I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
At this point I expect nothing. There will probably be something along the lines of “Well, there’s no way to be sure your alliance would have actually started a war in that time frame...”
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This has nothing to do with cheating.. Fight a cheating ally and you'll still get completion points.. That's all I'm asking for
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Getting back to the obvious point of discussion me and my ally are also eager to get some kind of response.. The whole pretty girls shouldn't talk unless they got something to say talk is getting old, and it's hurting the allies when we have absolutely nothing to give em.. Are compensations in some form being made or not, are you actully still working on it, or did a master tier need their compensations first? Can we start war when break is over? Can you say anything but we will get back to you at a later point? It could be tomorrow, it could be in 3 months..
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
You're way of explaining the situation evolved cheating allies and rewards, which is why I felt it was important to state.. If you'd like I could continue in your tracks and start explaining using a whole new diffrent situation? Just figured it would be easier if talked about the relevant situation.. You have to understand that fighting a cheating alliance still gets you those 145000 points, and the possibly missing points are the 50.000 winning points.. I get why that is something that's hard to change, but in this specific case we are not talking 50.000 points.. We're talking 145000 points with the possibility of 195000 points.. You see the diffrence? My suggestion was not giving us 50.000 possible winning points, but in the contrary giving us the 145000 points it would give if we lost war.. I think that's a pretty reasonably compensation, cause it would still hurt every single one of us who could have possibly won the war, but still doesn't affect the placement of allies who did win their wars..
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
You're way of explaining the situation evolved cheating allies and rewards, which is why I felt it was important to state.. If you'd like I could continue in your tracks and start explaining using a whole new diffrent situation? Just figured it would be easier if talked about the relevant situation.. You have to understand that fighting a cheating alliance still gets you those 145000 points, and the possibly missing points are the 50.000 winning points.. I get why that is something that's hard to change, but in this specific case we are not talking 50.000 points.. We're talking 145000 points with the possibility of 195000 points.. You see the diffrence? My suggestion was not giving us 50.000 possible winning points, but in the contrary giving us the 145000 points it would give if we lost war.. I think that's a pretty reasonably compensation, cause it would still hurt every single one of us who could have possibly won the war, but still doesn't affect the placement of allies who did win their wars..
Since mentioning anything for context is clearly confusing you, I'll simply restate the question you asked and the answer without context. The question was: "why be afraid to give too many points?" The answer is: if you give more points than the alliance would have earned, you will bump that alliance higher than alliances it should have ranked higher than, and as a consequence penalize those alliances by bumping them downward. This is true no matter how many points are involved, or what the cause of the point deficit was.
That answer is relevant to the context of my fundamental position on how unforeseen point deficits should be handled, which I've mentioned elsewhere as a suggested solution to the problem which may or may not work in this case, but the full explanation of which is beyond the ability to describe without context that requires voluntary reflection.
I m from bks , i confirm we had a same problem this week. First match took sooo long like it matched after the closure of launchig window
Conséquences we miss 1 war this week and will lost around 1M300k points..
Waiting for this to be fixed
You missmatched on day one of the week cause you've been finding matches in the last 20 minutes of available times since season start to exploit the system giving you gold tier allies instead than equally matched wars. Which is completely different from the issue suffered after day TWO of war where allies couldn't find their matches due to having matchmaking still disabled waiting for rewards.
-in the first case, yours and BKS, it was your fault for believing you could exploit for easy matches ad infinitum, and system worked as intended not making you match in the last war of the week (day 3).
-In the second case, system bugged, not allowing allies to literally click on "start" matchmaking, a clear system fault which Kabam will have to see through. When that happened, you were still fighting your day 1 war, which ended about 3 or 4 hours AFTER the problem was already solved. Hence you weren't effected by it at all.
As in the previous post, you're just trying to save BKS exploit-alike late matchmaking and get back being on top of season with no whatsoever right to do so. And don't bring up the MMX case of season 1, they used to match immediatly and system wouldnt work. In your case having high war rating and matching 20 mins from end means having no opponents left to fight, so blame it just yourself and your officers for it.
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
You're way of explaining the situation evolved cheating allies and rewards, which is why I felt it was important to state.. If you'd like I could continue in your tracks and start explaining using a whole new diffrent situation? Just figured it would be easier if talked about the relevant situation.. You have to understand that fighting a cheating alliance still gets you those 145000 points, and the possibly missing points are the 50.000 winning points.. I get why that is something that's hard to change, but in this specific case we are not talking 50.000 points.. We're talking 145000 points with the possibility of 195000 points.. You see the diffrence? My suggestion was not giving us 50.000 possible winning points, but in the contrary giving us the 145000 points it would give if we lost war.. I think that's a pretty reasonably compensation, cause it would still hurt every single one of us who could have possibly won the war, but still doesn't affect the placement of allies who did win their wars..
