Death Spell Changes (and Spellement Paths)

[Ravino.]

My response to Deer Knight. KI - doesn't this fall under the category of bait and switch. Offering one item FOR PURCHASE then changing the item after the sale is completed.

What KI should have done is KEEP the original spell as is for all the existing players, then offer the alternate path choice via spellement path upgrades. Instead, from what I hear, to get your original Deer Knight back you have to choose it via path upgrade. Yeah bait and switch.... ILLEGAL.

KI "hey, buy a bunch of packs to get this cool spell/ement drop"
Everyone "wow that's a great spell - here's my money"
KI "So remember that spell you bought years ago? Yeah, we got rid of it. Sorry, not sorry"
Everyone "***!?!"
KI "Oh, but maybe if you really want your spell back, you can choose to upgrade it to your original spell you paid for years ago. Oh, and here's the pack sale that offers the spellements needed to get your original spell back. Give us your money".

Bait and Switch is illegal in the USA. It is an unfair and deceptive act or practice to Advertise merchandise for sale (deer knight via pack sales), then substituting an inferior item (changing the item to be not what was advertised). Then offering another option for more money as an alternative (give more money to purchase spellements to turn your already purchased deer knight back into the item you originally purchased).

This is exactly what was on my mind earlier today, this treatment of Deer Knight - and other lore spells changing effects - is uncomfortably close to a scam. Obviously there's no true legal risk to KI but it should speak to the impact of these changes and the principles KI is abandoning in this effort to revamp every school.

It's especially concerning because KI had previous said they would rather add in new spells to further school identity and avoid reworking existing spells unless it was absolutely necessary. I can't see ANY of the changes in this update qualifying as "absolutely necessary".

I doubt it'll make a difference but I feel this is something that should be brought to the notice of @Sparck @Eric Stormbringer even if it's only to point out the breach of trust and the negative light it casts on the developers.

---

On another note, I'm both sadden and amused by the comments trying to frame the change positively - both here and in social media - by saying Deer can now make full use of damage enchantment in its first hit.

Lest you all forget, Death already has an AoE that fills this niche, it's called Ship of Fools:

Look, it's even better at it! If you want a stronger direct hit, use this. The truth is we aren't gaining more options with this update, we're losing a spell from PvP for something that should have been a brand new lore spell.

~R

[bluedreamer]

We all know the answer of why the spellements are getting revision after revision until something sticks.....PvP complaints. However, KI won't say it, because they keep pointing to the "template, DPP, Roshambo, etc" is if they are following an established rule set that oddly keeps being adjusted just like the original set of developers did subjectively. The difference is the new dev team (PvP focused) is changing old spells; the old dev team (PvE focused) would add a whole new spell to make the adjustment. PvE players will just have to settle for whatever is left from the dust. What's worse on the newest changes for Death is that it there are even more conditionals involving your opponent having not just one HoT, but more than one. Barely anyone uses HoTs in PvP and enemies in the PvE arcs where you receive these spells don't HoT at all. HoT conditionals in Beastmoon/Mayhem work, because that system was designed balanced from the beginning and you actually have a scenario of enemies creating an opportunity.

Thankfully, the DoT was added back to Deer as a path, but one of the reasons listed for removing it was that it wasn't Death's identity in Roshambo....yet we still have poison, Skel Dragon, and Avenging. Not sure if that is a warning for those spells in the future. Fools is clearly a better option for first round enchanted strike, but what I don't understand from players in favor of the Deer change is yes, you can hit harder on the first hit of the spell, but no one is discussing the weakness utility that was added? If the "good" aspect of the deer change is the first hit enchant, why aren't those players asking for the weakness to be removed and up the damage on deer to be over Fools? If you are alpha striking with Deer anyways, you don't need the weakness. Enchanting Deer DoT is actually more overall damage than Fools or Deer with weakness (just takes longer....like DoTs are suppose to).

Simply because KI pay "influencers" AKA streamers, who do as they are paid to do. There's big $$$ in it for them. Do you think even a PVP player wants rid of nearly 50% damage on the back end of a hit, when a shield could take out the front end attack? While over time can take out a second or third shield or finish the battle? As they say it's all about the money!

- - - Updated - - -

We all know the answer of why the spellements are getting revision after revision until something sticks.....PvP complaints. However, KI won't say it, because they keep pointing to the "template, DPP, Roshambo, etc" is if they are following an established rule set that oddly keeps being adjusted just like the original set of developers did subjectively. The difference is the new dev team (PvP focused) is changing old spells; the old dev team (PvE focused) would add a whole new spell to make the adjustment. PvE players will just have to settle for whatever is left from the dust. What's worse on the newest changes for Death is that it there are even more conditionals involving your opponent having not just one HoT, but more than one. Barely anyone uses HoTs in PvP and enemies in the PvE arcs where you receive these spells don't HoT at all. HoT conditionals in Beastmoon/Mayhem work, because that system was designed balanced from the beginning and you actually have a scenario of enemies creating an opportunity.

