New Feature in R191: Shards

Chameleon

froggerjohn said:

IceIX said:

As for the above "wasted" Shards thought, as stated above, this doesn't match with player play experience in the majority of situations. Players want to keep building characters past Champion for a number of reasons. And for those players that like keeping their characters evenly leveled, those Shards never go away, so they're never really wasted.

@IceIX For those specific use cases, the shards are eventually useful. For all other characters for those players, the shards are wasted.

Unrealized BH odds are NEVER lost or wasted. When you move the BH from one character to another, there's zero consideration for what happened to those previous BH attempts. It only matters "what is the most valuable BH for me right now". And the "chance of getting such a cover" has a constant value that isn't lost when you switch the BH to changing game conditions (like drawing the cover you need naturally).

Shards take that flexibility away from us. Shards only have value if you let them mature to fruition.

While I accept that many players set their BH to the most valuable characters in a tier, I would find it hard to believe that a majority of players never set a "short term" BH to a character that they won't leave selected for later champ rewards.

And all such attempts have the potential for wasted shards.

Well said.

You are removing our opportunity to choose and making us stick with a choice we'd rather change.

Chameleon

Tony_Foot said:

RickOShay said:

@PiMacleod



If you spent over two months acquiring 400 shards on character A, then stumble upon their 13th cover organically...
That means you spent all that time acquiring shards for character A when they could have gone to character B.

Yeah that will never happen to me because I will only pull Latest and shard a classic I might want to finish or get a single cover of a classic I don't have. Like doom. But I can see how annoying that would be if your pulling classics. I'm not interested in a single cover above 450 either. 13 and out, I'm happy if I never get another cover on them again. So wasting one would tick me off too but I have had that happen many times with 5* BH too.

I will certainly plan ahead 300 days, looking what 5* comes from daily rewards and only going classic.

@Tony_Foot

So you'll never pull from one of the stores with 3 5 stars in them?  That's a shame to restrict yourself from that opportunity just to make sure that you don't pull the cover you are saving shards towards.  I doubt the devs had that in mind.

shardwick

spidyjedi84 said:

Those who think extra shards are going to rain down from D3 in any capacity in any tier of this game, I have some oceanfront property in Colorado I'm really trying to unload.

Seriously. People already think that they're stingy with the resources so I'm expecting the shards to trickle out. Honestly won't be surprised if they put 4* or 5* shards in cl9 top 1 placement for pve and pvp.

Chameleon

HoundofShadow said:

The reason why some are still confused why devs have to approach the game using a give and take approach is because those players are too absorbed in their world. It's the same thing when the devs revealed the majority of the players play game differently from the minority, they gets a shock and find it hard to accept the reality that the majority doesn't play game the same way they do.

Look, the goals of players is to minimize the amount of time and money spent to get the resources as quickly as they want. 

The goals of shareholders is to maximize their profits.

The job of the developers is to balance these two extreme goals, to balance the games based on the metrics and conditions imposed on them.

If the devs only add more good stuff for the players, this is not called balancing. This is called tilting the scale towards the players. 

I don't get why this concept, after so many years, is still so difficult to understand. 

It isn't.  Telling me something is great and wonderful when it really isn't, that is difficult to understand.

Of course they need to make money.  In this case they could do that by giving us a way to move the shards around if they refuse to let us pool them for each tier.

Basically, don't blow sunshine up my butt.

Chameleon

OJSP said:

I think it's better to wait until the system is in the game before debating about how we should or shouldn't use it. Different people have different goals, so what works for us might not work for others.

I have some ideas about why the system is currently planned this way and possible ways to make it work. I'll put it spoilers.

tL;dr I think the excess shards is intentional and we can try to find a way around it

SPOILER REMOVED

Bravo.  I'm glad someone is thinking ahead on this.

Sendikelm

I fully agree with OJSP.
One more thing: if you want optimally use shards system you have to hoard.

Chameleon

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/80315/new-feature-in-r191-shards


"EDIT

Update on the Shard Shop with some more final numbers:

The shop will update twice a day, at 5AM and 5PM Eastern Time

The slots will refresh as pictured above - 1 5-star, 3 4-stars, 2 3-stars each time

Each slot will be purchaseable 20 times each reset at slightly increasing cost per reset (exact costs still being finalized)

Shards given per purchase will be 20x per 4 or 5-star slot, 15x for each 3-star slot

Meaning that if you see a Sabretooth in the shop one reset, you could spend the HP to purchase 20 sets of Shards at 20 Shards a piece for 400 total Shards, or one full cover."

DAZ0273

Chameleon said:

Each slot will be purchaseable 20 times each reset at slightly increasing cost per reset (exact costs still being finalized)

Hmm...there is the players definition of "slightly" and the Devs definition...will ever the twain meet? Now wasn't there some sort of thread around here about something to do with things said on the Forum?!?!?

Barnstormer

Well on a bright, yet slightly sad note, I just pulled a Bonus Prof X to finish him out before Carnage came in.  I think this is the definition of bittersweet.  RIP bonus heroes....

On a quick aside, I think the new system will be fine. I was inconvenienced when they stopped allowing exchanges of 5 star covers, but saved covers is way better.  We'll be able to find good in this new system too.  Let's wait and see how the additional shards are implemented before we pass too much judgement.  Right now we can't fully quantify the difference.

HoundofShadow

I'm expecting between 2800 HP to 3600 HP for 400 4* shards, and 25000 to 45000 HP for 400 5* shards, depending on whether it's latest or classic character.

bluewolf

I am going to remain somewhat optimistic about the end result of shards from pulls plus various other avenues (in terms of an increase in total covers earned), for a few reasons.

1.  If you assume the dev comments that have surfaced (usually unofficially on a podcast or something) about recognizing the problem of dilution, then shards provide a way to adjust rewards in a more nuanced way and increase rewards overall without making a dramatic jump, which might be harder to justify for the game economy.  So essentially they could increase progression to 1.3 (or whatever) 4's in progression more easily than going, say, from 1 to 2 covers.

2.  The "partial cover" thing is probably more feature than bug from their POV.  Having partly finished stuff drives our inner OCD patient.  In a way, that means giving out more shards works to their benefit.  (Since a lot of players will probably end up doing things to finish that cover, like play more or spend some HP etc.) Hopefully smart players can figure out how to use that system to their advantage and end up with more completed covers than they gathered from bonus heroes.  I realize this is bad from the perspective of being annoyed at "wasted" shards or unfinished covers, etc, but this system is very broadly used in video games for a reason.

3.  There are a lot of players who have been railing about dilution and how bad it is for their experience, in various online communities (here, Line, Reddit, etc).  And examine things and post about the odds etc.  If the big reward change in the game (since saved covers, 17 months ago) ended up at the end of the day making things WORSE (beyond the colorless thing) for players.....that would be a full signal to walk away and you were waiting in vain for them to adjust things to the Reality of Dilution.  They simply (obviously, based on the past 17 months of development) don't adjust rewards often and if they go through the process of doing so without improving players' situation I suspect many players would see the writing on the wall and be done.  And believe me that we will be examining the systems they put in place and providing analysis.  I realize there is a lot of debate about which players matter etc, but they also listen to the vocal minority at the same time.  Recall the fast adjustment to saved covers to both allow a higher number to be saved as well as decreasing the number needed to convert for 5's.'

We may complain about the devs not listening (as in, often, not making changes we desire) but I do think that when they do make changes, they pay attention to player reactions, and that does have an effect on things and how things ultimately look.

Cactus_Jack_87

If the numbers on that store are correct, with 10 sharts being available to buy towards a 5* cover for 280 HP, that means D3 values each 5* cover at 14,000 HP. I think they have finally jumped the shart with this one.

ElReyFelix

HoundofShadow said:

I'm expecting between 2800 HP to 3600 HP for 400 4* shards, and 25000 to 45000 HP for 400 5* shards, depending on whether it's latest or classic character.

What was your reasoning behind these #s?

Daredevil217

Someone asked this earlier @IceIX, but what happens when we hit 500/500 shards. Do we have to apply them immediately or can they sit in the bank waiting to be converted. If the latter, how many shards can a person bank?

If we can bank shards it REALLY allows for more flexibility. 

tiomono

Daredevil217 said:

Someone asked this earlier @IceIX, but what happens when we hit 500/500 shards. Do we have to apply them immediately or can they sit in the bank waiting to be converted. If the latter, how many shards can a person bank?

If we can bank shards it REALLY allows for more flexibility. 

This is a good question. Even if the bank is capped at 500, 400, 300 for 5*'s, 4's, 3's. Then excess shards went to a random character or your other selected targeted characters in that tier it could eliminate the "waste" factor completely. Once you got close enough to finishing shards on a character you could add the next character you want to target.

pheregas

ElReyFelix said:

HoundofShadow said:

I'm expecting between 2800 HP to 3600 HP for 400 4* shards, and 25000 to 45000 HP for 400 5* shards, depending on whether it's latest or classic character.

What was your reasoning behind these #s?

I'm not 100% sure where Hound's math comes in.  But based on IceX's original post at the beginning of this thread.  The offered daily deal shows a 5* Iron Man with 10 shard points for 280 HP.  On a long enough timeline, that daily deal will repeat.  There are currently 38 5*s in the game.  So if we just average 10 shards purchasable by HP a month, it will take us 50 months to get a single cover through HP alone.  (Which just breaks my mind a little to contemplate.)

50 daily deals times 280 HP = 14,000 HP.  So one 5* cover = 14,000 HP.

DAZ0273

Didn't Ice mention something about the possibility of starting duplicates with unused shards? Not sure whereabouts in 19 pages you will find that though and apologies if I am mis-quoting or it was somebody else who said this.

ThaRoadWarrior

Daredevil217 said:

Someone asked this earlier @IceIX, but what happens when we hit 500/500 shards. Do we have to apply them immediately or can they sit in the bank waiting to be converted. If the latter, how many shards can a person bank?

If we can bank shards it REALLY allows for more flexibility. 

I am concerned that you can't bank above a single cover, since all of the screenshots in the initial post have exactly one cover's worth of shards the user is about to spend, and you would expect earned shards to have a few loose above that number.

ElReyFelix

pheregas said:

ElReyFelix said:

HoundofShadow said:

I'm expecting between 2800 HP to 3600 HP for 400 4* shards, and 25000 to 45000 HP for 400 5* shards, depending on whether it's latest or classic character.

What was your reasoning behind these #s?

I'm not 100% sure where Hound's math comes in.  But based on IceX's original post at the beginning of this thread.  The offered daily deal shows a 5* Iron Man with 10 shard points for 280 HP.  On a long enough timeline, that daily deal will repeat.  There are currently 38 5*s in the game.  So if we just average 10 shards purchasable by HP a month, it will take us 50 months to get a single cover through HP alone.  (Which just breaks my mind a little to contemplate.)

50 daily deals times 280 HP = 14,000 HP.  So one 5* cover = 14,000 HP.

The most recent update says that you can buy each deal up to 20 times, and each bundle is 20 shards (for 4* and 5*). It also says there is a "slight" increase after each purchase

ThaRoadWarrior

I had a similar gut feeling to Hound's about pricing - a current 4* HFH cover costs 3600hp, comes with 10k iso, 3cp, and 8 elite tokens. 

Depending on how high of a value they place on the flexibility of color-lessness compared to the other resources that used to come with an HFH deal, I would expect the total hp cost of a purchased-shard-cover to probably come out a little above the existing cost for a known color cover + other stuff.

3600/20 = 180, so it's already not a straight conversion from the get-go.

3* covers have not been directly purchasable for hp since I've been playing, so the value of those shards is not as easy to extrapolate. 

5* Coves similarly have only recently (to my memory) become available in hp-buy situations via that early release store with 1:250 odds. I guess we could tabulate a ballpark value for a 5* cover from the prices of draws in that store, but in my mind that's not an apples to apples comparison to shards.