Since mentioning anything for context is clearly confusing you, I'll simply restate the question you asked and the answer without context. The question was: "why be afraid to give too many points?" The answer is: if you give more points than the alliance would have earned, you will bump that alliance higher than alliances it should have ranked higher than, and as a consequence penalize those alliances by bumping them downward. This is true no matter how many points are involved, or what the cause of the point deficit was.
That answer is relevant to the context of my fundamental position on how unforeseen point deficits should be handled, which I've mentioned elsewhere as a suggested solution to the problem which may or may not work in this case, but the full explanation of which is beyond the ability to describe without context that requires voluntary reflection.
If you think giving us points equal to a loss would be an unfair advantage I don't think I can help you understand what the deal is man.. You obviously never played season in a compete tove alliance then.. Giving a loss worth of points would still be hurting us, and would still upset quite a lot of people, but it would not ruin our season.. Now I'm not 100% sure of what you are trying to optain with your comments, but if a fair solution for all parties is the thing you're after, I would say the only way of making it fair would be to scratch all points from all allies that have played this war.. This way no one would have lost or gained anything, though I very highly doubt thwy would do such a thing to fix the issue..
I m from bks , i confirm we had a same problem this week. First match took sooo long like it matched after the closure of launchig window
Conséquences we miss 1 war this week and will lost around 1M300k points..
Waiting for this to be fixed
You tried to exploit matchmaking system and search late., Scored quite a few extra points because you matched weaker alliances this way. Issue in this thread is unrelated to BKS.
Start the search as soon as matchmaking opens tomorrow. Please do.
Guys, we are getting off topic here. We can’t assume or dictate what they will end up doing and running scenarios without a response from Kabam does us no go in receiving some form of response.
Main key is, we as alliances did nothing wrong and we are being unfairly disadvantaged due to this issue.
If an alliance failed to match make due to when they started their war, they should not be in this thread. You were able to start your war, where as we received an error not allowing us to.
@Kabam Vydious do you have any updates for us. We are at risk of losing alliance members and we need to communicate something with them!
Guys, we are getting off topic here. We can’t assume or dictate what they will end up doing and running scenarios without a response from Kabam does us no go in receiving some form of response.
Kabam's normal MO is to only communicate when they have decided on a course of action. By that time, suggesting a course of action will be generally futile, because a decision will have already been made and have already begun being implemented. The time to present suggestions is when they are still considering a course of action.
That's unfortunate because that makes it incredibly difficult to hold a dialog. If you suggest before they are willing to talk, they won't respond to your suggestions. But if you wait until they are talking, then there's a 99.9% chance they will for the most part ignore your suggestions, because they are already doing something else. You have to pick your poison, but I believe its better to present and discuss possible solutions early when the devs might still be receptive to them. Later is too late to be meaningful.
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
You're way of explaining the situation evolved cheating allies and rewards, which is why I felt it was important to state.. If you'd like I could continue in your tracks and start explaining using a whole new diffrent situation? Just figured it would be easier if talked about the relevant situation.. You have to understand that fighting a cheating alliance still gets you those 145000 points, and the possibly missing points are the 50.000 winning points.. I get why that is something that's hard to change, but in this specific case we are not talking 50.000 points.. We're talking 145000 points with the possibility of 195000 points.. You see the diffrence? My suggestion was not giving us 50.000 possible winning points, but in the contrary giving us the 145000 points it would give if we lost war.. I think that's a pretty reasonably compensation, cause it would still hurt every single one of us who could have possibly won the war, but still doesn't affect the placement of allies who did win their wars..
Since mentioning anything for context is clearly confusing you, I'll simply restate the question you asked and the answer without context. The question was: "why be afraid to give too many points?" The answer is: if you give more points than the alliance would have earned, you will bump that alliance higher than alliances it should have ranked higher than, and as a consequence penalize those alliances by bumping them downward. This is true no matter how many points are involved, or what the cause of the point deficit was.
That answer is relevant to the context of my fundamental position on how unforeseen point deficits should be handled, which I've mentioned elsewhere as a suggested solution to the problem which may or may not work in this case, but the full explanation of which is beyond the ability to describe without context that requires voluntary reflection.
