575 replies to this topic

[Cato Zilks]

KlLLJOY, on 27 November 2017 - 07:28 AM, said:

PGI robbed me of the opportunity to play this event by scheduling it over Thanksgiving week, when family was visiting. I was able to steal a few hours to game on 1 day, but it didn't amount to anything.

So I don't care who won.

You live up to your name.

[Cato Zilks]

Matt Newman, on 27 November 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Hello all!

Event Results.
- So the event did end in a tie based on the Conflict Victory thresholds as displayed in Faction Play.

Why did I say it was unlikely to end in a tie?
- The Displayed Victory threshold was not the intended Victory threshold. I had set the victory threshold to be 0 in the event creation window meaning 1 game on either side of the control bar would be considered a victory.

What went wrong.
- Setting the Victory threshold to Zero apparently means (to the game code) USE THE DEFAULT victory threshold which is 27. When I had set the event up I failed to check the victory threshold displayed in the game.
If I had, I would have noticed that the victory threshold was not functioning properly.

What are we doing?
- We are going to do some Manual Manipulation of the event to show it as a Clan Victory.Tharkad will be switched to Clan Jade Falcon and Clan Players will be able to claim the Victory prize.We will most likely have to restart services to fix this issue. Causing people to log out and ending matches prematurely.I will post again once we have tested our intended fix and we are ready to roll it out to production and restart the services.
TSP rewards will be injected shortly after the fix is in place.


Future events.
- I will be able to use a Victory threshold of 1 to minimize the chance of a Tie but not completely eliminate it.


Thanks for your Patience,
Matt Newman

Sorry Matt, changing the rules after the fact is crap. Even if you change it for what would have been a better system. Had you made this change on day 1, it would be forgivable, but this is nonsense.

[Tarl Cabot]

Commander A9, on 27 November 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

I appreciate your efforts to correct these issues, Matt. That shows some quality.

Question, however. The Battle for Luthien found itself in these circumstances, too: a clear Clan victory, but the gradiant in the "tie" threshold.

Are we going to retroactively revisit that scenario and make a correction to that, too, if this system that you've implemented is going to be the standard? Because as it stands, Luthien was considered a "loss" for the Clans since the Clans can't launch a second attack and IS retains occupation, but game mechanics considered it as a loss for both sides.

Will Luthien flip to Smoke Jaguar and Clan players receive their Mist Lynx? Or are we leaving it as-is?

I had wondered how long it would take for you to bring that forward. I do not see why not, so we can get this frak season over with. But I do not see PGI reversing that change since the settings were slightly different. If they had kept each drop being worth 1% instead of 3.3% we would not be having this discussion since Tharkad would have been lost since instead of 3 battles (IS had 6) for the tie range IS would have needed 10, or would it have been 11 (80%> ) to allow for a tie. Then the question would have been, would Matt had brought up the mistake made even if it would not have changed the outcome of the Clans winning Tharkad?

The issue is that these are CAPITOL planets, not some periphery/border POS system that should not be won by a simple victory. Using Luthien setup Tharkad would have moved the bar to 94% (1% drops) with only 6 drops whereas Luthien pulled it back from the edge with 23 drops, moving the bar from 100% to 77% (corrected).

Edit-

Even if Matt had set it correctly, would it have shown up on the tug-of-war bar or would we all have been left clueless until the event was over with and it was announced Clans had won? If it would not have been reflected on the bar, how would EITHER side have known what to stride for? Why even have that tug of war bar then?

I know Matt is trying but some things should not be left in the dark.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 28 November 2017 - 03:22 PM.

[Commander A9]

Indeed. Might be too little too late, especially since both sides got their $4,000,000 already after Luthien. Meh...doesn't hurt to ask I guess.

Cato Zilks, on 27 November 2017 - 07:37 PM, said:

Sorry Matt, changing the rules after the fact is crap. Even if you change it for what would have been a better system. Had you made this change on day 1, it would be forgivable, but this is nonsense.

He's not changing the rules after the fact.

Matt Newman, on 27 November 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Why did I say it was unlikely to end in a tie?
- The Displayed Victory threshold was not the intended Victory threshold. I had set the victory threshold to be 0 in the event creation window meaning 1 game on either side of the control bar would be considered a victory.

What went wrong.
- Setting the Victory threshold to Zero apparently means (to the game code) USE THE DEFAULT victory threshold which is 27. When I had set the event up I failed to check the victory threshold displayed in the game.
If I had, I would have noticed that the victory threshold was not functioning properly.

Matt Newman

He struck a key without knowing what the system would do. We have a saying for similar human errors in the IT field: he fat-fingered it. XD Okay, so he didn't technically fat-finger it, but you know what I mean...

