How about a rematch option in the event of a tie where you are pitted against the same alliance again and you can make some changes to improve the next outcome? Winner takes all from both matches.
Or how about a popup box in this case where each alliance puts an anonymous monetary bid to kabam. Highest bid wins!
@RedRooster I think we could argue forever about what kabam intended and what was implemented, but it’s just semantics that are diluting the original post. What ever their intent/implementation was it clearly wasn’t good enough and I feel like we agree on that. The purpose of this post was for a moderator to provide a response to a question and not to inspire debate. There was a clear winner there and yet a tie was declared. Also, if the two teams tied after clearing all three maps and getting all three boss kills why were they rewarded for their efforts by being treated like they lost. I feel like the game team should look into this in the rare instance that it happens again.
The idea of anyone trying to refute the meaning of tiebreaker, its role in competition, its intended application in a competetion, and that there are no substantial methods available in determining one winner, to me is along the lines of someone claiming A. Einstein did not intend E=MC2 to be understood as energy=mass×speed of light(sqaured).
It is to me as well, but for a reason you might not realize.
For some reason, either the Kabam developers or @Kabam Miike in particular, seems to be completely unaware of the fact that the phrase "tie breaker" has an actual specific meaning that isn't just related to the words "tie" and "breaker." Nor is that meaning really ambiguous: anyone who has played any sport or been a fan of any sport would agree with what the phrase "tie breaker" means. And yet @Kabam Miike and by proxy Kabam itself is literally making up their own definition for a phrase that has a specific meaning. To me, this is one of those things that makes me wonder if I've somehow crossed into another dimension, Sliders-style, where English developed differently on Earth.
A tie-breaker is a mechanism for breaking ties, which is only used when a tie first happens. Nothing that factors into scoring in the first place can be a tie breaker by definition. Clearly, someone at Kabam literally is unaware of what a tie-breaker is and somehow has escaped having ever encountered the phrase in their entire life or figured out what it meant, and thinks they can appropriate the use of it however they want.
When you don't know, you shouldn't guess. You'll probably be wrong, and you'll eventually run into someone that can definitively prove you wrong. And the more you resist, the dumber you will look to everyone who knows better.
Now, some irony. Einstein didn't actually originate the equation E=mc^2. His original paper on inertia derived a related equation: m = E/C^2. The intended meaning of this equation in the context of his paper was to show that the inertia of an object, what we would today call mass, is a measurement of the energy contained within the object. To put it more directly, Einstein never specifically tried to state what energy is in terms of mass. He tried to define what mass was in terms of energy. What we think of as "mass" is really confined energy in special relativity (later generalized).
In other words, the real meaning of E=mc^2 isn't that energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared. That's what it says literally, but what it - or rather what Einstein meant when he created his version of the equation - is that mass is in some sense an illusion: it is really what energy looks like when you put it in a box and don't allow it to propagate at the speed of light.
Even when you think everyone knows something to be true, it can turn out that everyone is wrong, if they are only repeating what they heard. The more technical a topic is, the harder it is to get it right with just colloquial knowledge.
Sorry for the delay in dropping by about this topic. With Defender Rating, it grants 0.002 scoring for each point. So even though there is more Defender Rating it isn't enough to get a full point and therefore this caused a tie. I get where this may be a frustrating outcome for it, but it helps to clarify what happened with this fight and why the outcome is the way it is. Your feedback throughout this thread is also greatly appreciated and I'll be sure that the right people hear it so this can all be looked into further for the future of AW.
Sorry for the delay in dropping by about this topic. With Defender Rating, it grants 0.002 scoring for each point. So even though there is more Defender Rating it isn't enough to get a full point and therefore this caused a tie. I get where this may be a frustrating outcome for it, but it helps to clarify what happened with this fight and why the outcome is the way it is. Your feedback throughout this thread is also greatly appreciated and I'll be sure that the right people hear it so this can all be looked into further for the future of AW.
Perhaps you could explicitly ask the developers why, if the intent of Defender diversity points and Defender rating points is to be tie breakers, why they simply aren't implemented as tie-breakers.
The players understand a "tie-breaker" to be something that is meaningless unless there is a tie, where upon it is consulted to break the tie. Both defender diversity points and defender rating points aren't being used as tie-breakers, they are just being used as points and as such they have nothing to do with ties at all.