If you think giving us points equal to a loss would be an unfair advantage I don't think I can help you understand what the deal is man..
Depending on how you define "points equal to a loss" I don't believe that would be an unfair advantage. I don't know why you would make that assumption.
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
You're way of explaining the situation evolved cheating allies and rewards, which is why I felt it was important to state.. If you'd like I could continue in your tracks and start explaining using a whole new diffrent situation? Just figured it would be easier if talked about the relevant situation.. You have to understand that fighting a cheating alliance still gets you those 145000 points, and the possibly missing points are the 50.000 winning points.. I get why that is something that's hard to change, but in this specific case we are not talking 50.000 points.. We're talking 145000 points with the possibility of 195000 points.. You see the diffrence? My suggestion was not giving us 50.000 possible winning points, but in the contrary giving us the 145000 points it would give if we lost war.. I think that's a pretty reasonably compensation, cause it would still hurt every single one of us who could have possibly won the war, but still doesn't affect the placement of allies who did win their wars..
Since mentioning anything for context is clearly confusing you, I'll simply restate the question you asked and the answer without context. The question was: "why be afraid to give too many points?" The answer is: if you give more points than the alliance would have earned, you will bump that alliance higher than alliances it should have ranked higher than, and as a consequence penalize those alliances by bumping them downward. This is true no matter how many points are involved, or what the cause of the point deficit was.
That answer is relevant to the context of my fundamental position on how unforeseen point deficits should be handled, which I've mentioned elsewhere as a suggested solution to the problem which may or may not work in this case, but the full explanation of which is beyond the ability to describe without context that requires voluntary reflection.
If you think giving us points equal to a loss would be an unfair advantage I don't think I can help you understand what the deal is man..
Depending on how you define "points equal to a loss" I don't believe that would be an unfair advantage. I don't know why you would make that assumption.
As long as they actually put some effort into determining who suffered from the problem it's fair enough. But if they randomly give points to EVERY ally who didn't fight a 3rd match this week than they'll be helping matchmaking exploiters who matched super late and missed the war due to that, legitimating their (too high) position and allowing them to go "unpunished" by the system Kabam itself made against that kind of BS behaviour.
So yeah, 1.2 to 1.3m points would be a fair compromise, given they actually determine who deserves it and who doesnt. there's by now a lot of allies doing the "BKS trick" matching opponents several tiers below them (we talking of masters vs silver/gold). What's worse is those who get caught as the sacrifical lambs from this form of manipulation aren't getting anything back.
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
You're way of explaining the situation evolved cheating allies and rewards, which is why I felt it was important to state.. If you'd like I could continue in your tracks and start explaining using a whole new diffrent situation? Just figured it would be easier if talked about the relevant situation.. You have to understand that fighting a cheating alliance still gets you those 145000 points, and the possibly missing points are the 50.000 winning points.. I get why that is something that's hard to change, but in this specific case we are not talking 50.000 points.. We're talking 145000 points with the possibility of 195000 points.. You see the diffrence? My suggestion was not giving us 50.000 possible winning points, but in the contrary giving us the 145000 points it would give if we lost war.. I think that's a pretty reasonably compensation, cause it would still hurt every single one of us who could have possibly won the war, but still doesn't affect the placement of allies who did win their wars..
Since mentioning anything for context is clearly confusing you, I'll simply restate the question you asked and the answer without context. The question was: "why be afraid to give too many points?" The answer is: if you give more points than the alliance would have earned, you will bump that alliance higher than alliances it should have ranked higher than, and as a consequence penalize those alliances by bumping them downward. This is true no matter how many points are involved, or what the cause of the point deficit was.
That answer is relevant to the context of my fundamental position on how unforeseen point deficits should be handled, which I've mentioned elsewhere as a suggested solution to the problem which may or may not work in this case, but the full explanation of which is beyond the ability to describe without context that requires voluntary reflection.
If you think giving us points equal to a loss would be an unfair advantage I don't think I can help you understand what the deal is man..
Depending on how you define "points equal to a loss" I don't believe that would be an unfair advantage. I don't know why you would make that assumption.
Jeez.. I really don't know what the heck you even tried to say in first message then.. Glad we now agree though
It should be apparent who received the error message. It seems like they had to manually push out the rewards last night. That would be the indicator. To me, the error was received due to their system not realizing that our match had concluded.
I have been pushing for compensation to equal a loss the whole time, because there is no way for them to know who we would have matched with and whether we would have won.
But with that said, our current war rating should not be changed, as the +\- dictated by the match is unknown.
