Ancient shards or higher are fine as downtime compensation.  Green shards, yeah, I'd complain about them because I usually have more then I can easily get rid of.

I understand your "lottery" argument, but the issue isn't them using ancient shards as compensation.

The problem is the RNG on ancient shards is horrible, even if you save them for double chance events.

There are too may heroes already, with more being added, most of which are pure garbage, with no way to overcome the bad RNG.

I've had too many players in my clan just stop playing because they've gotten so horribly screwed by the RNG.  

Ancients would be awesome if they implemented some for of trade in allowing to sell junk champs for credit towards better champs. There's a star wars game that did this well, you could sell duplicates and after having saved enough tokens buy from a pool of random champs each day. (say one 3*, 4*, 5* each day, usually older champs since many were cash only when they were first released).  It took a lot of saving but you always had hope you could get a champ you needed either for that last skillup or to complete your team.

i completely agree with what you say, i dont undestand what people are saying against it, based on a 3 pack of gems being 270 gems, i personally would prefer the 90 or 180 gems than shards, only downside is you obviously cannot buy shards with that small amount, but it would be fairer, some people just like to jump on the band wagon and give long winded pointless diatribe.

you idea and your arguement is valid, it is not a fair system because the end rewards are not the same.