"Ultra;c-2276071" wrote:
"Iy4oy4s;c-2276064" wrote:
"Ultra;c-2276062" wrote:
"Iy4oy4s;c-2276059" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2276055" wrote:
"Nikoms565;c-2276045" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2276028" wrote:
"Nikoms565;c-2276011" wrote:
"Iy4oy4s;c-2276003" wrote:
Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.
This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)
Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.
May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?
Go back to the numbers earned by the guild the TB prior to the bug. Allow for whatever accounts for "normal" increase from month to month, then compensate each guild based on the previous TB + that increase.
Or simply give everyone 50 shards, since CG usually takes the easier path. At least that way no one can complain that their guild would have earned more.
And just for the record, I never said the numbers were meaningless.
Sorry you said pointless.
I guess I'm confused by this more than anything, so they can and should account for the numbers when offering compensation, but if those numbers prove there was little to 0 effect on those numbers, that is pointless.
I was honestly asking, while trying to prod Doja about this topic, but now I'm thinking this is one of those "Whose line is it anyway?" type of things.
We all know 50 is not a realistic number, if we can acknowledge what they said, not sure if we can.
Generally speaking any compensation is viewed on the grand scale, as the more complicated the situation the greater risk of an error or at least an issue. Yes the easy path.
If anything were to happen, that level of calculation and added work is not as likely to happen. Anything simpler and more realistic (i.e. not 50)?
I would say to not even bother with all the math and give us 10 per messed up TW. So 20. I think that 20 shards is generous and would show that they are listening and care because it surely doesn’t seem like they do with the complete ignorance of the topic. 20 wouldn’t cost them anything and help us out…always look for a win win situation…boom, there it is.
lol
Very helpful. Thank you for playing.
Why 10?
Its a very arbitrary number you pulled out of the hat
Is 10 shards for this upcoming Territory Battle fair? Is it unfair?
Why not 5 shards? Or 25?
Why 10?
How do you determine that?
Answer: data
Kyno has mentioned earlier ITT that CG looked at the data the last time it ran and saw no difference in win rate before SYG was bugged
They will be closely monitoring the success rate this run and if there is a significant change they might offer compensation or they might not and we all would have a valid reason to raise our pitchforks
If the guilds are still winning at the same rate, they won't and to be fair, why should they? If you got 25 last month and 24 this month, its more or less the same thing
Does everyone deserve 10 shards or 20 for getting the same number of KAM they were getting last month when it wasn't bugged (except for the last few hours of Phase 4)?
So how about we wait and see if compensation is needed or not?
Looking at this situation objectively, it seems like a wait and see situation
I agree on the wait and see, and 10 being on the higher end.
Honesty though I imagine they have a +/- on the data they have, and that range would make it impossible for them to see a minor deviation in the rate.
I doubt it being 10, but its probably in the 5-8 range as guilds can in theory be gaining a few more each round, but also have a few loses each round.
Handing out around the 5 would settle the average and negate the possible losses experienced due to the issue.
25 would be too high, even 10+ would be too high. This is based on the assumption they are correct about not seeing a different rate and the assumption that guilds dont gain 10+ more from event to event, meaning they also dont lose at 10+ the rate. Maybe guilds do, but I find that a little hard to believe, or at least see as any average.
But we are just in the wait and see mode now.
I also dont see them doing anything to double our rate of income, as that seems really high for just making the players whole. I know many would want punitive results here, but that's not really realistic.