This is the only way to right the situation and preserve some resemblance of balance in the ranking.
I don't think that they have an actual solution for how to compensate the alliances who were affected. How do you equitably give pts to alliances that missed war? Do you give them 100pts or 190,000pts? They could also not count the last war for everyone but imagine how many alliances would be upset about that.
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
You're way of explaining the situation evolved cheating allies and rewards, which is why I felt it was important to state.. If you'd like I could continue in your tracks and start explaining using a whole new diffrent situation? Just figured it would be easier if talked about the relevant situation.. You have to understand that fighting a cheating alliance still gets you those 145000 points, and the possibly missing points are the 50.000 winning points.. I get why that is something that's hard to change, but in this specific case we are not talking 50.000 points.. We're talking 145000 points with the possibility of 195000 points.. You see the diffrence? My suggestion was not giving us 50.000 possible winning points, but in the contrary giving us the 145000 points it would give if we lost war.. I think that's a pretty reasonably compensation, cause it would still hurt every single one of us who could have possibly won the war, but still doesn't affect the placement of allies who did win their wars..
Since mentioning anything for context is clearly confusing you, I'll simply restate the question you asked and the answer without context. The question was: "why be afraid to give too many points?" The answer is: if you give more points than the alliance would have earned, you will bump that alliance higher than alliances it should have ranked higher than, and as a consequence penalize those alliances by bumping them downward. This is true no matter how many points are involved, or what the cause of the point deficit was.
That answer is relevant to the context of my fundamental position on how unforeseen point deficits should be handled, which I've mentioned elsewhere as a suggested solution to the problem which may or may not work in this case, but the full explanation of which is beyond the ability to describe without context that requires voluntary reflection.
If you think giving us points equal to a loss would be an unfair advantage I don't think I can help you understand what the deal is man..
Depending on how you define "points equal to a loss" I don't believe that would be an unfair advantage. I don't know why you would make that assumption.
Jeez.. I really don't know what the hell you even tried to say in first message then.. Glad we now agree though
What I tried to say was you have to be very careful not to give too many points, because giving too many points would disadvantage innocent bystander alliances.
If, depending on tier, you somehow calculated what the minimum credible points possible were likely to be and award them, that wouldn't be an unfair advantage. The problem is that the minimum credible points might be too low to actually be a remedy because for many alliances it might not even change their reward tier. For example, an alliance pushing to get to Platinum 3 but who ends up in Gold 1 because of missing several wars might not gain enough points to make a difference if they only get the minimum.
My worry is that the only remedy that will directly affect rewards consistently is between the minimum safe point compensation and a value that would be too high to be fair. It seems to me to be very difficult to pick the right middle ground in the middle of the season.
The suggestion I made earlier was an attempt to help the alliances that were hurt without affecting any other alliances, by waiting to the end of the season. If you wait to the end of the season, you can then calculate everyone's bracket first, and then see if any alliance that was affected by the current match making bug is close enough to the higher bracket to matter. You can then attempt to determine if there was a reasonable chance for that alliance to have gotten into the higher bracket if they managed to fight those wars. If, and only if it changes bracket you just award them the higher bracket. Because you don't take any rewards away from any other alliance, you don't have to be conservative. You can estimate the amount of points those alliances would have earned, and even if you guess a little high, its okay because you aren't pushing any alliances downward. They get the rewards they thought they would get for being in the bracket they saw themselves in all season, but the alliances that couldn't match get a second chance at getting the better rewards if their missing wars would have made a difference.
@DNA3000 this situation does not affect the alliances that were able to start another war. You either won or lost depending on how you guys performed. You got points towards your season total.
We didn’t even have the chance!
Waiting until the end of the season to appropriate season points or adjust rankings creates so many issues in the short term and the possibilty for long term oversight.
1) Recruiting potential replacements for people that leave or have personal issues. A lower season score means people will look else where so they can get better rewards.
2) Keeping the current members happy and working towards the goals we set out which has now been destroyed by losing around 50-100 ranks.
3) The possibility of oversight on Kabam leaving an alliance behind anywhere between 600k-1mil+. This will land you in a tier you should have never been in if the war could have been started.
Appropriating season points to those that missed a war due to the error, WILL NOT affect those that ran one. It only puts those that did not in a HUGE disadvantage.
We are not asking for rewards based on a win. We are only asking for a fair chance to maintain our past ranking (or close to it), so we can continue to strive for what we have earned so far. Anything less will put my alliance and any of those affected 600k-1mil+ in the hole compared to those that were able to run the last war.
