Welcome to our Forums!

Type /register while in-game to register for a forum account.

Fight Terminations

Magpieman

Old One
Staff member
Old One
Today there was a fight on Balak 4 between the alliances Best in the South and Regional Powers. During the fight, Golems stopped spawning on the attackers inhib (RP) making it impossible for the Defenders to advance the objective. Staff then terminated the fight because I and Crypt have informed them that if there is ever a major bug that affects one side fights should be terminated. Neither of us was around for this fight, but staff did everything correctly based on our policy regarding fight terminations.

However, due to the specific circumstances of this fight, me and crypt have since looked over the data and what happened to decide if we should amend the outcome. Regional Powers were clearly ahead in this fight and on course to win, so looking at the bigger picture, the fact that their golems were not spawning on the inhib made little to no difference to the overall result. This puts us in a difficult position when analyzing whether this fight should remain terminated or the win given to Regional Powers, as that would have been the outcome if the fight had not been terminated (irrelevant to the bug). If we're being completely honest we could make an argument, either way. We tend to always terminate fights when one side encounters a major bug like that, so in that sense, it is consistent and fair with what we normally do. However, there is also the common sense angle, and looking at the specific circumstances of this fight (with data showing there was only going to be one winner) we could say the bug did not have a real/large impact on the fight. While it would be easier for us to simply rule by the book and say there is a bug affecting just one side so termination is fair, it does not feel within the spirit of conquest. We, therefore, feel the most logical, correct, and common sense thing to do is award the win to Regional Powers, as this would have been the result had we not terminated the fight. That puts Regional Powers on 109 Strength and Best in the South on 97 (this will not show up on live immediately but we will re-run the calculations should any fights happen before the new numbers are pushed).

We appreciate that whatever way we rule on this, one side/alliance will feel aggrieved and hard done by. We apologize for that and are aware this issue stems from bugs in conquest. We believe it is one of the remaining bugs introduced by sharding the server (Putting each world on its own PC). With conquest being in a more polished and stable state these days, once these ones are ironed out, conquest bugs should become far more infrequent. Unfortunately, though, bugs are an inevitable part of coding/video games, every Minecraft update, paper update, or patch we make to Loka has the possibility of breaking something. Even major game releases are full of bugs and they have million-dollar budgets and thousands of people testing them. While many of you will not have much experience coding, those that do will understand the difficulties with it. The same goes for fixing bugs, as those that seem simple on the surface are sometimes far from it, and some fixes can even end up creating new bugs. What we can do though is try to fix bugs as soon as we are made aware of them and resolve any issues that those bugs caused. Obviously, we have very limited resources but I promise you we do try our best.

This opens up a conversation that we have had in the past with the community and LCRs, which is how we should handle bugged fights. We effectively have 3 options:
  1. Do not interfere with fights at all and let the RNG of bugs decide what happens. If you get unlucky and encounter a bugged conquest fight, too bad.
    • Pro: No possible bias or human error.
    • Con: The least fair and will result in the most 'wrong' decisions/outcomes. People may be able to abuse bugs to manipulate the results of conquest fights.
  2. Put in a strict set of rules that cover every eventuality we can think of and terminate fights that fall under those categories, regardless of context.
    • Pro: Minimal chance of bias and human error but will still require interpretation of rules. Will result in the most extreme unfair fights being terminated.
    • Con: No room for common sense to overrule so some decisions will appear dumb and illogical.
  3. Use common sense along with a guideline of rules that dictate what sort of things we are willing to terminate fights for.
    • Pro: Should result in the most 'correct' and fair decision.
    • Con: Maximum chance of subconscious bias and human error.
We are more than happy to talk about this again. The last time it was discussed the community landed on option 3. Back in the day we had no concept of terminating fights and option 1 was what always happened. There are of course pros and cons to each and everyone has different goals/motives so will likely gravitate to different options.

