Wrong Featured Crystal?

Shouldn't it be Void, not Sentry?

Comments

Droggs wrote: »

I honestly don't think kabam handled this the right way. Getting 2 champs for the price of one is absurd. Just take away the sentry they got and give them void and gift back any gold and rank up material they used on sentry. Fair trade.

Guess the only problem is what if sentry was pulled as the subfeatured and not as the intended feature then they were deserve sentry. Well in that case give them void anyways and take back sentry. Anyone wanting sentry over void is an idiot.

I think starting off by saying Kabam handled this wrong, and then ending with the idea that you get to decide who gets what based on your own preferences is a self-annihilating expression.

Droggs

Maybe it is with the last part, but regardless this was handled incorrectly with kabam.

What would be fairer than just giving them a void 5* is just giving them the featured crystal to have a 2nd chance and keep sentry.

Droggs

I just say let it ride and keep the sentry champ and they get nothing else. Not sure why kabam wants to step up and do something this time when they screw up in other areas and don't make it right.

Acanthus

Guess I shouldn't have seen Sentry's ugly face and read the item description before buying the crystal, would've had both Sentry and Void instead of Void only now :^) (theoretically..)

YtLee

If kabam let them keep Sentry and award Void, Kabam should gift everyone Sentry as well~ everyone happy~

Batmanthedog

@Kabam Miike This solution does nothing except create a bigger issue. Just because I have the same chance at pulling a feature out of both crystals does not mean the outcome would have been the same. 2 weeks ago I pulled a sentry, a sentry dupe, a modok, and a hood out of four crystals. By your logic that you have presented given this solution, I should have then pulled two features, one sub-feature, and a basic out of this crystal. If that seems illogical, thats because it is. If I flip a coin and it lands heads it doesn't mean it will be heads the second time. The odds are the same but the outcome can be different. That is how RNG works. To take this solution you are setting a precedence that these crystals are truly not RNG. The only appropriate solution is to take back the rewards everyone received from their pulls and refund the shards used. This gives everyone the opportunity to spin on the appropriate crystal and thus obtain the appropriate results. Is it likely that some will pull void and some won't? Yes it is. But to say that I will definitely pull void/won't pull void based on the results of a previous attempt is incorrect. This also prevents you from giving a person two champions while only using the resources of one.

DNA3000

Droggs wrote: »

Maybe it is with the last part, but regardless this was handled incorrectly with kabam.

What would be fairer than just giving them a void 5* is just giving them the featured crystal to have a 2nd chance and keep sentry.

I don't see how that's "fairer." The intent is to rectify the problem that if someone opened the crystal believing the featured champion within in it was Void, and they actually rolled the featured table and got Sentry, then the net result was that they got the wrong champion - wrong as in "not the champion the developers intended to be in the crystal offered at that time." The announced solution grants them the champion they believed they would get AND the champion the developers intended them to get. Just giving them another shot at it is not in any way addressing the error.

No matter what they do, someone will believe they did the wrong thing, literally no matter what they do. If I was them, it becomes a question of doing what they think is fair, and accepting the complaints from the people who believe that choice wasn't fair. What they announced falls within the parameters of what I believe is fair in this situation, and it also falls within the parameters of offending the sensibilities of an acceptable number of players.

We can all disagree about what the *absolute best* solution would be. But what should not be remotely debatable is the notion that what Kabam should do should be what they think is fair, what a majority of players believe is fair, and what will offend the least number of players, and in a manner that will disrupt the game the least given all of those other requirements. Their solution isn't the one everyone will agree with, but it does meet all of those requirements.

By that standard, your suggested solution is far less palatable.

Sjr38

Kabam Miike wrote: »

Hey guys, we're looking into this right now. Will have it fixed ASAP.

What about the Singularity crystals, are those not affected as well? I pulled Sentry multiple times and there were several spins where I let spin out and never see a Void but I saw plenty of sentry

Batmanthedog

DNA3000 wrote: »

Droggs wrote: »

Maybe it is with the last part, but regardless this was handled incorrectly with kabam.

What would be fairer than just giving them a void 5* is just giving them the featured crystal to have a 2nd chance and keep sentry.

I don't see how that's "fairer." The intent is to rectify the problem that if someone opened the crystal believing the featured champion within in it was Void, and they actually rolled the featured table and got Sentry, then the net result was that they got the wrong champion - wrong as in "not the champion the developers intended to be in the crystal offered at that time." The announced solution grants them the champion they believed they would get AND the champion the developers intended them to get. Just giving them another shot at it is not in any way addressing the error.