Appropriating season points to those that missed a war due to the error, WILL NOT affect those that ran one. It only puts those that did not in a HUGE disadvantage.
I'm afraid it does. It has to, because every alliance you move upward in rank must move others downward. Some of them probably should have been lower, but not all of them. This is simple math.
The simple math of things is this...
If we weren’t victims of Kabam’s error and let’s say we lost the third war, we’d be ranked in the top 90 of our current tier based on the average score for our losses... Let’s say we won the third war, we’d be within the top 70 of our current tier based on the average score for our wins. We have suffered a drop of 80-100 rank positions due to Kabam’s error (and the final wars ending closer to the disabling of matchmaking are still not calculated yet which means those numbers are possibly more detrimental to our standings). We were forced into a position where we had the control of our own ranking taken from us. The fact of the matter is this, Kabam has created an unbalanced season with this error and all we want is balance brought back to rankings...
The simple math of things is this...
If we weren’t victims of Kabam’s error and let’s say we lost the third war, we’d be ranked in the top 90 of our current tier based on the average score for our losses... Let’s say we won the third war, we’d be within the top 70 of our current tier based on the average score for our wins. We have suffered a drop of 80-100 rank positions due to Kabam’s error (and the final wars ending closer to the disabling of matchmaking are still not calculated yet which means those numbers are possibly more detrimental to our standings). We were forced into a position where we had the control of our own ranking taken from us. The fact of the matter is this, Kabam has created an unbalanced season with this error and all we want is balance brought back to rankings...
If you can determine precise which place every alliance would be in had the bug not occurred and could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I would support relocating all alliances to those positions. Outside of that, you can claim to want "balance" to the rankings, but all other solutions that directly manipulate the mid-season ratings are just guesses, and those guesses will unavoidably bump innocent alliances to lower brackets that wouldn't have been there. I don't disagree a bad thing happened and I don't disagree something should be done, but I'm not prepared to hurt other alliances to do it. People can deny that others will be hurt if we just arbitrarily change scores, but that's just obviously mathematically wrong. If you bump fourth place up to second place, you unavoidably bump second place down to third. I would prefer a solution that helps the alliances affected without hurting any other alliance if that is possible, and it is in fact possible. But if you're okay with reducing other alliance's rewards just to make sure you get yours, well then we aren't really talking about an equitable solution any more and I won't support any process of that form.
@DNA3000 you are only filling this thread with ill advised information. You were obviously not affected by this situation. You are trying to spam the thread so you can “hopefully” get Kabam to make a decision that is favorable to you and your alliance.
The current math for round 3 breaks down like this.
Alliances who did not get to start a 3rd war due to the error = 0pts
Your alliance and every other group not affected = + 600k - 1.3mil
Yes, if they award us points you may see a SMALL change in your current placement. The amount of groups this has disadvantaged is small!
Whereas, we are seeing a drastic change in our ranks which puts us at an unfair advantage.
Stop worrying about a small change in your current rank! If your alliance is strong you will recover (but it’s not really recovering considering we did not get to participate) but we on the other hand WILL NOT!
That’s the simple math!!!!
Recovering 1 mil points means going on a win streak of 6-8 wars to account for others that win. I would bet that your alliance along with 90% of the alliances out there have not seen a 6-8 war win streak. It’s not possible when the odds are 50-60% win ratio at best!
Other alliances gained rank they should not have gained....
Yes. And the fact that that bothers you should make you uncomfortable about any proposed solution that causes other alliances to lose rank they should not have lost.
No solution is going to be perfect, because we don't have perfect knowledge about the problem. So if we can't make a perfect solution, we need to decide what our priorities are. Mine are: 1) take no rewards away from alliances unless we are certain they did not earn them, 2) compensate alliances that lost the opportunity to earn a potentially higher final bracket, and 3) do so in as transparent a manner as possible so everyone knows how the system attempts to correct the problem.
@DNA3000 you are only filling this thread with ill advised information. You were obviously not affected by this situation. You are trying to spam the thread so you can “hopefully” get Kabam to make a decision that is favorable to you and your alliance.
The current math for round 3 breaks down like this.
Alliances who did not get to start a 3rd war due to the error = 0pts
Your alliance and every other group not affected = + 600k - 1.3mil
Yes, if they award us points you may see a SMALL change in your current placement. The amount of groups this has disadvantaged is small!
Whereas, we are seeing a drastic change in our ranks which puts us at an unfair advantage.
Stop worrying about a small change in your current rank! If your alliance is strong you will recover (but it’s not really recovering considering we did not get to participate) but we on the other hand WILL NOT!
