JSP869 said: HoundofShadow said: You don't need to open 400 heroics to earn a few 4* covers. You need to open only 27 Classic or LTs to get a 4* cover. That's what I did after Shards went live, immediately got my first "bonus" level for Kate taking her to 305, and after pulling this week's Heroic Tokens (& other event Tokens) she's currently at 371 / 400 towards her next '"bonus" level. The plan is to get Kate to 320 to help me finish my currently 3/4/3 Clint Barton. He's already at 132 / 500, and after doing the math, 290 more Legendary pulls will have earned me two "bonus" Clint covers, although Kate will still be shy of 320. But I'll also be earning 3 shards for Kate with every Heroic and Event Token I pull, so I might get her to 320 around the same time I make my 290th Legendary Pull. Also helping Kate is that I've BH/Sharded 3* Hawkguy, and his "bonus" covers have been rolling in. Unfortunately my dupe Hawkguy is only 249 so he won't give up a Kate cover for another 16 levels, but adding 17 levels to him will give me two LTs, plus a third LT when I champion him again (14 more covers ), and he'll give me a second Kate cover at 183 (another 17 covers )As Dutch said, I've just got to stick to the plan.
HoundofShadow said: You don't need to open 400 heroics to earn a few 4* covers. You need to open only 27 Classic or LTs to get a 4* cover.
grumbLEGO said: Honestly, I’ll take working toward a certainty over the odds of maybe getting what I need any day. I’d love to see the 5*s showing up a progress rewards in SL 10(patent pending), and the shards mean that maybe it’ll take longer and it’s at “lower” odds, but eventually I will get the cover I need. I’ll miss the surprise of a bonus cover but it beats the disappointment of always missing the odds.
pheregas said: Shards is the Socialism of Progress. We all get it at the same rate. Sure, with money, you can accelerate this. Everyone is as equal to their effort/purchasing levels as they want to be.
Bryan Lambert said: pheregas said: Shards is the Socialism of Progress. We all get it at the same rate. Sure, with money, you can accelerate this. Everyone is as equal to their effort/purchasing levels as they want to be. Socialism where people can pay more money to get more socialism is very bad at being socialism.
pheregas said: Shards is the Socialism of Progress. We all get it at the same rate. Sure, with money, you can accelerate this. Everyone is as equal to their effort/purchasing levels as they want to be.Again, the "wasted" shards commentary doesn't affect the 3 or 4* tiers at all. Shards don't just fall out of the sky, so change them as soon as you fill the desired quantity of earned covers.My biggest complaint continues to be that not all Classic 5s have feeders and that a feeder could be announced at random. If my only goal is to champ my unchamped 5s, then I've put forth potentially months of effort towards one character that I could have put towards a different character that say, already had a feeder or was in Latest.
HoundofShadow said: The objectives of TH have been clearly stated:1) ability to make targeted progress to characters across the 3-star tier and up. 2) ability to work towards specific colors without waiting through 5 Saved Covers to convert.The above are what players requested. Based on in-game data, feedbacks and analysis, this should satisfy majority of the players.It's unfortunate that the reality of this world doesn't align with your version of reality. The source of unhappiness around here is usually due to being unable to deal with how reality works and impatience. They continue to push their ideas of how MPQ should be without taking into consideration of all the stakeholders involved in those decision-making process.Right now, the minority are affected by TH. Let's wait a couple months and see what the rest of 100,000+ players say. If they find that this is worse than BH, the devs will make changes to it.
