If devs implemented 50% someone said to them to type 50%.
Who pass the information to devs? The event design.
Why? If there’s something that can’t be implemented it will go back to event design and changed.
The announcement only comes later. It doesn’t change the specs sent to be coded.
What’s so hard to understand about this?
And yet, someone also decided to copy the double exp event page and written the new kupole mechanics as double, because that /was/ the plan.
What’s so hard to understand about this?
It’s not hard to understand.
It’s hard to find any reasonable explanation for your claim. Especially since you give nothing to support it.
My claim conflicts with yours and it’s that:
The 50% was the plan because it’s what was sent to the devs to code. You don’t simply type 50% out of reading 100% from specs.
The coding phase happens before the announcement phase.
Now may you give any single thing to support your claim so it doesn’t sound like someone butthurt?
Talking about being butthurt, we had a similar bug previous week where we had 200% instead of 100% for some time. The page said 100%.
I wonder why you didn’t file a bug report about receiving more exp for free but complains and say they’re lying when you receive less.
Sounds like butthurt’s behavior because you’re taking it personally, especially since you didn’t give anything to support your claim yet.
Event Page before the edit.
Miscommunication. Double EXP event. Devs might not even care about the damn page at all which is why it was changed after the event started. In the end they might not even know what’s intended and went with what they already did because they miscommunicated. Fact is, double page was used.
Event Page.
Seems to me that you’re mad now, I’m just chill. Now you’re calling people disagreeing with you as trolls or butthurt. Great.
Again, I don’t need any proof when I already had a screenshot of the event page before the edit.
It’s been two whole days…
Coding phase happens before that.
Or are you suggesting this is the development procedure of games?
-> Announce feature.
-> Develop the feature announced.
-> From the code, write the event specs.
-> From the event specs, design the event.
-> From the event design, have the event idea.
Isn’t that backwards?
So, may you stop trying to use your claim (that event page is the event design) to support your claim (that event page is the event design) and give any valid reasoning to what you’re talking about (give any valid explanation to why you think the event page is the event design)?
Planning comes first.
Miscommunication happens after.
You don’t write your plans randomly on public, you announce it when it’s decided.
that’s where 100% kicked in.
Sorry, I’m starting to find this entertaining, so I take my time to reply when I’m free lol
I agree. You announce when it’s decided.
It was decided after it was coded, where 50% kicks in.
Announcement was made wrong, 100% is wrongly placed and fixed back to 50%. They apologized about it and it’s now back to 50%.
And I pause the anime xD
And what made you sure that 50% was intended? because coding happened first?
Again miscommunication in between. It could either be 50 or 100.
You checked coding, great.
Now where does every other person not giving a damn look at?
The event page. This is why it’s very important. Literally everything about it before the edit was written as double.
Now you mention code where only very few people care. Which weighs more weight now(page-public or the code) and feel betrayed, spamming IMC well played in chat being mad? because that 100% was advertised, apparently.
Now instead of changing it back to 100% (because they cant either) they could always give out compensation such as 50% exp tomes to please the angry mob.
They didn’t. Just apologized. 50% as intended, on a widely announced double exp page.
Exactly.
Sure. But if we go this route, nor you nor I can prove any of our points.
Should we stop judging the situation or are we going to keep using arguments from ignorance or continue this useless discussion?
Ok. I know you won’t stop because 
And that’s where the error is.
Unfortunately people really don’t care with code. But that changes nothing of my point. This isn’t a popularity test.
Yeah, 100% was advertised. But the 50% was intended and implemented.
They fixed the error and apologized.
But it was never 100%.
If you talked to the Kupole at any time it would be always 50%.
Proof? Code that only a few people care about.
So, can you explain why are you claiming that talking to the Kupole would give 100% and then was changed to 50%?
Because that never happened. If you check the IPFs all the event code and buff descriptions are 50% since the maintenance.
I thought your point was just an understandable complaint out of frustration but now I’m lost on what are you trying to say with “changing the Kupole mechanics back to 100%” when it was always 50%.
Event page, that was the plan and that was the page used.
Everything written about it was double. Even the system forum announcement said double.
Did any of the staff cared? No, because they knew that was the plan, double exp.
If you tell me they missed the system forum post, that’s another problem or worse, proves that they rarely check the forum.
50% was never intended. No proofs of it ever said it was intended. It was just coded, never intended. You can never show proof that it was intended either.
Since you mentioned human error also several posts ago:
Might as well:
Person A told Dev to implement 100%.
Dev Implemented 50%.
This fck up is much more likely to happen than:
Having several 100%/Double mechanics written. As well as a forum post saying double exp weekend.
So do you agree with me that the 50% EXP bonus was coded and never changed since the event was implemented because that was the task that the dev team was asked to do?
Added the line a few posts ago.
The DEV team could very well fck it up. Since you like arguing that they misused the page lmao
And yes, I agree with you that the DEV made it 50%. But told them to make it 50%? no.
So I take that we agree that Devs made it 50%.
Based on this that we agree on we have 2 paths:
A) Dev team received wrong task.
B) Dev team implemented the task wrong.
Supporting A:
Possible, miscommunication.
Against A:
The dev team implemented more parts of the even that aren’t part of the announcement such as the Talt requirement for the buffs.
Supporting B:
Possible, someone less experienced might have read the specs wrong or made a typo.
Against B:
100 and 50 are too different to type. It’s unlikely that a typo happened even with less experienced programmers.
