RE: =AQ= 50% Off Z-Token Sale + Burning Solstice Finale


	Home \| Login \| Register \| Help \| Play

RE: =AQ= 50% Off Z-Token Sale + Burning Solstice Finale - The Answer

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= 50% Off Z-Token Sale + Burning Solstice Finale - The Answer

Page 7 of 8

Forum Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

10/9/2019 19:09:50

Kay Oh
Member

It's fine, thanks for the apology

AQW

Post #: 151

10/9/2019 20:27:51

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

I would like to make a call to order and request that everyone enters this discussion with the assumption that others are speaking and acting in good faith. Adhering to my own request, I will not attribute any ill intent to the attempt to have any achievable number of people tie at the 25th spot so that more than that amount of people could receive a prize that is stated by the game's own feedback to be intended for no more than that many recipients.

In the past, minor ties were accommodated in the interest of fairness. To my knowledge, the scale was small and there was at the very least the appearance of it being coincidental. When a clear attempt to tie was performed, coordinated both through Discord and changed character names, all plausible deniability in that regard is lost. I do not attribute any malice to this effort, nor do I deny that several players simply did not want to make it any harder for others to match their efforts and fortune. But at the same time, there could not be a reasonable expectation of this going unnoticed and unaddressed, nor of this being seen as a reasonable action itself - However good the intentions may be.

In regards to this being a reaction to the rather last-minute alteration of the war meter, this is where I must insist once again that we argue in good faith and assume good intentions from each other. If we are to treat the deliberate tie as happening because of this tampering, we cannot also treat the tampering as a consequence and not cause. The alteration was performed for internal development reasons, and internal deliberation led to identifying this action as one we should not repeat so close to the end of a war. As I've said before, we have absolutely heard you on this matter -- If a war is nearly over and something interferes with the completion of the rewards, the meter will remain unaltered and we will leave in due notice for you to return to the shop once they are. Therefore, I implore you to consider that two wrongs don't make a right, and to end this topic on a mutual agreement to be better in the future. This event means entirely too much to me to allow it to end on a sour note, and on anything less than an expectation that we will all be our best.

Post #: 152

10/9/2019 21:37:53

Kay Oh
Member

What is the rationale behind rewarding the tied players that are within the top 25 based on the date of their acc creation, and not based on who achieved the kills first? I believe this is a point of discussion when arguing about fairness.

AQW

Post #: 153

10/9/2019 21:48:57

poopbum
Member

Just gonna throw in my 2 cents, I think it will be good to at least still reward all the ties for one last final time at the very list before deciding that there will be no ties anymore.

Think of it as an advanced notice thing, a gesture to ensure no one gets burned out in the end. If there's not gonna be tie rewards to begin with it should've been announced way ahead of time regardless of how it's achieved.

So ideally this could be the last war where ties are allowed, but make it clear in every future war after this that there will be no more allowances for ties. Granted this is the first time an attempt at ties is made so obvious, but still an "advanced notice requirement" approach ought to be taken for good faith to be maintained in this company.

AQ	Post #: 154

10/10/2019 1:47:29

I Overlord I
Member

I don't personally have a stake in this, but I still feel that despite attempting to "game" the system under extenuating circumstances, that these individuals adhered to a code of honor (i.e., not sneaking in a last-minute kill) and shouldn't be punished with that taken under consideration.

AQ	Post #: 155

10/10/2019 2:22:31

ruleandrew
Member

quote:

What is the rationale behind rewarding the tied players that are within the top 25 based on the date of their acc creation, and not based on who achieved the kills first? I believe this is a point of discussion when arguing about fairness.

Most kills for x war list rotates randomly between tie players every 30 minutes. This means you cannot tell who reach x kill first. (https://forums2.battleon.com/f/tm.asp?m=22368421&mpage=6)

Note:

quote:

In the event of tie we would try and be as fair as possible and give out extra prizes. Since there was a coordinated effort to take advantage of this generosity and game the system, we unfortunately can only give prizes to the qualifying players in the required spots on the war wins list. Sorry to anyone affected by this change, but we will not be giving out extra prizes in the event of a tie on the war win list anymore.

Place this information in FAQ section.

