**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.
Options
Comments
I only had time to properly test 6.3.1 over that weekend and didn’t even know about this boost being so OP.
The bosses, however, were extensively tested by the other testers I believe, and were nerfed accordingly, like adding bleed vulnerability to medusa to make her much much easier.
From a logical point of view, it doesn't make alot of sense to go for the Legends run prior to the Cyber Monday offers. Idk. He's young, could simply be that he's more eager and impulsive than I am for the run.
How is this fair? @Kabam Miike @Kabam Zibiit @Kabam Vydious @Kabam Lyra @Kabam Porthos
You already let them take advantage of your mistakes with the R3-R4 2015 gems from variant 1 which they could use on any champ they wanted without the restriction of it needing to be a 2015 champ.
And now you just say to them: good job on taking advantage of this boost, we hope you enjoy your rewards and don’t forget your free 6* champ from your bonus legend run of act 6.3.
I know I’m not supposed to tag you guys but how is this in any way fair?
It is a bad look, but absent any actual proof of deliberate wrong doing this appears to be just one of those bugs whose bell you cannot unring. That's the thing about bugs: not all of them can be entirely remedied.
Maybe kabam will offer us a new boost that will synergize with this one and make it not be complete trash?
In other words, if the thing was intended to be 6, but it was written to be 66, that's an obvious bug, even though it was written to be 66. But if it was intended to be prime and it was decided to be 6 and written as 6, it is still bugged because the decision to make it 6 was wrong: 6 isn't prime.
The idea that something is not broken if it works "as written" fails to account for all the places something can be broken. It suggests that typos don't exist, that errors in design don't exist, and incomplete specifications for designs don't exist. It says a bridge that collapses isn't broken, if it behaved exactly as the laws of physics dictate. It was designed a particular way, it was constructed exactly as designed, the laws of physics operated as they always do, and thus the resulting pile of rubble is not broken.