Calling them "tie breakers" or "like tie breakers" or anything with the phrase "tie breakers" in it at all is confusing. If they are intended to be tie breakers why can't they be changed to be tie breakers, since that's easy - they only count in the event of a tie, and who ever has the better one wins. True defender rating ties are unlikely. On the other hand, if they are not intended to be true tie breakers, why can't we get a statement to that effect, and retract all mention of tie breakers.
Sorry for the delay in dropping by about this topic. With Defender Rating, it grants 0.002 scoring for each point. So even though there is more Defender Rating it isn't enough to get a full point and therefore this caused a tie. I get where this may be a frustrating outcome for it, but it helps to clarify what happened with this fight and why the outcome is the way it is. Your feedback throughout this thread is also greatly appreciated and I'll be sure that the right people hear it so this can all be looked into further for the future of AW.
Wow, that's pretty silly. Regardless of the ridiculous point scoring system and tie-breakers that didn't break the tie, is that both alliances' War Rating dropped as if they lost. Why wouldn't their War Rating just remain the same?
Sorry for the delay in dropping by about this topic. With Defender Rating, it grants 0.002 scoring for each point. So even though there is more Defender Rating it isn't enough to get a full point and therefore this caused a tie. I get where this may be a frustrating outcome for it, but it helps to clarify what happened with this fight and why the outcome is the way it is. Your feedback throughout this thread is also greatly appreciated and I'll be sure that the right people hear it so this can all be looked into further for the future of AW.
Wow, that's pretty silly. Regardless of the ridiculous point scoring system and tie-breakers that didn't break the tie, is that both alliances' War Rating dropped as if they lost. Why wouldn't their War Rating just remain the same?
You don't lose rating for losing. You lose rating for failing to win. There are two possibilities in AW: you win and you get the victor rewards, and you lose and you get the non-victor rewards. Those are the only two possibilities as it pertains to rewards: win, not win.
You lose rating points when you do not win, because the functional purpose to increasing and decreasing ratings points is to attempt to place you against alliances which you are roughly evenly matched against. By the definition of the game you will win half the matches against alliances you are evenly matched against. If you win more often than that your rating will increase over time, until you start to lose more often (or you hit the rails and find yourself the best alliance). If you don't win, your rating decreases until you start to win again.
This is a thought experiment intended to illustrate what the system does and why: it is of course exaggerated and thus unrealistic. Suppose you find yourself matched against another alliance, and you tie. And suppose the system treated a tie as a push: no one wins, no one loses, ratings stay exactly the same. And suppose next war you find yourself matched against that same alliance again, or one with the same strength. And you tie again. So you don't change and they don't change. So you keep getting ties over and over again. The system treats this as acceptable and nothing changes. And you keep getting the non-winning (aka losing) rewards over and over again. The only mechanism the system has to "shake things up" is to change ratings, and in this situation it doesn't change rating because a tie is considered not a problem. This is itself undesirable because you don't allow that alliance to drop a tier but win more often.
Losing rating and dropping tiers isn't intended to be a punishment per se. The goal is for the system to find the level of play where you win about half the time. If you are not winning, your rewards suffer. At the point where you are winning about half the time and not winning (lose or draw) half the time, that's where the system considers the fights "fair" and your rating the "correct" one.
It is an imperfect system, but its not an unreasonable one given how rewards work. Every time you do not win outright, that's essentially a loss - a loss of rewards. The system tries to find, over time, the rating where you do not lose too often.
@RedRooster , I agree with you and in fact posted my thoughts in the AW update thread on exactly the same subject. A criteria cannot play a dual role in the overall scoring and be considered to act as a tiebreaker. That in of itself is an obvious example that #1, whoever came up with the officially released explanation for the scoring changes does not comprehend the definition of tiebreaker and its function. #2, with what is "universally" understood of tiebreakers, the AW scoring system is in fact "broken".
IMO, there is no margin for subjectivity regarding this. And TBH, it could very easily put an end to all the complaints if Kabam just simply released an apology that their previous explanation of D rating and Diversity as tiebreakers was incorrect, and that there is no actual tiebreaker implemented in the scoring. Wouldn't be the 1st time that there was a mistake or contradicting statement made by an official kabam rep, so I really can't understand why its so difficult to "fix".
