Yeah it was a tough decision, but it was made to prevent rarities from decreasing too quickly, as you stated.
I suppose what it could do, if one server is more than 2.5% lower than the other, it could catch up on map change. But then you have the issue of map changes being quicker depending on player count.
One solution I was considering was making the rarity decrease time based rather than map based, but I didn't like that idea much.
I suppose to most fair solution is to indeed 'catch up' to the lowest rarity available on map-start. I don't want to make it an average as it could potentially increase the number on one server on map change, making the people salty.
-edit- just noticed you said only apply that during a reset. That's fair.
I suppose what it could do, if one server is more than 2.5% lower than the other, it could catch up on map change. But then you have the issue of map changes being quicker depending on player count.
One solution I was considering was making the rarity decrease time based rather than map based, but I didn't like that idea much.
I suppose to most fair solution is to indeed 'catch up' to the lowest rarity available on map-start. I don't want to make it an average as it could potentially increase the number on one server on map change, making the people salty.
-edit- just noticed you said only apply that during a reset. That's fair.
x1
x1
x1