AQ	Post #: 156

10/10/2019 2:46:46

gavers
Member

While I agree with the team on the sentiment, I disagree with the action taken.
It was an attempt to game the system, and while not done with ill intent, it probably shouldn't have happened.
With that said, there are a couple of things to be said on the matter.
As is generally accepted in competitions, in case of a tie, the solutions usually taken are either a tie-breaker or a show of good faith for anyone tying.
Instead an arbitrary cutoff was chosen, without anything to hint that's a possible outcome, and I feel that's unprofessional.
Even though the system was gamed, there was no precedence against that, and there have been no rules regarding ties, or any tie-breaking system.
I feel like a better solution, more so considering the community's outcry, is to show good faith, and say that it won't be shown next time,
instead offering an official "tie-breaker" solution stated before the war, be it account creation date, time of reaching the tied count, or whatever the staff feel is acceptable.

With all that said, I don't think this should be the death of good faith. The system wasn't gamed with ill intent, but rather a consequence of, as Cray stated, another consequence,
and therefore the resulting conflict is a consequence of the actions taken as well, so I'm all for breaking the cycle of consequences.

Post #: 157

10/10/2019 3:11:40

Primate Murder
Member

I'll second gavers, I think.

I can understand the points of both sides, and if the staff want to ban ties in the future, it's their right entirely. My point of contention is altering the rules retroactively - there was no forewarning, no notification. It's like saying that everybody who used resets won't get any rewards for this war - after all, the intention of resetting gold cap when buying a package is to test out new items (as stated by the staff), not to give extra chances of getting a rare item. Saying that the players won't get rewards after the war has already ended seems a little over the top.

Tl;dr: Maybe give out the rewards this time, and put the 'no ties' notification into the rules section?

Post #: 158

10/10/2019 3:12:50

AliceShiki
Helpful!

quote:

As I've said before, we have absolutely heard you on this matter -- If a war is nearly over and something interferes with the completion of the rewards, the meter will remain unaltered and we will leave in due notice for you to return to the shop once they are.

Thank you very much! This is much much appreciated!

It's terribly scary when someone ends a day at a spot that is most likely safe for top 25 and goes to sleep, only to wake up, go to work, an come back 16h after they stopped fighting to find out the war was prolonged and that made them lose the spot they worked so hard for! >.<

Glad to know this possibility doesn't exist anymore! \(^^)/

AQ	Post #: 159

10/10/2019 16:19:32

bluchill
Member

for a game that survives on players that spend money, y'all gotta take it into consideration that most in the war's top used resets, real money

time and money were put into this war and y'all casually make decisions that affect dedicated players, are you for real?

disappointing!!

all this for 5 damn extra armors... y'all just gonna dramatize and make the tie players the bad people in this

maybe this team needs some more marketing training on how to deal with unprecedented situations fairly and keep everybody happy

make the decision for future events, that's the best way to approach this!

pushing paying customers away for denying them a virtual reward is not a good strategy..

Post #: 160

10/10/2019 18:03:07

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

quote:

What is the rationale behind rewarding the tied players that are within the top 25 based on the date of their acc creation, and not based on who achieved the kills first? I believe this is a point of discussion when arguing about fairness.

Thank you for taking the time to cool down and reenter the discussion in good faith. This allocation strictly happened due to database code constraints, as ruleandrew clarified, rather than any rationale behind a manual selection.

quote:

Just gonna throw in my 2 cents, I think it will be good to at least still reward all the ties for one last final time at the very list before deciding that there will be no ties anymore.

Think of it as an advanced notice thing, a gesture to ensure no one gets burned out in the end. If there's not gonna be tie rewards to begin with it should've been announced way ahead of time regardless of how it's achieved.

So ideally this could be the last war where ties are allowed, but make it clear in every future war after this that there will be no more allowances for ties. Granted this is the first time an attempt at ties is made so obvious, but still an "advanced notice requirement" approach ought to be taken for good faith to be maintained in this company.

Making this a prerequisite to maintaining a good faith relationship implies that not awarding the items to those that engaged in a deliberate tie would be a breach of trust. For there to be such a breach, there would need to have been an establishment of tie resolution in the past; a word that we would be going back on by not issuing the award in this situation. In actual fact, this has always been strictly an informal decision to pay a kindness to players affected by a close and unintentional tie. No arrangement was made that has now been broken. That this attempt was indeed so obvious is not sufficiently detracted from by the decision to not accommodate it. Regardless of good intentions towards fellow players, the competition was still subverted, with plans being made in chat channels where multiple developers lurk.

Advance notice would be adequate and indeed an act of good faith if a change in the rules was taking place. This measure is instead the rescinding of an informal practice, one that I can assure you of that we are not happy to take. And as such, that postponing measures and simply stating that this stretch of our trust will not be tolerated in the future would be a prerequisite to maintaining good faith is something I cannot find a logical basis for. Would it be a valid approach? Certainly. But ultimately it was decided to not be so mild in response.