How many threads, posts, complaints are due to the fact that D rating and diversity are not "working as intended"?
Sorry for the delay in dropping by about this topic. With Defender Rating, it grants 0.002 scoring for each point. So even though there is more Defender Rating it isn't enough to get a full point and therefore this caused a tie. I get where this may be a frustrating outcome for it, but it helps to clarify what happened with this fight and why the outcome is the way it is. Your feedback throughout this thread is also greatly appreciated and I'll be sure that the right people hear it so this can all be looked into further for the future of AW.
Bro first of all, we are happy that you somehow read the thread but honestly, we need more from you guys. This is a typical mod post. Acknowledging what happened, describing it somehow, (as if we, the players are so dumb not to know the x's and y's) and yet, no actions, no solutions, no looking at what maybe the problems are and just letting things be. Sigh.
Reading the posts on this page about the only things I can conclude is:
1) the war scoring system is still as crazy as ever (wish there was more of a reply as to why the system does not round up)
If Defender Ratings are meant to be a tie-breaker, shouldn't the alliance with lower rating win since they fought through a higher rated defense? Just saying
I was one of those who jump on my alliance leader when he made the decision to entirely stop doing AW. Previously we were doing 1-2 wars after AQ just for the shards. Now I finally understand why he did it and why so many alliances including the big ones are either reducing the number of AW they do or cutting on the amount of BGs they open depending on the number of players who choose not to participate.
I feel bad for you OP I really do. But really the simplest solution here is not to participate or to lower your participation in AW till Kabam finally decides to do something about the current state of AW. They have somehow decided that the current system is fine and chose to stick by it so it is entirely up to us whether we want to participate or not. Everyone has their different opinions on whether the current state of AW is the right fit for their alliance and is free to choose their own right path of progression.
I was one of those who jump on my alliance leader when he made the decision to entirely stop doing AW. Previously we were doing 1-2 wars after AQ just for the shards. Now I finally understand why he did it and why so many alliances including the big ones are either reducing the number of AW they do or cutting on the amount of BGs they open depending on the number of players who choose not to participate.
I feel bad for you OP I really do. But really the simplest solution here is not to participate or to lower your participation in AW till Kabam finally decides to do something about the current state of AW. They have somehow decided that the current system is fine and chose to stick by it so it is entirely up to us whether we want to participate or not. Everyone has their different opinions on whether the current state of AW is the right fit for their alliance and is free to choose their own right path of progression.
That's sad, you're only making your selves lose progression. Just don't spend in war, though knowing you Wolfe.... Just try not to.
Sorry for the delay in dropping by about this topic. With Defender Rating, it grants 0.002 scoring for each point. So even though there is more Defender Rating it isn't enough to get a full point and therefore this caused a tie. I get where this may be a frustrating outcome for it, but it helps to clarify what happened with this fight and why the outcome is the way it is. Your feedback throughout this thread is also greatly appreciated and I'll be sure that the right people hear it so this can all be looked into further for the future of AW.
To Quote Miike:
Defender Rating was introduced as a Tie Breaker a long time ago. It's been around for a long time and has always been intended to be a Tie Breaker, as well as to encourage Summoners to place their best Defenders.
[url=" http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/post/quote/17904/Comment_187494"] forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/post/quote/17904/Comment_187494[/url]
We understand how the scoring portion of Defender rating works. The issue seems to be you've added some semantics into Defender Rating that the development team haven't employed. You'll forgive us players for taking your communication at its word. The deadlocked scenario that was presented should have been broken by Defender Rating if we are to believe the above statement - it was not. So we can either conclude that support are telling us the wrong information or it is a bug on the development side? Which is it? Is it at the point where stuff is just being made up to rationalise poor design decisions?
Not really a point in trying to get them to rationalize, they won't listen, and won't make good decisions based on pre emptive input. It's quite clear there is a a gaping divide between what the players want, and what the development team want to do. Not trying to incite anger, merely stating the facts. Their track record as of March shows these statements to all be factual
@DNA3000 I understand what you’re saying about the war rating and the problem that leaving the rating the same could cause. In my opinion though, in the event of a tie I think they could easily create a protocol that doesn’t deduct any rating from either alliance. Clearly these two teams were evenly matched and probably should remain in the tier they are in. Deducting rating moves them into a lower bracket where they’re now theoretically fighting teams that aren’t as good as them. I think there is another element to war rating besides trying to get you into a place where you can win, it is meant to put you where you are challenged to win and if you do you’re rewarded by climbing to the next level. If they choose to leave their defenders as is for the next fight then they must realize this could happen again and be willing to accept reduced rewards for a loss or another tie. If they don’t push to be better they won’t advance.
