BongoTheGrey said: They did said that they were changing the pictures in the card gallery before doing it:https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/86783/release-notes-5-6-0#latest
In general, I try not to assume malicious intent when the same action can be explained by incompetence. I think that was the case here.
When I first saw the cards, I was excited, and shocked at how cheap they were. The four cheap creatures particularly excited me—on the heals of stuff like Healer of the Pride, Jareth, and Pride Guardian, they were absolutely believable as first-sight cards.
Same for the supports. Mox Lotus was the only one that stood out as “wow, this will power creep the other Moxen” There was no reason to think that Mox Opal wasn’t going to be 5. There was no reason to think that enabler cards like Darksteel Citadel and Basalt Monolith weren’t going to be 5. Black Lotus and Lotus Blossom self-destruct, so again, no reason to assume they weren’t in the “Mirrorpool” class of cheap supports.
I looked at them over lunch, got excited, and then waited for release in a few days. Maybe if I’d taken more time I would have thought it was peculiar that they were ALL 5, 1, or 2. After all, most of the other PMA sets contain a lot of overpriced/non-competitive cards that are just filler for the good stuff, so this set would have been an exception.
Still, I was excited, and when I updated the app, I happily purchased Karn2 and spent some crystals, and after the second pack thought “wait a second” and then sighed, and posted on the update thread for everyone to beware.
I regret purchasing the cards (though I do enjoy Karn2). I think the vast majority of them won’t get played with, and based on some of the design decisions, it’s hard to envision that they understand why.
Anyway, it may not have been intentional, but I don't expect them to make it right. It'd sure be nice if they did.
BongoTheGrey said: They did said that they were changing the pictures in the card gallery before doing it:https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/86783/release-notes-5-6-0#latestBut it still feels like a scam. To me it was false advertising because they post the pictures themselves of their official site just to then say that it was a balancing issue.
Nyarlathotep said: BongoTheGrey said: They did said that they were changing the pictures in the card gallery before doing it:https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/86783/release-notes-5-6-0#latestBut it still feels like a scam. To me it was false advertising because they post the pictures themselves of their official site just to then say that it was a balancing issue. Yes, they said they are going to change the Facebook gallery pictures. But they only said that, after the set was already released and madwren had already pointed at the drastically different casting costs. That's some shady business practice right there. We can't let this happen without consequences. What's the next move they have in reserve? I am all about supporting the developers and their families with my money, but what I thought that I would get for my money and what I actually got is not even close to one another. Refund the money, or change the cards to at least playable in the long term. There is no other way out of this.