“Corrective Effect”: What does this mean?
DrZola
Member Posts: 9,184 ★★★★★
I’m trying to tease out what this is supposed to imply. Any help would be appreciated.
Dr. Zola
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Some automatically lost that war getting knocked into a lower tier. Then it took two wins to get back into that tier. You lose more rating points when you lose a war then you gain when you win a war. Allowing an ally to keep their war rating from and automatic win, and them fighting in a higher tier for 3-4 wars because of it does not “correct it self”. Since the tiers are setup in a point system that are relative to the other allies, allowing half the allies to keep their win points, and only giving back the points lost for a loss makes it so around half the allies in the game are a war behind in tier points vs all the others in the game. I understand that it’s a mess and extremely hard to fix mathematically but it’s unfair to fix the issue in the way kabam is attempting to.
It's blatantly obvious the decision to continue the season means some will unfairly lose out.
It's Kabam's game so no surprise they've taken a decision that means they don't lose out (despite the issues being their fault).
It is what it is.
The thoughts expressed here about the meaning of “collective effect” comport with my own assumptions.
But I would submit that simply “letting things run their course” in the belief that it all evens out in the end seems off-base. Perhaps, if the season were months long and there was a broader base of wars to play, there would be a longer run for things to level out.
As it stands, there isn’t. Everything, from war rating to scores to tier multiplier, is faulty.
The only way to begin to adjust for that is to target the individual alliances who were negatively affected in any way by “short” wars at seasons end and remediate the error.
That’s honestly the only corrective effect that has a chance of approximating fairness.
Dr. Zola