That's not changing the rules. That's making an unanticipated human error via a computer. What he's doing now is making up for that mistake. That's what you do when you make mistakes, especially when you're the public face of the event system which splits the community down the middle every time an event is hosted.

You like events, right? You like free stuff, right?

Edited by Commander A9, 27 November 2017 - 07:51 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

Commander A9, on 27 November 2017 - 07:40 PM, said:

Indeed. Might be too little too late, especially since both sides got their $4,000,000 already after Luthien. Meh...doesn't hurt to ask I guess.



He's not changing the rules after the fact.



He struck a key without knowing what the system would do. We have a saying for similar human errors in the IT field: he fat-fingered it. XD Okay, so he didn't technically fat-finger it, but you know what I mean...

That's not changing the rules. That's making an unanticipated human error via a computer. What he's doing now is making up for that mistake. That's what you do when you make mistakes, especially when you're the public face of the event system which splits the community down the middle every time an event is hosted.

You like events, right? You like free stuff, right?

However, that "fat finger" incident lead to clear marketing of a contest that had a prize that has a certain cash value (we can by MC for cash and MC can by C-Bills). People clearly thought the "27" was the threshold as indicated by his error. After the multi-day contest, they admit they had a typo and would after the fact adjust the contest to what they had intended but not communicated. This essentially moves the visible goals and awards some portion of players a prize (that has monetary value) that would not have been awarded under the advertised win conditions.

I think this is a violation of Canada's competition law (regulates promotional contests, which this is).

I think this change may open PGI to lawsuits

(Edited for a for a crap ton of typos. Sorry.)

Edited by Cato Zilks, 27 November 2017 - 08:24 PM.

[Black Lanner]

Neg, Cato, because Matt was talking about the coding. he said as much in the posts explaining the circumstances. Also, what is 4,000,000 C-bills? 4 FW drops? Not really that big of a deal.

Edited by Black Lanner, 27 November 2017 - 08:23 PM.

[StormDll]

Интересно, а пираньи будут пересматривать результаты битвы за Лютиен, там же было совершенно такое же {censored}ство

[MischiefSC]

Matt Newman, on 27 November 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Hello all!

Event Results.
- So the event did end in a tie based on the Conflict Victory thresholds as displayed in Faction Play.

Why did I say it was unlikely to end in a tie?
- The Displayed Victory threshold was not the intended Victory threshold. I had set the victory threshold to be 0 in the event creation window meaning 1 game on either side of the control bar would be considered a victory.

What went wrong.
- Setting the Victory threshold to Zero apparently means (to the game code) USE THE DEFAULT victory threshold which is 27. When I had set the event up I failed to check the victory threshold displayed in the game.
If I had, I would have noticed that the victory threshold was not functioning properly.

What are we doing?
- We are going to do some Manual Manipulation of the event to show it as a Clan Victory.Tharkad will be switched to Clan Jade Falcon and Clan Players will be able to claim the Victory prize.We will most likely have to restart services to fix this issue. Causing people to log out and ending matches prematurely.I will post again once we have tested our intended fix and we are ready to roll it out to production and restart the services.
TSP rewards will be injected shortly after the fix is in place.


Future events.
- I will be able to use a Victory threshold of 1 to minimize the chance of a Tie but not completely eliminate it.


Thanks for your Patience,
Matt Newman

That's great, I appreciate you sorting it out. Makes a lot more sense.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

The issue is that these are CAPITOL planets, not some periphery/border POS system that should not be won by a simple victory. Using Luthien setup Tharkad would have moved the bar to 94% (1% drops) with only 6 drops whereas Luthien pulled it back from the edge with 33 drops, moving the bar from 100% to 67% (corrected).

Got to thinking about it and PGI would be in the wrong to give Clans Luthien unless all of it was converted then the Clans would have lost instead of it being a tie. If Matt/PGI is going to use the Tharkad for future setup and wanted to back date it to Luthien, IS would have won instead of it being a tie. First, the drops changed from 1% to 3.3%... Each side of the bar is worth 30 increments, each increment being 3.3%....IS took back overall 33 increments, meaning IS would have won with simple victory. 30 on the Clan side and 3 increments or 9.9% into the IS side.....

I still stand that winning a Capitol planet though should not be a simple victory, it would need to be at least 75% with combat drops being worth 1% and not this 3.3% bs. Tharkad would have still been lost with 1%/each drop even at the current 90% setting.

[arcana75]

Cato Zilks, on 27 November 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

However, that "fat finger" incident lead to clear marketing of a contest that had a prize that has a certain cash value (we can by MC for cash and MC can by C-Bills). People clearly thought the "27" was the threshold as indicated by his error. After the multi-day contest, they admit they had a typo and would after the fact adjust the contest to what they had intended but not communicated. This essentially moves the visible goals and awards some portion of players a prize (that has monetary value) that would not have been awarded under the advertised win conditions.

