6.3 Completion Offer (spoillers)
ContestOfNoobs
Member Posts: 1,645 ★★★★★
“Exloration”
Lol man...”fragments”
For 15k units?!
(Rest of the items are potions,revives etc
that doesnt kustify the 15k unit its asking)
Doesnt say how much % of t5cc it is...
And it doesnt tell u any rate % and let alone its RNG chance at the class
Lol man...”fragments”
For 15k units?!
(Rest of the items are potions,revives etc
that doesnt kustify the 15k unit its asking)
Doesnt say how much % of t5cc it is...
And it doesnt tell u any rate % and let alone its RNG chance at the class
14
Comments
I dont even have a 6* id r2, some of us arent lucky and cant get champs like 6* corvus,domino,ghost.
im really hoping 6.4 completion rewards and the offer will be something worthwhile...
especially when u 100% all of act 6. rewards and offer should be worthwhile
15k units for 25% of a t5cc and some items not worth half is as obvious a whale target as I've ever seen.
These are the guidelines from apple
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
This portion in particular..
The last chapters had value because of the restrictions making item use almost a must for anyone who didn’t wanna wait weeks for guides to help. 6.3 let’s us use our whole roster essentially turning that offer into 500$ for 25% of a t5c.
🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
In my opinion they are also interpreting the rule incorrectly with regard to "type of item." I believe they believe that all they have to do is disclose the odds of getting, say, T2A fragments or T5B fragments, because those are "types of items" but if there's a chance to get 1000 and a chance to get 10,000 fragments, they don't have to disclose those odds. But that invalidates the whole purpose of the rule, which is to inform buyers of the potential value contained in the lootbox. If a game operator doesn't have to say if there's 10 or 10 million of something in a lootbox, it is impossible to gauge value.
I see this kind of thing in say, the Supreme Ascendant crystal in the recent offer. They say what the minimum is, but not what the range of values are or how likely they are. Knowing if you're 10% likely to get the minimum or 99% likely to get the minimum is the whole point of the rule.
On the one hand, I don't think there's any malice or deliberate attempt at deception here, so I would like Kabam to fix this themselves. On the other hand, I know first hand how "stubborn" Kabam can be in situations like this.