Open letter to SG, re: “Rare Quest Day”

In reply to the “Rare Quest Day” announcement about upcoming rescheduling of Rare and Omega quests:

Hi, I’m BobTheSnark, an active forumite and author of the forum thread “Regular Rare quests, INCLUDING challenge event weeks” ( Regular Rare quests, INCLUDING challenge event weeks )

My intent in starting this thread was threefold:

  • to petition for a slight increase in the number of in-game-earnable top-level ascension materials (given that the number of heroes released in the first three months of this year exceeds the total number released in all 2019 Regular Rare quests, INCLUDING challenge event weeks - #26 by BobTheSnark )
  • to eliminate confusion about the timing of Rare quests by making them actually, dependably regular
  • to accomplish these goals through a very simple proposal: making Rare quests actually weekly, at the same point every week.

While I am glad to see that SG has noted these concerns, the “Rare Quest Day” announcement fails on all three counts:

  • the number of Rare quests going forward is explicitly tied to being no more than the average of the last few years (never mind the last year) — and tied to the Omega schedule, which will itself be explicitly tied to not be more frequent than its own recent schedule — regardless of the massively accelerated hero release rate over the last few years
  • Rare quests will STILL have questions about regularity and timing at least four times a year (rather than, say, 6-8 times or so) given the “floating” Rare quests to not be tied to any schedule
  • Rare quests will not be weekly

A much more straightforward way to address player concerns on this matter would be to make Rare quests truly weekly: one Rare quest every week, #52RareQuestsAYear. A slight increase in ascension materials available, yes, but only a very small fraction back of the greatly increased pace of the game (AND not in itself increasing other desired/needed game resources for fully maxing out heroes) — and a way to completely eliminate any confusion about the timing of Rare quests.

Please reconsider this proposal to simplify the Rare quest timing, and give your players this minor boon.


I second this petition.

Thank you @BobTheSnark


Bob what is your proposal in relation to Omega?

I suggest each omega quest give out enough for a full limit break of 5 star, not the current 1 short.

I suggest total of 15 Omegas a year, not 12.

How i dont know.


Ill agree and support this. There is no point in coming out massive amount of new heroes but have limited access to ascension materials.


I absolutely support this!

I also am so happy–and enormously grateful–that you are continuing to advocate for all of us!



The short version is that my proposal has nothing to do with Omega, and it’s purely SG spin tying the two together.

But would I also support each Omega quest giving sufficient aethers to actually LB1 a 5* by itself?


But given that SG seems to want to tie any additional LB1 aethers to other events (PoV, PoG, Aliiance Quest alleged “rewards,” miniscule chances at other random drops), I think that getting SG to budge on aethers is already a harder sell than what I’m trying to argue only for Rare-quest ascension materials.

In this latter case, my argument is couched partly in terms of the “is the Rare quest going to be on this week or not?” question that keeps coming up. The current SG proposal doesn’t actually solve even this issue — because the regular, now-conjoined Rare/Omega schedule still includes four “floating” not-tied-to-any-schedule Rares.

So instead of having the regular Rare schedule I’ve been asking for, we are getting a Rare schedule that is only slightly less irregular (at least 4/yr) than what the schedule has been (6-7?/yr)……


it also locks in the years-old number of ascension materials when the number of heroes released has accelerated massively.

Would the latter also argue for a slight increase in LB1 aethers as well? Yeah, I’d buy that as well.


Edit to add, as a general note…

To anyone who supports what I’ve written in this letter:

I have sent this letter to Customer “Support.” If you share my sentiments and want to use my letter as a template (or even quoted) to send into “Support” yourself as well, please feel free to do so.

I’ve learned not to expect much from “Support,” (explaining, for instance, my use of quotation marks on the term) but (1) I don’t know of a way for me personally to more directly contact SG and (2) maybe, just maybe if enough of us contact SG….