I do agree width you and what others have said about the tie breaker factor. The defender rating should be a factor that doesn’t come into play unless there is a tie. At that point, don’t bother converting the rating to a point value, just compare rating to rating and who ever has the higher rating wins. If there is a tie at that point then let the war result in a tie.
@Kabam Vydious I really hope you will continue to participate in this conversation as it is the epitome of what these forums should be about. We have some great input here for building a better product for everyone and I hope you can appreciate that and do something productive with it.
@DNA3000 I understand what you’re saying about the war rating and the problem that leaving the rating the same could cause. In my opinion though, in the event of a tie I think they could easily create a protocol that doesn’t deduct any rating from either alliance. Clearly these two teams were evenly matched and probably should remain in the tier they are in. Deducting rating moves them into a lower bracket where they’re now theoretically fighting teams that aren’t as good as them.
I should point out that I wasn't specifically trying to argue that keeping rating the same leads to a problem that needs to be solved. I was more trying to point out that a reasonable person designing a video game can come to the conclusion that given the choice between ties leaving rating unchanged and ties dropping rating, the choice to drop rating is a logically consistent one.
I'm not arguing that the point of view that suggests leaving rating the same isn't equally valid, but if the perspective of the designer is that his or her choice is valid, pointing out other valid choices isn't likely to change their mind. To change their mind, you have to show that their choice is ultimately a bad choice, not that there are other good choices.
I do agree width you and what others have said about the tie breaker factor. The defender rating should be a factor that doesn’t come into play unless there is a tie. At that point, don’t bother converting the rating to a point value, just compare rating to rating and who ever has the higher rating wins. If there is a tie at that point then let the war result in a tie.
In another thread I suggested a potential way to structure AW to include literal tie breakers:
Most boss kills wins.
In the event of a tie:
* First tie breaker: most exploration wins
* Second tie breaker: most node kills wins
* Third tie breaker: Highest defender diversity wins
* Fourth tie breaker: Highest defender rating wins
* Fifth tie breaker: most miniboss kills wins
* Otherwise true tie.
I actually suggested a modified version that takes a little explanation. Instead of "most node kills wins" I suggested "most node victories wins." What's a node victory? If you kill node 24 with 1 attacker death and the other side defeats node 24 with 2 attacker deaths, you win the node. If you kill node 42 with five attacker deaths and the other side completely avoids the node, you win the node. If you both kill the node with zero deaths, that node is a tie.
This rewards strong defenders, but only in the tie breaking rounds if both sides kill the same number of bosses and explore the same amount of map.
The order is negotiable. Notice: the points are gone completely.
Comments
A Tie breaker crystal to spin?
How about a rematch option in the event of a tie where you are pitted against the same alliance again and you can make some changes to improve the next outcome? Winner takes all from both matches.
Or how about a popup box in this case where each alliance puts an anonymous monetary bid to kabam. Highest bid wins!
What really happened here?
It is to me as well, but for a reason you might not realize.
For some reason, either the Kabam developers or @Kabam Miike in particular, seems to be completely unaware of the fact that the phrase "tie breaker" has an actual specific meaning that isn't just related to the words "tie" and "breaker." Nor is that meaning really ambiguous: anyone who has played any sport or been a fan of any sport would agree with what the phrase "tie breaker" means. And yet @Kabam Miike and by proxy Kabam itself is literally making up their own definition for a phrase that has a specific meaning. To me, this is one of those things that makes me wonder if I've somehow crossed into another dimension, Sliders-style, where English developed differently on Earth.
A tie-breaker is a mechanism for breaking ties, which is only used when a tie first happens. Nothing that factors into scoring in the first place can be a tie breaker by definition. Clearly, someone at Kabam literally is unaware of what a tie-breaker is and somehow has escaped having ever encountered the phrase in their entire life or figured out what it meant, and thinks they can appropriate the use of it however they want.