We want to terminate as few fights as possible, a balance between competitive fairness and fun. People put a lot of effort into preparing for fights and it sucks if it was all for nothing because the fight cannot go ahead. There are also plenty of peeps that show up for fights purely for fun and they would prefer if fights continued even if they are disadvantaged by bugs. This is why bugs that affect both sides we usually let slide. Obviously, if you are hyper-competitive you can argue these bugs could suit one sides fighting style more than another, but we feel that crosses the fun to competitive balance line. The same goes if a small handful of people are unable to warp from both sides. I suppose you could even make the argument that terminating a fight for one of these reasons would advantage one side over the other because they have fewer opportunities to gain strength if they are behind, it opened up their vuln, gave away a specific strat etc.

We also don't have every tool under the sun at our disposal. Things like 'simply' restarting a fight or refunding attacks may not be options we or staff have. As time has gone by we have added more and more tools to deal with potential issues that could arise in conquest to help smooth them out, but as with everything they take time and effort (and in this case for things that should not happen very often). Conquest is a complex feature so unless we have specifically coded a tool to do something we often can not do it at all (not even manually).

It is also worth noting that holding off fights until the end of the month runs a risk. There is always a chance a bug pops up or the server is ddossed etc. so that must-win fight may never get a chance to happen. Obviously, we want to avoid these issues cropping up but you can play it safer by getting a lead earlier in the month (if possible, we respect sometimes it is not).

In conclusion, we apologize for the bugs that have occurred in conquest recently as they are far from ideal from all party's perspectives. We will try our best to eradicate them and want to open up the discussion with the community on the best way we can deal with the incidents if they crop up. We'd love to get everyone's feedback on the topic.
 

ArcherSquid

Well-Known Member
Muted
This post reflects the concerns of the alliance collectively, not one specific person.

This puts us in a difficult position when analyzing whether this fight should remain terminated or the win given to Regional Powers, as that would have been the outcome if the fight had not been terminated (irrelevant to the bug). If we're being completely honest we could make an argument, either way. We tend to always terminate fights when one side encounters a major bug like that, so in that sense, it is consistent and fair with what we normally do.
There has not been a situation, or certainly not one of this magnitude, that resulted in a side receiving strength for a fight that was terminated. The policy on the server has stayed true up until now that terminated fights are just that and that both sides lose out on potions/strength.

However, there is also the common sense angle, and looking at the specific circumstances of this fight (with data showing there was only going to be one winner) we could say the bug did not have a real/large impact on the fight. While it would be easier for us to simply rule by the book and say there is a bug affecting just one side so termination is fair, it does not feel within the spirit of conquest.
How does this relate to the fight where we couldn't use our shulkers without losing them? The fight was just awarded to RP whilst we were unable to use shulkers. The argument "well it affected both sides" we were outnumbered. Whilst outnumbered in https://eldritchbot.com/fight?id=B1DeCr3Lc our average player used a whole inventory more of pots. However, it was said that affected both sides so it didn't give any advantage.

If this fight just gave RP strength due to the fact that they were on pace to win then by that same logic you need to give the strength lost back in the fight where we couldn't repot. This whole precedent that is set is unfair. The discrepancies in how situations are handled are inconsistent. The fact that one fight where there was a problem out the gate that affected one side more than the other was just allowed to occur which was free strength rather than being terminated is inconsistent in itself.

The timing for this is also quite unfortunate, as a day before cap day there is a major decision made on how terminated fights are going to be handled.


We, therefore, feel the most logical, correct, and common sense thing to do is award the win to Regional Powers, as this would have been the result had we not terminated the fight.
Common sense wouldn't dictate BITS winning while outnumbered by 20. Common sense cannot dictate the tide of the fight.
See https://eldritchbot.com/fight?id=B1DeCr3Lc

The screenshots provided in the other forum post may provide a compelling case, however, there is only speculation and conclusions can not be drawn based on others' opinions.


In conclusion, we apologize for the bugs that have occurred in conquest recently as they are far from ideal from all party's perspectives. We will try our best to eradicate them and want to open up the discussion with the community on the best way we can deal with the incidents if they crop up. We'd love to get everyone's feedback on the topic.
The feedback we provided above shows how we feel about the situation. These huge decisions and changes in precedent cannot occur a day before cap day and cannot sway the results of hours of grinding, fighting, and planning. The decision needs to be thoroughly reviewed and must keep in mind that there are hundreds of players involved.
 

