**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
The problem isn't really the 1/2/3 energy scale, as some people are focusing on. That's entirely reasonable for the jump in rewards to be accompanied by a jump in energy costs. It is the step count that seems to me to be completely artificial: 44 total steps for full exploration seems very high to me. If every single fight on the maps had, say, a chance to drop a goldpool crystal, then I would actually prefer the longer maps and consider that reasonable incentivization for all the fights on the map. I'd actually consider the relative energy costs to be at least "reasonably low" compared to the potential rewards.
Everyone was expect maybe 1 energy per tile, maybe 2. But 3 per tile and 132 energy to complete the quest is in no way shape or form low energy cost.
The issue is the community feeling like we were misled or lied to, yet again.
I honestly believe most people here wouldn't be upset if Kabam hadn't announced it as 'low energy cost' and instead just said "We're bringing back halls of fortune - and this time we're starting the week with it so there's one additional hall of fortune instead of healing. It's standard energy cost for halls of fortune and halls of healing are free." Sure, maybe people would be like "Wish HoF could be free too!" or "Could you reduce the energy costs for HoF also??" but that would only be a handful of people and in that scenario, Kabam would have legs to stand on, because they told us exactly what we were getting. IF they had done that...
This however? It's misrepresentation.
It's not low energy cost. Plain and simple. Yes, at the end of the day, it's an additional event Kabam threw our way for fun. You don't need to do it, arena is still the cheapest and best way at getting gold and that has a 0 energy cost. But that's not the point and not why people are upset.
You're right in that people need to pick and choose their battles and this may be a small thing. But honestly? These 'small things' add up and people are upset because this misrepresentation and then attempt at doubling-down "Oh yeah... it's low energy cost, what are you talking about?" "Some people would absolutely call this low..." it's just one more in a long list of 'small things' which gas-light the community. I won't go into the others because this isn't a thread for that... but honestly, just own it.
Don't say or imply that some people would consider this low energy cost.
Don't try to defend or double-down.
Legitimately? I'd be happy with a mod simply saying: "You're all right. These aren't low energy costs, sorry, that was a miscommunication on our part and we will work to do better."
It didn't say lower than usual. It said low. It's called Advertising. "For the low, low price of.....". If you're offended by that, I don't debate how people feel. As for the issue however, it's really blown out of proportion. That's my opinion.
In other words, if McDonalds says they have the best tasting burger in a commercial, I don't consider that a "lie" if it turns out that I don't think it's the best tasting burger. I wouldn't even consider that a lie if everyone I knew agreed it wasn't the best tasting burger. That's just marketing. But if they said their burger had the most ground beef of any burger and it wasn't even close, I'd consider that a less forgiveable error because that's an objective statement you don't normally cut marketing slack over.
If marketing said the Halls of Fortune offered "very good value" for the energy, I'd cut them slack for that statement even if every single forum poster disagreed. That's a matter of opinion, and even if it wasn't it is also the kind of place you expect marketing to be a little hyperbolic, so you'd know (or should know) to take that statement with a grain of salt anyway. But I think "low energy costs" is on the other side of the line. I don't think they intended to be misleading, but marketing incorrectly left their assigned playground of hyperbole and tried to play their game on the wrong playing field.
Either way, I don't think it is a big deal, but I do think Kabam took a tiny thing and made it a bigger thing by trying to defend it, since had they said "sorry, we shouldn't have described it that way" probably would have made the people complaining about it look unreasonably testy if they pushed it. But as often happens, the conversation is less about the thing, and more about the handling of the thing, and I think Kabam should know by now the handling of the thing is always more important than the thing.
To put it another way, if they had said the Halls of Fortune contained "lots of gold for low energy" even though there's two separate subjective statements there, "low energy" simply feels more problematic than "lots of gold" even though neither one can be objectively proved or disproved. We know a game operator is going to exaggerate the value of in-game rewards, but we don't expect them to exaggerate the explicit costs of those rewards. And I think Kabam should know where they can get away with this kind of thing, and where they shouldn't even try. I can't fully explain objectively why, but it seems obvious to me that some things you can exaggerate, and some things you can't, and this was obviously one of those areas where you can't: I would have advised such if I was reviewing the copy.
Just because you like to be dismissive of every complaint about the game, and I do mean EVERY complaint, doesnt change the way others feel about it.
A piece of colorful jargon is not a promise that it will be anything other than it usually is.
Could they apologize that people misunderstood? Sure. It's not miscommunication. Which is why I spoke up in this case. People have a tendency to make their own interpretations and blame wording as if it was somehow misleading. Only it's not that deep.
Honestly, it feels like people are looking for anything to crucify over.
Maybe don’t say something is going to be lower cost when it’s exactly the same as it was previously.