No matter what they do, someone will believe they did the wrong thing, literally no matter what they do. If I was them, it becomes a question of doing what they think is fair, and accepting the complaints from the people who believe that choice wasn't fair. What they announced falls within the parameters of what I believe is fair in this situation, and it also falls within the parameters of offending the sensibilities of an acceptable number of players.

We can all disagree about what the *absolute best* solution would be. But what should not be remotely debatable is the notion that what Kabam should do should be what they think is fair, what a majority of players believe is fair, and what will offend the least number of players, and in a manner that will disrupt the game the least given all of those other requirements. Their solution isn't the one everyone will agree with, but it does meet all of those requirements.

By that standard, your suggested solution is far less palatable.

The only two solutions the game team should have discussed should have been:

A. Don't change anything. The crystal on sale stated a chance at sentry for 15k units and that is exactly what summoners got. There is no deception in that. Some people noticed and held off, others did not. That is 100% their fault, and my own fault as I also did it. People will complain but this is objectively fair.

B. Take back everyone's spins and refund the shards used. This gives everyone the ability to purchase the actual intended crystal and like all other feature crystals the results are what you get. Those that pulled great champs will complain, but again this is objectively fair.

Either of these two solutions is objectively fair. What kabam went with created a lot more problems than it solved because it created more variables. "What if I would have only spun one and pulled void, I wouldn't have spun anymore." "What if I would have spun a feature on the actual void crystal." Either solution would have addressed all problems.

Batmanthedog

Sjr38 wrote: »

Kabam Miike wrote: »

Hey guys, we're looking into this right now. Will have it fixed ASAP.

What about the Singularity crystals, are those not affected as well? I pulled Sentry multiple times and there were several spins where I let spin out and never see a Void but I saw plenty of sentry

What is shown in the reel is irrelevant as spinning is no different than popping it. It was already stated the singularity crystals were not affected.

Droggs

Well it is their business and they certainly have the right to run it however they see fit and do things as they feel is "fair". Not sure where you are grabbing this idea that the majority of players are ok with.

I didn't open one of these crystals. I am not upset that about not opening or opening and not getting on this bandwagon with others getting a void. But there is a problem that by kabam doing this it does give those players an edge over others players. 2 champs for the price of 1.

Yes no matter what kabam does ppl will be upset. U think most of the community would care if kabam didn't give them void and left them with just sentry? Only the ones that missed out on void would care and that is a small %.

TheCLaw

@Kabam Miike u think this is fair ? No is not! I don't care that was the same chances and bla bla, i want to have that chance when Void is in that crystal not Sentry!

DNA3000

Batmanthedog wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Droggs wrote: »

Maybe it is with the last part, but regardless this was handled incorrectly with kabam.

What would be fairer than just giving them a void 5* is just giving them the featured crystal to have a 2nd chance and keep sentry.

I don't see how that's "fairer." The intent is to rectify the problem that if someone opened the crystal believing the featured champion within in it was Void, and they actually rolled the featured table and got Sentry, then the net result was that they got the wrong champion - wrong as in "not the champion the developers intended to be in the crystal offered at that time." The announced solution grants them the champion they believed they would get AND the champion the developers intended them to get. Just giving them another shot at it is not in any way addressing the error.

No matter what they do, someone will believe they did the wrong thing, literally no matter what they do. If I was them, it becomes a question of doing what they think is fair, and accepting the complaints from the people who believe that choice wasn't fair. What they announced falls within the parameters of what I believe is fair in this situation, and it also falls within the parameters of offending the sensibilities of an acceptable number of players.

We can all disagree about what the *absolute best* solution would be. But what should not be remotely debatable is the notion that what Kabam should do should be what they think is fair, what a majority of players believe is fair, and what will offend the least number of players, and in a manner that will disrupt the game the least given all of those other requirements. Their solution isn't the one everyone will agree with, but it does meet all of those requirements.

By that standard, your suggested solution is far less palatable.

The only two solutions the game team should have discussed should have been:

A. Don't change anything. The crystal on sale stated a chance at sentry for 15k units and that is exactly what summoners got. There is no deception in that. Some people noticed and held off, others did not. That is 100% their fault, and my own fault as I also did it. People will complain but this is objectively fair.

B. Take back everyone's spins and refund the shards used. This gives everyone the ability to purchase the actual intended crystal and like all other feature crystals the results are what you get. Those that pulled great champs will complain, but again this is objectively fair.

