They're fixing it manually. I see no reason not to cut him some slack. It's a hectic situation to be dealing with and he is Human. We all get mixed up now and then, and he's apologized for the confusion. The most reasonable solution is what they're doing now, which includes a compensation for it in terms of War Rewards. Unless you're comfortable with them lengthening the process by giving the losing side nothing for the trouble, and painstakingly removing the individual War Rewards from all accounts that have already received them. Then the Rating removal would make sense.
I understand what you are saying, but within the context of the War, you have one side that wins 50 and one side that loses 50. The losing side sacrifices 50 Points, and it goes to the winning side. I understand what you're saying, but adding 100 Points to the losing side gives double what they lost. Taking away 50 for a Win that's already been rewarded becomes more complex. You're not playing for 100 Points in that example. You're playing for 50. 50 on the board that goes from either side that ends up the losing side.
This doesn’t make any sense. If a war doesn’t count, it does t count. The side that gained 50 points gives them back and the side that loses 50 points gets them back. Saying it’s more complex to take away from the winning team gives no credit for the losing team that may have even dropped a tier before the adjustment was even made. I agree it’s complex, but it’s complex in both directions for the winners and losers of war 5.
I understand what you are saying, but within the context of the War, you have one side that wins 50 and one side that loses 50. The losing side sacrifices 50 Points, and it goes to the winning side. I understand what you're saying, but adding 100 Points to the losing side gives double what they lost. Taking away 50 for a Win that's already been rewarded becomes more complex. You're not playing for 100 Points in that example. You're playing for 50. 50 on the board that goes from either side that ends up the losing side.
This doesn’t make any sense. If a war doesn’t count, it does t count. The side that gained 50 points gives them back and the side that loses 50 points gets them back. Saying it’s more complex to take away from the winning team gives no credit for the losing team that may have even dropped a tier before the adjustment was even made. I agree it’s complex, but it’s complex in both directions for the winners and losers of war 5.
So how do you figure taking War Rewards back pans out?
We chose not to remove the War Rating for Winners because the multiple wars completed afterward have a corrective effect on those that were bumped into a higher tier of Wars. Removing that small amount of War Rating is not going to have much of an effect on the final rankings.
It might affect a very small number of Alliances at the end, but we will measure that and act accordingly.
Now please remember to keep all disagreements and discourse civil.
No, your Math is right. I don't argue that there's 100 Points difference. I said what was on the table for that War was 50 Points.
No you said that the adjustment nullifies because giving back the war rating somehow evens it out when Kabam miike has just confirmed that it “might affect a small number of alliances”. Are you still sticking to your argument that it nullifies?
For that War? That's what I see anyway. Within that War, there's 50 Points on the table. What we have is a situation where one loses 50, one gains 50, and there's a disparage of 100 between the two. It's still 50 being played for. So one takes 50, but the other gets it back. For that War, nothing is gained. The 50 they won isn't taken from the losing side at all. Yes there's still 50 Points between them. The 50 won is given back. Do you see what perspective I'm coming from? I'm not arguing that 50+50=0. Lol.
Lohan for example states that theirs and other alliances won war 5 fair and square and therefore also won their increase in rating fair and square. Since their assumption according to the information they acquired was that the war will affect rating they were acting accordingly.
The big issue here, at least in my opinion, is that war 5 is void. Specifics aside, it is a war soon to be erased from our history books. This is mostly evident by kabam deciding to also declare all losses void by readjusting the losing alliance's ratings.
Now here's the big question:
Can there even be a rightful winner without a rightful loser kneeling defeated on the opposite side of the battlefield? If a higher power chooses to declare a war in itself void and reimburse one side with all their lost troops, all their plundered goods, stripping them of their title of losers, even if that power does not decide to take anything away from the former winner, does that former winner have any justification to keep what they took?
Can there be a winner without a loser?
Let's get a bit poetic in here, folks.
I think in this instance, since there are winners who gained it legitimately, they're claiming all winners, Ratings aside. Which is why if people hadn't already received Rewards, they will. In my mind, to completely void it, you would not only have to remove War Rating won, but Rewards as well. That makes it a harder situation to deal with. So everyone gets those, and the results are wiped as much as possible.
If I was a betting man, I'd put $1 on the following -
War 5 points won't be removed until the season has ended. As a consequence, season rewards will be delayed. No adjustments made for war 6&7 tier multipliers. No adjustments made for war 6&7 skewed matchmaking.
If you read the sticky thread in "bugs and known issues". It reads as though Kabam haven't acknowledged matchmaking and tier multiplier for wars 6&7 as an issue they will be addressing. This is only my opinion but it looks like they're going to brush everything else under the carpet and let the season play out with it's integrity compromised.