That’s the simple math!!!!
Recovering 1 mil points means going on a win streak of 6-8 wars to account for others that win. I would bet that your alliance along with 90% of the alliances out there have not seen a 6-8 war win streak. It’s not possible when the odds are 50-60% win ratio at best!
I am presenting what I believe to be the best possible solution, regardless of how it will affect my alliance. I never take such matters into consideration when proposing a game wide solution to a problem. I have in the past made suggestions that would affect me negatively, if I believed they were better for the game as a whole. And in fact, in this particular case you are incorrect. My best guess is that none of these proposals would have any effect on my own alliance's final bracket.
Also, there's no such thing as "ill advised information."
Comments
I'm interested in seeing how they'll handle this situation. (I think that there will be very upset people)
Just give points equal to 100% 3 bgs as a loss, then no rewards cause nothing was played.. I know some might not be able to get 100%, but honestly this wasn't their/our fault, so why be afraid to give too many points?
Because you'd then potentially be giving them more points than actual alliances that fought wars, and jumping those alliances ahead of them.
That's the problem with trying to make alliances whole in the middle of a season: the same problem I pointed out when it came to detecting cheating alliances. If you give an alliance compensatory points in the middle of a season, you are in effect pushing them upward in rank, and pushing a bunch of alliances downward without knowing if the alliances you are pushing downward should have been pushed downward. That's why I suggested an end of season compensation system to address cheating alliances which does not penalize any innocent alliance. Given the prevalence of the current problem, I'm not sure how feasible that would be here.
This has nothing to do with cheating.. Fight a cheating ally and you'll still get completion points.. That's all I'm asking for
This is not fighting cheating allies.. You'll still get completion points for those.. Punishing innocent allies is exactly what is done if you don't mess with the points.. My ally would not be pushed in front of anyone with a minimum set of points for loosing, as we've not missed 100% since waaaay before seasons was introduced.. Cheating allies and this bug has nothing to do with each other, as this is way worse than going again those allies..
Yes, this is not fighting cheating allies. I'm not sure why you think that's important to state. However, the core problem is identical in both, as I mentioned: you have a case where an alliance did not get the points they should have gotten, but you don't know how many points they should have gotten, so you cannot fix the problem precisely. And to answer the question you yourself posed, which was "why be afraid to give too many points" the answer is, because giving points to an alliance improves their rank at the expense of other alliances that must move downward as mathematical inevitability.
You can't simply arbitrarily decide that the innocent alliances that failed to match are more important than the innocent alliances that actually fought wars and you will cavalierly drop in rank just to make room for the alliances that failed to match. Or rather, you can, but you shouldn't.
You're way of explaining the situation evolved cheating allies and rewards, which is why I felt it was important to state.. If you'd like I could continue in your tracks and start explaining using a whole new diffrent situation? Just figured it would be easier if talked about the relevant situation.. You have to understand that fighting a cheating alliance still gets you those 145000 points, and the possibly missing points are the 50.000 winning points.. I get why that is something that's hard to change, but in this specific case we are not talking 50.000 points.. We're talking 145000 points with the possibility of 195000 points.. You see the diffrence? My suggestion was not giving us 50.000 possible winning points, but in the contrary giving us the 145000 points it would give if we lost war.. I think that's a pretty reasonably compensation, cause it would still hurt every single one of us who could have possibly won the war, but still doesn't affect the placement of allies who did win their wars..
Since mentioning anything for context is clearly confusing you, I'll simply restate the question you asked and the answer without context. The question was: "why be afraid to give too many points?" The answer is: if you give more points than the alliance would have earned, you will bump that alliance higher than alliances it should have ranked higher than, and as a consequence penalize those alliances by bumping them downward. This is true no matter how many points are involved, or what the cause of the point deficit was.
That answer is relevant to the context of my fundamental position on how unforeseen point deficits should be handled, which I've mentioned elsewhere as a suggested solution to the problem which may or may not work in this case, but the full explanation of which is beyond the ability to describe without context that requires voluntary reflection.
You missmatched on day one of the week cause you've been finding matches in the last 20 minutes of available times since season start to exploit the system giving you gold tier allies instead than equally matched wars. Which is completely different from the issue suffered after day TWO of war where allies couldn't find their matches due to having matchmaking still disabled waiting for rewards.
-in the first case, yours and BKS, it was your fault for believing you could exploit for easy matches ad infinitum, and system worked as intended not making you match in the last war of the week (day 3).
