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?
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.
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
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.
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.