This already addresses Primate Murder's point (In that this was the cessation of an extraordinary practice and not the retroactive application of an ordinary rule) and most of gavers's statement, but there is something that merits reiteration if I am to thoroughly address the latter:

quote:

As is generally accepted in competitions, in case of a tie, the solutions usually taken are either a tie-breaker or a show of good faith for anyone tying.
Instead an arbitrary cutoff was chosen, without anything to hint that's a possible outcome, and I feel that's unprofessional.

As was explained on the post above yours and I further elaborated in this one, the cutoff was not an arbitrary decision, but the result of old database code constraints. No statement was given about this being a potential outcome because this was entirely unforeseen - Otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that what actually applies about what is generally accepted in competitions is that contrived, engineered or otherwise deliberate ties are grounds for disqualification. If we are to assume a lack of precedent, which in keeping to assuming good faith I am happy to do, then for a first such instance to involve exclusion from the top tier of rewards rather than removal from the rankings is the moderate response. This is not to say that players should not be displeased at all because consequences could well have been worse, as I reiterate that we acknowledge the error of extending the war meter at the last moment. My point is, and I cannot stress this enough, that what is generally accepted in competitions is entirely dependent on the nature of the tie, and we have neither awarded an unintentional tie nor punished an engineered one to the same degree that other competitions do, rendering the comparison moot.

bluchill: You are entirely within your rights to criticize us, but antagonizing us and demanding capitulation will get nowhere compared to presenting a point in a constructive manner. That you are casually ignoring my own insistence in not presenting the tied players as 'the bad people', while framing the discussion in those terms yourself, and that you insist on finding the least charitable interpretation for our actions that you can manage, tells me that you have not taken the time to read my original post. As you are neither engaging my points nor backing mine, I'll stick to addressing your perception of unpreparedness or incompetence on our end: During divisive situations, one can attempt to mediate and try to find a common ground, but keeping everybody happy in their beginning positions is by definition not plausible.

Once again, my thanks to everyone who has discussed this in good faith.

Post #: 161

10/10/2019 19:01:02

Kay Oh
Member

The top 25 worked hard for their placing and earned their prize. I would like to ask if any of the current top 25 would be opposed to having the prize extended to the top 30, who worked just as hard as the other few who earned it. I am not sure how many of the top 25 are following this thread, but if you are, it may help if you state your opinion on whether or not you're opposed to the prize being extended as a one time thing for this special case, and a new rule established for next time. If the majority is opposed, I'll respect their opinion and move on.

AQW

Post #: 162

10/10/2019 22:00:59

Zippleclopper
Member

quote:

The top 25 worked hard for their placing and earned their prize. I would like to ask if any of the current top 25 would be opposed to having the prize extended to the top 30, who worked just as hard as the other few who earned it. I am not sure how many of the top 25 are following this thread, but if you are, it may help if you state your opinion on whether or not you're opposed to the prize being extended as a one time thing for this special case, and a new rule established for next time. If the majority is opposed, I'll respect their opinion and move on.

From what I see, majority of the Top 25 players (and even those who are not in but put in a significant amount of wins) aren't opposed to awarding those who tied because they know how much effort was put in to rack up these numbers.

Yes, I know the tie was made too obvious but I can assure that nobody in the tie has gained anything unfairly. Nobody has cheated or gained anything advantageous in order to reach this number, there are no shortcuts. Everyone there still put in the same number of hours to get the same number of wins and had to be within close proximity to capitalize on it. How is that fair to them when they put in the same amount of effort and get nothing? Especially when the decision of gets the armor was based on character creation date because of database code constraints?

quote:

In the past, minor ties were accommodated in the interest of fairness. To my knowledge, the scale was small and there was at the very least the appearance of it being coincidental. When a clear attempt to tie was performed, coordinated both through Discord and changed character names, all plausible deniability in that regard is lost. I do not attribute any malice to this effort, nor do I deny that several players simply did not want to make it any harder for others to match their efforts and fortune. But at the same time, there could not be a reasonable expectation of this going unnoticed and unaddressed, nor of this being seen as a reasonable action itself - However good the intentions may be.

Like you have said, we just want the best for everyone involved so how are good intentions unreasonable if that's the case? Ties are never unintentional, no matter how small/large the scale is. I have said more about it already in my above passage.

quote:

Making this a prerequisite to maintaining a good faith relationship implies that not awarding the items to those that engaged in a deliberate tie would be a breach of trust. For there to be such a breach, there would need to have been an establishment of tie resolution in the past; a word that we would be going back on by not issuing the award in this situation. In actual fact, this has always been strictly an informal decision to pay a kindness to players affected by a close and unintentional tie. No arrangement was made that has now been broken. That this attempt was indeed so obvious is not sufficiently detracted from by the decision to not accommodate it. Regardless of good intentions towards fellow players, the competition was still subverted, with plans being made in chat channels where multiple developers lurk.

