From other thread
War Season is not a competition they can adjust based on potential progress. In this particular case, they're judging it based on "last known good configuration", which is the most fair solution overall. In some cases, generalized Compensation Packages, they can calculate overall potential effects and lost earnings, which has been done in the past. In terms of Season Rewards, the best they can do is judge from start to finish. Which is essentially the point of the competition itself. It's a tally of Points earned between Point A and Point B. Unfortunately, it's not logical or feasible to factor in what progress an Alliance MIGHT have made. (I know I'm retired, but I popped on, and I had to point that out. Lol.) But they should factor in the progress that alliances SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE. If everyone knew at the beginning it was a shorter season alliances would have been prepared differently, no one anticipated not being able to fight the number of wars they’re always able to fight. Compensation is about assessing what was lost, and something that was lost for a lot of alliances was the rewards they would’ve gained if we had a full season. Giving one tier up doesn’t break the game and doesn’t leave everyone who would’ve done better to be disappointed all the way until the end of next season.What was lost is alliances potential progress, it was alliances OPPORTUNITY to progress , which should be accounted for and considered when giving compensation, giving one tier up to everyone covers anyone who would’ve have lost out, and do what if a few alliance get more than they would’ve? This makes sure that nobody gets less than might have had we had a proper function season. This makes sure that that bugs don’t rob people of rewards they should have been able to get had their been no bugs. If they would have known it was going to be a shorter Season, they would have told people. If people knew, they wouldn't have spent as many Resources. If people won, they would have advanced. There's a great many "Ifs". You can't give Season Rewards based on Ifs. It's based on actual performance. Placements are determined based on Points. The more you put up, the higher you place, and the more you earn. The Final Results have to be based on totals overall between one time period and the other. They can't give Points for Ifs. Compensation is a different story. They can include something for the trouble. They just can't determine shouda-coulda-wouldas. I thought you quit. Why are you still here? I'm still logging on everyday, still coming to the Forum now and then. I never really close any door. If the day comes I decide to start playing again, I'd like to know what's going on. Besides, you do something everyday for 4 years, and it becomes a part of you.
War Season is not a competition they can adjust based on potential progress. In this particular case, they're judging it based on "last known good configuration", which is the most fair solution overall. In some cases, generalized Compensation Packages, they can calculate overall potential effects and lost earnings, which has been done in the past. In terms of Season Rewards, the best they can do is judge from start to finish. Which is essentially the point of the competition itself. It's a tally of Points earned between Point A and Point B. Unfortunately, it's not logical or feasible to factor in what progress an Alliance MIGHT have made. (I know I'm retired, but I popped on, and I had to point that out. Lol.) But they should factor in the progress that alliances SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE. If everyone knew at the beginning it was a shorter season alliances would have been prepared differently, no one anticipated not being able to fight the number of wars they’re always able to fight. Compensation is about assessing what was lost, and something that was lost for a lot of alliances was the rewards they would’ve gained if we had a full season. Giving one tier up doesn’t break the game and doesn’t leave everyone who would’ve done better to be disappointed all the way until the end of next season.What was lost is alliances potential progress, it was alliances OPPORTUNITY to progress , which should be accounted for and considered when giving compensation, giving one tier up to everyone covers anyone who would’ve have lost out, and do what if a few alliance get more than they would’ve? This makes sure that nobody gets less than might have had we had a proper function season. This makes sure that that bugs don’t rob people of rewards they should have been able to get had their been no bugs. If they would have known it was going to be a shorter Season, they would have told people. If people knew, they wouldn't have spent as many Resources. If people won, they would have advanced. There's a great many "Ifs". You can't give Season Rewards based on Ifs. It's based on actual performance. Placements are determined based on Points. The more you put up, the higher you place, and the more you earn. The Final Results have to be based on totals overall between one time period and the other. They can't give Points for Ifs. Compensation is a different story. They can include something for the trouble. They just can't determine shouda-coulda-wouldas. I thought you quit. Why are you still here?
