Thank you all for the feedback, and I'm sorry that this Comp package isn't what you were expecting.Context: The Comp Package went out to all players that started the quest before the Bug was fixed, and is based on the difference between resources we saw Players using before and after the bug was fixed. I see a lot of players saying that they used a bunch of revives, but players that played the fights after the Bug was fixed (roughly 6 hours after launch) also still used a lot of resources. The difference on average was what we based the package on.This is NOT compensation for the ongoing control issues we've been experiencing.I've also let the team know about the feedback here. Obviously, there are lots going on right now, and we're looking at many things, but I can make the sentiment known. No Promises that will go anywhere though.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug. Because Miike stated, the average difference between those who did it bugged and those who didn't equated to the compensation. Which means they looked at some form of difference between the bugged fight and the non bugged fight. It wasn't the average of the people affected that they decided this on.Come on man. Yes, I had a brain freeze. I clued in with my last comment. However, the idea isn't to compensate everything that was used. It was to average the extra used for that bug, so I can see what he's saying. Yes but WHAT type of Average. A mean average is different from a mode average which is different from a median average. Because it seems to me they chose the lowest average and called it a day. mean. Not even kabam would use the mode and the median would take too long. Why would it be anything other than mean. They don't need to try and screw us when there are tons of revives being spent on both sides of the bug. I'd rather they took longer and actually compensated fairly instead of taking the quick and dirty option. It would at least make their data argument seem meaningful instead of just saying it to save face. Averages are widely used. I doubt a program could do everything they would have to do to figure out each individuals potential revive compensation. Thousands of fights probably had to be looked over by a human. 10 revives .. based on my own experience plus the experiences of my alliance mates and friends across other alliances. 10 would have been reasonable. Cold data doesn’t give you any insight without perspective of actual player experience.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug. Because Miike stated, the average difference between those who did it bugged and those who didn't equated to the compensation. Which means they looked at some form of difference between the bugged fight and the non bugged fight. It wasn't the average of the people affected that they decided this on.Come on man. Yes, I had a brain freeze. I clued in with my last comment. However, the idea isn't to compensate everything that was used. It was to average the extra used for that bug, so I can see what he's saying. Yes but WHAT type of Average. A mean average is different from a mode average which is different from a median average. Because it seems to me they chose the lowest average and called it a day. mean. Not even kabam would use the mode and the median would take too long. Why would it be anything other than mean. They don't need to try and screw us when there are tons of revives being spent on both sides of the bug. I'd rather they took longer and actually compensated fairly instead of taking the quick and dirty option. It would at least make their data argument seem meaningful instead of just saying it to save face. Averages are widely used. I doubt a program could do everything they would have to do to figure out each individuals potential revive compensation. Thousands of fights probably had to be looked over by a human.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug. Because Miike stated, the average difference between those who did it bugged and those who didn't equated to the compensation. Which means they looked at some form of difference between the bugged fight and the non bugged fight. It wasn't the average of the people affected that they decided this on.Come on man. Yes, I had a brain freeze. I clued in with my last comment. However, the idea isn't to compensate everything that was used. It was to average the extra used for that bug, so I can see what he's saying. Yes but WHAT type of Average. A mean average is different from a mode average which is different from a median average. Because it seems to me they chose the lowest average and called it a day. mean. Not even kabam would use the mode and the median would take too long. Why would it be anything other than mean. They don't need to try and screw us when there are tons of revives being spent on both sides of the bug. I'd rather they took longer and actually compensated fairly instead of taking the quick and dirty option. It would at least make their data argument seem meaningful instead of just saying it to save face.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug. Because Miike stated, the average difference between those who did it bugged and those who didn't equated to the compensation. Which means they looked at some form of difference between the bugged fight and the non bugged fight. It wasn't the average of the people affected that they decided this on.Come on man. Yes, I had a brain freeze. I clued in with my last comment. However, the idea isn't to compensate everything that was used. It was to average the extra used for that bug, so I can see what he's saying. Yes but WHAT type of Average. A mean average is different from a mode average which is different from a median average. Because it seems to me they chose the lowest average and called it a day. mean. Not even kabam would use the mode and the median would take too long. Why would it be anything other than mean. They don't need to try and screw us when there are tons of revives being spent on both sides of the bug.