Advance notice would be adequate and indeed an act of good faith if a change in the rules was taking place. This measure is instead the rescinding of an informal practice, one that I can assure you of that we are not happy to take. And as such, that postponing measures and simply stating that this stretch of our trust will not be tolerated in the future would be a prerequisite to maintaining good faith is something I cannot find a logical basis for. Would it be a valid approach? Certainly. But ultimately it was decided to not be so mild in response

quote:

As was explained on the post above yours and I further elaborated in this one, the cutoff was not an arbitrary decision, but the result of old database code constraints. No statement was given about this being a potential outcome because this was entirely unforeseen - Otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that what actually applies about what is generally accepted in competitions is that contrived, engineered or otherwise deliberate ties are grounds for disqualification. If we are to assume a lack of precedent, which in keeping to assuming good faith I am happy to do, then for a first such instance to involve exclusion from the top tier of rewards rather than removal from the rankings is the moderate response. This is not to say that players should not be displeased at all because consequences could well have been worse, as I reiterate that we acknowledge the error of extending the war meter at the last moment. My point is, and I cannot stress this enough, that what is generally accepted in competitions is entirely dependent on the nature of the tie, and we have neither awarded an unintentional tie nor punished an engineered one to the same degree that other competitions do, rendering the comparison moot.

I don't know why do you keep saying that point in regards to competition. AQ is an old and casual game, different from competitive games in terms of 'competing with others' Nobody is losing anything or eliminated when someone else gains something in this case (tied players) It is a fundamentally different concept. If you can elaborate, what are the worse consequences that could've happened? Are we going to get our war wins for this war removed all together? Get put to Troublemaker clan? Why are you guys so serious about a casual game where we are here to have fun and a relaxing time, not having to make a super competitive argument out of this.

I know the staff are generous and nice people, but setting a rule like this completely invalidates what you guys have done in the past, such as giving #16 the Z-Token donation armor for Top 15 because they 're close and you guys felt 'bad' for them missing out. Yes, there are no coordinated efforts for a tie there, but again, I assure you that nobody was doing it to take advantage of the staffs' 'fairness'. What was done above completely threw everything you said out the window in regards to competition.

quote:

I don't personally have a stake in this, but I still feel that despite attempting to "game" the system under extenuating circumstances, that these individuals adhered to a code of honor (i.e., not sneaking in a last-minute kill) and shouldn't be punished with that taken under consideration.

This. Where will you ever see something as amazing as this, where players come together to tie and have trust in each other not to break it? It's something so rare and amazing(as cheesy as it sounds) that probably won't happen anywhere(or anytime now) else.

If this still doesn't convince you to give out the prize for a last time for tying(since now that it is stated explicitly, something amazing like this won't ever happen again in the future) I request you guys to consider giving everyone else who tied to prize EXCEPT me because I was the one who initiated the plan, because I didn't want anyone to miss out. There are people who weren't available to war during the final few percentage, or were very far behind (almost 2000 wins from Top 25) and this gave them a chance I felt. I could've easily went over 9000, but I didn't because of the promise. Honestly, some other guys can too, but nobody did, and that shows what a great community we have.

You guys have given out up to 27 prizes for Top 25 in the past for a 'small' scale tie, and giving out 29 now(me excluded) does it make a big difference? Also, the tied position was #22, not #25 so it isn't like 10 extra people are getting it, it's 4, and they totally deserve it.

If you still think that's not enough, then you can just remove my war wins for this war and strip me of my Top 50/1000 wins rewards or whatever 'punishment' you have stated, since you take it so seriously for a mostly casual game where we are just here to have fun. Some of those guys who are tied but not in the top 25 are NOT in Discord or even the forums. They joined in for the 'spirit' and I feel bad that they have to get screwed like this. They don't deserve what happened to them.

Post #: 163

10/10/2019 23:22:35

Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher

Presenting anything short of having your way as invalidating past good deeds is illogical at best and a blatant stretch of good faith at worst. I proposed that we assume good intentions from each other, but in your invitation to visit greater consequences on you as some manner of petty exchange, you transparently imply that we're simply out to satisfy an urge to punish people until we meet a quota of quantity or quality of retribution. That, more than every other instance of ignoring my points contained within your post, shows that if you have read what I wrote, you have either paid it no attention or no mind.