Thankfully, the DoT was added back to Deer as a path, but one of the reasons listed for removing it was that it wasn't Death's identity in Roshambo....yet we still have poison, Skel Dragon, and Avenging. Not sure if that is a warning for those spells in the future. Fools is clearly a better option for first round enchanted strike, but what I don't understand from players in favor of the Deer change is yes, you can hit harder on the first hit of the spell, but no one is discussing the weakness utility that was added? If the "good" aspect of the deer change is the first hit enchant, why aren't those players asking for the weakness to be removed and up the damage on deer to be over Fools? If you are alpha striking with Deer anyways, you don't need the weakness. Enchanting Deer DoT is actually more overall damage than Fools or Deer with weakness (just takes longer....like DoTs are suppose to).

My response to Deer Knight. KI - doesn't this fall under the category of bait and switch. Offering one item FOR PURCHASE then changing the item after the sale is completed.

What KI should have done is KEEP the original spell as is for all the existing players, then offer the alternate path choice via spellement path upgrades. Instead, from what I hear, to get your original Deer Knight back you have to choose it via path upgrade. Yeah bait and switch.... ILLEGAL.

KI "hey, buy a bunch of packs to get this cool spell/ement drop"
Everyone "wow that's a great spell - here's my money"
KI "So remember that spell you bought years ago? Yeah, we got rid of it. Sorry, not sorry"
Everyone "***!?!"
KI "Oh, but maybe if you really want your spell back, you can choose to upgrade it to your original spell you paid for years ago. Oh, and here's the pack sale that offers the spellements needed to get your original spell back. Give us your money".

Bait and Switch is illegal in the USA. It is an unfair and deceptive act or practice to Advertise merchandise for sale (deer knight via pack sales), then substituting an inferior item (changing the item to be not what was advertised). Then offering another option for more money as an alternative (give more money to purchase spellements to turn your already purchased deer knight back into the item you originally purchased).

Thank you for saying, I thought it must be illegal, every change to every " LORE" spell. KI are clearly thinking they can just get away with it. Does anyone know how we can just start a legal case in writing? They would know they have no legs to stand on. I doubt even any legal documents would be need to be filled. Just sent to KI.

[ToonTown565]

Simply because KI pay "influencers" AKA streamers, who do as they are paid to do. There's big $$$ in it for them. Do you think even a PVP player wants rid of nearly 50% damage on the back end of a hit, when a shield could take out the front end attack? While over time can take out a second or third shield or finish the battle? As they say it's all about the money!

- - - Updated - - -





Thank you for saying, I thought it must be illegal, every change to every " LORE" spell. KI are clearly thinking they can just get away with it. Does anyone know how we can just start a legal case in writing? They would know they have no legs to stand on. I doubt even any legal documents would be need to be filled. Just sent to KI.

that is not how the legal system works

[Arwen Mythweaver]

If you suspect Bait and Switch, you will need to file a complaint with the Department of Consumer Protection. Be advised that you will need written proof and show intent to deceive. The full details of the process in all its convoluted detail can easily be found in an online search.

If anyone would like to follow up on this, I’d advise waiting until Test goes Live. Things may change before that happens.

[icourt]

My response to Deer Knight. KI - doesn't this fall under the category of bait and switch. Offering one item FOR PURCHASE then changing the item after the sale is completed.

What KI should have done is KEEP the original spell as is for all the existing players, then offer the alternate path choice via spellement path upgrades. Instead, from what I hear, to get your original Deer Knight back you have to choose it via path upgrade. Yeah bait and switch.... ILLEGAL.

KI "hey, buy a bunch of packs to get this cool spell/ement drop"
Everyone "wow that's a great spell - here's my money"
KI "So remember that spell you bought years ago? Yeah, we got rid of it. Sorry, not sorry"
Everyone "***!?!"
KI "Oh, but maybe if you really want your spell back, you can choose to upgrade it to your original spell you paid for years ago. Oh, and here's the pack sale that offers the spellements needed to get your original spell back. Give us your money".

Bait and Switch is illegal in the USA. It is an unfair and deceptive act or practice to Advertise merchandise for sale (deer knight via pack sales), then substituting an inferior item (changing the item to be not what was advertised). Then offering another option for more money as an alternative (give more money to purchase spellements to turn your already purchased deer knight back into the item you originally purchased).

I think you're misinformed here. The "what KI should have done" part is exactly what KI DID. See my reply here:

I didn't watch Goomay's video, but Deer Knight is changing again in the next Novus patch / Novus Live Realm:
- The "base" card is being reverted back to the Damage over Time functionality
- There will be a "No PvP" path with old Damage over Time spellement paths
- Then another path usable in both PvE/PvP with the current Test Realm spellement path (AoE then weakness).

via Cam: "Deer Knight is gonna be split path, between the old DoT path and the new one. For those of you who are wanting old Deer Knight back, there you go."

Hope this helps.
Court
Wiki-Master

Before everyone in this thread starts accusing KingsIsle of breaking the law, I think it's important to realize exactly what KingsIsle did to Deer Knight... they aren't changing the base card, they're adding spellements to upgrade it into a PvP-usable form.

Court

[Willowdreamer]

I am going to close this thread at this point, and hopefully everyone can cool down for a bit -- maybe take a minute to review the Forum Rules.

Flaming -No trolling or flaming. A troll is a person who makes comments designed to induce angry replies. A flame is a hostile message that is a personal attack against another member or group.

*Mentioning another member by name in a negative way (including from in game) is not allowed.