HoundofShadow said: It's reasonable to believe that the players didn't ask the developers to remove BH. Afterall, players want to gain resources with the least amount of effort and money. And that's the problem with living in a "it's all about me" world. "Me, me, me!". People who are absorbed in their world are out of touch with reality.In the real world, tradeoff has to be made between parties with different goals. It's an undeniable fact and a reality of life. Because tradeoff has to be made, that's why BH was replaced. It's not unreasonable to believe that they have worked out the implications of implementing colourless covers. Obviously, it's going to hurt them in the long run. That's why they didn't go that route.My stand has always been: it's impossible to make every stakeholders happy when changes are made. Therefore, the next best scenario is to make the majority happy. Based on in-game data and feedbacks revealed by the devs, TH should be a system that is better for majority of the players overall, in terms of fulfilling both objectives mentioned.I recognise that there are players unhappy with TH. But, again, it's impossible to make everyone happy. Someone will be on the "losing" end. Please find a developer that can make all changes that satisfy every single players that play their games. They don't exist.The devs mentioned that "wildcard" shards aren't that bad. This could be something that makes the anti-TH players slightly less unhappy. The approach of the developers have been pretty straightforward: 1) Gather data about problems2) Work out different solutions3) Choose the best solutions/changes4) Implement the solutions/changes5) Gather and analyse data/feedback6) Make changes7) Repeat the step 4-7.They are probably at step 5 now.It was not mentioned that one of the objectives of TH is to increase players' activity. So, this is irrelevant.I'm only a 4* player. The destiny of this game is the same of other similar games that made the same decisions, great games are a balance of good free gaming and optional systems to received support from happy users. Tekken series, civilization, etc. Yo can play with reasonable enjoyment and you can support the game without feeling the pressure of dedicating hours and real money knowing the game will go on for many years. What is a good balance for example? Both systems co existing until the new systems is fully implemented. I have stopped all purchases aside VIP for now, i can not imagine myself paying for an incomplete product. I think you and others do or at least tolerate it. I am also a 4* player and have no more than a month in a t100 guild, with no interest in harvesting 100s of covers a week. I only want to have a good experience playing this game.
HoundofShadow said: It's reasonable to believe that the players didn't ask the developers to remove BH. Afterall, players want to gain resources with the least amount of effort and money. And that's the problem with living in a "it's all about me" world. "Me, me, me!". People who are absorbed in their world are out of touch with reality.In the real world, tradeoff has to be made between parties with different goals. It's an undeniable fact and a reality of life. Because tradeoff has to be made, that's why BH was replaced. It's not unreasonable to believe that they have worked out the implications of implementing colourless covers. Obviously, it's going to hurt them in the long run. That's why they didn't go that route.My stand has always been: it's impossible to make every stakeholders happy when changes are made. Therefore, the next best scenario is to make the majority happy. Based on in-game data and feedbacks revealed by the devs, TH should be a system that is better for majority of the players overall, in terms of fulfilling both objectives mentioned.I recognise that there are players unhappy with TH. But, again, it's impossible to make everyone happy. Someone will be on the "losing" end. Please find a developer that can make all changes that satisfy every single players that play their games. They don't exist.The devs mentioned that "wildcard" shards aren't that bad. This could be something that makes the anti-TH players slightly less unhappy. The approach of the developers have been pretty straightforward: 1) Gather data about problems2) Work out different solutions3) Choose the best solutions/changes4) Implement the solutions/changes5) Gather and analyse data/feedback6) Make changes7) Repeat the step 4-7.They are probably at step 5 now.It was not mentioned that one of the objectives of TH is to increase players' activity. So, this is irrelevant.I'm only a 4* player.
tiomono said: ROY84 said: Trilateralus said: So I jumped the gun a little. I though you only got 5* shards upon pulling a 5* cover. Knowing you get the shards from every LT is definitely better. Still don’t like the loss of BH. It's only 3 shards though. You'd have to pull hundreds of covers to get a 5* I've gotten 5* bonus heroes on pulls off 5 or less. I can't even understand the people who defend this. Its 167 pulls, not hundreds. How many times did you have dry spells on bonus 5*'s that were longer than 167? I'm sure the spreadsheet people have plenty of data to support how horrible dry spells were.
ROY84 said: Trilateralus said: So I jumped the gun a little. I though you only got 5* shards upon pulling a 5* cover. Knowing you get the shards from every LT is definitely better. Still don’t like the loss of BH. It's only 3 shards though. You'd have to pull hundreds of covers to get a 5* I've gotten 5* bonus heroes on pulls off 5 or less. I can't even understand the people who defend this.
Trilateralus said: So I jumped the gun a little. I though you only got 5* shards upon pulling a 5* cover. Knowing you get the shards from every LT is definitely better. Still don’t like the loss of BH.