Crate event cut short by Gree glitch???

[fofito30]

Ok Gree, CJ or whoever is on duty. You announced that the crate event was to end at certain time, yet due to you pushing the new Raid boss event it seemed there is a glitch that players couldn't finish the event. As a matter of a fact there is a Thad where CJ admitted they were working on it. Now there is no crate event and those who were closing on top whatever couldn't finish their games because of your glitch, that is, your responsibility.
What happens now? Are you awarding the top50 unit to every person or are you extending the time like you have done so often when certain players from certain faction see their best interest at harm? Or are you returning all the gold used by players?
Would be nice to hear what or how do you propose to fix this big screw up on your part, AGAIN

[CJ54]

We're talking about what to do about this one, actually.

We're not extending the time. We might be able to look at the affected players and award a slightly wider amount of people who were close to one of the tiers at the end, if people are okay with that.

[Trebor]

Something's better then nothing. Top 75. Top 275 ?

[fofito30]

Something's better then nothing. Top 75. Top 275 ?

Would say Top 100 and Top 300, also how you plan those players that felt short opening boxes for coins (i.e. 5,10,15,20)?

[Mastert55!]

Maybe just give everyone the top 50 prize!!!

[marcrochon]

I had 9 bows and had 2 hours 45 minutes left and bam event over meanwhile when raiding still getting crate drops..boss event cant get intel folders to drop but crate event is over and they are still dropping when i do missions?
Would love to have the 10th bow for that medal..

[CJ54]

Would say Top 100 and Top 300, also how you plan those players that felt short opening boxes for coins (i.e. 5,10,15,20)?

Expand on that last bit a little? Apologies for not understanding the difference between that and the other, it's been a bit of a day.

[fofito30]

Expand on that last bit a little? Apologies for not understanding the difference between that and the other, it's been a bit of a day.

My idea would be expand Top 50 to increase the pool to Top100. The top 250 increased to Top300.
Only question is how you plan to expand to those still looking into the medal rounds. One idea could be to grant the highest closest medal; for example if player had 11 crates open then he is granted the medal for 15 crates open and so forth.
Think it can only be fair, plus just an idea

[CJ54]

My idea would be expand Top 50 to increase the pool to Top100. The top 250 increased to Top300.
Only question is how you plan to expand to those still looking into the medal rounds. One idea could be to grant the highest closest medal; for example if player had 11 crates open then he is granted the medal for 15 crates open and so forth.
Think it can only be fair, plus just an idea

We could theoretically do something like this; our concern is (given past cases where we did something like this) that we would get complaints from the people who placed on the leaderboard that they could have done less to place. Personally I think that something like what you are suggesting is what we should do, though.

[fofito30]

We could theoretically do something like this; our concern is (given past cases where we did something like this) that we would get complaints from the people who placed on the leaderboard that they could have done less to place. Personally I think that something like what you are suggesting is what we should do, though.

Quite honestly been on top 50 several times and know how it goes. Is either increasing the pool or bringing the event back for the rest of the 2 hours left. Speaking for myself was in position to get into the top 50 when the glitch happened.
Thanks for your prompt replies and awaiting feedback

[Jesse21]

We could theoretically do something like this; our concern is (given past cases where we did something like this) that we would get complaints from the people who placed on the leaderboard that they could have done less to place. Personally I think that something like what you are suggesting is what we should do, though.

I have to agree I was about to (hopefully) get my second medal.

[splinker]

I had 9 out of 10 succesful opens. Would be nice to get an additional medal - good compensation.

[Birmingham171]

I threw down gold trying to get in my 25 bow reward... I got 24/25 with gold left and cut short... It was more than a little disappointing... Any thoughts on compensation for these situations?

[Dansgek]

I wanted to go for 4 medals. First as long as i could do that and finish to 20 with gold, this way i wouldnt miss out on medals and grt as farcas i could with cash openings. I'm stuck at 8.so i miss 3 medals now.

[CJ54]

CJ54 there would not be as many complaints as you think, if the full 2 hours lost were there, most of these people would not of placed in the top 50, it was a gift for them, because we were waiting in hiding the ones in place 51 to 100, more than 1/2 these people would have surged, grant top 50 prize to the top 100 and everyone who participates would agree it would be a fair solution

Well, person 101 might feel that the cut-off was arbitrary

So here is the golden question: This issue mainly affected iOS users; they were the ones locked out for the last two hours. So, hypothetically (this is still under discussion but we wanted to bounce this off of the community) if we awarded down 100 people or so, would that just be counting iOS users or Droid and iOS combined? (Android users who participated in the event, would like to hear from you on this). The general sentiment over on this side would be "pick the number of tokens the chosen spot would get, and award based on that number, since this was a bit of a wash". Even though it was one platform affected, it is frankly no good if someone on one platform got 30 tokens (or whatever) and did not get the same thing that someone else who got 30 tokens received.

Also, this thread (and I should really make a dedicated thread to get more attention) is something of an experiment. We are still going to have to do what we feel is right given the wider spread of things, but we'd prefer to get community sentiment or at the least show more of the "this is why we think we should do X to resolve Y" type of thinking that goes on over here. A lot of the decisions that look unilateral are not made in a vacuum or without relatively solid reasoning, although I imagine it can appear that way with lack of involvement.