36s

Active Member
Slicer
We should also make it so that whoever has the most numbers before fight starts automatically wins, no point actually fighting
 
  • Like
Reactions: Qfu

Greeneryy

Well-Known Member
Muted
Today there was a fight on Balak 4 between the alliances Best in the South and Regional Powers. During the fight, Golems stopped spawning on the attackers inhib (RP) making it impossible for the Defenders to advance the objective. Staff then terminated the fight because I and Crypt have informed them that if there is ever a major bug that affects one side fights should be terminated. Neither of us was around for this fight, but staff did everything correctly based on our policy regarding fight terminations.

However, due to the specific circumstances of this fight, me and crypt have since looked over the data and what happened to decide if we should amend the outcome. Regional Powers were clearly ahead in this fight and on course to win, so looking at the bigger picture, the fact that their golems were not spawning on the inhib made little to no difference to the overall result. This puts us in a difficult position when analyzing whether this fight should remain terminated or the win given to Regional Powers, as that would have been the outcome if the fight had not been terminated (irrelevant to the bug). If we're being completely honest we could make an argument, either way. We tend to always terminate fights when one side encounters a major bug like that, so in that sense, it is consistent and fair with what we normally do. However, there is also the common sense angle, and looking at the specific circumstances of this fight (with data showing there was only going to be one winner) we could say the bug did not have a real/large impact on the fight. While it would be easier for us to simply rule by the book and say there is a bug affecting just one side so termination is fair, it does not feel within the spirit of conquest. We, therefore, feel the most logical, correct, and common sense thing to do is award the win to Regional Powers, as this would have been the result had we not terminated the fight. That puts Regional Powers on 109 Strength and Best in the South on 97 (this will not show up on live immediately but we will re-run the calculations should any fights happen before the new numbers are pushed).

We appreciate that whatever way we rule on this, one side/alliance will feel aggrieved and hard done by. We apologize for that and are aware this issue stems from bugs in conquest. We believe it is one of the remaining bugs introduced by sharding the server (Putting each world on its own PC). With conquest being in a more polished and stable state these days, once these ones are ironed out, conquest bugs should become far more infrequent. Unfortunately, though, bugs are an inevitable part of coding/video games, every Minecraft update, paper update, or patch we make to Loka has the possibility of breaking something. Even major game releases are full of bugs and they have million-dollar budgets and thousands of people testing them. While many of you will not have much experience coding, those that do will understand the difficulties with it. The same goes for fixing bugs, as those that seem simple on the surface are sometimes far from it, and some fixes can even end up creating new bugs. What we can do though is try to fix bugs as soon as we are made aware of them and resolve any issues that those bugs caused. Obviously, we have very limited resources but I promise you we do try our best.

This opens up a conversation that we have had in the past with the community and LCRs, which is how we should handle bugged fights. We effectively have 3 options:
  1. Do not interfere with fights at all and let the RNG of bugs decide what happens. If you get unlucky and encounter a bugged conquest fight, too bad.
    • Pro: No possible bias or human error.
    • Con: The least fair and will result in the most 'wrong' decisions/outcomes. People may be able to abuse bugs to manipulate the results of conquest fights.
  2. Put in a strict set of rules that cover every eventuality we can think of and terminate fights that fall under those categories, regardless of context.
    • Pro: Minimal chance of bias and human error but will still require interpretation of rules. Will result in the most extreme unfair fights being terminated.
    • Con: No room for common sense to overrule so some decisions will appear dumb and illogical.
  3. Use common sense along with a guideline of rules that dictate what sort of things we are willing to terminate fights for.
    • Pro: Should result in the most 'correct' and fair decision.
    • Con: Maximum chance of subconscious bias and human error.
We are more than happy to talk about this again. The last time it was discussed the community landed on option 3. Back in the day we had no concept of terminating fights and option 1 was what always happened. There are of course pros and cons to each and everyone has different goals/motives so will likely gravitate to different options.

