An oft reported frustration is the poor draw rate for 4* and 5* for gems… and hence the poor value for money that gems represent.
An oft used argument in favour of the current system (a fundamentally sound argument I might add) is the fact that you can’t make the best heroes too ‘cheaply’ accessible otherwise it would trivialise the game.
I previously posted an idea that heroes have limited life span as a solution. It was unpopular. People get too attached to their heroes and would not like to see them go after substantial investment in them.
My proposed answer to these dilemmas: Another type of summon portal that allows you to summon a ‘Mercenary’.
It works something like as follows:
- You have an extra summon portal (does not replace any existing) for the mercenary for 300 gems
- Mercenary would be 4* or 5* with probability split in the order of 75% vs. 25% for 4* vs. 5* (split can be decided)
- Includes HOTMs from previous months.
- The Mercenary has limited life span. Lasts (say) 30 days or so. (time can be decided)
- You level the merc similar to other heroes, but with the exception of Ascensions. When it comes to ascending, you can EITHER ascend with items, or you can pay the Merc in gems for him to source the items for you (i.e. option to ascend with gems instead). Why? For the obvious reason that 30 days won’t be enough to fully ascend a 5* due to scarcity of ascension items. Thinking in the order of 50 gems for 1st ascent, 100 for 2nd and 200 for 3rd.
- And now the clincher: You can only have 1 active merc in your team at any one time. (You can summon as many as your gems can afford, but can’t fill your team with them.) May want to modify this to only being entitled to summon 1 per 30d period, but I prefer the thought that those who want to invest more gems for a better one should be entitled to do so. Ultimately it’s funding the game (as gems largely equate to real money on the whole).
- It’s a great sink for gems… which ultimately translates to more revenue for SG
- It makes the best heroes in the game accessible to all if they are willing to spend the gems.
- It doesn’t detract from the core mechanic of the game. You still need a good team of ‘perms’ to support your merc. He can’t do it all just by himself.
- It won’t over-power anyone. It may make up-and-comers temporarily able to play ‘with the big boys’ for a bit, but won’t ultimately change the overall balance of power in the game.
- Does not overtly swing the advantage to P2W, because only 1 can be active. If anything, F2P will now have access (through just gems earned through time) to a good temporary boost to their team to allow them time to ‘compete with the best’.
- It is ENTIRELY opt in. Don’t like the idea or feel you don’t want to ‘waste’ your gems on a hero that will be gone again in 30d, then don’t use the summon portal.
- At only the cost of some gems, can be used to ‘preview’ a ‘permanent’ version of such a hero to see if it’s worth maxing your perm before you have to commit the substantial time and ascension materials to do so.
- It’s not a major change to the mechanic of the game. Low cost to develop this, and I feel it would boost revenue. Certainly I (who have undertaken to spend no more in the current system) would happily start shelling out real money for the gems to be able to play with different 4* and some interesting 5*.
- Making more people more competitive is a good thing. But it won’t unfairly disadvantage the most powerful, as they would already have fully developed stables of the best heroes.
- Introduces freshnesh for those who don’t have massive depth in their team. Introducing a new hero creates opportunities for new and different team dynamics; changes in strategy to titans; a chance to excel in events; etc.
Erm… struggling here. But I’m sure you lot can think of some.
About the only one I can come up with is those who already have a well developed stable of perm heroes may feel ‘cheated’ by the fact that others will now have possible access to some of these rare heroes without putting in as much time or effort.
(Frankly I think blocking the idea on that basis would be mean spirited… but bears mentioning as a potential issue.)
Let me know your thoughts, please, and ‘like’ and/or bump the post if you like the idea.
(Right… with that out of the system, maybe I can now get some sleep).