For Omega, I’m happy with SGG’s proposal, it should indeed be monthly (in E&P sense, once every 28 days). If we are asking for rare quest to be predictable (weekly and every week on the same day), we should ask the same for Omega to reach a nice and consistent solution. SGG’s proposal is actually good to go for the Omega quest, but lacking on the rare quest as nicely put by @BobTheSnark already in this thread here :+1:



main reason why we was calling for change:

Is to do not lose number of RARE QUEST spawned

we got fixed days and same number of Rare quest spawned that we got over years (not included all rare quest that didn’t spawned because challenge festival etc.)

with this solution i feel like all rare quest that wasn’t spawned is intentional then

lets do this right and not in few weeks /months to open same topic over and over

1 Like

thanks for explaining the situation, and outlining a great proposal. you have my support


I totally agree on all your points

1 Like

moor omega for sure needed 3 a year per color

1 Like

I was thinking exactly the same, the new proposal by SG makes nothing easier, it just exchanges 1 complicated nonsense with another complicated nonsense.

1 rare quest per week. That is easy and predictable.

Handing out 9 ascension mats PER YEAR more than before? It´s such a minute difference it´s going to be difficult to tell it exists. But please SG feel free to sell it as a major improvement for all your players! (because it is in terms of QoL, rather than in resources)

No change whatsoever to Omega (because that will just be a reason for SG to ignore this proposal alltogether).


I’m on board with the op statement…got my vote



First of all thank you for initiating this thread …

I support your Rare Quest proposal 100% …

We have touched on this several times in Beta …. With so many new heroes being flooded into the game there is little point in continuing to pull from portals if opportunities to obtain ascension mats remain few and far between…

For me personally I have so many 5* heroes in my roster that are partially levelled or indeed sit it out at 1/1 because a new hero jumps in front of them for the levelling queue. Crazy times …

This gets my vote

@Petri …. Please raise with those that can influence a decision on this


I support this. As (pseudo)f2p even I am starting to reach a logjam where 4* mats are concerned. The pace of acquiring non-S1 5* heroes has accelerated even for me and my ilk. The first three years playing (2018-2020) I averaged 2 non-S1 5* per year. The introduction of HA10 potentially doubled that, and with SE and FS it has doubled and tripled now. I have 4 new non-S1 5* already from the first half of this year (with none from HA10 or portals).


@BobTheSnark 100% supporting this solution for the rare quest!

@Petri AGAIN your company misses a great public relation opportunity for very low cost with your proposed solution and communication.
During the last 5+ years this happened quite often and only rarely you used the opportunity to do it right.
You installed a compeletion reward for S1. :+1:
FS and SE. :+1: :+1:
And maybe 2 or 3 more.

I hope the company will use the chance it has here!


Crossposting relevant information about whether SG’s claim of “43 Rares per year” is an accurate or reasonable figure

At best, the new proposal is not an increase over the average of… how many?… years, and it appears that “43 Rares per year” would actually be a decrease compared to the last nearly 3 years.


Not quite 3. The change was made in June of 2021 that actually bumped up the number of rare quests. But still, a decrease of nearly 10% of rare quests if they stick with the “average”.


As far as I’m concerned, any reduction in Rare quests is unconscionably petty and mean-spirited.

The rate of hero release has massively inflated, we asked for a modest increase in Rares, and we may well be looking at a decrease instead?

We asked for predictable regularity (once per week! easy, right?) and instead we will still have unpredictable Rares four times a year (scarcely any better than current irregularities, and, again, possibly with the price of having fewer Rares)

Maybe I spent too much time arguing against the “why should Challenge events pre-empt Rares” thing to be explicit as I apparently needed to be about “52 Rares per year,” but

—you know what?

Why on Earth should “Challenges should pre-empt Rares” FINALLY be discredited but “instead, Omegas should pre-empt Rares” somehow replace it?

Will someone answer that?


Fresh from Customer “Support”

Currently, Rare Quests and Mirages of Omega quests are randomly generated at semi-regular intervals according to certain rules and restrictions. Because of this, it needs to be aligned. This leads to a slight increase in the number of ascension materials that can be earned by completing these Quests.

(1) SG just admitted that there is no longer a need to “align” Rares to avoid Challenges — so why the sudden need to “align” Rares to avoid Omegas instead?

(2) According to player tracking over the last year (see, e.g. Does Rare Quest Change Really Address Community Concerns? ), the number of ascension mats will DECREASE under the new proposal (and the number of aethers unchanged), unless I’m missing something.

Presumably the number per year can only be construed as an increase if compared to an average that goes back conveniently far enough?

So what we are looking at is a new schedule touted as more regular, when it is scarcely more regular than the existing Rare mess (as there will still be “floating” unscheduled Rares), and touted as an increase for players when it in fact looks to be a decrease vs the last year or even two.