GW.. “War A wins and takes 50 WR from War B. War B loses their 50 WR. Which means War A is ahead 50. Giving the 50 back to War B means War A shows 50 more, but they're no further ahead because War B has their 50 back. So they're no longer 50 ahead. Get it?...
This is where it went off the rails. A (+50 / -50) War does NOT mean Ally A will only be ahead of B by 50 at the time of the war (pre-adjustment). And even acknowledging a 100 difference now, giving B back their 50 (without having A be the one that is coughing up that 50) does NOT mean A is no longer ahead of B. What the “one sides adjustment” did was basically create an extra 50 out of thin air (something our Govt. Treasury can do, but once money is in circulation you can longer create money out of thin air.. well, maybe as Bitcoin, lol)
If I was a betting man, I'd put $1 on the following -
War 5 points won't be removed until the season has ended. As a consequence, season rewards will be delayed. No adjustments made for war 6&7 tier multipliers. No adjustments made for war 6&7 skewed matchmaking.
If you read the sticky thread in "bugs and known issues". It reads as though Kabam haven't acknowledged matchmaking and tier multiplier for wars 6&7 as an issue they will be addressing. This is only my opinion but it looks like they're going to brush everything else under the carpet and let the season play out with it's integrity compromised.
My $1 is looking good.
How do you propose adjusting for War 6 and 7? How can you do that reasonably?
GW.. “War A wins and takes 50 WR from War B. War B loses their 50 WR. Which means War A is ahead 50. Giving the 50 back to War B means War A shows 50 more, but they're no further ahead because War B has their 50 back. So they're no longer 50 ahead. Get it?...
This is where it went off the rails. A (+50 / -50) War does NOT mean Ally A will only be ahead of B by 50 at the time of the war (pre-adjustment). And even acknowledging a 100 difference now, giving B back their 50 (without having A be the one that is coughing up that 50) does NOT mean A is no longer ahead of B. What the “one sides adjustment” did was basically create an extra 50 out of thin air (something our Govt. Treasury can do, but once money is in circulation you can longer create money out of thin air.. well, maybe as Bitcoin, lol)
Guess I did say ahead 50. I apologize. I wasn't saying what I really meant.
If I was a betting man, I'd put $1 on the following -
War 5 points won't be removed until the season has ended. As a consequence, season rewards will be delayed. No adjustments made for war 6&7 tier multipliers. No adjustments made for war 6&7 skewed matchmaking.
If you read the sticky thread in "bugs and known issues". It reads as though Kabam haven't acknowledged matchmaking and tier multiplier for wars 6&7 as an issue they will be addressing. This is only my opinion but it looks like they're going to brush everything else under the carpet and let the season play out with it's integrity compromised.
My $1 is looking good.
How do you propose adjusting for War 6 and 7? How can you do that reasonably?
Go by the original message war rsting is in full effect and carry on tanking has consequences and the winners win and losers lose. Wars 6 and 7 are not effected by that
Well, what I was trying to point out is that you can't adjust the Points earned in 6 and 7 because you can't quantify how much they SHOULD have won and lost. Those become variables.
As for the Wars that took place afterward, there is no guarantee that people would have either Won or Lost that War #5. You can never know that you will definitely either move Up or Down in WR.
Only thing you can do is play the next War in whatever WR or Tier that you happen to be in at the time.
And “to some extent”, it sort of cancels out each way, whichever way you happened to move...
(case 1) Won #5 and moved higher... You could have then gotten a higher Tier Point Multiplier for 6 then, although might have then lost that because you were facing a higher team. And then been right back down to the same WR you were at before 5 for your matching for 7. At least your Loss in 6 would have been with higher Multiplier.
(case 2) Lost #5 and moved lower... so you might have had a lower Multiplier for 6, but it would have been an easier matchup so better chance you would win 6. And then be back at same WR as you were before 5 (for your matching for 7).
Not exactly what you might have had if this never happened, but the whole season is a case of some wins and some losses, and moving Up and Down in WR, and back-n-forth as the Season goes on. (W/L on AVERAGE even being 50/50, except ties which count as both Losses).
@Kabam Miike is our war rating going to be adjusted down before the end of the season? This should not be a difficult question
The War Rating adjustment should have been completed days ago when we said it was. If you don't think it has been, we need more information. You can start with your Alliance's name, and we'll let you know if there is more that we need.