We want to terminate as few fights as possible, a balance between competitive fairness and fun. People put a lot of effort into preparing for fights and it sucks if it was all for nothing because the fight cannot go ahead. There are also plenty of peeps that show up for fights purely for fun and they would prefer if fights continued even if they are disadvantaged by bugs. This is why bugs that affect both sides we usually let slide. Obviously, if you are hyper-competitive you can argue these bugs could suit one sides fighting style more than another, but we feel that crosses the fun to competitive balance line. The same goes if a small handful of people are unable to warp from both sides. I suppose you could even make the argument that terminating a fight for one of these reasons would advantage one side over the other because they have fewer opportunities to gain strength if they are behind, it opened up their vuln, gave away a specific strat etc.

We also don't have every tool under the sun at our disposal. Things like 'simply' restarting a fight or refunding attacks may not be options we or staff have. As time has gone by we have added more and more tools to deal with potential issues that could arise in conquest to help smooth them out, but as with everything they take time and effort (and in this case for things that should not happen very often). Conquest is a complex feature so unless we have specifically coded a tool to do something we often can not do it at all (not even manually).

It is also worth noting that holding off fights until the end of the month runs a risk. There is always a chance a bug pops up or the server is ddossed etc. so that must-win fight may never get a chance to happen. Obviously, we want to avoid these issues cropping up but you can play it safer by getting a lead earlier in the month (if possible, we respect sometimes it is not).

In conclusion, we apologize for the bugs that have occurred in conquest recently as they are far from ideal from all party's perspectives. We will try our best to eradicate them and want to open up the discussion with the community on the best way we can deal with the incidents if they crop up. We'd love to get everyone's feedback on the topic.
shit whack
 

Dae_

Active Member
Muted
This post reflects the concerns of the alliance collectively, not one specific person.


There has not been a situation, or certainly not one of this magnitude, that resulted in a side receiving strength for a fight that was terminated. The policy on the server has stayed true up until now that terminated fights are just that and that both sides lose out on potions/strength.


How does this relate to the fight where we couldn't use our shulkers without losing them? The fight was just awarded to RP whilst we were unable to use shulkers. The argument "well it affected both sides" we were outnumbered. Whilst outnumbered in https://eldritchbot.com/fight?id=B1DeCr3Lc our average player used a whole inventory more of pots. However, it was said that affected both sides so it didn't give any advantage.

If this fight just gave RP strength due to the fact that they were on pace to win then by that same logic you need to give the strength lost back in the fight where we couldn't repot. This whole precedent that is set is unfair. The discrepancies in how situations are handled are inconsistent. The fact that one fight where there was a problem out the gate that affected one side more than the other was just allowed to occur which was free strength rather than being terminated is inconsistent in itself.

The timing for this is also quite unfortunate, as a day before cap day there is a major decision made on how terminated fights are going to be handled.



Common sense wouldn't dictate BITS winning while outnumbered by 20. Common sense cannot dictate the tide of the fight.
See https://eldritchbot.com/fight?id=B1DeCr3Lc

The screenshots provided in the other forum post may provide a compelling case, however, there is only speculation and conclusions can not be drawn based on others' opinions.



The feedback we provided above shows how we feel about the situation. These huge decisions and changes in precedent cannot occur a day before cap day and cannot sway the results of hours of grinding, fighting, and planning. The decision needs to be thoroughly reviewed and must keep in mind that there are hundreds of players involved.
Common sense can dictate the tide of the fight when you were wiped not once, but twice. To the point of 80v4. BITS would've lost this fight whether you want to try and argue that or not. BITS members even agreed that this was true with some of those being your own leadership. You cannot deny that RP would've won this fight.

The whole shulker bug fight was the exact same as this.. RP would've won no matter if shulkers were there or not and yet again that's common sense. It affected both sides of the fight so you should go off common sense here. RP would've won, both sides were at the same disadvantage meaning RP clearly should've won.. you cant argue that fight should've been termed in BITS favour when it is CLEAR, RP won.

The fact it was the day before cap is unfortunate, but that's how the month works. It's not over until it's over and the termination of the fight was clearly unfair for us, not BITS as we would've won. As mag says, it's clear RP would've won no matter if the golems spawned or not. The timing was sad for both sides no matter who lost, leaving both sides at an equality in that regard.

These decisions with last nights fight and the shulker bug fight clearly aren't unfair since there was one obvious winner.. You cannot argue that having more pots would've stopped your entire alliance from dying quickly and us getting into core/finishing the fight within 10m.