-In the second case, system bugged, not allowing allies to literally click on "start" matchmaking, a clear system fault which Kabam will have to see through. When that happened, you were still fighting your day 1 war, which ended about 3 or 4 hours AFTER the problem was already solved. Hence you weren't effected by it at all.
As in the previous post, you're just trying to save BKS exploit-alike late matchmaking and get back being on top of season with no whatsoever right to do so. And don't bring up the MMX case of season 1, they used to match immediatly and system wouldnt work. In your case having high war rating and matching 20 mins from end means having no opponents left to fight, so blame it just yourself and your officers for it.
If you think giving us points equal to a loss would be an unfair advantage I don't think I can help you understand what the deal is man.. You obviously never played season in a compete tove alliance then.. Giving a loss worth of points would still be hurting us, and would still upset quite a lot of people, but it would not ruin our season.. Now I'm not 100% sure of what you are trying to optain with your comments, but if a fair solution for all parties is the thing you're after, I would say the only way of making it fair would be to scratch all points from all allies that have played this war.. This way no one would have lost or gained anything, though I very highly doubt thwy would do such a thing to fix the issue..
You tried to exploit matchmaking system and search late., Scored quite a few extra points because you matched weaker alliances this way. Issue in this thread is unrelated to BKS.
Start the search as soon as matchmaking opens tomorrow. Please do.
Main key is, we as alliances did nothing wrong and we are being unfairly disadvantaged due to this issue.
If an alliance failed to match make due to when they started their war, they should not be in this thread. You were able to start your war, where as we received an error not allowing us to.
@Kabam Vydious do you have any updates for us. We are at risk of losing alliance members and we need to communicate something with them!
Kabam's normal MO is to only communicate when they have decided on a course of action. By that time, suggesting a course of action will be generally futile, because a decision will have already been made and have already begun being implemented. The time to present suggestions is when they are still considering a course of action.
That's unfortunate because that makes it incredibly difficult to hold a dialog. If you suggest before they are willing to talk, they won't respond to your suggestions. But if you wait until they are talking, then there's a 99.9% chance they will for the most part ignore your suggestions, because they are already doing something else. You have to pick your poison, but I believe its better to present and discuss possible solutions early when the devs might still be receptive to them. Later is too late to be meaningful.
Depending on how you define "points equal to a loss" I don't believe that would be an unfair advantage. I don't know why you would make that assumption.
As long as they actually put some effort into determining who suffered from the problem it's fair enough. But if they randomly give points to EVERY ally who didn't fight a 3rd match this week than they'll be helping matchmaking exploiters who matched super late and missed the war due to that, legitimating their (too high) position and allowing them to go "unpunished" by the system Kabam itself made against that kind of BS behaviour.
So yeah, 1.2 to 1.3m points would be a fair compromise, given they actually determine who deserves it and who doesnt. there's by now a lot of allies doing the "BKS trick" matching opponents several tiers below them (we talking of masters vs silver/gold). What's worse is those who get caught as the sacrifical lambs from this form of manipulation aren't getting anything back.
Jeez.. I really don't know what the heck you even tried to say in first message then.. Glad we now agree though
I have been pushing for compensation to equal a loss the whole time, because there is no way for them to know who we would have matched with and whether we would have won.
But with that said, our current war rating should not be changed, as the +\- dictated by the match is unknown.
This is the only way to right the situation and preserve some resemblance of balance in the ranking.
What I tried to say was you have to be very careful not to give too many points, because giving too many points would disadvantage innocent bystander alliances.
If, depending on tier, you somehow calculated what the minimum credible points possible were likely to be and award them, that wouldn't be an unfair advantage. The problem is that the minimum credible points might be too low to actually be a remedy because for many alliances it might not even change their reward tier. For example, an alliance pushing to get to Platinum 3 but who ends up in Gold 1 because of missing several wars might not gain enough points to make a difference if they only get the minimum.
My worry is that the only remedy that will directly affect rewards consistently is between the minimum safe point compensation and a value that would be too high to be fair. It seems to me to be very difficult to pick the right middle ground in the middle of the season.
The suggestion I made earlier was an attempt to help the alliances that were hurt without affecting any other alliances, by waiting to the end of the season. If you wait to the end of the season, you can then calculate everyone's bracket first, and then see if any alliance that was affected by the current match making bug is close enough to the higher bracket to matter. You can then attempt to determine if there was a reasonable chance for that alliance to have gotten into the higher bracket if they managed to fight those wars. If, and only if it changes bracket you just award them the higher bracket. Because you don't take any rewards away from any other alliance, you don't have to be conservative. You can estimate the amount of points those alliances would have earned, and even if you guess a little high, its okay because you aren't pushing any alliances downward. They get the rewards they thought they would get for being in the bracket they saw themselves in all season, but the alliances that couldn't match get a second chance at getting the better rewards if their missing wars would have made a difference.