War Season is not a competition they can adjust based on potential progress. In this particular case, they're judging it based on "last known good configuration", which is the most fair solution overall. In some cases, generalized Compensation Packages, they can calculate overall potential effects and lost earnings, which has been done in the past. In terms of Season Rewards, the best they can do is judge from start to finish. Which is essentially the point of the competition itself. It's a tally of Points earned between Point A and Point B. Unfortunately, it's not logical or feasible to factor in what progress an Alliance MIGHT have made. (I know I'm retired, but I popped on, and I had to point that out. Lol.) But they should factor in the progress that alliances SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE. If everyone knew at the beginning it was a shorter season alliances would have been prepared differently, no one anticipated not being able to fight the number of wars they’re always able to fight. Compensation is about assessing what was lost, and something that was lost for a lot of alliances was the rewards they would’ve gained if we had a full season. Giving one tier up doesn’t break the game and doesn’t leave everyone who would’ve done better to be disappointed all the way until the end of next season.What was lost is alliances potential progress, it was alliances OPPORTUNITY to progress , which should be accounted for and considered when giving compensation, giving one tier up to everyone covers anyone who would’ve have lost out, and do what if a few alliance get more than they would’ve? This makes sure that nobody gets less than might have had we had a proper function season. This makes sure that that bugs don’t rob people of rewards they should have been able to get had their been no bugs. If they would have known it was going to be a shorter Season, they would have told people. If people knew, they wouldn't have spent as many Resources. If people won, they would have advanced. There's a great many "Ifs". You can't give Season Rewards based on Ifs. It's based on actual performance. Placements are determined based on Points. The more you put up, the higher you place, and the more you earn. The Final Results have to be based on totals overall between one time period and the other. They can't give Points for Ifs. Compensation is a different story. They can include something for the trouble. They just can't determine shouda-coulda-wouldas.
War Season is not a competition they can adjust based on potential progress. In this particular case, they're judging it based on "last known good configuration", which is the most fair solution overall. In some cases, generalized Compensation Packages, they can calculate overall potential effects and lost earnings, which has been done in the past. In terms of Season Rewards, the best they can do is judge from start to finish. Which is essentially the point of the competition itself. It's a tally of Points earned between Point A and Point B. Unfortunately, it's not logical or feasible to factor in what progress an Alliance MIGHT have made. (I know I'm retired, but I popped on, and I had to point that out. Lol.) But they should factor in the progress that alliances SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE. If everyone knew at the beginning it was a shorter season alliances would have been prepared differently, no one anticipated not being able to fight the number of wars they’re always able to fight. Compensation is about assessing what was lost, and something that was lost for a lot of alliances was the rewards they would’ve gained if we had a full season. Giving one tier up doesn’t break the game and doesn’t leave everyone who would’ve done better to be disappointed all the way until the end of next season.What was lost is alliances potential progress, it was alliances OPPORTUNITY to progress , which should be accounted for and considered when giving compensation, giving one tier up to everyone covers anyone who would’ve have lost out, and do what if a few alliance get more than they would’ve? This makes sure that nobody gets less than might have had we had a proper function season. This makes sure that that bugs don’t rob people of rewards they should have been able to get had their been no bugs.
War Season is not a competition they can adjust based on potential progress. In this particular case, they're judging it based on "last known good configuration", which is the most fair solution overall. In some cases, generalized Compensation Packages, they can calculate overall potential effects and lost earnings, which has been done in the past. In terms of Season Rewards, the best they can do is judge from start to finish. Which is essentially the point of the competition itself. It's a tally of Points earned between Point A and Point B. Unfortunately, it's not logical or feasible to factor in what progress an Alliance MIGHT have made. (I know I'm retired, but I popped on, and I had to point that out. Lol.)
War Season is not a competition they can adjust based on potential progress. In this particular case, they're judging it based on "last known good configuration", which is the most fair solution overall. In some cases, generalized Compensation Packages, they can calculate overall potential effects and lost earnings, which has been done in the past. In terms of Season Rewards, the best they can do is judge from start to finish. Which is essentially the point of the competition itself. It's a tally of Points earned between Point A and Point B. Unfortunately, it's not logical or feasible to factor in what progress an Alliance MIGHT have made. (I know I'm retired, but I popped on, and I had to point that out. Lol.) But they should factor in the progress that alliances SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE. If everyone knew at the beginning it was a shorter season alliances would have been prepared differently, no one anticipated not being able to fight the number of wars they’re always able to fight. Compensation is about assessing what was lost, and something that was lost for a lot of alliances was the rewards they would’ve gained if we had a full season. Giving one tier up doesn’t break the game and doesn’t leave everyone who would’ve done better to be disappointed all the way until the end of next season.What was lost is alliances potential progress, it was alliances OPPORTUNITY to progress , which should be accounted for and considered when giving compensation, giving one tier up to everyone covers anyone who would’ve have lost out, and do what if a few alliance get more than they would’ve? This makes sure that nobody gets less than might have had we had a proper function season. This makes sure that that bugs don’t rob people of rewards they should have been able to get had their been no bugs. If they would have known it was going to be a shorter Season, they would have told people. If people knew, they wouldn't have spent as many Resources. If people won, they would have advanced. There's a great many "Ifs". You can't give Season Rewards based on Ifs. It's based on actual performance. Placements are determined based on Points. The more you put up, the higher you place, and the more you earn. The Final Results have to be based on totals overall between one time period and the other. They can't give Points for Ifs. Compensation is a different story. They can include something for the trouble. They just can't determine shouda-coulda-wouldas. I thought you quit. Why are you still here? I'm still logging on everyday, still coming to the Forum now and then. I never really close any door. If the day comes I decide to start playing again, I'd like to know what's going on. Besides, you do something everyday for 4 years, and it becomes a part of you. So....you didn't quit. Cool.