For the sake of debunking your argumentative trap, I will reply to what points merits dissection, but if you would like to continue this discussion then I must go from requesting to requiring that you leave your discord sowing outside.

quote:

Yes, I know the tie was made too obvious but I can assure that nobody in the tie has gained anything unfairly. Nobody has cheated or gained anything advantageous in order to reach this number, there are no shortcuts. Everyone there still put in the same number of hours to get the same number of wins and had to be within close proximity to capitalize on it. How is that fair to them when they put in the same amount of effort and get nothing? Especially when the decision of gets the armor was based on character creation date because of database code constraints?

The system was objectively gamed. That the effort was equivalent is not only irrelevant but evident from the very premise, as such is the base requirement of an engineered tie. Having gamed the system and being found out, it is entirely illogical to attempt to guilt trip me about fairness over not obtaining the same results that you would have if you had earned the top results normally or not been found out.

quote:

Like you have said, we just want the best for everyone involved so how are good intentions unreasonable if that's the case? Ties are never unintentional, no matter how small/large the scale is. I have said more about it already in my above passage.

Am I to assume that you find it logical to state that no ties in any kind of event are intentional, or that you are stating that all past top war wins ties have been engineered? It seems to escape your notice that neither of these paints your posts in a better light, much like trying to paint me as opposing good intentions when that is not something I have said or implied at any point. I have discussed the consequences of actions, not intentions, as no amount of kind intent towards your fellow players constitutes an absolution of the actions performed with that intent, nor indeed a guarantee that these actions will obtain the desired outcome.

quote:

I don't know why do you keep saying that point in regards to competition. AQ is an old and casual game, different from competitive games in terms of 'competing with others' Nobody is losing anything or eliminated when someone else gains something in this case (tied players) It is a fundamentally different concept.

Wars contain cooperative and competitive elements. As a dedicated warmonger, surely this cannot have escaped your notice up to this point. The completion of the event itself is cooperative. The top wins ranking is inherently competitive. No matter what variable you choose to measure progress by, racing to achieve the highest number of wins in a ranked list in which the top results earn a prize constitutes a competition by all applicable definitions. The Oxford dictionary, for example, defines a competition as "The activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others.", as well as "An event or contest in which people take part in order to establish superiority or supremacy in a particular area." You are striving to win rewards by establishing superiority over others through higher results. As you can see, it's fundamentally the very same concept.

quote:

If you can elaborate, what are the worse consequences that could've happened? Are we going to get our war wins for this war removed all together? Get put to Troublemaker clan? Why are you guys so serious about a casual game where we are here to have fun and a relaxing time, not having to make a super competitive argument out of this.

This is the point at which your post spirals down into ever greater degrees of making us out to be out for greater degrees of punishment, with what points would remain after stripping such from your post having already been addressed in my latest post. Please go through the effort of reading every other post in this discussion. The vast majority of posts have been calm, civil, and handling disagreement in a reasonable manner -- as far from 'super competitive' as it gets. Trying to stand as the exception to that and then reverse that responsibility on us as well is an approach you have drastically underestimated the subtlety of, and frankly an affront to your fellow players.

quote:

What was done above completely threw everything you said out the window in regards to competition.

How, exactly? One cannot declare an argument disproved without actually engaging in the act of disproving it. I have pointed out how the definition is entirely applicable.

And finally, with regards to your final quote: I should hope that I have already made it abundantly clear how unwelcome your invitation to be made a martyr is, but I feel compelled to reiterate the point due to the fact that two statements to the effect of the #25 spot determination not being an active decision were entirely ignored in your own post. You beatify the fact that it took coordination to engineer a tie and present it as a reason why there to be no consequences for it, when it is in itself the reason why the tie was unacceptable.