It is more than obvious RP should've won these fights, it's more than obvious you will try and argue your way into fights being rolled back when RP clearly should've won these fights and therefore the month but oh well. I don't see how you can genuinely believe you should've won/gotten the strength for these fights when there was such a clear winner in all of them.
 

jakeman5

Well-Known Member
Slicer
Common sense can dictate the tide of the fight when you were wiped not once, but twice. To the point of 80v4. BITS would've lost this fight whether you want to try and argue that or not. BITS members even agreed that this was true with some of those being your own leadership. You cannot deny that RP would've won this fight.

The whole shulker bug fight was the exact same as this.. RP would've won no matter if shulkers were there or not and yet again that's common sense. It affected both sides of the fight so you should go off common sense here. RP would've won, both sides were at the same disadvantage meaning RP clearly should've won.. you cant argue that fight should've been termed in BITS favour when it is CLEAR, RP won.

The fact it was the day before cap is unfortunate, but that's how the month works. It's not over until it's over and the termination of the fight was clearly unfair for us, not BITS as we would've won. As mag says, it's clear RP would've won no matter if the golems spawned or not. The timing was sad for both sides no matter who lost, leaving both sides at an equality in that regard.

These decisions with last nights fight and the shulker bug fight clearly aren't unfair since there was one obvious winner.. You cannot argue that having more pots would've stopped your entire alliance from dying quickly and us getting into core/finishing the fight within 10m.

It is more than obvious RP should've won these fights, it's more than obvious you will try and argue your way into fights being rolled back when RP clearly should've won these fights and therefore the month but oh well. I don't see how you can genuinely believe you should've won/gotten the strength for these fights when there was such a clear winner in all of them.
Did you even take a second to read the reasoning? Or did you just see something about the possibility of RP losing and dismiss it due to pure arrogance? You essentially took a bunch of time to reiterate the sentiment that “RP was better you never had a chance”. That is incredibly unproductive and doesn’t look into the nuisances of this situation.
 

Dae_

Active Member
Muted
Did you even take a second to read the reasoning? Or did you just see something about the possibility of RP losing and dismiss it due to pure arrogance? You essentially took a bunch of time to reiterate the sentiment that “RP was better you never had a chance”. That is incredibly unproductive and doesn’t look into the nuisances of this situation.
Because that's literally the facts of the situation. You DIDN'T have a chance, in any of these fights. Stop acting like you did and it's unfair. Nuisances like our fights getting termed earlier in the month when it was 100v60 happened too. That just got termed and left. None of these fights were close, it's more than clear we would've won these fights...
 

jakeman5

Well-Known Member
Slicer
Because that's literally the facts of the situation. You DIDN'T have a chance, in any of these fights. Stop acting like you did and it's unfair. Nuisances like our fights getting termed earlier in the month when it was 100v60 happened too. That just got termed and left. None of these fights were close, it's more than clear we would've won these fights...
Dae you cannot say with certainty anything. I can say with certainty however that RP required a clear change in precedent in order to win the month.
 

jakeman5

Well-Known Member
Slicer
View attachment 4411
You're trying to deny this is a clear win??
Yes, the fight wasn’t over. A clear win is when the last lamp goes down and when core is completed. You can argue “we were on pace to a dominating victory” that is assuming a lot. I saw a lot of things in which we looked on pace to win many times and it not turn out that way. Hell you even left your alliance and quit because of it. So I don’t know why you think anything is out of the realm of possibility.
 

Dae_

Active Member
Muted
Yes, the fight wasn’t over. A clear win is when the last lamp goes down and when core is completed. You can argue “we were on pace to a dominating victory” that is assuming a lot. I saw a lot of things in which we looked on pace to win many times and it not turn out that way. Hell you even left your alliance and quit because of it. So I don’t know why you think anything is out of the realm of possibility.
I never quit my alliance, I made half of your alliance leave within 1 week because they thought I had given up and that helped us win the month.. Core couldn't have happened (we were on defense) and the last lamp would've gone down since there were 2 DIFFERENT warps where these numbers happened. Stop being stupid jake.. you're better than that bro..
 
Back
Top