We Have still 2 days to start Alliamce Quest,Dont know why kabam not going for maintenance and fix leaderboard and The whole game ,They have time for new A/Q announcement,They have time for releasing act 6.3 But when its about rewards , They Are silence and telling its not going to fix until next weekend which is kinda unfair for players who wanna go for retire and who wanna go for something different like map 7x5 ,Until rewards out no one can leave ,So Lock the kick button until Rewards out for everyone which is fair enough for everyone
Please consider how a good amount of people changing alliance between aw 6 and aw 8 matchmaking actually did have a chance to participate in 1 war, if the alliance they joined didn't get unenlisted. So out of those people some simply lucked out and some got unlucky.
From other thread I think that will be in friday,Btw kabam also need to prepare for those guys and girls who will kick by Leader or officers before they will take there season rewards too.So they cant take the season rewards,And its will be again the big issues in community So issues after issues not good for sure ,
@Noone I really doubt ur alliance cant even beat kenob, like i said why do you keep bringing them up? They are the #1 alliance in aw. Highly doubt you guys would beatKenob or NyI prob made more masters season than you witch i find hilarious thar ur hiding on a throwaway account that has 31 post. 🤔I never said we deserve 2nd lol, all i said is that 6 wars to determine master is to short. I gave u my proof that after 7th war we was 2nd place on november 82nd and 3rd are up for grabs, it was back and fourth.if it would of went to 12 wars, it would be a different scenario.So imagine if kabam decided to make 7 wars instead of 6? You lucked out in getting top 3 in 6 wars. You guys didnt even face kenob or ny this season and didnt face us.@Kabam Miike I dont really understand why you think 6 wars is too short. Is there something you cant do in 6 wars you can do in 12? If you're really that good it shouldnt matter how many wars it is. Get it done or dont, and take your losses like a grownup. Exactly. He’s just having a cry because it’s the only way his mediocre alliance would get top3. They are usually scrounging around 10-20 in master
@Noone I really doubt ur alliance cant even beat kenob, like i said why do you keep bringing them up? They are the #1 alliance in aw. Highly doubt you guys would beatKenob or NyI prob made more masters season than you witch i find hilarious thar ur hiding on a throwaway account that has 31 post. 🤔I never said we deserve 2nd lol, all i said is that 6 wars to determine master is to short. I gave u my proof that after 7th war we was 2nd place on november 82nd and 3rd are up for grabs, it was back and fourth.if it would of went to 12 wars, it would be a different scenario.So imagine if kabam decided to make 7 wars instead of 6? You lucked out in getting top 3 in 6 wars. You guys didnt even face kenob or ny this season and didnt face us.@Kabam Miike I dont really understand why you think 6 wars is too short. Is there something you cant do in 6 wars you can do in 12? If you're really that good it shouldnt matter how many wars it is. Get it done or dont, and take your losses like a grownup.
@Noone I really doubt ur alliance cant even beat kenob, like i said why do you keep bringing them up? They are the #1 alliance in aw. Highly doubt you guys would beatKenob or NyI prob made more masters season than you witch i find hilarious thar ur hiding on a throwaway account that has 31 post. 🤔I never said we deserve 2nd lol, all i said is that 6 wars to determine master is to short. I gave u my proof that after 7th war we was 2nd place on november 82nd and 3rd are up for grabs, it was back and fourth.if it would of went to 12 wars, it would be a different scenario.So imagine if kabam decided to make 7 wars instead of 6? You lucked out in getting top 3 in 6 wars. You guys didnt even face kenob or ny this season and didnt face us.@Kabam Miike
I never said we deserve 2nd lol, all i said is that 6 wars to determine master is to short.