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug. Because Miike stated, the average difference between those who did it bugged and those who didn't equated to the compensation. Which means they looked at some form of difference between the bugged fight and the non bugged fight. It wasn't the average of the people affected that they decided this on.Come on man. Yes, I had a brain freeze. I clued in with my last comment. However, the idea isn't to compensate everything that was used. It was to average the extra used for that bug, so I can see what he's saying. Yes but WHAT type of Average. A mean average is different from a mode average which is different from a median average. Because it seems to me they chose the lowest average and called it a day.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug. Because Miike stated, the average difference between those who did it bugged and those who didn't equated to the compensation. Which means they looked at some form of difference between the bugged fight and the non bugged fight. It wasn't the average of the people affected that they decided this on.Come on man. Yes, I had a brain freeze. I clued in with my last comment. However, the idea isn't to compensate everything that was used. It was to average the extra used for that bug, so I can see what he's saying.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug. Because Miike stated, the average difference between those who did it bugged and those who didn't equated to the compensation. Which means they looked at some form of difference between the bugged fight and the non bugged fight. It wasn't the average of the people affected that they decided this on.Come on man.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes.
Amusing that they used averages to determine this compensation.Which kind of average? Did you average the number of users who did this prior to the fix and post fix? Because how do you equate tens of thousands of people before, to the potential hundreds of thousands who did it after?What type of average? Did you use mode, mean or median averages to determine that this joke compensation? Because each of those would have had VASTLY different outcomes. Why would they average people who did the Fight post-fix? It doesn't apply to this bug. Because Miike stated, the average difference between those who did it bugged and those who didn't equated to the compensation. Which means they looked at some form of difference between the bugged fight and the non bugged fight. It wasn't the average of the people affected that they decided this on.Come on man. Yes, I had a brain freeze. I clued in with my last comment. However, the idea isn't to compensate everything that was used. It was to average the extra used for that bug, so I can see what he's saying. Yes but WHAT type of Average. A mean average is different from a mode average which is different from a median average. Because it seems to me they chose the lowest average and called it a day. mean. Not even kabam would use the mode and the median would take too long. Why would it be anything other than mean. They don't need to try and screw us when there are tons of revives being spent on both sides of the bug. I'd rather they took longer and actually compensated fairly instead of taking the quick and dirty option. It would at least make their data argument seem meaningful instead of just saying it to save face. Averages are widely used. I doubt a program could do everything they would have to do to figure out each individuals potential revive compensation. Thousands of fights probably had to be looked over by a human. This comment is not a jab at you at all, because I found your post informative. Here’s why using averages is incredibly dumb - you’re accepting as a baseline that half the users will be undercompensated. How is THAT a common sense solution to a problem?Put everyone on a curve. If it follows a normal distribution, then compensate everyone at 2 standard deviations above the mean. 97.5% of players get fair (or possibly bonus) compensation and the appalling duffers in the bottom 2.5% get close enough. Even 1 standard dev would hit 84% of players. Here’s the problem I see with the data set, though. Players rushing in early were the highest skill players best equipped to tackle the content, and likely to go 6/6 on objectives with full exploration. That type of player minimizes the impact of the big, while the people who stroll in after the fix may just intend to do 1-3 paths.
Lol it's quite funny that you all demand compensation but however kabam stated that the parry bug and dex bug was not fully fixed and to state that kabam also stated do NOT do long hard content as you might have to use revives or and potions. So in turn its actually the players fault for this. Yes it sucks because the content should be fixed but kabam did warn people
@Dawnbringer_1 the irony of your statement is just that. Sure kabam shouldn't have released it while their is a bug but they did and you still chose to do it. The rewards for SOP were more than generous so it's just a bunch of beggers asking for free stuff
Did you even read my comment I said they shouldn't have released it
All quiet now. Whatever, the silence speaks volumes.