AXP_isme said: Evidently I’ve opened 124 LTs since shards went live. At this rate it’ll take me approximately 70 days (almost certainly more since I was hoarding in anticipation of the announcement) to earn one cover of my 5* target. Getting five additional covers per year under this system (I’m excluding those that I ‘earn’ from 4* rewards) feels really slow. This may be the thing that finally drives me away. I really hope that shards get added into the progression and placement rewards structures soon so that I can get an idea of their distribution. As it stands I feel like the RNG hasn’t really been mitigated substantially because I earn target characters so infrequently so the majority of my progress comes from rewards and tokens anywhere. The slow filling of the progress bars, particularly on 5*s, feels more like penance than progress’s Dan even the monetisation has been hated behind more RNG. I’ve given it the benefit of the doubt and have decided that I don’t like this system.
HoundofShadow said: The main problem is players hate tradeoff in any form. They categorise changes in the game as either "taking away things from them" or "adding things". As long as changes involve taking something away even though new things are added, they are going to minimize the effects of the positive and enlarge the negative effects.The point is, they expect the devs to add in new (major) stuff/resources/changes without tradeoffs, which I think is unrealistic. The only tradeoff the dev can make is removing "negative" things. When Supports were made more available, there were similar reactions. These type of reactions were prevalent in the past, is prevalent now, and it will continue into the future. As long as the players refuse to acknowledge tradeoffs are necessary to balance the game or expect tradeoff to be minimal, they will continue to react like this.
Daredevil217 said:I do believe that the few vocal defenders of shards think more emotionally than logically. They remember those times RNG was unkind and it sticks in their brains. All the “stuff” they are losing isn’t something you see/notice on a day to day basis, so it doesn’t “feel” as bad. Which is fine since this is a game and feelings/emotions count for a lot. But I think those who just look at it logically realize this was a raw deal. That’s the backlash you’re seeing. It’s not just “players want free stuff” and boiling it down to that one point is super dismissive of actual concerns.
Godzillafan67 said: @Daredevil217, apparently I can't "like" an "insightful" post, but you are spot on. I am 100% pro-shards in the abstract, but as you say, this net negative that's been given is the problem. What if shards were awarded covers just slightly above the BH rate? What if champion rewards didn't decrease when shards were added? Would all the haters still be hating?To summarize, I'm pro shards, but the implementation has been awful.
tiomono said: I do hope shards get added into progression and placement as well. At this point I feel that will likely toss some other reward out of progression and placement though. That will for sure give many players an even worse view of shards.
Captain_Carlman said: tiomono said: I do hope shards get added into progression and placement as well. At this point I feel that will likely toss some other reward out of progression and placement though. That will for sure give many players an even worse view of shards. I wouldn't be surprised if 3 and 4* covers were replaced by shards for those characters in progression at some point. As a player trying to progress into 4* land for like, four years now, the day full covers get replaced completely by shards is probably the day I'm done with the game.
helix72 said: My level 300 Kitty was 2/3/3 when a Kitty special store was offered. Thanks to shards I got her to 5/5/3 with 2 saved covers and only spent net (after the 4* champ level rewards were added) a little over 2,000 CP to get there. Under BHs, I might have had to blow much more.