There must be a correlation... [Let's talk about Shield Rank]

DyingLegend

Shield Rank is a welcomed addition to the game offering a brief respite from the ISO struggles we all have.30k here and there is a nice little bump. With that said, there has to be more value behind the Shield Rank. I have to think that the Shield Rank can accurately depict the stage in the game someone is at, by that I mean where in the transition period they are in ( 2*-3*, 3*-4*, 4*-5*). There has to be a correlation with your Shield Rank and your overall roster level.

I think that the Shield Rank feature has been under used at this point in time. I feel there is so much more they can do with it to help out players in the their respective transitional period.

Personally I'm all for hitting a certain Shield Rank and it changing the draw rates of characters in Heroic Tokens.

For example; Let's say you are Shield Rank 25 and your current draw rates are 75% for 2*, 20% for a 3* and 5% for a 4*.( Numbers are made up for sake of demo). Now you hit Shield Rank 50 and your draw rates are now 40% for 2*, 50% for a 3* and 10% for a 4* and the higher you go the more the scale tips to help you earn 4 stars.

Just a thought!

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but what are everyone's current feeling on Shield Rank and how it can be improved or is it fine the way it is?

**Clarified title - Ducky

Punisher5784

There is tons of things they can do with Shield Rank but they haven't done anything with it since its implementation, which is a shame. It had so much promise but it was poorly thought out.

I think you level too fast that your rank does not match your actual roster. I still find it odd that you gain XP for opening a token AND adding the cover to your characters. It feels like double dipping. I'm curious how others feel about leveling.

As far as what Shield Rank can do, the rank to enter a SCL is too low. It made sense upon its release, but then the devs changed it. This is possibly due to not enough players in higher CLs but now we're all bundled together, high and low level players. The release of SCL7 was good but 8 was a poor sequel. Now I see high level players entering lower SCL. Why? Because the difference in the rewards are too similar. 10 is too high of a number when the difference is basically a couple more Iso and HP. 

I would love to see Shield Rank used for Boss Events, DDQ, Gauntlet. Give us the rewards that make sense for my roster. 140 iso reward in a Boss event is silly. Not utilizing Thanos' Crash of the Mad Titans as DDQ for SCL8 is disappointing. Having 1 4* in Gauntlet, along with the lower rewards is not motivating either.

I like your idea but I doubt the devs would increase 3/4/5* odds on tokens using your Shield Rank. The only thing the devs have stated they're working on with Shield Rank or Clearance Level is scaling, which I don't agree with because the devs clearly don't play their own game or they're barely in 3* land.

DyingLegend

Punisher5784 said:

There is tons of things they can do with Shield Rank but they haven't done anything with it since its implementation, which is a shame. It had so much promise but it was poorly thought out.

I think you level too fast that your rank does not match your actual roster. I still find it odd that you gain XP for opening a token AND adding the cover to your characters. It feels like double dipping. I'm curious how others feel about leveling.

As far as what Shield Rank can do, the rank to enter a SCL is too low. It made sense upon its release, but then the devs changed it. This is possibly due to not enough players in higher CLs but now we're all bundled together, high and low level players. The release of SCL7 was good but 8 was a poor sequel. Now I see high level players entering lower SCL. Why? Because the difference in the rewards are too similar. 10 is too high of a number when the difference is basically a couple more Iso and HP. 

I would love to see Shield Rank used for Boss Events, DDQ, Gauntlet. Give us the rewards that make sense for my roster. 140 iso reward in a Boss event is silly. Not utilizing Thanos' Crash of the Mad Titans as DDQ for SCL8 is disappointing. Having 1 4* in Gauntlet, along with the lower rewards is not motivating either.

I like your idea but I doubt the devs would increase 3/4/5* odds on tokens using your Shield Rank. The only thing the devs have stated they're working on with Shield Rank or Clearance Level is scaling, which I don't agree with because the devs clearly don't play their own game or they're barely in 3* land.