Post #: 164

10/11/2019 0:00:21

Aura Knight
Member

So, the issue here is that certain players made the choice to tie their kill count after unexpected tampering of required war kills being increased towards the last moments of the war and the individuals who had been fighting all that time wanted a fair end to what they consider unfair practice? I'd have to side with them if this is all which happened. You could argue there was some kind of conspiracy in the works but considering what had happened, it's actually amazing many players came with this simple solution to a problem which should not have even arisen. Consider what those individuals felt when their thought to be secured spot in the standings was threatened by an unexpected extension of the war. Yes, this gives more people an opportunity to get kills and maybe increase their kill counts but is that not considered an insult to the efforts the others put forth during most of the time the war was active? This mention of fairness seems like irony to me because none of what happened sounds fair at all. I suppose there were a lot who tied for the 25th spot but what does that matter? All effort should be rewarded in the end. I really think some conclusions here should be reconsidered or it's possible future wars will remain unfinished. There should be no consequence for players working together to come up with a creative answer to an unexpected problem. A tie here should not be considered unacceptable. It should instead be praised and applauded because random individuals chose to give not only themselves a chance at a special reward, but others too. There was no indication of this being against rules so any argument regarding such a claim is just a convenience on the part of those who disagree with the choice made by those persons to try labeling them as the perpetrator of this supposed rulebreaking. Rewards should be given based on total kill counts with ties included in a single place. An extra 5 rewards given should be possible and I think arguing against it just seems unnecessary.

AQW

Post #: 165

10/11/2019 0:19:17

bluchill
Member

i came on here to let y'all know this is not how you treat players that love this game, 13yo account, various packages and other payments done, such as buying Zs to reset cap to increase wins in the war

5 extra armors would not have broken the system, that's who that 'everybody happy' is that you're referring to, 5 players that got stepped on cause people felt 'played'

it was coordinated, yes, with the sole purpose of allowing more players access to a RARE version item, what a concept in this game huh? wanting a rare, blame us!

this type of treatment is negative reinforcement for future times when spending money on this game would be something otherwise joyful as it usually is so there's that!

BOO!

Post edited, see PM box~afterlifex

< Message edited by afterlifex -- 10/11/2019 22:32:14 >

Post #: 166

10/11/2019 0:23:02

Kay Oh
Member

Many have given their opinions on this matter, and the majority agree that this was a special case where rewards should be awarded. And I thank everyone for taking the time to voice their opinion. At this point, I don't think anything new can be added to the discussion. A solid decision should be made by Hollow, after all the discussion that was made after his most recent post. I don't understand what good or bad faith even means anymore. Please make a decision so we can move on as I'm sure everyone has gotten tired of this. Thanks.

< Message edited by Kay Oh -- 10/11/2019 0:26:42 >

AQW

Post #: 167

10/11/2019 4:21:44

poopbum
Member

quote:

In actual fact, this has always been strictly an informal decision to pay a kindness to players affected by a close and unintentional tie.

As unfortunate as it sounds, this informal decision in hindsight wasn't the brightest idea as it led to the events leading to today's black mark on what's otherwise a pretty great conclusion to a questline.

I understand that they're decisions made by different staff members at different times, but it's still a rather jarring inconsistency to ignore.

While it's all on the top players for trying to engineer it, it's hard to deny where they got the idea from and what tempted them to do so in the first place.

While I don't blame you guys for wanting to bar ties from now on in response to this rather blatant act of a few players pushing their luck, I'm not sure if it's truly necessary to make an example out of them to drive the point home.

Most if not all announcements on gameplay changes and how things are run are often easily understood by what's left of our fanbase. So I'm not sure if there's any need to perform actions to further emphasis the point in a more player alienating tone.

What makes it more awkward anyway is the fact that the selection process for which of the 8.5k kill players gets to be top 25 is inevitably flawed, as has been already explained by database code constraints.

If the reasoning for making an example out of the 8500 kills players is to ensure legitimacy to the top X prize pool, it might've been an easier pill to swallow had the past controversy of Steamraider not happened.

The Steamraider incident where 16th place that wasn't even tied got the prize, was IMO an example of a flipside of this war's event happening from the staff(in this case Rhubarb)'s side instead of the players this time. Till this day Rafiq the last time I saw him felt a little bummed out for being the unfortunate #17th place player who has salt further rubbed in his wounds for this attempt at "being nice" to someone else.

To be fair it's not possible to please everyone. But is it doable to at least exhibit consistency and staying true to the initial word, rather than a repeated trend of making well.... last minute deviations from what's been stated?

At the end of the day the staff has the final say. Most of these at this point is just a request being made, to put it in a less savory tone: "a beg".

I had no real stake at it since I didn't climb that high at all to be affected. I am just here for the sake of trying to discuss for a more ideal outcome even if it doesn't affect my relatively more casual aims.

I intend for the tone of this post to be as neutral as possible so I apologize if I might've accidentally use any heated words. I strive to improve when given the chance and pointed out.

< Message edited by poopbum -- 10/11/2019 8:45:33 >

_____________________________

AQ	Post #: 168

10/11/2019 4:51:34

The Finnish Phoenix
Member

As someone who didn't participate in this war at all I speak from a perspective informed solely by what I've read here insofar as a decision of whether to distribute rewards to players with tied scores is concerned.

