I'm less angry now, but this still needs fixed

Did everyone in the thread think they were getting 6 regular, 4 epic troop, and 2 epic hero tokens in that pack? For 300 gems? That’s 2300 gems worth of tokens in the summon. If I could get “at least” 12 summons for 300 gems, why would I ever actually go and do the summons?

Some people yes, thought they would get 2x of each item. Others just thought they would get at least each item.

At the risk of receiving a truckload of manure on my head, I’ve got to play devils advocate for a moment. When I was a noob in this game and thinking of making a purchase, I looked around on the forum to see what people thought of/suggested as the best value for my money. As a person on the lower end of the income spectrum, I was quite cautious about what I spent on and made sure I READ and UNDERSTOOD whatever offer I was considering purchasing. I guess its a bit difficult for me to imagine someone a) not doing that b) making a complaint due to their own lack of understanding…dare I say, ignorance. Could SG make some of the changes that have been suggested here? Certainly. Should they? Probably. But they are absolutely not the first, and definitely not the last, vendor to profit from folks misunderstanding of items on offer. And I don’t get calling them cheats, liars, or worse simply for engaging in a very common business practice. I think the market provides a mechanism to police this sort of selling and that is simply not to purchase again. Can you imagine if they started giving refunds to anyone who wasn’t satisfied with what they received? It would open the floodgates. How in the world would they be expected to determine whether they were getting a ‘straight’ story from the customer? Are they really supposed to compensate for someone not really paying attention to what they are purchasing? Buyer beware! Anyway, my two cents. Cheers :wink:

1 Like

It starts and ends there for me.

If you want to make excuses for a company that’s already in the black 33million, I’m not gonna blast you for it. I think that’s weak. But that’s your opinion.

I disagree.

I think you’ve got people with various reading comprehension ability playing this game, either due to age, language, or whatever other kinda socioeconomic thing. So there are reasons, legit reasons, why someone might miss it. That aside, there are some that just might not notice, in a moment of “oops”

I don’t think people should be on the watch for getting duped while playing a game. And I think the “game” should make every effort to be transparent and obvious in its “deals”

3 Likes

Question: Are the chances of receiving the items listed in the item packs all equal (The ones that present themselves as “2 of the following”)? I cannot say, as I have never bought one. I think I’ve read somewhere that players have said that they are not equal.

This is the thread where the idea was tested with a very small sample size of 5:

Also, others commented that they got junk. However, it’s hard to use their submissions since you have no idea how many people got a decent return and did not post. Or how many MORE people got junk.

If something seems too good to be true, ie 2300 gems worth of stuff for 300 gems, guys, it is definitely too good to be true. For all those new to the game do not, I repeat do not, spend a single gem on anything outside of the summons. Period. You will be disappointed.

1 Like

Yes. Absolutely.

But if you’re new to a game and maybe don’t understand the economy, maybe it isn’t so clear.

If you’re, say, 9, it isn’t so clear.

If it isn’t your primary language, maybe it isn’t so clear.

If you aren’t expecting to get purposefully duped by your entertainment, maybe it isn’t so obvious.

You know what can make all of this a non issue? A change to the wording or the presentation in the IAP store. Simple. Easy. No more maybes. No more people rightfully upset.

1 Like

While this is an interesting discussion, it isn’t really on topic here. I’m concerned with the wording / presentation of the content as misleading to players who don’t realize they will not get all of the items listed.

Ok, they look alike because i guess 1 is gold and the other bronze.
Can they make them really different? Sure! Probably? I guess so.

But you are the one responsible for your money.
If you don’t pay much attenction when you buy something, you can’t blame the seller.

If you go out for buying an orange and return home with a grapefruit, maybe you could have check it twice before taking it?

3 Likes

Yes… I can. And do.

If you aren’t sure of this then “Houston, we have a problem.”

Haha. Well. Get this. Isn’t anything the supermarket can do about that. They put up a sign that says grapefruit and orange though right? They make an effort. They can’t actually change the fruit. If they just throw them into a bucket together and say “good luck suckers!” You think they might get some complaints?

… I really do love you guys who want to defend A broken system and want to oppose making a change that is objectively better just because “people should pay more attention.”

Yeah. They should. AND companies should design better systems and clearly mark their products. They aren’t frickin mutually exclusive. And I shouldn’t have to explain that. But hey. Here we are.

Thanks for posting, I guess?

Edit: how about provide me a reason why SG should not make these simple changes. How about that. Why can’t the ETT be blue or green or square shaped or anything else that differentiates it clearly?

Because the consumer should pay attention isn’t a reason to not improve an existing system.

1 Like

Honestly, i never mistake a troop coin for a hero coin and throw my money for that, so the “huge” problem you see i don’t really see it.

You want it pink? Make it pink! I don’t mind it.
It has a logic of gold-silver-bronze, but hey, if this prevent a quick clickker to get hungry why not?

For me it’s really simple whatever they do.
I pay attenction for myself because if not no one else do it.

I don’t need some frilly disclaimer to prevent me to get it wrong :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

Alright eagle eye. Without a long, close examination, which token is which?

So you are saying that the symbol is not part of the difference?
Curious.
And the center of hero coin is lighter compared of troop coin, is it not?

So you pick whats really similar and bypass the rest.
Interesting.

You win, i can’t tell from that.

Now make the reverse test.
Cut only the boards and leave the center.

Let’s see if you can tell the difference.

The point is: one isn’t bronze and one is gold as you suggested.

