The rockett said: @Punisher5784 I hope they don't do that. Reason is that would lead to a lot of high end 5*. This would only mean that they would introduce 6*, which to be is not a good thing. The rumors of 6* have been around since 5* were released.
Pongie said: There is no way they would release as many 5*s as 4*s. Does having 2 feeders for each 5* is too many? That’s 12x covers for an optimal 4/4/4 setup and any single pull (or bonus heroes) would complete a 5*. Too good to implement? We’ve already identified possible multiple 4*s feeding a single 5* so it’s not really far fetched. Though taking RNG away completely is a long shot. Regardless of how long it would take a typical player to max 2x 4*s for those covers.
broll said: Pongie said: There is no way they would release as many 5*s as 4*s. Does having 2 feeders for each 5* is too many? That’s 12x covers for an optimal 4/4/4 setup and any single pull (or bonus heroes) would complete a 5*. Too good to implement? We’ve already identified possible multiple 4*s feeding a single 5* so it’s not really far fetched. Though taking RNG away completely is a long shot. Regardless of how long it would take a typical player to max 2x 4*s for those covers. I struggled with this question too. Since there are more than double as many 4* as 5* (and growing faster) you would think they would have two. But if there were going to have 2 per you'd think they'd only give 3 per because 12 is too generous.People (myself included) have pondered whether this change is paving the road for 6*s. If it is, maybe there will be much fewer 4* releases in the future. Rotation might change to 6/5/5 with the occasional 6* copied to 4*. That would allow the numbers to eventually balance out.