I wish I never complained about battle pass in the first place. You know what’s totally possible this game? You never spend glory on talents. You save up glory for heroes. You unlock all heroes (after a while). Maybe you get a skin from time to time by completing daily quests and collecting every 5th sunlight level. Over time you collect opals and essence to get a few more skins.
This game is totally and completely FREE and yet some of us are complaining about their strategies to try and make some money. All SEMC has done is develop a game-changer in the MOBA world bringing it to our phones and tablets, while creating unique heroes with rich lore.
It’s ridiculous. Are we forgetting why we’re here? To play a kick-ass MOBA. Let’s stop complaining and just play the game!
Now that I think about it, I bet there was a bunch of sunlight in those chests I opened to get the two Gwen skins … I bet that got me at least a level or so.
But I didn’t say I expected it to stay like that forever. My point is they completely REMOVED new content from those chests even though many many people were buying rare chests exactly because of new content. They didn’t even announce the change. I found out few patches later so I’ve been wasting ICE on that. You can even find out when hazel posted the picture of that and I read the new description and apparently it’s been like that for a few months. Same for battle pass. As I said many times already let it not have same good rewards sure but don’t advertise it otherwise. They’re a company, probably won’t be good to advertise as “Get the new battle pass with less rewards than before!”, but just don’t say anything. Don’t tell me it’s better and more rewards when obviously it’s not.
If they fixed it good. Again not my point that you can or can not get something. I don’t like the fact that they didn’t announce when they removed it for whatever reason. I can find you the screenshot if you want.
“More rewards” is an ambiguous phrase, in a single sentence of a much larger update note article, meaning possibly, among other things: greater number of rewards, greater variety of rewards, or limited to particular timespans, such as ‘more rewards earlier’ (than previously). “Better” is a subjective assessment of worth related to what you personally value, and can be used to describe any number of things about the pass, from its rewards to its operation. I’m not trying to argue semantics, but those are honestly important definitional issues that I think you’re ignoring.
The fact that you ‘wasted’ ICE on it means you were basing the worth of a present pull on the results of past pulls. This is not unreasonable - AT ALL - but it does literally mean you were expecting it.
Anyway, I really do get what you’re saying. You think the news releases and statements around this feature have been misleading, and you feel like semc has lied to you about it. I disagree because I think you’re ignoring the differences in what is objective and subjective here, misinterpreting those statements, conflating past versions and contexts, and because of that, you’re assigning intention where it is impossible to say it exists. But whatever. I have a lot of complaints about SEMC’s marketing and communication strategies (quite similar to yours, truly), and I’m doing what I can to fix them, but the first step to actually fixing them is being fair about what is, in fact, wrong with them, which is why I’m being such a hardass about this right now. “Their marketing practices are inconsistent and semc benefits from that inconsistency” = yes. I think that’s true, if you cared to ask. Nothing I’ve said earlier is inconsistent with that belief. But that’s a world away from “SEMC lies about the value of the Battle Pass to get more people to buy it,” which is what I feel like the crux of your argument has unfairly been.
So you do agree they rely on wordplay and unclearness (don’t know if that’s a word) to sell their product? That doesn’t seem like a fair way but anyway.
Again I am not angry or anything that I didn’t get new content. My problem is that they didn’t say they removed it from chests. That’s not fair. How would you feel if your favourite hero has major changes and they’re not stated in patch notes? In this example you’re not even spending anything so it’s better. I spent ICE as did many others.
You’re talking about objectively and subjectively more but again who thinks the new battle pass is better? And before you tell me opinions are subjective, aren’t the player base’s desires, needs and interests that are important? If no one likes a feature in general it’s a reason for a change is it not? What’s the difference here? The transparency you mentioned before is what I want. Not better battle pass.
We have a difference in how we interpret and assign intent re: communication, but I don’t know, man… This is just exhausting. I feel like I’m repeating myself a lot and it’s not changing the conversation between us. You probably feel the same way, so maybe we should just stop?
The whole thread can be locked as atleast I feel all that needs to be said on that stage for the battle pass is said. Both you and @bobmax and few others put a really great point of views in details. The next discussion can move on another thread in the future when there is actually more info how the battle pass is turning out? After all, SEMC maybe while on first sign makes it harder to grind + less value of rewards for the hardcore old school classic modes player - will do level up easier. After all they have control over that, including tweaking of the rewards over the season to ensure fair progression.
After all and most importantly - they started to fix big gameplay bummers and that is what is most important. After all the shiny skin/rewards can get you that far if the gameplay is not right. So in that regard - good job SEMC. For the other part we will see, but if I may say something - hope they add again in the future some of the key loved features of the first battle pass like unowned hero, unowned rare/epic/legendary skin blueprint or skin to get the battle pass to a little bit more balanced spot between all the type of players (i.e. the sweet spot where everyone can find something for him to like).
Playing with words and what hipster skaarf saying , I agree with you but in our world what hipster skaarf saying is accepted .
Like imagine a guy standing in front of a place with a big sign (FREE) , you go inside and do a walk and when you finish you trying to get out and the same guy pointing to a small sign you can only see when you getting out saying (not 100% free and you have to pay for things) , now you could say you got scammed but at the same time another guy could say you were ignorant , you needed to check all the signs because it’s right there .
Like the rare chest example it was a luring strategy , if people not going to buy the hero directly give them easier way and still make them pay ice then remove it as you put it to make people think it’s there but it’s not there .
I didn’t say I’d sue them. Not saying it’s illegal or something. It’s still relying on trucking playerbase into buying something they wouldn’t otherwise and that’s not good in my opinion. Sure they can do that without problem, I mean they do. Still can’t get respect from me for doing that.
If your favourite hero had major changes wouldn’t you be pissed if it wasn’t in the patch notes? Technically you can check hero description and numbers in-game every patch. Why is there patch notes? You can just remember all heroes and their numbers and compare every patch. It’s your fault for not reading them. How would you feel if that was the reality?
Well , that happened to reim with his perk but they said it was a bug , but the nerfs to him after fixing the bug tells that the bug might be intentional and they wanted it to be a fixed thing , but the too much attention reim got made them fix it .
We could talk about heroes on release and how semc prefer them broken , you can’t tell if they broken for selling purposes or to make them picked and played (semc claim) , you here selling something temporarily strong to get money .
