**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Wrong Featured Crystal?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As pointed out earlier, it is more complicated than just swapping Void for Sentry as I originally suggested. Some players actually pulled Sentry from the crystal that contained Sentry originally, and then pulled Sentry again when they thought they were pulling for Void. In that case, Kabam can't swap Sentry for Void, they would have to reduce the sig level of Sentry and then add in Void. It is still theoretically doable, but it makes the problem more complex, and it is entirely possible there exist other corner cases no one has thought about yet, especially in the amount of time they devoted to considering their best option.
As to the notion that it was the players' fault, that's your opinion and the opinion of others. But that opinion is highly unlikely to be the majority opinion. When I make such decisions as a business operator, I consider first my own opinion of what is reasonable, and then second what the majority of my customers will likely believe is reasonable which I have a certain limited obligation to honor. Beyond that, I cannot, and do not, expend additional effort considering all other possible opinions of what is reasonable before acting. I do not expect any other company to do anything substantively different, and in this case Kabam is acting in a manner consistent with how I would act as a business operator.
With regard to fairness, as with all games there is no such thing as implementing fairness based on outcomes. You can only implement fairness based on opportunities. No player gained an unfair opportunity from this error, because no player could anticipate or predict the results of opening the errant crystal. And the only players with the opportunity to do so are the same players that would have had the same opportunity to open the correct crystal.
I got sentry during his release week, any chance I can get a void as well??
Got to say, this solution is awesome, not for me, but for the lucky ones who pulled sentry... I hope I get a break in the near future as well. Hopefully I won’t quit before my break comes.
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.
Such a situation is theoretically possible, but there's no way to know if this happened with certainty, because there's no way to prove intent, and given the short timeframes involved the odds of pulling Sentry more than twice are such that I believe only a handful of people are statistically likely to have this result (even if the average person opened six crystals during the period when the wrong crystal was up, statistically speaking only one in six would have opened three or more Sentry champs, and the real number is almost certainly lower than that).
No solution is perfect, especially when the problem alters people's behaviors. But at the moment I can't think of a practical way to address the situation above in a perfect way.
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.
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.
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.
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 %.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
In game name of this individual?
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
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.