Either of these two solutions is objectively fair. What kabam went with created a lot more problems than it solved because it created more variables. "What if I would have only spun one and pulled void, I wouldn't have spun anymore." "What if I would have spun a feature on the actual void crystal." Either solution would have addressed all problems.

I don't find either solution remotely fair. I find the first one unethical. I find the second one unreasonable. I don't expect to convince you of either of those things. But to claim either solution "objectively" fair you would be required to provide objective proof of their fairness that doesn't rely on a subjective opinion. That would be difficult to do, because "fairness" doesn't have a definition with an objective unambiguous test criteria.

Fairness depends on consensus expectations. There's no logical way to prove fairness without first specifying what those consensus expectations are, and they are arbitrary and subjective. I can't say your options are "objectively unfair." I can definitely state that were I in charge I would have rejected both options immediately by fiat. Doing nothing would not be an option, end of discussion. Reverting the crystal openings would be doing something that would generate the most anger in the community of all possible options *except* doing nothing, without an unambiguously objective requirement to do so, which would be unacceptable to me. I would then consider discussion on all possible subjectively fair options designed to rectify our error.

I don't say that lightly. I'm generally a consensus builder professionally and I know that's how MMO dev teams tend to work as well. Everything is better if everyone has their say, and the answer is driven by consensus agreement. But in the words of Captain Kirk: not with my ship you don't.

DNA3000

Droggs wrote: »

Yes no matter what kabam does ppl will be upset. U think most of the community would care if kabam didn't give them void and left them with just sentry? Only the ones that missed out on void would care and that is a small %.

I didn't open one of those crystals, and I would care. I don't have to experience a problem to care about it being addressed or care about the players experiencing it. In fact most of the problems I discuss, spend time testing, or expend time researching and analyzing are issues I'm personally not seeing any negative impact from at the time, but nevertheless have an interest in seeing addressed by Kabam.

Legendary_Gatto

So i know this guy that opened 10x void crystal (the wrong ones, with sentry as featured champ) and pulled 4 times sentry, and he already had him duped
So, now he have sentry sig180 (prestige boost) he got more than 1k 6 star shards
He is keeping the prestige boost, the 6* shards
Not enough, award him with 4x Void, so void will be sig60 and not enough 275x3 more 6 star shards
Seems pretty fair
Come on, are we joking or what?

Sjr38

Batmanthedog wrote: »

Sjr38 wrote: »

Kabam Miike wrote: »

Hey guys, we're looking into this right now. Will have it fixed ASAP.

What about the Singularity crystals, are those not affected as well? I pulled Sentry multiple times and there were several spins where I let spin out and never see a Void but I saw plenty of sentry

What is shown in the reel is irrelevant as spinning is no different than popping it. It was already stated the singularity crystals were not affected.

Interesting, well I didn’t feel like reading through 8 pages of complaints and responses. I’m not upset nor have a problem it is what it is, I come to expect screw ups with this game as of late. Just wanted to ask a fairly legitimate question considering ALL the issues lately....thanks for response though.

Droggs

Legendary_Gatto wrote: »

So i know this guy that opened 10x void crystal (the wrong ones, with sentry as featured champ) and pulled 4 times sentry, and he already had him duped
So, now he have sentry sig180 (prestige boost) he got more than 1k 6 star shards
He is keeping the prestige boost, the 6* shards
Not enough, award him with 4x Void, so void will be sig60 and not enough 275x3 more 6 star shards
Seems pretty fair
Come on, are we joking or what?

Wow that is gonna be ridiculous and ppl still think kabam is doing the right thing. So dumb.

If ppl choose not to read, then it is their fault.

Run477

Legendary_Gatto wrote: »

So i know this guy that opened 10x void crystal (the wrong ones, with sentry as featured champ) and pulled 4 times sentry, and he already had him duped
So, now he have sentry sig180 (prestige boost) he got more than 1k 6 star shards
He is keeping the prestige boost, the 6* shards
Not enough, award him with 4x Void, so void will be sig60 and not enough 275x3 more 6 star shards
Seems pretty fair
Come on, are we joking or what?

In game name of this individual?

sscns1

This is such BS. Just return all the shards and let them go for another run if they feel like it
What is the logic in isolating this to only ones who got sentry
Everyone opened the crystal so either give it to all or retun the shards

Speeds80

This was the best solution, everyone with alternative solutions your ideas are terrible and would have more people angry than this solution, the odds of pulling a 4* featured or a 5* featured from the uncollected version are less than 1/100, to make the ones that fluked the featured win, spin again means they now have had less than 1/10000 chance to end up with the void they thought they were spinning for, and yes sInce the mail did say void was in the sentry crystal that clearly is a case for false advertising and kabam should not disgruntle that customer base. thanks kabam for going the extra mile and hooking up those people, They only end up with an extra garbage champ, all you people complaining cos your jealous of that need to check your heads,

DiablosUltimate

I'm surprised to see how well Kabam handled this situation, very fair compensation to those affected.