Do you also agree with these possible paths and arguments against and supporting each of them?
yes, because several announcements where already made where it’s even visible for the staff to clearly see double EXP weekend. Nothing was done about it, except after the event start.
This isn’t even about typo. Could be very well thinking about something else and accidentally thought it was 50 instead of 100.
With everything written at 100 or double and NOTHING AT ALL for the public that says 50. You will already know which side the public will claim, and why they are not pleased with 50 after they’ve prepared enough. Talt is another salt to add, but it’s a different story.
Yes. This is why I don’t get why you got mad with my initial statement, it’s very possible. Did I deny yours completely? No, I didn’t care. That’s what I think, I’ll stay with it.
You won’t find me bashing anyone for not supporting my opinion at all on this post, I never even call anyone butthurt or whatever, I just argue with a cool head because I clearly see what’s happening on the event page, as other players. This is the first thing you’ll try to look at when something is wrong.
So thanks for making it clear that you agree with the paths and arguments supporting and against the paths.
Let’s move to another thing to make sure if we’re on the same page or not.
Based on what we’ve agreed upon now we have again 2 paths:
A) Event design gave wrong information to Devs.
B) Event design gave wrong information to Announcements.
Supporting A:
Possible, miscommunication.
Against A:
The announcement was fixed and the text considers Devs case as intended.
Supporting B:
Possible, miscommunication.
Against B:
The announcement is public and is what should be valid, it’s something that should be handled with care.
So, do you agree with these presented paths and arguments against and supporting each of them?
Yes.
The word intended should never be used either when nothing shows it anywhere at all that it was intended.
The key word that made players displeased. I don’t mind the event at all in the end, but the friends I invited in do, and they’re now about to quit…again because they smell something really bad going inside.
Ok. We agree on most things.
I’ll throw the white flag. I have nothing to discuss anymore.
It doesn’t actually matter what’s the real intended is. As much we discuss, it’s true that the wrong announcement have bad side effects, be it intended or not.
Let’s not extend this anymore.
But, there’s just one thing I can’t agree with you at all, which is the reason I kept answering to you all this time.
And it’s actually fitting that you talked about the word intended. That’s exactly what made me displeased.
You initially took upon this situation as if IMC was publishing wrong information at will, in an intended way, by using the word “lie”.
We even agreed on all paths that it’s most likely based on error of someone or another. It’s really a serious error in the end, that shouldn’t happen and have bad consequences.
So, let me ask a last thing, do you really think they intended to give the wrong data to one department or another to cause this mess out of their will?
Or can we just agree that it’s a fuggin serious error, with various possible reasons, that shouldn’t happen but isn’t intentional and not actually a lie?
sorry for this part, but
More of the possibility of an error that lead to a lie, because they couldn’t fix it in time (no weekend dev/staff to get the permission) so they had to “lie” < this was the lie I was talking about, not the whole thing. Only the updated announcement.
Whoever gave the wrong data should just come out. It’s not yesterday or a day before that it was announced. Anyone clicking on “new” on forum could clearly see double exp weekend.
Again, the lie I’m talking about wasn’t publishing the wrong information at will, just that they couldn’t fix it in time and had to go with it. What’s intended? We aren’t sure, no one can prove that. I’m just basing on every damn announcement made public. What do you think makes it look intended now?
On that I can’t agree with you at all and it’s pretty clear on my previous posts.
That’s your point of view. I can see your point of view clearly.
It honestly, really, doesn’t matter for me now what’s intended or not. I decided to stop with this. I’ll just give up and take the approach of relating to your point of view and other possibles points of views.
I can’t reproduce the most likely thoughts of event designers, QA nor announcement people. But I can relate to how programming jobs/tasks works and how decisions should be made when errors happens. By being able to relate a little on how specs works and how decisions are made to fix these type of errors, I think my point of view about the chain is decent enough. It might not be, I might be wrong.
But my point of view is based on my experience, from within the game and from events outside the game. And that’s it.
From looking from various points of view I see your point, I see the point that it can be intended since the first day, I see the point that they also could have talked and decided which one is the better or which one should be the “intended” if each department got conflicting specs.
Even if we pick the “they could have decided” - I don’t see that as a lie. You see that as a lie.
My reasoning is simple. I’ll take your point of view here. The error can’t be fixed by who’s available. I’ll also throw off the reasoning that it’s about XML files server-side and client-side which are easy to edit.
Even under this my opinion is that you gotta solve the problem. If it’s out of your hands you go the representative people/superior departments in the hierarchy or who takes decisions.
Let’s take that they come to the conclusion that they can’t fix at all.
We’ll reach the “no devs, can’t change” - you gotta fix. Editing the page is what you call a lie. Even on this case I’d see it as decision change.
If the only problem is the word “intended”. We can agree here, IF it wasn’t intended or gives the image of not being so, and they add this word there, it can sound bad. Wording it better, fixing the entire announcement, making sure to never copy-paste announcement are also examples of things that could make this situation better.
About the “lie” x “not lie” though, unfortunately, we can only agree to disagree.
I understand you but I just can’t see any malice or ill intention on any of the conditions. And this comes from me, who some guildies even came asking if I’m well because I’m taking a long break from the game because lack of content.
As much as I can see their errors clearly and things they lack, I don’t see things with this event (and many other things - especially when it isn’t related to money/gacha/TP) that really falls on what a lie is, in the “lie” meaning, nor coming from ill intentions.
Maybe it’s just a matter of word choice, yet, I don’t see anything that deserves the “lie label”, in any of the possible cases.