I would not consider it unfair to say that those players who cooperated with one another gamed the system, but given a system that could be gamed as it was within a literal game and no forewarning that it would be considered objectionable to do so, it is unfair to then retroactively accuse those players of wrongdoing and to withhold rewards that could be distributed with a proviso that this type of play would be discouraged and cut off from rewards in future. This being a game, the gamers who play it are accustomed to using every resource within their arsenal that isn't expressly prohibited in order to succeed, and cooperation is no exception. I find the player cooperation here laudable if anything because they dedicated time and energy to a plan whereby they would share rewards that they could have used for extra kills to secure their placements ahead of the other players. While it's just as valid to look upon their cooperation as having undermined the spirit of competition, there was nothing binding them to the spirit of competition to begin with, just a leaderboard and methods in-game as well as through social media to secure placements on that leaderboard. If players are meant to be bound in future to going the extra few kills rather than cooperating, that needs to be specified in future.

Part of how rewards weren't distributed has been attributed to database code constraints rather than manual selection. If we're to look upon database code constraints as constraints, that is to admit that they've limited the ability to produce a desired outcome as that's what a constraint does. Given that these constraints can and have been overridden in the past through manually adding rewards especially in a case where rewards are distributed based on something as incidental and meritless as character creation date, then it behooves the staff to reward the players who were cut off based on this admitted constraint if they are going to refer to it as a constraint at all, particularly when these players did nothing that was specified as wrong from the outset.

As others have stated before me, it's both logical and the right thing to do to award the few extra items this time around given no precedent or warning that they wouldn't be. If a strict 25-player cutoff was intended then that can and should be specified in future as well as how tiebreakers are decided.

As a final note, I really don't think Zippleclopper was "sowing discord" or that to characterize him as having done so is fair or necessary, nor does it demonstrate any effort to assume good faith, especially when he offered for everyone but himself to be rewarded as a solution.

Much of what I have to say here echoes the sentiments of others, but to read of this issue based on a misunderstanding I felt moved to reinforce what appears to me as the logical and fair procedure going forward.

Post #: 169

10/11/2019 4:54:14

ruleandrew
Member

Most kills (character) for x war list tie breaker (in order)
character creation date (old character wins over young character)/ time to complete y kill (fast character wins over slow character)
random number generator

AQ	Post #: 170

10/11/2019 5:38:10

Kalle29
Member

Hollow, make an attempt to see this from the player perspective. The decision to retroactively apply a rule change is extremely alienating to some of the game's most dedicated players. A far, far less controversial way of dealing with the situation would be to simply state "This war made it clear that our generosity towards ties is abusable, therefore we are changing rules so no ties that extend past the top 25 will count in future wars". This very simple statement would cause no controversy and it would be clear to all what the rules are before we actually play - unlike what is happening now. This truly feels like a completely unwarranted kneejerk reaction. What good comes out of this? Can you answer this for us? Or even yourself? An extra handful of people getting a reskin is such a massive problem that you need to change the rules after the competition is over?

It doesn't cost you anything, it literally has no negative impact to just let this one slide. It's an unusually bureaucratic way of dealing with such a small community.

AQ	Post #: 171

10/11/2019 15:14:24

CH4OT1C!
Member

I would like to re-emphasise that there are no reasonable circumstances that could be adequately compared with this situation. Although a number of references have been made to ties occurring in previous wars, this form of coordination is an order-of-magnitude higher and reflects clear forethought irrespective of the underlying intentions. Therefore, giving the reward to all those players that tied cannot be justified based on previous examples because the circumstances are not the same. It also means that the final staff response to this situation will ultimately set a new precedent on how to handle this type of situation should it ever arise in the future (though, given the drama that has unfolded, I seriously doubt that will happen). This makes it all the more important to ensure it is handled correctly.

@Cray has already (quite rightly) made reference to the uniqueness of these circumstances. In other sporting competitions, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that i). the response ultimately depends upon the nature of that tie and ii). in many cases these would be grounds for disqualification. Where this comparison falls short is that there were no explicit rules referring to this type of situation beforehand. Given the code of conduct observed in other sporting events, one could argue that avoiding similar tactics is common sense. Nonetheless, I don't feel it is fair to blame rewards from a player for using all the tools in their toolbox if there are no clear rules to the contrary. I also agree with the frankly fantastic post written by @The Finnish Phoenix, in that retroactively withholding rewards in the same situation would be equally unreasonable. This feeling becomes particularly potent given the instances of shifting goalposts, which have now occurred numerous times in both wars and donation events (memories of the SteamRaider contest will linger on for some time, I fear). I understand that a lack of clear written rules for such contests offers the staff a level of flexibility. Nevertheless, I feel a lesson could be learned here and that such really need to be made clear for future contests/wars as it would avoid the need to make controversial retroactive decisions in the first place.