When you don't know, you shouldn't guess. You'll probably be wrong, and you'll eventually run into someone that can definitively prove you wrong. And the more you resist, the dumber you will look to everyone who knows better.
Now, some irony. Einstein didn't actually originate the equation E=mc^2. His original paper on inertia derived a related equation: m = E/C^2. The intended meaning of this equation in the context of his paper was to show that the inertia of an object, what we would today call mass, is a measurement of the energy contained within the object. To put it more directly, Einstein never specifically tried to state what energy is in terms of mass. He tried to define what mass was in terms of energy. What we think of as "mass" is really confined energy in special relativity (later generalized).
In other words, the real meaning of E=mc^2 isn't that energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared. That's what it says literally, but what it - or rather what Einstein meant when he created his version of the equation - is that mass is in some sense an illusion: it is really what energy looks like when you put it in a box and don't allow it to propagate at the speed of light.
Even when you think everyone knows something to be true, it can turn out that everyone is wrong, if they are only repeating what they heard. The more technical a topic is, the harder it is to get it right with just colloquial knowledge.
Sorry for the delay in dropping by about this topic. With Defender Rating, it grants 0.002 scoring for each point. So even though there is more Defender Rating it isn't enough to get a full point and therefore this caused a tie. I get where this may be a frustrating outcome for it, but it helps to clarify what happened with this fight and why the outcome is the way it is. Your feedback throughout this thread is also greatly appreciated and I'll be sure that the right people hear it so this can all be looked into further for the future of AW.
Perhaps you could explicitly ask the developers why, if the intent of Defender diversity points and Defender rating points is to be tie breakers, why they simply aren't implemented as tie-breakers.
The players understand a "tie-breaker" to be something that is meaningless unless there is a tie, where upon it is consulted to break the tie. Both defender diversity points and defender rating points aren't being used as tie-breakers, they are just being used as points and as such they have nothing to do with ties at all.
Calling them "tie breakers" or "like tie breakers" or anything with the phrase "tie breakers" in it at all is confusing. If they are intended to be tie breakers why can't they be changed to be tie breakers, since that's easy - they only count in the event of a tie, and who ever has the better one wins. True defender rating ties are unlikely. On the other hand, if they are not intended to be true tie breakers, why can't we get a statement to that effect, and retract all mention of tie breakers.
Wait that sounds wrong...
So one teams def rating is 1,740 and the other is 1,748.... just make that the actual points too. Instead of 0.2 or whatever it is.
That would make the outcome fair
Wow, that's pretty silly. Regardless of the ridiculous point scoring system and tie-breakers that didn't break the tie, is that both alliances' War Rating dropped as if they lost. Why wouldn't their War Rating just remain the same?
You don't lose rating for losing. You lose rating for failing to win. There are two possibilities in AW: you win and you get the victor rewards, and you lose and you get the non-victor rewards. Those are the only two possibilities as it pertains to rewards: win, not win.
You lose rating points when you do not win, because the functional purpose to increasing and decreasing ratings points is to attempt to place you against alliances which you are roughly evenly matched against. By the definition of the game you will win half the matches against alliances you are evenly matched against. If you win more often than that your rating will increase over time, until you start to lose more often (or you hit the rails and find yourself the best alliance). If you don't win, your rating decreases until you start to win again.
This is a thought experiment intended to illustrate what the system does and why: it is of course exaggerated and thus unrealistic. Suppose you find yourself matched against another alliance, and you tie. And suppose the system treated a tie as a push: no one wins, no one loses, ratings stay exactly the same. And suppose next war you find yourself matched against that same alliance again, or one with the same strength. And you tie again. So you don't change and they don't change. So you keep getting ties over and over again. The system treats this as acceptable and nothing changes. And you keep getting the non-winning (aka losing) rewards over and over again. The only mechanism the system has to "shake things up" is to change ratings, and in this situation it doesn't change rating because a tie is considered not a problem. This is itself undesirable because you don't allow that alliance to drop a tier but win more often.
Losing rating and dropping tiers isn't intended to be a punishment per se. The goal is for the system to find the level of play where you win about half the time. If you are not winning, your rewards suffer. At the point where you are winning about half the time and not winning (lose or draw) half the time, that's where the system considers the fights "fair" and your rating the "correct" one.