We didn’t even have the chance!
Waiting until the end of the season to appropriate season points or adjust rankings creates so many issues in the short term and the possibilty for long term oversight.
1) Recruiting potential replacements for people that leave or have personal issues. A lower season score means people will look else where so they can get better rewards.
2) Keeping the current members happy and working towards the goals we set out which has now been destroyed by losing around 50-100 ranks.
3) The possibility of oversight on Kabam leaving an alliance behind anywhere between 600k-1mil+. This will land you in a tier you should have never been in if the war could have been started.
Appropriating season points to those that missed a war due to the error, WILL NOT affect those that ran one. It only puts those that did not in a HUGE disadvantage.
We are not asking for rewards based on a win. We are only asking for a fair chance to maintain our past ranking (or close to it), so we can continue to strive for what we have earned so far. Anything less will put my alliance and any of those affected 600k-1mil+ in the hole compared to those that were able to run the last war.
I'm afraid it does. It has to, because every alliance you move upward in rank must move others downward. Some of them probably should have been lower, but not all of them. This is simple math.
If we weren’t victims of Kabam’s error and let’s say we lost the third war, we’d be ranked in the top 90 of our current tier based on the average score for our losses... Let’s say we won the third war, we’d be within the top 70 of our current tier based on the average score for our wins. We have suffered a drop of 80-100 rank positions due to Kabam’s error (and the final wars ending closer to the disabling of matchmaking are still not calculated yet which means those numbers are possibly more detrimental to our standings). We were forced into a position where we had the control of our own ranking taken from us. The fact of the matter is this, Kabam has created an unbalanced season with this error and all we want is balance brought back to rankings...
If you can determine precise which place every alliance would be in had the bug not occurred and could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I would support relocating all alliances to those positions. Outside of that, you can claim to want "balance" to the rankings, but all other solutions that directly manipulate the mid-season ratings are just guesses, and those guesses will unavoidably bump innocent alliances to lower brackets that wouldn't have been there. I don't disagree a bad thing happened and I don't disagree something should be done, but I'm not prepared to hurt other alliances to do it. People can deny that others will be hurt if we just arbitrarily change scores, but that's just obviously mathematically wrong. If you bump fourth place up to second place, you unavoidably bump second place down to third. I would prefer a solution that helps the alliances affected without hurting any other alliance if that is possible, and it is in fact possible. But if you're okay with reducing other alliance's rewards just to make sure you get yours, well then we aren't really talking about an equitable solution any more and I won't support any process of that form.
The current math for round 3 breaks down like this.
Alliances who did not get to start a 3rd war due to the error = 0pts
Your alliance and every other group not affected = + 600k - 1.3mil
Yes, if they award us points you may see a SMALL change in your current placement. The amount of groups this has disadvantaged is small!
Whereas, we are seeing a drastic change in our ranks which puts us at an unfair advantage.
Stop worrying about a small change in your current rank! If your alliance is strong you will recover (but it’s not really recovering considering we did not get to participate) but we on the other hand WILL NOT!
That’s the simple math!!!!
Recovering 1 mil points means going on a win streak of 6-8 wars to account for others that win. I would bet that your alliance along with 90% of the alliances out there have not seen a 6-8 war win streak. It’s not possible when the odds are 50-60% win ratio at best!
Yes. And the fact that that bothers you should make you uncomfortable about any proposed solution that causes other alliances to lose rank they should not have lost.
No solution is going to be perfect, because we don't have perfect knowledge about the problem. So if we can't make a perfect solution, we need to decide what our priorities are. Mine are: 1) take no rewards away from alliances unless we are certain they did not earn them, 2) compensate alliances that lost the opportunity to earn a potentially higher final bracket, and 3) do so in as transparent a manner as possible so everyone knows how the system attempts to correct the problem.
I am presenting what I believe to be the best possible solution, regardless of how it will affect my alliance. I never take such matters into consideration when proposing a game wide solution to a problem. I have in the past made suggestions that would affect me negatively, if I believed they were better for the game as a whole. And in fact, in this particular case you are incorrect. My best guess is that none of these proposals would have any effect on my own alliance's final bracket.
Also, there's no such thing as "ill advised information."