I think this is a violation of Canada's competition law (regulates promotional contests, which this is).

I think this change may open PGI to lawsuits

(Edited for a for a crap ton of typos. Sorry.)

Admit it, you're just trying to milk PGI for an apology injection right? *wink wink nudge nudge*

[Cato Zilks]

Black Lanner, on 27 November 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

Neg, Cato, because Matt was talking about the coding. he said as much in the posts explaining the circumstances.

I saw his post. I understand there was a coding error. That coding error led to a miscommunication about the victory conditions such that what was advertised is not what they intended. Advertising is what matters when it comes to legal requirements surrounding promotional contests. So the fact that it was a mistake does not matter.

The advertised conditions remained unchanged for the entirety of the event, so again claiming afterwards that it was a mistake does nothing for the company in a legal sense. They still advertised a prize with measurable financial value (albeit small) to contestants, and then awarded that prize to contestants that did not meet the advertised conditions for winning that prize.

Black Lanner, on 27 November 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

Also, what is 4,000,000 C-bills? 4 FW drops? Not really that big of a deal.

Personally, I don't give a poo over 4mil cbills.

But back to legal issues, its about $15. I don't think anybody would really buy cbills with MC, but that doesn't matter because PGI has set up a way of converting $ into cbills giving the prize a measurable value. As the prize has a cash value, PGI needs to be careful here.

Edited by Cato Zilks, 27 November 2017 - 09:09 PM.

[Cato Zilks]

arcana75, on 27 November 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

Admit it, you're just trying to milk PGI for an apology injection right? *wink wink nudge nudge*

Lol, no.

I was unable to participate in the event. My computer is still sailing from Los Angeles on its way to Sidney (I hope to have it two weeks). So, I have nothing to gain. Moreover, I would prefer that Clanners would win so this season would be over. I would like to see a fresh start when I get back.

I am both annoyed that they would change this after the fact and I am concerned that this could lead to annoying legal issues that distract an understaffed company from putting resources on this game.

[dr3dnought]

Ok so I logged in an had an injection of 2,500,000 and a bunch of 250,000s. I assume the 250k's were the tournament supporter bonus. No idea what the 2.5mil is for.

The in-game event has the 4mil victory reward saying 'redeemed' but this is not reflected by my cbill balance. There's now also a 1mil reward for defeat that also says it is redeemed.

I guess the 2.5mil is (4+1)/2 since it was a tie? But the event now says Victor: Clan?

[KingJoo]

dr3dnought, on 27 November 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

Ok so I logged in an had an injection of 2,500,000 and a bunch of 250,000s. I assume the 250k's were the tournament supporter bonus. No idea what the 2.5mil is for.

The in-game event has the 4mil victory reward saying 'redeemed' but this is not reflected by my cbill balance. There's now also a 1mil reward for defeat that also says it is redeemed.

I guess the 2.5mil is (4+1)/2 since it was a tie? But the event now says Victor: Clan?

Those sound like your tournament supporter bonus' for november days and tharkad. I have not seen the boost of 4 mill for clan victory yet. When it was tie result we all would have received no 4 mill.

[Commander A9]

Clans had the majority during Luthien. How is that not a win for the Clans if we apply the Tukayyid competition standards, and said renewed standards which now address how Tharkad was supposed to have been decided?

That aside, I don't recall the $4,000,000 C-Bills based on victory conditions ever being advertised in the first place...

Guys, the wrong key was pressed...come on...are we hanging a man over typing 0 instead of 1?

Edited by Commander A9, 27 November 2017 - 09:36 PM.

[arcana75]

Cato Zilks, on 27 November 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

Lol, no.

I was unable to participate in the event. My computer is still sailing from Los Angeles on its way to Sidney (I hope to have it two weeks). So, I have nothing to gain. Moreover, I would prefer that Clanners would win so this season would be over. I would like to see a fresh start when I get back.

I am both annoyed that they would change this after the fact and I am concerned that this could lead to annoying legal issues that distract an understaffed company from putting resources on this game.

They didn't change the result after the fact. They made it such that the result matched the fact.

dr3dnought, on 27 November 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

Ok so I logged in an had an injection of 2,500,000 and a bunch of 250,000s. I assume the 250k's were the tournament supporter bonus. No idea what the 2.5mil is for.

The in-game event has the 4mil victory reward saying 'redeemed' but this is not reflected by my cbill balance. There's now also a 1mil reward for defeat that also says it is redeemed.

I guess the 2.5mil is (4+1)/2 since it was a tie? But the event now says Victor: Clan?

