**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
Because that's the situation here. Moleman's in-game description was correct. There was no other communication to indicate it was wrong. But players are saying that if the game performance differs from the in-game text, because in-game text has been wrong before they are free to ignore it and assume it is in error, and if it actually was correct Kabam had an obligation to inform them that it was incorrect.
But forum messages and in-game emails have also on occasion been in error. Why can't players also assume *those* are in error and claim they should be allowed to assume Mole man's in-game performance is the correct one, even in the face of in-game text and forum and in-game email messaging? Why can players ignore in-game text which is available to everyone, but must honor forum messages which most players never see? Or in-game email which based on past history most players don't read? If the actual champion descriptions in the game are not presumed to be authoritative - acknowledging that mistakes happen but they can happen everywhere - then what's the point of even having champion in-game text descriptions.
Which communications channel should players be expected to trust, given that all of them will be subject to errors at times. None of them will be 100% accurate. But players must make reasonable assumptions regardless. What's the reasonable assumption when all communications channels are imperfect?
It’s. Their. Game. It’s. Their. Choice.
End of discussion. They decided to do what they have, they’ve said they would discuss it internally. If they decide to leave the fix in place, you have to accept that. If they decide to revert the fix, then you get to accept that.
E.g. imagine you're going to a restaurant for dinner and halfway eating your lovely steak a waiter comes in and takes the plate. You know, because the plate is the restaurant's so they can do whatever they want.
All I'm asking is for them to communicate why they went the route of the rank down option.
And now it is effectively the end of the discussion because I'm exhausted.
The bottom line for me is, if it was harmless enough, they would have left it and changed the description. They obviously have their reasons. That's about it.
Your lack of understanding is actually astonishing.
It’s not their IP, it’s Marvels so no they couldn’t make Moleman pink if they wanted to. They have the license to make the game but it is still Marvels. Just like you get a license to use the game, but it’s not your game to modify or change yourself.
Secondly, that analogy is wrong. Very very wrong.
If you went to a restaurant and ordered that steak for 16 months, it was exactly how you liked it, then one day the restaurant decides to change the seasoning on that steak because they had been using the wrong one that entire time, you can ask them why they changed it but you can’t force them to use the old wrong recipe just because you liked it better. Could the restaurant have kept the old seasoning? Sure. Do they have to? Not at all. And no matter what some complaints some may have, they don’t have to give you a reason as to why they decided on that decision. Cause frankly it’s none of your business to know all of the inner workings, nor do they have to disclose anything that isn’t absolutely essential to the overall product.
That is the facts.
I’m done with this conversation.
In fact, even questioning whether players should have assumed the in-game behavior was correct or the in-game text was correct is itself completely missing the point entirely. When faced with a lack of clarifying information, the correct assumption to make is the null assumption: the assumption that no one knows which behavior is the correct and intended one, and to act accordingly. People have to act on imperfect or incomplete information all the time, in fact that's the norm pretty much everywhere in life. Players should have assumed that the in-game behavior *might* become permanent or *might* get changed due to the discrepancy, and acted on the assumption that neither option was guaranteed.
The developers are responsible for how the game is operated, but the players are fully responsible for their game play decisions.
1. Will these tickets give back what we spent (ie if we used a rank up gem or catalysts) or will it just give a rank gem to everyone or catalysts to everyone?
2. If we ranked up Mole Man from say 3 to 4 after the patch, will we still get a rank down ticket and will it be just one rank or all the way to rank 1?
3. Once ticket is in, can we rank up moleman to test him then rank him down?
Thanks
-Nerfing him down, but now if you want TA, the damage is shamefully abysmal.
I dont support any of these 2 cases.
And imo rdts serves the purpose to give many people second chance to chose another rankup.
My r3 will stay r3 though.
but what about those of us who picked Mole-God as a champion from the 2020 selector in the July 4th Deal? Will we be able to trade that back in and pick another champion?
I don’t spend time reading the champ descriptions for all my champs. I get a champ, if I like him I go to YouTube and watch Jason Voorhees’ video on how to use him. Period. From that, I learned that he keeps TA as long as he was below 10 MM. So I used that all day long for evade champs.
Nothing on there covers the bug that hasn’t been acknowledged as a bug, that if it had been a bug would have been fixed by now, but to watch out, because it might actually be a bug, in which case it might actually be fixed one day. If it’s actually a bug, which it may or may not actually be.