I agree that they most likely will never change the draw rates. My main pain point is ( and why I'm salty most of the time) because of where I was at during my 3-4 transition when vaulting can back into play. After vaulting was introduced, a ton of my 4* roster went stale and I haven't been able to build up any of my older 4*. The problem I have is I constantly pull 2* characters out of every token, so I can't really build up my roster other than just keeping the 2* star farm going. That all I can do right now. By the time I get another character close to completion  ( IE Peggy Carter) they get vaulted. That has been pretty much the story of my roster, get X almost done, boom, X gets vaulted never to be earned again. So now I look at my roster and think, Hmmm should I just get rid of Red Hulk because I only have 3 covers for him while I have 5 blade covers sitting in the wings, but then I add Blade and with my luck he will be vaulted next.

That why I think that Shield Rank needs to have some sort of feature that allows you to get people on you roster easier, even if its a 10% chance for and old 4* its better than a .01% chance. Shield Rank should help you progress in the game as its the only tangible thing that shows you your growth.

BatteryHorse

Yeah, I was confused about Shield Rank when it was first implemented.  I really thought it would be a decent way to quantify the strength of your roster, and, while not a perfect measurement, the day it was released it kind of did just that.  I think I was SR 56, and my roster was pretty much on par with other people in my alliance who had similar rosters, similar number of champed 4's, similar lightly-covered 5's that were at 255 because they weren't viable, etc.  The few players who had SRs in the mid-60s had much better rosters than mine.

But when you give out XP for completing missions, opening tokens and, eventually, winning PvP matches, the SR number becomes meaningless.  It's effectively the strength of your roster on the first day of Shield Ranks + how much you've played or paid since.  

I'm rank 91 now, and while my roster is broader, with more champed 4's, it's not much more powerful than it was at the inception of SR, except that I'm more likely to have a few boosted 4s for story and versus. 

I've have loved to see them get rid of a lot of the ways you earn XP, and reduce it solely to adding covers or champ levels (you can make the requirements for ranks correspondingly lower).  It still wouldn't be a perfect measurement, but it would be more reflective of your actual roster strength than it is now, and it would arguably give better feedback to the devs, in my opinion.

broll

I agree SR doesn't accurately represent your roster the way it's implemented.
Also the CL to SR are pretty far off too IMO.
I've never liked that you get XP for opening tokens, it's just a way to allow the whales to gain XP faster IMO.
Agree that there is a lot of missed potential here, what we have isn't terrible, but it's shell of what it could/should be, kind of reminds me of bonus heroes when they married it with vaulting....

MarkersMake

There were a couple of polls about shield rank on the old forum - I made one (http://forums.d3go.com/discussion/59408/poll-scl-8-demographics) because I saw the one that mpqr7 had made (http://forums.d3go.com/discussion/59067/current-sl/p1).  Sadly, the results of both were lost in the board transition.

But the consensus was basically that shield rank progresses much more quickly than roster strength, so the correlation between the two isn't great.

Figure15

Whales hit lv125 and stall out so really it's not a big thing from a fairness standpoint. Of course if you're stuck you're definitely going to be salty. 

SR should be seen more of an incentive to play and do in-game stuff than an actual measurement of anything. 

DyingLegend

Figure15 said:

Whales hit lv125 and stall out so really it's not a big thing from a fairness standpoint. Of course if you're stuck you're definitely going to be salty. 

SR should be seen more of an incentive to play and do in-game stuff than an actual measurement of anything. 

True, I don't really spend money in the game because the economy isn't fixed ( as in, I spend x and I will get exactly what I want) so I'm picky about my purchases. Been stuck since vaulting happened and before. I just wish there was a way to make SR something valuable and useful.

DyingLegend

broll said:

I agree SR doesn't accurately represent your roster the way it's implemented.
Also the CL to SR are pretty far off too IMO.
I've never liked that you get XP for opening tokens, it's just a way to allow the whales to gain XP faster IMO.
Agree that there is a lot of missed potential here, what we have isn't terrible, but it's shell of what it could/should be, kind of reminds me of bonus heroes when they married it with vaulting....

