DyingLegend said: The problem with shards is it shows you how long its going to take which is extremely demoralizing. With bonus heroes they could pop up whenever which made it exciting. Even though sometimes it would take months or weeks for it to pop up, but sometimes you got bonus heroes back to back which was amazing.Now you know its going to X amount of time to accrue the shards needed to apply one cover, which sucks. Its so depressing knowing that its going to take this exorbitant amount of time, when the other method it could happen whenever and make your day.I'm hating shards more and more everyday cause the best way to earn shards is by spending.Im not spending another dime on this game.
JHawkInc said: Random "full completion"s are never going to happen, because they're entirely too strong.Based on the HP cost to buy Shards in the store, and the cost of HP, we're looking at north of $100 to buy a single 5-star cover.And you're suggesting that occasionally the meter just fills up. That's like the game randomly giving you, say, $60 worth of resources for free.If you swapped your "full completion" with "5 shards", then maybe it might be a bit more reasonable. Or, given the shard values, maybe "double shards" on that single pull (and never on 10x or 40x packs)
JHawkInc said: You're suggesting both be in play, which is, at a bare minimum, better than bonus heroes. It's not "equal at best." It's better by default.The point of shifting between them is to go from "one cover every X pulls" to "1/Xth of a cover every pull," and what you're suggesting speeds that up. Randomly filling the bar for shards is the equivalent of randomly putting you Z number of pulls closer to a bonus hero (without actually having to make those pulls).The change in system was meant to be a mostly lateral move, and you're suggesting something that is faster, because no matter when it triggers it will result in more covers given out over time.
JHawkInc said: Well, I thought it was apparent, and then you claimed it was equal to bonus heroes, which is a direct contradiction to the idea that it's faster."Slightly backwards plus a more consistent pace" IS lateral. The tradeoff matters. You can't look at the downside and call it bad and ignore the upsides (plural, because in addition to the consistent pace we're also getting colorless covers).The point is that it isn't something that needs a drastic fix, and that even if it does need tweaking, the suggestion on hand is too heavy-handed to ever be implemented.