I got 2.75m and a whole bunch of 250ks. The 250ks I think are for the 6 Day Challenges so 6x250k, but I forgot to count them. The 2.75m is for the individual challenges within the Battle For Tharkad event and the Loyalist Event (JF for me), which for me added up to 11 individual challenges done (the 12th being the Atlas challenge, and 13th being the 4m Victory challenge). 11x250k = 2.75m cbills so that's right.

As Matt mentioned, the Battle For Tharkad event is meant to be a Clan victory and they will be doing the manual fixes to make it so server-side, hasn't happened yet. Once that's done the 4m cbills will be awarded to the Clans, plus an extra 250k for TSP.

[dr3dnought]

arcana75, on 27 November 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

I got 2.75m and a whole bunch of 250ks. The 250ks I think are for the 6 Day Challenges so 6x250k, but I forgot to count them. The 2.75m is for the individual challenges within the Battle For Tharkad event and the Loyalist Event (JF for me), which for me added up to 11 individual challenges done (the 12th being the Atlas challenge, and 13th being the 4m Victory challenge). 11x250k = 2.75m cbills so that's right.

As Matt mentioned, the Battle For Tharkad event is meant to be a Clan victory and they will be doing the manual fixes to make it so server-side, hasn't happened yet. Once that's done the 4m cbills will be awarded to the Clans, plus an extra 250k for TSP.

Ah that makes sense, thanks. Even more cbills to look forward to I guess!

Edited by dr3dnought, 27 November 2017 - 10:29 PM.

[Simulacrum]

Black Lanner, on 27 November 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

@Arkhangel @Questar:

I am extremely Proud of the 79th Raptor Talon Cluster! Anyone so inclined is welcome to check out our website at http://www.raptorgalaxy.com/

Congratulations, well deserved. salute

Commander A9, on 27 November 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

Clans had the majority during Luthien. How is that not a win for the Clans if we apply the Tukayyid competition standards, and said renewed standards which now address how Tharkad was supposed to have been decided?

Isnt it great to have a battle for a capital city and the Clans "lost" because of special conditions? Yes, we're playing a MMOG with loose connections to BattleTech lore but this fits so perfect into BT universe we should think back and smile.

Edited by Simulacrum, 27 November 2017 - 11:57 PM.

[Commander A9]

On to the next one, I suppose.

Well fought and done!

[Cato Zilks]

arcana75, on 27 November 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

They didn't change the result after the fact. They made it such that the result matched the fact.

Yes they are. The bar was at what people thought the capture point was. Just look here:
https://mwomercs.com...ion-to-the-tie/
90% is what people thought the point was. Thus, when it ended there and said tie, people flipped out that it was a tie. Note the thread is not filled with people saying "omg, wait! 90% is the threshold?!?! I thought it was fifty!!!" People saw that they failed to surpass 90% and were like "what a stupid plan."

As I have already said, people clearly demonstrated that they thought the line was the 90% line. Multiple threads confirm this. I will cite A9 saying it below. To say after the event was thought to be a tie, that the standard was something else is false advertising for a promotional contest. They clearly misrepresented to their customer base.

Commander A9, on 27 November 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

That aside, I don't recall the $4,000,000 C-Bills based on victory conditions ever being advertised in the first place...

Guys, the wrong key was pressed...come on...are we hanging a man over typing 0 instead of 1?

This you back on page 14:
"Still don't know how they can say "ties are extremely unlikely" when a tie is 90% likely given the capture thresholds to actually "win" the event by planet capture for either side.

Or perhaps they figured a "tie" was unlikely since the IS has most of the major units fighting for them.

This is Luthien all over again. I will laugh hysterically if Clans manage to "tie" this." ( https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5958003 )

and this:
"It will only take 3-4 wins to get the bar from 100% capture to the "tie" gradient.

Real smooth, PGI. XD ( https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5958258 )

Then there was this gem with the pictures: https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5958795

and just yesterday: https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__5958812
Hmmmmmmmm... you seemed to think the high capture thresholds were in place. Odd. And you seemed clearly aware of the 4 mil c-bill award for the victors. So I find it decidedly odd that you did think the 4 mil bonus was not advertised. More odd still that you are now defensive of this 50% line as having always been the right line despite the clear repeated evidence you your self gave that the perceived win line was the 90% line.

I don't want to hang Matt. I like Matt. I think he made an honest mistake. It was a little typo that should have been easily solved. To be fair, there were several typos like the smoke jag rewards for Jade Falcon loyalists, so maybe Matt needs to proofread a bit better (I am sympathetic, my typo rate is obscene.) But it wasn't until after the event that this second error was caught. It displayed tie, people were angry at the dumb system and how predictable this was. Predictable because you all thought it was a 90% threshold.

By your own words, I can point to the common understanding of how this event was pitched. But you sure change your tune fast when the benefit comes your way.