I agree, XP from tokens is a bit odd, XP should come from other means. Maybe if they did more singular events, the more you progress the more XP you earn , I dunno something along those lines. They really should bring back story missions and add to that. Another topic for another day right?.

aa25

Shield rank is nothing more than a way to earn extra iso now. In my opinion, as long as the progression of this game is RNG-based, you can't really measure the roster strength with the way you currently earn the xp in the game.

smkspy

XP thru tokens was fine before you could South park your way up levels in pvp. It worked in combating the hoarding mentality. Now with pvp xp, you can just plop yourself in the simulator and raise your rank despite roster strength. 

Like others have said, it's just an iso bonus at this point, so yeah, it would be nice to see something more from the mechanic.

aa25

A little more thoughts,

Per definition, roster strength should depend on what you have on your roster only. Roster strength alone can probably measured based on the completeness of the roster relative to the full game. Different points assessment needs to be evaluate carefully though. I believe someone must have come up with this method before me, but I am not aware of threads that contain it, so I will post my idea here.

For examples for a 3* character we can do something like,

1. Each 3* covers upto the first 13 covers is worth 10 points. (Reflect the based strength of each power)
2. Each level between 40 and 166 is 5 points.
3. Champing is 20 points (now you can respec the character)
4. Each level (cover) between 166 and, say for example, 216 give 2 points.
5. Each level (cover) between 216 and 266 give 4 points

The different between 4 and 5 is to account for the exponential scaling which makes gaining 1 level at low level different from gaining 1 level at high level.

We can apply a "weighting factor" to reflect the strength tier that character belongs too. For examples, factor of 2 or top tier, or 0.5 for bottom tier.

Or something along this line. The exact scale and number need to be constructed carefully to actually present the strength of the roster though. One down side is this number will discourage newer player tremendously due the way you can progress your roster (RNG based) and the power gap between 3* and 4*.

Later on, you can combine this 'roster strength' with other parameters or just use it alone to equate it to your shield rank. The shield rank that's defined this way should be able to tell what Clearance Level that person can join, what amount of resource is appropriate to progress the roster to the next step, what draw rate is appropriate to the roster, etc.

DyingLegend

aa25 said:

A little more thoughts,

Per definition, roster strength should depend on what you have on your roster only. Roster strength alone can probably measured based on the completeness of the roster relative to the full game. Different points assessment needs to be evaluate carefully though. I believe someone must have come up with this method before me, but I am not aware of threads that contain it, so I will post my idea here.

For examples for a 3* character we can do something like,

1. Each 3* covers upto the first 13 covers is worth 10 points. (Reflect the based strength of each power)
2. Each level between 40 and 166 is 5 points.
3. Champing is 20 points (now you can respec the character)
4. Each level (cover) between 166 and, say for example, 216 give 2 points.
5. Each level (cover) between 216 and 266 give 4 points

The different between 4 and 5 is to account for the exponential scaling which makes gaining 1 level at low level different from gaining 1 level at high level.

We can apply a "weighting factor" to reflect the strength tier that character belongs too. For examples, factor of 2 or top tier, or 0.5 for bottom tier.

Or something along this line. The exact scale and number need to be constructed carefully to actually present the strength of the roster though. One down side is this number will discourage newer player tremendously due the way you can progress your roster (RNG based) and the power gap between 3* and 4*.

Later on, you can combine this 'roster strength' with other parameters or just use it alone to equate it to your shield rank. The shield rank that's defined this way should be able to tell what Clearance Level that person can join, what amount of resource is appropriate to progress the roster to the next step, what draw rate is appropriate to the roster, etc.

Something like this would cause a whole redesign of there XP system which I think would be too time consuming from a Dev point of view..The game would benefit from something along those lines though +1.