Johnny_Wildfire

How in the world is it fair that some people receiving 2 Champs out of one Crystal and some don't? You see I pulled Psylocke out of one of these crystals, and don't get me wrong I'm not complaining about that, I know the odds of pulling a featured Champ, but why does anybody who pulled Sentry, which would be a featured Champ in his own right, get rewarded with just another featured Champ without getting sentry taken away from them. Of course Sentry is a pretty crappy champion, but anyway it is unfair that some players spend 15k shards to receive one champion and some received another champion for free, that is not fair and you can't argue with that.

Johnny_Wildfire

Therefore like I said... either they take away those sentrys and replace them with voids or they hand out at least a basic 5* Hero Crystal to those who hadn't the luck of pulling sentry, so everyone gets 2 Champs out of 15k shards... that would be fair

unknown

This content has been removed.

Johnny_Wildfire

Hubris_hater wrote: »

Johnny_Wildfire wrote: »

Therefore like I said... either they take away those sentrys and replace them with voids or they hand out at least a basic 5* Hero Crystal to those who hadn't the luck of pulling sentry, so everyone gets 2 Champs out of 15k shards... that would be fair

That would be massively unfair. What Kabam did is the fair one

How would that be "massively unfair"? Some getting 2 Champs out of 15k shards and the rest getting just one.... that is massively unfair.... fact.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Johnny_Wildfire

Hubris_hater wrote: »

Johnny_Wildfire wrote: »

Hubris_hater wrote: »

Johnny_Wildfire wrote: »

Therefore like I said... either they take away those sentrys and replace them with voids or they hand out at least a basic 5* Hero Crystal to those who hadn't the luck of pulling sentry, so everyone gets 2 Champs out of 15k shards... that would be fair

That would be massively unfair. What Kabam did is the fair one

How would that be "massively unfair"? Some getting 2 Champs out of 15k shards and the rest getting just one.... that is massively unfair.... fact.

NO, it's not. You got exactly what you "paid" for, nothing more, nothing less. You were not short changed at all, completely fair

The ones that suffered the accidental "false advertising" by Kabam, did NOT get what they paid for. They were short-changed. So Kabam fixed this for them and offered a little compensation as an apology. The community is asking for compo ALL the time. This time it was justified, and because you don't get it you think that is unfair???

Like I said, you got every single thing that you paid for, so you do not need any compensation

I know that I've got exactly what I paid for and I can live with that just fine. But let me put it this way... some went for this Crystal and kabam said "hey it was the wrong crystal but either way you didnt pulled a featured Champ at all, so it doesn't make any difference" on the other hand some went for the wrong crystals and kabam said "hey it was the wrong Crystal, in some way it was your fault but you know what? Since you pulled the featured Champ, you can keep it and get another one just for free, that would give you a slight advantage in arena and you got all you need to use the sentry/void synergy in full expanse in aw defense or anywhere else "

For me personally it's fine what I've got... one champion out of one Crystal, but I'm not fine that some get two champions out of one Crystal even though they went for the exact same Crystal, they've got more than what they paid for. So if kabam would take these sentrys back and hand them a void I could totally live with that, but let them keep it and gift them yet a second champ for free while telling anyone else "it's your fault, learn to live with that"
I mean some pulled Sentry twice or even more so they don't just got an awakened sentry they will also get a fully awakened void, so if kabam don't want to take away all those sentrys it would only be fair to hand all the other ones who went for the wrong crystal just one basic 5* Hero Crystal, and that's too much to ask for

Kristaliux

Worst solution really. Give me back my 15k shard and take back Iron man. I dont mind if i will receive him again, but i want my shards back to open right cristal. It was your fault KABAM, not ours.

GroundedWisdom

Fairness is a "quid pro quo" scenario. Fairness would have been a situation where they replaced the Sentry with Void. Keeping in mind that only those who actually pulled the Featured would have been affected. Doesn't matter what Champ is the Featured because the current RNG drops it at a certain rate. If it wasn't going to drop, it wasn't going to drop regardless of the mixup. However, as was mentioned, it's more difficult to discern and replace, so I suspect they opted for this solution as a bit of a compensation to those who were affected. I have no issues with it. The purpose of compensation is to amend the result.

unknown

This content has been removed.