They’re both gold. The middle marker, which when examined closely is all that differentiates. When it’s presented small on a small screen, it isn’t immediately obvious.

by design

You could make them gold and bronze to help differentiate. That would be a very minimal step that would help. But I think making them totally different makes the most sense.

Shape change would require new art work. Easiest is just modify the color.

1 Like

Because of the way the “light” is hitting it. They’re the same color. The raised surface on EHT does reflect more light centrally, it seems.

Obviously this is on a much different scale. But consider how hard things are to change because instead of finding a solution, individuals like to assign blame and come up with reasons why something should or shouldn’t happen the way that it does:

“Early in 1996, the inaugural year of ISMP’s acute care newsletter, ISMP reported on the death of a 7-year-old boy during what should have been routine surgery to remove scar tissue and a benign tumor from his left ear. The child accidentally received an injection of undiluted EPINEPHrine instead of lidocaine with EPINEPHrine 1:100,000 due to mislabeled specimen cups on the sterile field.”

Thus, repetition of this error suggests that health care providers have lost the perception of the risk associated with unlabeled products, mistakenly believe the risk is insignificant or justified, or have forgotten to implement effective prevention strategies in all procedural areas.

First, normalcy bias may cause some health care providers to falsely believe that an error would never happen to them. This leads to the mistaken belief that labeling is not always necessary or the rationalization of faulty strategies. These faulty strategies may include identifying products by where they are placed on the sterile field and overreliance on immediate use before the container leaves one’s hands.

Or, unlabeled containers may be considered “someone else’s problem,” a phenomenon like bystander apathy that causes people to ignore a problem because they believe it is not relevant to them, unlikely to happen, something they can’t fix, or someone else’s responsibility to fix.

So again. I get that this isn’t your problem. And you can spot it from a mile away and are very careful.

Now I direct you back to the twenty something posts I have linked above where people were deceived.

1 Like

Again you use the word “deceived” in the wrong manner.
For being “deceived” that offer need to say “1 epic hero token” out clear and then give a troop token. That’s deceived.
As it is you just assume on your own that was a hero token. Actually, you are the one deceiving yourself.

Now, i really understand you are frustated because a simple graphic change may had spare you this inconvenient, but you agree with me that a single better check may had work the same.

So you want to make it your personal crusade? Ok, your choice.
For me this is only something silly that don’t deserve the effort to fight for it.

There’s plenty of other stuff more important then this in my eyes, and if i can solve this just checking twice i’m perfectly fine as it is.

I’m the kind of person that rather blaming the fortuneteller that fraud a woman, blaming the woman who’s get fraud by the fortuneteller.

Right. Like I quoted above:
“someone else’s problem,” a phenomenon like bystander apathy that causes people to ignore a problem because they believe it is not relevant to them, unlikely to happen, something they can’t fix, or someone else’s responsibility to fix.

verb (used with object), de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing.
to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude:
They deceived the enemy by disguising the destroyer as a freighter.

They deceived my by having two tokens for two different items be the exact same size, shape, and color.

WOOOOAAAAA I INCEPTIONED MYSELF AND MADE THE TOKENS BOTH GOLD ?!

You mean I screwed up. So this faulty design decision is my fault.

Look. It’s either a crappy design or it isn’t. It isn’t complicated. It’s a bad design.

Let’s come back to this. You’re making an effort not to fight for a change for the better. But to fight against it. How petty is that? You agree the designs are very similar. You agree it’s an easy fix. But because it doesn’t personally affect you, you don’t want to bother with it. That’s like, the classical definition of being petty.

So two things that negatively impact others that are objectively easy fixes, and you don’t want them fixed without having any idea about how much time it would actually take because it doesn’t bother you personally.

That’s fantastic.

This should get fixed. It should get prioritized appropriately within the context of how much time it will actually take to make the changes and the importance of other projects being managed. But it should be fixed.

And, I don’t know why you ignore the other issue I brought here. But I’m generally speaking to both as I’m posting here. It seems you don’t care about that issue either, no doubt because it doesn’t bother you. Maybe you noticed, but it didn’t personally bother me either. That doesn’t make it a good design. It’s a bad design, even if it never got me.

Again you are deceiving youself saying i’m against this change.
Have i ever say it? Show it to me.

What i keep saying is that you make a fuss over something really trivial.
Sorry, it’s not trivial! It’s only me that i’m immune on this kind of thing!

It’s trivial buddy. Silly. Call it how you want.

Now go in all the stores that disclaim on gigantic letters “Buy 2 and 1 is free!” with a little asterisc saying “the one that cost less” and fight for get that asterisc big as the whole poster.

Thats the kind of fight you choose.

I’m reading this as you don’t think this change should occur.

Additionally, by citing reasons why it is the users’ fault instead of the advertisers, you’re making a de facto argument for why no change should be made, even if you are not directly stating this.

Disagree. There are fundamental differences between the commonly known rules of BOGO in a supermarket environment that all consumers are familiar with. Especially compared to an individual IAP store where users are very new to a specific environment. And as I previously mentioned, some or many of these users may be underage significantly or may have some other reason to be in a situation where a poorly marked offer or product is likely to deceive them.

What I’m saying is, your argument here is fallacious, and you don’t even acknowledge this. So maybe you’re unaware.

You keep looking for reasons not to make these simple easy changes. It makes me depressed with humanity. I wish you could know how much. It’s for the betterment of the people here to enjoy this game, and you selfishly don’t want any part of it and to rally against it because it doesn’t affect you. It’s sad.