I never said we deserve 2nd lol, all i said is that 6 wars to determine master is to short. If by that you mean that the results might have been different had the season gone longer, that's true. But that would also be true if the season went on for 18 wars, or 30 wars.There's nothing magical about 12 wars. Seasons used to be 24 wars long. They were shortened because players were getting burned out on the long season. Reducing the length of the season reduces the number of wars you have to "decide" placement, and that increases the variability. But there's a trade off between how many match ups help determine placement, and how many people are willing to tolerate. The choice is mostly arbitrary, in that it depends on subjective factors and not quantitative ones.We compromised from 24 to 12 not because 12 is a better number, but simply because players didn't want to fight 24. This season we're compromising from 12 to 6 because of a catastrophic corruption bug. It is less wars than we normally fight, but it isn't less fair, because there's nothing special about 12 that makes it "enough." If everyone was getting burned out on 12 war seasons, it could very well be 6 war seasons now, whether it was "enough" or not.Also, 2^6 = 64. That's more than twice as large as the master's bracket (including the top three). Mathematically speaking, that's enough match ups to "resolve" the master's bracket, at least to a first order approximation. That's not the same thing as "deciding" the master's bracket with certainty, but it is enough to say it isn't completely off the wall.
All you guys in master tier are just gonna whip out the wallets and replenish your resources anyway, what does it even matter? You get better rewards than the vast majority of other alliances anyway so I don’t want to hear it anymore, move that measuring contest elsewhere. Anyways, back on topic, has it been confirmed yet that the issues in aq and aw have been fixed? Things should be on hold if not.
@ContestOfNoobs now your complaining about aq wow get a life. Everyone else in the usual top10 managed to finish the maps Lol do u even play this game? ur not even in 9322. The whole conversation with you was complete waste of time.Kabam is the one who cut aq early and went to maintanance. This effected alot of allainces from every aspect of the game.how is it complaining when i know where we should rank in aq? Kabam knows, and this not a response to you. our conversation is overIt was for @JFort At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why is 6 wars not enough? Every season schedule will be different. If the top 2 didnt face each other over 12 fights instead of 6 would it make a difference? It's a totally real possibility.And dont dismiss folks who play at lower levels than you, especially when you dont want people dismissing your own opinion.
@ContestOfNoobs now your complaining about aq wow get a life. Everyone else in the usual top10 managed to finish the maps Lol do u even play this game? ur not even in 9322. The whole conversation with you was complete waste of time.Kabam is the one who cut aq early and went to maintanance. This effected alot of allainces from every aspect of the game.how is it complaining when i know where we should rank in aq? Kabam knows, and this not a response to you. our conversation is overIt was for @JFort
@ContestOfNoobs now your complaining about aq wow get a life. Everyone else in the usual top10 managed to finish the maps
@ContestOfNoobs now your complaining about aq wow get a life. Everyone else in the usual top10 managed to finish the maps Lol do u even play this game? ur not even in 9322. The whole conversation with you was complete waste of time.Kabam is the one who cut aq early and went to maintanance. This effected alot of allainces from every aspect of the game.how is it complaining when i know where we should rank in aq? Kabam knows, and this not a response to you. our conversation is overIt was for @JFort At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why is 6 wars not enough? Every season schedule will be different. If the top 2 didnt face each other over 12 fights instead of 6 would it make a difference? It's a totally real possibility.And dont dismiss folks who play at lower levels than you, especially when you dont want people dismissing your own opinion. i didnt dismiss him, he dismiss it first. again its only 6 wars because of what happened, same way that happened to aq, both was cut short, both had consequences in the top.we havent yet to have that happened, As you win more, there are higher chances of war rating climbing up. and being paired with higher war rating allaince.The pool for T1 allaince is very small, less than 15 are in tier 1.again ur speculating a possibility that hasnt happen, but this possibility happened, and it was 6 wars,thats why i am addressing it, thats why 6 wars to determine top 3 in master is something that needs to be address and known.especially this season when #1 and #2 did not face each this season. Let alone #3 and #4 havent faced each other.and #2 didnt face any of the top5 aliance waragain there are also allainces who address this kind of concearnBrian Grant also addressed how his allaince kept on running to kenobhttps://twitter.com/ContestChampion/status/1192225487805792257?s=20#2 spot... 9322 belowhttps://twitter.com/luhdemtaters/status/1192287210923532288?s=20