The alliance name is DarkRealm Redeemers Tag RDMRZ. We won war 5 and our war rating was never reduced. Please let me know when this is going to happen
I'm sorry, I know why people are confused. There was no REMOVAL of War Rating for those that Won, just adding War Rating for those that Tied/Lost. I'll clear this up.
Please tell me this isn’t true? If this is the case, people advanced war rating and possibly war tier in a war that didn’t count (and we were told in advance it didn’t count). Why would that rating be allowed to stand when they may have faced an alliance (like many of us) that didn’t bother fighting since you told us it didn’t count and wouldn’t reimburse for item usage. This is even more unfair than I thought.
Adding War Rating to one side nullifies the Rating won on the other.
Please explain how. 2 alliances go into war 5 it 2000 rating. One gets bumped up to 2050 and one goes down to 1950 1950 then gets moved back to 2000 while 2050 stays the same. In what world does this "nullify" to you?
It's very simple. It's an interconnected system. War A wins and takes 50 WR from War B. War B loses their 50 WR. Which means War A is ahead 50. Giving the 50 back to War B means War A shows 50 more, but they're no further ahead because War B has their 50 back. So they're no longer 50 ahead. Get it?
Haha are you serious? Did you even read my example? The war ratings went from 2000 and 2000 to 2000 and 2050. After war 5 the winning alliance will be up by 100 until they remove the war rating from the losing alliance and then they will still be up by 50. Please don't go to the casino ever lol
How does an Alliance lose and keep War Rating? The loss of Rating is what they're correcting. Your example is not logical.
2 alliances that have 2000 war rating go into war 5 with +- 50. One alliance goes to 2050 and one goes to 1950 after war 5 before the adjustment which is a difference of 100. The 1950 alliance goes back to 2000 after the adjustment and the 2050 alliance stays the same. This is now a difference of 50 after their adjustment. So how does this nullify?
One allaince tanked on purpose one put in effort and was rewarded as such.
Sorry I'll never support punishing effort snd rewarding a lack of it in any way.
The winners earned those wins the losers didnt and I'm ok with them being set back to a null state(ie back to what they would be pre war)
We are the alliance that won war 5. I still think this is completely unfair
I think telling people war rating will be effected then having it be effected is unfair. Which was done.
My effort was based on a kabam employee telling me to out in effort to protect our rating. You want that removed because I didnt read the (corrected hrs later info that went against that?) Sorry punishing an allaince for following a direct message from kabam isnt ok
I agree with you. We were given directly conflicting information so how can they actually make this fair?
Hire competant staff to deliver messages. Stick to original message. Proceed
If by competent you mean incapable of making errors, prepare for a turnover rate that's astronomical.
Comments
The most reasonable solution is what they're doing now, which includes a compensation for it in terms of War Rewards. Unless you're comfortable with them lengthening the process by giving the losing side nothing for the trouble, and painstakingly removing the individual War Rewards from all accounts that have already received them. Then the Rating removal would make sense.
We chose not to remove the War Rating for Winners because the multiple wars completed afterward have a corrective effect on those that were bumped into a higher tier of Wars. Removing that small amount of War Rating is not going to have much of an effect on the final rankings.
It might affect a very small number of Alliances at the end, but we will measure that and act accordingly.
Now please remember to keep all disagreements and discourse civil.
This is where it went off the rails. A (+50 / -50) War does NOT mean Ally A will only be ahead of B by 50 at the time of the war (pre-adjustment). And even acknowledging a 100 difference now, giving B back their 50 (without having A be the one that is coughing up that 50) does NOT mean A is no longer ahead of B.
What the “one sides adjustment” did was basically create an extra 50 out of thin air (something our Govt. Treasury can do, but once money is in circulation you can longer create money out of thin air.. well, maybe as Bitcoin, lol)
Only thing you can do is play the next War in whatever WR or Tier that you happen to be in at the time.
And “to some extent”, it sort of cancels out each way, whichever way you happened to move...
(case 1) Won #5 and moved higher... You could have then gotten a higher Tier Point Multiplier for 6 then, although might have then lost that because you were facing a higher team. And then been right back down to the same WR you were at before 5 for your matching for 7. At least your Loss in 6 would have been with higher Multiplier.
(case 2) Lost #5 and moved lower... so you might have had a lower Multiplier for 6, but it would have been an easier matchup so better chance you would win 6. And then be back at same WR as you were before 5 (for your matching for 7).
Not exactly what you might have had if this never happened, but the whole season is a case of some wins and some losses, and moving Up and Down in WR, and back-n-forth as the Season goes on. (W/L on AVERAGE even being 50/50, except ties which count as both Losses).