I can't quite believe this has to be articulated...BUT

drowsyhero34drowsyhero34 Member Posts: 146 ★★
Apparently Archangel's ability to stun even with stun immune champs or nodes was a bug, and not intended. However, an official Kabam moderator previously stated that the ability was, in fact, intended.

Forgetting about the Archangel issue specifically, I'm left wondering if there are other things that we've been told by a moderator, which are actually untrue and might be changed later? Because apparently no one is monitoring moderator responses, or no one noticed the incorrect statement, or no one thought it worth correcting (I have no idea which is true, and it doesn't really matter).

What matters is that what we are told, by official moderators, is accurate. And at this point, I have no idea how we're supposed to know what we've been told, and will be told in the future, is information that we can rely on as fact, and make decisions accordingly.

In many cases (if not most) when an item in a store is priced incorrectly, managers will sell you the product for the price stated, even if it's substantially lower than the actual price. This happens BEFORE the product is even purchased, when the customer has not lost any money, and has only been mildly inconvenienced (if that). Here we have a situation where people have spent time and money on a champion they were told performed one way, and have since been told that this was wrong and the change will be made without consideration, compensation, explanation for the error and how it was never caught, or assurances in the future that information provided by moderators will be verified before posting.

This particular situation might seem minor, but it's a pretty significant breech of trust, and one that essentially every company that cares even slightly about its customers handles COMPLETELY differently. So I guess I'm curious to know what Kabam plans to do about the situation.

Will you guarantee the integrity of the official information you provide, or will you reverse any officially stated information if you decide it's in your interest to do so?

Comments

  • RaganatorRaganator Member Posts: 2,548 ★★★★★

    Forgetting about the Archangel issue specifically, I'm left wondering if there are other things that we've been told by a moderator, which are actually untrue and might be changed later?

    The answer is: 100%, without a doubt.

  • The1_NuclearOnionThe1_NuclearOnion Member Posts: 908 ★★★
    Yeah. This has been done already. It's a good point but beaten to death now.
  • This content has been removed.
  • bigmull1bigmull1 Member Posts: 45
    3.....2.....1......Closed and deleted
  • RaganatorRaganator Member Posts: 2,548 ★★★★★
    Well let me add one more thing then, and I'll just leave these here without further comment.

    "False advertising is any published claim that is deceptive or untruthful. Misleading advertising is any published claim that gives a consumer an incorrect understanding of the product they are interested in purchasing or using. The false and misleading advertising by companies of any product may result in the consumer suffering a financial loss, or another form of damage to the consumer.

    The financial losses or damages acquired by a consumer due to the false or misleading advertising may not be significant. However, this is not a cost that any consumer should have to endure. Consumers who have suffered from financial losses or other damages may participate in a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for any losses incurred."

    So you sabotaged your own thread? This will get the thread instantly removed.
  • NihungNihung Member Posts: 108
    Raganator wrote: »

    So you sabotaged your own thread? This will get the thread instantly removed.

    Why? He's stated the truth!!
  • edited June 2018
    This content has been removed.
  • LocoMotivesLocoMotives Member Posts: 1,200 ★★★
    False advertising implies intent. I doubt the moderator intended to be completely uneducated when answering the question.
  • SolswerdSolswerd Member Posts: 1,878 ★★★★
    I 100% agree that they should hand out AA specific rank down tickets.

    But if you look at the TOS...we don't own this game or any of the characters in it. They could change AA attack rating to 1 and we would have no legal recourse. Kabam is not the only company that runs their game this way, it is endemic of the "games as a service" model that many companies currently practice. False advertising laws do not really apply.
  • NOOOOOOOOPEEEEENOOOOOOOOPEEEEE Member Posts: 2,803 ★★★★★
    Remember when we were told we could buy more then 1 5* Dark Artifact crystal and no one felt the need to correct that until weeks after we were told we could.
  • SolswerdSolswerd Member Posts: 1,878 ★★★★
    Remember when we were told we could buy more then 1 5* Dark Artifact crystal and no one felt the need to correct that until weeks after we were told we could.

    With what you mentioned, along with all of the issues the game has had over the last month...I think them not distributing AA specific rank downs is a strange line in the sand for Kabam to draw. Just on a PR level alone, much less a sense of fairness. (and I say this as someone who haas a 4* 4/40 AA that I wouldn't use a rank down on anyway)
This discussion has been closed.