Milk Jugz

Shield rank really has far less to do with roster strength now than it did at inception. If they wanted to use it to rate your roster you shouldn't gain xp from opening tokens and completing nodes or pvp battles. Probably should have two rankings- one for your roster and one for your gameplay- I know people who only play deadpool everyday, so they are earning about 80xp everyday (counting 5 nodes and 5 tokens, 1 3* cover added, and a couple covers from the token pulls, and not counting behemoth burrito or C0T). It will take longer to level up but is it because their roster is really that much better?? Or just because they play that one event everyday??

Starting at 0, say you can beat just the first mission- you'll level up 2 ranks in about 4 days- is your roster that much better??

Start at 25 where you need 500xp and you can beat the first 5- effectively you could rank up once a week for about two months then every 10 days another rank for about a month- is your roster really that good at that point?? Most of your xp is from beating the DDQ nodes, not actually leveling your roster up.

The shield ranking system is broken from a how strong is my roster only standpoint, I do like the iso bump though about once a week for me!!

Shield rank= 92
5*= All but OML...... I sold him..... Let's not go there.....
4*= Have all, 17 champed
3*= Have all, 2 unchamped (Hawkguy, and SL)
2*= Farming

bbigler

Shield Rank cannot accurately represent your roster because you gain XP from opening tokens for 2*s or adding 2* champ levels.  Since 3*/4*/5* Players farm 2*s, this XP gain doesn't represent your roster strength.  Heck, opening tokens doesn't represent your roster strength either.  Plus, you can gain XP from finishing missions in PVE a lot faster than playing PVP battles, but playing PVE doesn't prove you have a stronger roster.

Katai

The way the game is put together, quantifying your strength using a level marker doesn't make too much sense.  Sure, there's a part where you get a stronger roster as you play, but for the most part the game relies on horizontal progression rather than vertical progression.  Our rosters aren't getting stronger: just more diverse.

Think about how long it takes for someone to get a full 3* party.  For someone lucky, they might get it in their first couple of weeks.  For the unlucky, they'll have every single 3* with 2 or 3 covers each.  And yet, both are at the same shield level.

TPF Alexis

DyingLegend said:

I have to think that the Shield Rank can accurately depict the stage in the game someone is at, by that I mean where in the transition period they are in ( 2*-3*, 3*-4*, 4*-5*). There has to be a correlation with your Shield Rank and your overall roster level.

While there may be a correlation at low levels, it seems to fall apart pretty fast, and certainly the relationship between SCL and roster strength means little. I'm going to unlock SCL 8 sometime in the next week or so, and I'm still in 3* land, not the 5* roster SCL8 seems to imply.

DyingLegend

TPF Alexis said:

DyingLegend said:

I have to think that the Shield Rank can accurately depict the stage in the game someone is at, by that I mean where in the transition period they are in ( 2*-3*, 3*-4*, 4*-5*). There has to be a correlation with your Shield Rank and your overall roster level.

While there may be a correlation at low levels, it seems to fall apart pretty fast, and certainly the relationship between SCL and roster strength means little. I'm going to unlock SCL 8 sometime in the next week or so, and I'm still in 3* land, not the 5* roster SCL8 seems to imply.

I see what you are saying. Maybe SCL9 and 10 are taking so long to be released because they are trying to work on a better incentive reward structure. ( Or not enough players being at that poitn)

MissChinch

Well, if you use shield rank that way you're adding an intermediate measurement with a lot of error in it...  I've made the suggestion before to just base tokens pulls directly on current roster, for example:

Have standard tokens consist of 1, 2 and 3 with the odds of pulling:

a 3* equal to the number of unique 2* champions you have (in %)

a 2* equal to 26%

a 1* equal to (74-3*chance)%

Have heroic tokens consist of 2, 3 and 4* with the odds of pulling:

a 4* equal to the number of 3* champions you have divided by 2

a 3* equal to the number of 2* champions you have times 2

a 2* equal to 100-3* chance-4*chance

Have LTs consist of 4 and 5*s with the odds of pulling:

5* equal to the number of 4* champions you have divided by 2

4* equal to 100- 5*chance

The weights are arbitrary, something like this would massively smooth transitions and give value to championing (hence rostering hence spending more $ on HC <wink><wink> D3  ) even the **** characters and let you progress on your later tiers by investing in the previous one...  even if its all rng driven in the end, this at least lets you feel like you're making meaningful progress in skewing the odds in your favor as you progress...

Circling back on the original thought, I'd definitely bypass Shield rank because I don't think its a tight correlation to roster makeup.

DyingLegend

Milk Jugz said:

Shield rank really has far less to do with roster strength now than it did at inception. If they wanted to use it to rate your roster you shouldn't gain xp from opening tokens and completing nodes or pvp battles. Probably should have two rankings- one for your roster and one for your gameplay- I know people who only play deadpool everyday, so they are earning about 80xp everyday (counting 5 nodes and 5 tokens, 1 3* cover added, and a couple covers from the token pulls, and not counting behemoth burrito or C0T). It will take longer to level up but is it because their roster is really that much better?? Or just because they play that one event everyday??

Starting at 0, say you can beat just the first mission- you'll level up 2 ranks in about 4 days- is your roster that much better??

Start at 25 where you need 500xp and you can beat the first 5- effectively you could rank up once a week for about two months then every 10 days another rank for about a month- is your roster really that good at that point?? Most of your xp is from beating the DDQ nodes, not actually leveling your roster up.

The shield ranking system is broken from a how strong is my roster only standpoint, I do like the iso bump though about once a week for me!!

Shield rank= 92
5*= All but OML...... I sold him..... Let's not go there.....
4*= Have all, 17 champed
3*= Have all, 2 unchamped (Hawkguy, and SL)
2*= Farming

I instantly was bumped to over 50 when it first came out so I didn't know the early requirements for the starter Shield Ranks.

Maybe they have to go the old school halo( true skill vs rank name)  approach with a Regular shield rank as it is and another node for true roster strength? I just wish there was another way to quantify the strength of ones roster.

Milk Jugz

DyingLegend said:

Milk Jugz said:

Shield rank really has far less to do with roster strength now than it did at inception. If they wanted to use it to rate your roster you shouldn't gain xp from opening tokens and completing nodes or pvp battles. Probably should have two rankings- one for your roster and one for your gameplay- I know people who only play deadpool everyday, so they are earning about 80xp everyday (counting 5 nodes and 5 tokens, 1 3* cover added, and a couple covers from the token pulls, and not counting behemoth burrito or C0T). It will take longer to level up but is it because their roster is really that much better?? Or just because they play that one event everyday??

Starting at 0, say you can beat just the first mission- you'll level up 2 ranks in about 4 days- is your roster that much better??

Start at 25 where you need 500xp and you can beat the first 5- effectively you could rank up once a week for about two months then every 10 days another rank for about a month- is your roster really that good at that point?? Most of your xp is from beating the DDQ nodes, not actually leveling your roster up.

The shield ranking system is broken from a how strong is my roster only standpoint, I do like the iso bump though about once a week for me!!

Shield rank= 92
5*= All but OML...... I sold him..... Let's not go there.....
4*= Have all, 17 champed
3*= Have all, 2 unchamped (Hawkguy, and SL)
2*= Farming

I instantly was bumped to over 50 when it first came out so I didn't know the early requirements for the starter Shield Ranks.

Maybe they have to go the old school halo( true skill vs rank name)  approach with a Regular shield rank as it is and another node for true roster strength? I just wish there was another way to quantify the strength of ones roster.

I was instantly bumped to 62, I looked up the xp requirements for starter rosters on the MPQ wikia page, lots of good info there!!

We definitely need a way to quantify our roster strength besides shield rank- it helps but is diluted by all the different ways you can gain xp. I want to be able to tell my friend that plays that my roster is a level 85 without him saying well you finish pve missions and I don't so that's why your a few levels ahead of me. Or we have to start going through one character at a time- what level is your Peggy, how many covers do you have for Hulkbuster? How many champions do you have?

Everybody likes to show off their roster- we've worked so hard for so long!! Give us an accurate way to brag!!!