a Marvel Contest of Champions. There’s nine years of cumulative code in there. No one can possibly learn how all of it works. If they did mandatory hand off every time someone was hired the on boarding process for new employees would be two years long. Instead, people learn what they have to learn to be productive.

    And that means when they have to tackle something no one has touched in a while, the people who built it might be long gone and any existing documentation may no longer be entirely reliable - because it was written when the rest of the surrounding game was itself completely different. Sometimes the only institutional knowledge is anecdotal - Bob told me it used to work that way before he left - and like all anecdotes, it could be wrong.

    I’m not saying you should always just shrug and say oh well every time this happens. I in particular have a reputation for not going away quietly in professional settings. But I am saying I’m not surprised when this happens, and the question then becomes which battles do you decide to fight, and which ones do you decide to let slide.
    Of course. And from our conversations elsewhere, you probably recall my career background as less forgiving of mistakes—in fact, inexactitude in a complex document or model could be catastrophic even if it could be quickly amended or otherwise *fixed.*

    I guess that’s why it seems odd that even simple proofreading errors in this game seem to garner a collective shrug. For someone who’s been screamed at (over a holiday weekend) because the font and font size (by the most imperceptible degree) was not in accordance with a (comprehensive but byzantine) style manual for a document that wasn’t even a final proof, well…it just seems strange. And that’s a fairly light moment from years ago.

    I can understand an iterative process, but this seems like more than that—hence the bricklayers pic above.

    Dr. Zola
  • ahmynutsahmynuts Member Posts: 8,004 ★★★★★
    DrZola said:

    These are interesting perspectives. I suppose I didn’t appreciate how much imprecision and error seem to be hallmarks of the field.

    How understanding are your clients of all this?

    Dr. Zola

    Edit: That’s not meant to be a swipe at software engineering. Just that it would seem like getting everything working in the end product would be a big deal.

    It really depends on how nice they are and how much they know about what exactly you're doing. If they don't know that much and you try to explain to them why their last minute 5 story point unofficial change request is not doable in the time you have left. The best case is that they're nice and accept even though they don't understand and the worst case is that they get extremely mad and argumentative and call you stupid and bad at your job because you cant get this one thing done etc etc.

    It's easier if they do understand because you're able to explain the actual technical reason why something either cannot work or is currently not working and actual come out with a mutual understanding of the next steps to take.

    Like DNA was saying above. MCOC is MASSIVE with so much code around it, not to mention assets and animations, it would be extremely hard to have someone on the team that knows it all. All they can do is their best with the mammoth they walk in to when they start working at kabam lol.

    I do wonder how many times they've tried to change something like a champion ability and then something so far away from it like an alliance war node breaks lol
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 20,256 Guardian
    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    These are interesting perspectives. I suppose I didn’t appreciate how much imprecision and error seem to be hallmarks of the field.

    How understanding are your clients of all this?

    Dr. Zola

    Edit: That’s not meant to be a swipe at software engineering. Just that it would seem like getting everything working in the end product would be a big deal.

    I suppose that’s a relative thing. I’m not especially understanding about it myself, but my options are limited.

    The problem here isn’t imprecision or error (although there’s plenty of that). The problem is MCOC is a product that has been made once and exists nowhere else in the world. No one hired by Kabam can have any experience operating a Marvel Contest of Champions. There’s nine years of cumulative code in there. No one can possibly learn how all of it works. If they did mandatory hand off every time someone was hired the on boarding process for new employees would be two years long. Instead, people learn what they have to learn to be productive.

    And that means when they have to tackle something no one has touched in a while, the people who built it might be long gone and any existing documentation may no longer be entirely reliable - because it was written when the rest of the surrounding game was itself completely different. Sometimes the only institutional knowledge is anecdotal - Bob told me it used to work that way before he left - and like all anecdotes, it could be wrong.

    I’m not saying you should always just shrug and say oh well every time this happens. I in particular have a reputation for not going away quietly in professional settings. But I am saying I’m not surprised when this happens, and the question then becomes which battles do you decide to fight, and which ones do you decide to let slide.
    Of course. And from our conversations elsewhere, you probably recall my career background as less forgiving of mistakes—in fact, inexactitude in a complex document or model could be catastrophic even if it could be quickly amended or otherwise *fixed.*

    I guess that’s why it seems odd that even simple proofreading errors in this game seem to garner a collective shrug. For someone who’s been screamed at (over a holiday weekend) because the font and font size (by the most imperceptible degree) was not in accordance with a (comprehensive but byzantine) style manual for a document that wasn’t even a final proof, well…it just seems strange. And that’s a fairly light moment from years ago.

    I can understand an iterative process, but this seems like more than that—hence the bricklayers pic above.

    Dr. Zola
    I used to draft patent diagrams. I get it.
Sign In or Register to comment.