@The Finnish Phoenix also brings up another fantastic point that I wish to reiterate: the automatic selection system here leaves a lot to be desired. If a retroactive decision must be made (after all, anticipating all eventualities for a particular contest is virtually impossible), that decision must be a fair one. With regards to a tie in kills, reasonable tiebreakers could involve a random number generator or who reached that threshold first. The automatic system employed here does not do this. Whilst a manual approach would be more cumbersome, it involves stirring up the additional controversy caused by a botched decision made automatically.

I am glad that @Cray has already stated that lessons were learned with regard to changing the goalposts. I also believe that ties like this should not occur (or go rewarded...) in future now that the staff have made clear it is not encouraged. However, given that was not clear prior to this war, I still feel the reward go to all the players that tied in this war. It would also put an end to the controversy surrounding the automatic selection system used to distribute the prizes.

EDIT: I'm glad this was resolved in a way which benefits everyone.

< Message edited by CH4OT1C! -- 10/11/2019 15:39:06 >

AQ	Post #: 172

10/11/2019 15:27:48

The Hollow
AQ Lead

I have decided to deliver the extra armors to the players that tied. While we will still not give out extra prizes going forward in the event of a tie, I will take into consideration the type of prizes players are trying to win when choosing its spot on the list. I want wars to be fun and rewarding players for their varying levels of participation, not a source of stress.

Guardians can also find Avatar of War player faces in the war shop!

AQ	Post #: 173

10/11/2019 15:37:27

AliceShiki
Helpful!

Thank you very much! It is much much appreciated!!! *shakes many many pompoms*

AQ	Post #: 174

10/11/2019 15:46:52

Willowofwish
Member

I feel like a lot of what I’m saying is going to repeat many above mentioned posts, so apologize in advance for sounding like a broken record. But that in itself proves the important factors worthy of consideration and lessons learned so that we may move on and improve. With that being said, here is my two cent on these matters:
In any situation, I believe context is extremely important and should always be taken into account. Previous wars have had tiebreakers, but not to the magnitude of this extend(Harvest War 2018 had me tied with someone else). Those tiebreakers could be coincidences, or it could be so that two competing parties that have insignificant differences could achieve the same outcome within a certain amount of time under the premise that there is low competition to begin with. Had multiple people compete, naturally any warmongers would not even consider a coordinated effort to tie, opting the much “easier” route of racking up kills.
This is where this war is unique and demanded an extreme response: reinforcements, but most importantly, reinforcements at 95% of the war, no less, without prior knowledge or communication from staff to players. Seeing reinforcements is rare in wars, but not unheard of. What is unique is reinforcement in that late game, thereby leading in part to the players coordinating this effort. In other words, if the staff can add reinforcement at 95%, what is to stop them from adding more mobs at 99%? By this time many players are already burnt out by the process, so rather to sludge in more kills, it would be easier and less toll mentally and physically to achieve a tie with a certain amount of kills. Had this reinforcement not happened this late of a game, there would be less, perhaps no consideration to tie. Warmongers do not change their behaviors unless an extreme situation forces them to do so, and one can argue this change was indeed, quite radical.
Even more concerning was the outcome of how the tie was handled. Did it rigged the system? Absolutely, but with justified reasoning. But if two wrongs did not make a right, then what the warmonger and casuals are left in an extremely volatile environment where reinforcements can be added at any time and any place in any war at the staffer’s discretion. The alternative, i.e rigging the system, may not be right within the spirit of competition, but its outcome is positive to a degree: lot of trust and restraint must be held by each tiers, some of which were not informed in the first place. This shows the spirit of the community and their comradeship to and for each other, and is quite pleasant to see in an 10 year old game. In this regard, the outcome was quite divisive to say the least: giving out prizes based on player’s creation date is antithesis to fairness and would eventually hurting more players. Thus it seems that more work is left on how to decide rewards when an outcome happens, and when to properly send out reinforcements so situation like this can be avoided in the future.

Edit: I was typing this as Hollow's latest post come out, hence why some issues that were addressed may not be reflected on here.

< Message edited by Willowofwish -- 10/11/2019 16:05:44 >

AQ	Post #: 175

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= 50% Off Z-Token Sale + Burning Solstice Finale - The Answer

Page 7 of 8

Jump to:

Icon Legend

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY