Debate on the value of shards

System
System Posts: 1,032 Chairperson of the Boards
in MPQ General Discussion
This discussion was created from comments split from: Is the 4* tier dead?.
«134

Comments

  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    DAZ0273 said:
    fight4thedream said:


    Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier.  I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play.


    This is an interesting point.

    I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.

    I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.

    Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.

    However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution.
    I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.
  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,275 Chairperson of the Boards
    tiomono said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    fight4thedream said:


    Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier.  I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play.


    This is an interesting point.

    I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.

    I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.

    Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.

    However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution.
    I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.

    Possibly it is psychological but it feels slow. Not counting the retrospective rewards which are a different thing, shards have so far brought me I think 1 or 2 4* cover to date just from acquisition of shards from cover packs being opened. It feels slow.

    I'm not sure I would call my opinion "disdain" but YMMV.
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    DAZ0273 said:
    tiomono said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    fight4thedream said:


    Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier.  I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play.


    This is an interesting point.

    I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.

    I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.

    Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.

    However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution.
    I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.

    Possibly it is psychological but it feels slow. Not counting the retrospective rewards which are a different thing, shards have so far brought me I think 1 or 2 4* cover to date just from acquisition of shards from cover packs being opened. It feels slow.

    I'm not sure I would call my opinion "disdain" but YMMV.
    Yeah I dont think calling them slow equals disdain. There are definitely people that feel very negatively about them though.
  • Reecoh
    Reecoh Posts: 210 Tile Toppler
    edited January 2020
    tiomono said:
    @Vhailorx
    I still feel the colorless aspect of the shard system is very valuable. I had a character get up to 23 saved covers before I could champ them before. That's the kind of very rare example that sticks in your mind and sours a person on rng pretty hard. With shards everytime I get enough for a cover it is one guaranteed step to champing them sooner than under an rng system. Which is why I feel shards do help dillution a bit better than bonus heros. 

     I think it says something about the design of the system when the first cover you get from a feeder is in fact a colored cover and not shards. Seems like the earlier rewards are what you'd want to be colorless...
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    Reecoh said:
    tiomono said:
    @Vhailorx
    I still feel the colorless aspect of the shard system is very valuable. I had a character get up to 23 saved covers before I could champ them before. That's the kind of very rare example that sticks in your mind and sours a person on rng pretty hard. With shards everytime I get enough for a cover it is one guaranteed step to champing them sooner than under an rng system. Which is why I feel shards do help dillution a bit better than bonus heros. 

     I think it says something about the design of the system when the first cover you get from a feeder is in fact a colored cover and not shards. Seems like the earlier rewards are what you'd want to be colorless...
    For the player you absolutely want colorless as soon as possible. From the dev point of view they still want that hp roster slot pressure on people instead of a shard bank that you never need to roster if you dont want to.
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    Vhailorx said:
    Reecoh said:
    tiomono said:
    @Vhailorx
    I still feel the colorless aspect of the shard system is very valuable. I had a character get up to 23 saved covers before I could champ them before. That's the kind of very rare example that sticks in your mind and sours a person on rng pretty hard. With shards everytime I get enough for a cover it is one guaranteed step to champing them sooner than under an rng system. Which is why I feel shards do help dillution a bit better than bonus heros. 

     I think it says something about the design of the system when the first cover you get from a feeder is in fact a colored cover and not shards. Seems like the earlier rewards are what you'd want to be colorless...
    Yes, this choice gives away the whole the whole game IMO.  On the very day they rolled out the new shard system champion rewards, theoretically the long awaited solution to bad cover rng, I got 1x blue cable and archangel covers.  Both of which are now saved thanks to my 5/x/x cover distribution for both of those characters.  But because all that extra flexibility "has to come from somewhere" (according to demi/d3 and the white knights), I also get to enjoy fewer bonus covers AND less Iso/HP from my 2* and 3* farms. . .

    By grabthar's hammer, what a savings!
    We have secured you limousine.
  • KGB
    KGB Posts: 3,238 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited January 2020
    tiomono said:

    I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.
    It's 1% less overall or 20% fewer when viewed in terms of bonus heroes (4% vs 5% is 4/5ths).

    In the 3* tier I earn thousands of tokens a year so 1% less adds up to potentially 1 extra max champed 3* on my farm. That's a fair amount of lost resources. Then factor in the 4* and 5* draws (way fewer obviously) and depending on how much you play, it could be a hundred or more 4* covers in a year.

    KGB
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,455 Chairperson of the Boards
    Shards for me are actually more reliable because I pull as I go. You KNOW you're going to get that 5* cover as you pull, and you can project out how long it will take you to get there. So while not quite as "exciting" as bonus heroes, it lets you make more informed realistic tradeoffs with time vs value deciding who to chase. "wasted" shards are whatever to me really; I'm pulling from latest and shard targeting classics at the 5* tier, so there is no overlap, and 4* champ levels come about 1/week so it's not a huge deal to just finish somebody up if I land an organic cover.
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    KGB said:
    tiomono said:

    I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.
    It's 1% less overall or 20% fewer when viewed in terms of bonus heroes (4% vs 5% is 4/5ths).

    In the 3* tier I earn thousands of tokens a year so 1% less adds up to potentially 1 extra max champed 3* on my farm. That's a fair amount of lost resources. Then factor in the 4* and 5* draws (way fewer obviously) and depending on how much you play, it could be a hundred or more 4* covers in a year.

    KGB
    I have not really thought of it that way. Humorously enough the 20% better cost per cover is the exact reason I use my cp in classics.
  • jamesh
    jamesh Posts: 1,600 Chairperson of the Boards
    tiomono said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    fight4thedream said:


    Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier.  I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play.


    This is an interesting point.

    I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.

    I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.

    Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.

    However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution.
    I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.

    It's not 1% though.  If consider only legendary tokens, and assume you opened enough for the bonus hero rate to converge to the advertised probabilities, then the new system will give you ~ 20% fewer 5* covers and 12% fewer 4* covers.

    Those numbers add up quite quickly, and the pain was exacerbated by bonus heroes being the last reliable way to cover new characters fast.

  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    jamesh said:
    tiomono said:
    DAZ0273 said:
    fight4thedream said:


    Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier.  I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play.


    This is an interesting point.

    I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.

    I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.

    Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.

    However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution.
    I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.

    It's not 1% though.  If consider only legendary tokens, and assume you opened enough for the bonus hero rate to converge to the advertised probabilities, then the new system will give you ~ 20% fewer 5* covers and 12% fewer 4* covers.

    Those numbers add up quite quickly, and the pain was exacerbated by bonus heroes being the last reliable way to cover new characters fast.

    But why consider only legendary tokens when heroics give you 4* shards too? And how many pulls do you need to hit that 20% fewer covers? How many players under the rng of bonus heros already had stats as bad or worse than that 20%?
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    Kolence said:
    OK, once again, though I'm pretty sure I've seen someone post this soon after the shards threads started. 
    Heroics used to give BH every 20 pulls (not every 20 3* or 20 4*).
    The store says odds are ~1:16 and ~1:5 for 4* and 3*. That means every 21 BH you got, 16 were 3* and 5 were 4*.
    21 BH would take 420 pulls and give 5 bonus 4* which is worth 2000 shards, and 16 bonus 3* which is worth 4800 shards. 
    With shards, 420 pulls gives 1260 shards for 4* (37% less) and 4200 shards for 3* (12.5% less). 
    Those numbers are an average though. I guarantee if every player made 420 pulls under bonus heros there would be wildly different results. That makes some players feel great and others quit.

    Shards gives guaranteed equal rewards for equal effort for every player. Bonus heros did not.
  • tiomono
    tiomono Posts: 1,654 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited January 2020
    Vhailorx said:
    tiomono said:
    Kolence said:
    OK, once again, though I'm pretty sure I've seen someone post this soon after the shards threads started. 
    Heroics used to give BH every 20 pulls (not every 20 3* or 20 4*).
    The store says odds are ~1:16 and ~1:5 for 4* and 3*. That means every 21 BH you got, 16 were 3* and 5 were 4*.
    21 BH would take 420 pulls and give 5 bonus 4* which is worth 2000 shards, and 16 bonus 3* which is worth 4800 shards. 
    With shards, 420 pulls gives 1260 shards for 4* (37% less) and 4200 shards for 3* (12.5% less). 
    Those numbers are an average though. I guarantee if every player made 420 pulls under bonus heros there would be wildly different results. That makes some players feel great and others quit.

    Shards gives guaranteed equal rewards for equal effort for every player. Bonus heros did not.
    That doesn't argue in favor of shards though.  Some people would get very bad BH luck, but if they pulled long enough than, like everyone else, it would average out.  Shards means no one gets good or bad rng, and EVERYONE is a little worse off than under bh (unless, I suppose, they have a very good character stuck at 5/5/2 and no viable alternatives in the meantime). Shards, as implemented, is just a bad deal for players.

    And I say that as someone who has had JJ stuck at 3/8/3 for almost 2 years now (yes, I somehow managed to pull multiple useless black covers for her from LTs, but only AFTER cs coverswaps ended.  I had really tinykitty luck with her). 

    But this BH/shards discussion is way off topic for this thread.
    But how long before it evens out? How many pulls did it take to guarantee someone evened out? 1000 pulls, 2000, 1,000,000, 5,000,000. Nobody knows. We know with shards that every player gets equal rewards for equal effort from the word go.

    And yes this is off topic so it will be my last comment on this subject in this discussion. I would be glad to talk more about it in an on topic discussion.
  • fight4thedream
    fight4thedream GLOBAL_MODERATORS Posts: 1,973 Chairperson of the Boards
    **Mod note: Split off this discussion from the Is the 4* tier dead thread. There were a couple of posts that dealt with both topics so I left those in the original thread. Not the cleanest split but hopefully good enough to not be too confusing. 
  • ThaRoadWarrior
    ThaRoadWarrior Posts: 9,455 Chairperson of the Boards
    I'm earning a 3* cover via shards every ~2-3 days through leisurely play, and I even did it in a single day, on a lightning round day where I had a final sub and a new event sub I could do together, when i was so inclined. The way I play, the 3* shard rate is up for me reliably. 4*s are coming in 1/week, which is slightly up from my tracking of leaving my BH on Chavez all year in 2019. 5* shard heroes are coming down ~1/63 days, which is at least now trackable. I'm not entirely sure that my reality under both systems isn't actually better, but at least it's predictable and when i get something I can definitely use it.
  • Mayo
    Mayo Posts: 156 Tile Toppler
    Having played on bh and shard system for quite some time it seems I got more covers with bh and even though I did not get the color I wanted, when i finally did I could level up my hero several levels giving me more attack options meanwhile with shards it tales more time to get that specific color you need but sincerily.... Does 1 cover make the difference in any game play?
    Also something that shard defenders can't argue is that shards REPLACED other ingame resources making it even slower to progress for players who try to play this game actively but with low investment of real money. 
    Support system is incomplete, abandone and has given some players many advantages in pve and we are still receiving red iso for free and basic support tokens for hp when shards should have replaced them.
    I spended a few hundred dollars supporting the game at the start but with shards I rarely invest in more than vip. Games should provide fluidity over resources starvation. There is a limit to how much money a few whales will invest in a game where player rotation is high due to ever imposed progress barriers and shards as implemented are that.
    None of the people I recommended the game have lasted more than 6 months, no brainer is the rrason why. 

Categories