It is an imperfect system, but its not an unreasonable one given how rewards work. Every time you do not win outright, that's essentially a loss - a loss of rewards. The system tries to find, over time, the rating where you do not lose too often.
Allow defender kills to count for points if the scores are within 1% of each other.
IMO, there is no margin for subjectivity regarding this. And TBH, it could very easily put an end to all the complaints if Kabam just simply released an apology that their previous explanation of D rating and Diversity as tiebreakers was incorrect, and that there is no actual tiebreaker implemented in the scoring. Wouldn't be the 1st time that there was a mistake or contradicting statement made by an official kabam rep, so I really can't understand why its so difficult to "fix".
How many threads, posts, complaints are due to the fact that D rating and diversity are not "working as intended"?
Bro first of all, we are happy that you somehow read the thread but honestly, we need more from you guys. This is a typical mod post. Acknowledging what happened, describing it somehow, (as if we, the players are so dumb not to know the x's and y's) and yet, no actions, no solutions, no looking at what maybe the problems are and just letting things be. Sigh.
1) the war scoring system is still as crazy as ever (wish there was more of a reply as to why the system does not round up)
If Defender Ratings are meant to be a tie-breaker, shouldn't the alliance with lower rating win since they fought through a higher rated defense? Just saying
I feel bad for you OP I really do. But really the simplest solution here is not to participate or to lower your participation in AW till Kabam finally decides to do something about the current state of AW. They have somehow decided that the current system is fine and chose to stick by it so it is entirely up to us whether we want to participate or not. Everyone has their different opinions on whether the current state of AW is the right fit for their alliance and is free to choose their own right path of progression.
That's sad, you're only making your selves lose progression. Just don't spend in war, though knowing you Wolfe.... Just try not to.
To Quote Miike:
Defender Rating was introduced as a Tie Breaker a long time ago. It's been around for a long time and has always been intended to be a Tie Breaker, as well as to encourage Summoners to place their best Defenders.
[url=" http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/post/quote/17904/Comment_187494"] forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/post/quote/17904/Comment_187494[/url]
We understand how the scoring portion of Defender rating works. The issue seems to be you've added some semantics into Defender Rating that the development team haven't employed. You'll forgive us players for taking your communication at its word. The deadlocked scenario that was presented should have been broken by Defender Rating if we are to believe the above statement - it was not. So we can either conclude that support are telling us the wrong information or it is a bug on the development side? Which is it? Is it at the point where stuff is just being made up to rationalise poor design decisions?
Or let war rating stay the same.
I do agree width you and what others have said about the tie breaker factor. The defender rating should be a factor that doesn’t come into play unless there is a tie. At that point, don’t bother converting the rating to a point value, just compare rating to rating and who ever has the higher rating wins. If there is a tie at that point then let the war result in a tie.
I should point out that I wasn't specifically trying to argue that keeping rating the same leads to a problem that needs to be solved. I was more trying to point out that a reasonable person designing a video game can come to the conclusion that given the choice between ties leaving rating unchanged and ties dropping rating, the choice to drop rating is a logically consistent one.
I'm not arguing that the point of view that suggests leaving rating the same isn't equally valid, but if the perspective of the designer is that his or her choice is valid, pointing out other valid choices isn't likely to change their mind. To change their mind, you have to show that their choice is ultimately a bad choice, not that there are other good choices.
In another thread I suggested a potential way to structure AW to include literal tie breakers:
Most boss kills wins.
In the event of a tie:
* First tie breaker: most exploration wins
* Second tie breaker: most node kills wins
* Third tie breaker: Highest defender diversity wins
* Fourth tie breaker: Highest defender rating wins
* Fifth tie breaker: most miniboss kills wins
* Otherwise true tie.
I actually suggested a modified version that takes a little explanation. Instead of "most node kills wins" I suggested "most node victories wins." What's a node victory? If you kill node 24 with 1 attacker death and the other side defeats node 24 with 2 attacker deaths, you win the node. If you kill node 42 with five attacker deaths and the other side completely avoids the node, you win the node. If you both kill the node with zero deaths, that node is a tie.
This rewards strong defenders, but only in the tie breaking rounds if both sides kill the same number of bosses and explore the same amount of map.
The order is negotiable. Notice: the points are gone completely.