Updates to S.H.I.E.L.D. Rank and Player XP (11/7/17)

1…6791112…19

Comments

  • Beer40
    Beer40 Posts: 826 Critical Contributor
    halirin said:
    It doesn't seem like they're against farming. That's why they increased the max champ sell value. 
    And in two months they can swoop in and say how they "realized farming was generating far too many XP for players" (based on the system they put in place to ensure that large gain) and implement a measure to get rid of it. 

    Maybe it won't happen. Wouldn't surprise me any if it did.
  • huktonfonix
    huktonfonix Posts: 214 Tile Toppler
    @Brigby

    Please please please pass on the suggestion from @GigerHR .  It's clear a ton of good thought and analysis went into this, and it seems like something that would both simplify the administration of the game for the Devs and improve the player experience.  Imagine how much you could do with this sort of normalized data in terms of calculating appropriate challenge levels and reward structures for new events?

    *master data management geek mode off*
  • Thorstienn
    Thorstienn Posts: 34 Just Dropped In
    GigerHR said:2
    If they would go one step further and eliminate xp for dupes, it would give them a MUCH better ability to control SCL based scaling/rewards etc. If the only source of xp was a one-time gain from rostering/training/champing/champ leveling, then you end up with a fixed maximum pool of xp; 432,250pts under the new system, if I'm not mistaken. You could easily calculate the xp of any given roster, and hence the SR of that roster, and use that information to determine appropriate enemy levels based on the average roster strength of your player base. 

    This would also let them set the maximum Shield Rank, and you'd never run into a situation like we just had with people hitting SR125 months before SR126+ was available. The max SR would be adjusted whenever enough new characters have been added to the pool to warrant a change, e.g. a new 4* adds 3,625pts to the max possible xp, so just make sure that the max SR covers that new possible total.

    They may need to either add xp for standard character level increases, or increase the xp reward for champing (a 13-cover unchamped 4* is worth 1,000xp, champed is only 1,125xp... not sure that's enough of a difference to indicate the difference in roster strength). They'd also need to do a one-time normalization, to reassign SR levels to existing rosters. But from then on, they could compare roster strength at a glance and make much more informed decisions regarding SCL scaling/rewards.

    Right now there is too much variance in roster strength at each SCL because there are too many uncontrolled avenues to gain xp. If they lock it down to a fixed maximum, you'll never have a case where a 2* roster could pvp-grind their way into a Shield Rank that gives them access to SCL 8 (for example). When you know that all the players who have access to a given SCL have roughly equivalent rosters, it's much easier to determine what rewards and enemy levels would be appropriate (in theory).

    You could still farm 2*s and 3*s (it was worth doing it even before there was xp tied to it), and grind pvp for ISO (players have been doing that since before champ levels), you just wouldn't get xp for it.

    Oh, and change the name of the points! ISO-8 is this game's "XP"... you play matches to earn it, and use it to level your characters... that's XP. Call these Roster Points (RP), then we can stop with the argument that we should earn them for doing every little thing in the game. :smile:
    ^this. It' how it should of been implemented in the first place. If SCL is supposed to indicated roster strength, this is what is needed: specifically RP for levels and no RP for dupes (farming should be it' own reward, not a measure of "strength")
  • mega ghost
    mega ghost Posts: 1,156 Chairperson of the Boards
    Brigby said:
    @mega ghost said:
    Brigby This mostly seems like a sensible update, but can we make two changes?

    1) Can you remove XP from 1* activity? This literally just means we'll all be rostering and selling every 1* cover we get for the XP, one at a time, which just adds tedium to the game while also not offering a clear link to our roster levels — we could easily be getting more XP from this than anywhere else.

    2) Award us XP for every level we raise a character with ISO prior to championing. This helps show a better link between roster level and S.H.I.E.L.D. clearance level as well.
    1) I'll ask the development team if this means players would be able to "farm" 1-Star characters, but I would speculate that 1-Star characters need XP gain, because otherwise newer players wouldn't be able to level up.

    2) Thanks for the idea! I'll pass that feedback along to them for review.
    Thanks @Brigby! From what I recall, back when I was a new player I was only in the 1* tier for a week or so as I shifted to 2* characters the second I had enough covers to make them viable. I didn't even bother to keep most of them on my roster or level the ones I had any more until DDQ came out and I needed Juggernaut for a node.

    If new players could get XP from leveling their 1* characters, however (but not from recruiting them or training their powers), then they wouldn't be cut off from S.H.I.E.L.D. level advancement at any stage. I could be mistaken, but I doubt most of us would be willing to spend ISO to level up a 1* farm just for level-based XP (which I assume would be a very low return for a 1* character.)
    Brigby said:

    For example, I am currently in the middle of champing all of my 3-Star characters, however I technically am able to enter SCL 8. I am unable to do so though, because I find SCL 8 to be too difficult for my roster. This can prove to be rather frustrating for many players, so making sure that SHIELD Rank more accurately reflects player roster will allow the development team to make more fitting adjustments to events in the future.
    If the "fitting adjustments" involve better tailoring rewards for higher-level players (now that newer / lower-level players wouldn't be able to access SCLs 7 and up so easily), I'm all for it!



  • GigerHR
    GigerHR Posts: 54 Match Maker
    smkspy said:
    @GigerHR,

    I don't get why artificially raising your level is even an issue. A two-star player isn't farming, and even if they could get their level high enough to play say scl 8, they still can't compete in it, and if they try it works out for those of us that can compete. 

    From its beginning levels has been more about giving an iso boost every now and then, so slowing down progression just feels like the devs wanting to curb that bonus, which actually hampers roster development.


    I agree that for long-time players (in particular), SR certainly has always been about getting that iso boost - I started at SR65 when it launched, am currently SR125, and have never been locked out of an SCL because of my SR - so for me, sure, it was only ever a way to get bonus ISO-8. Regardless of whether that was the original intent, it's no longer the case.

    The devs have made the decision to use SCL to scale rewards and enemy strength, and use a player's SR to determine which SCL their allowed to play. Once they made that decision, for it to work properly SR needs to become an accurate depiction of a player's roster strength/ability to meet the challenge set by an SCL (this change is a step in the right direction, but not quite there).

    There are a bunch of reasons why it matters that they get the levels right, and keep players from skipping ahead. At the top of the list for Demi/D3, I'm sure is retention. A newer player who can access a level that they can't compete at is more likely to quit playing out of frustration at always losing than they are to just try a lower level. Players do not like being allowed to play in something where they're guaranteed to lose (remember Galactus v1?), we assume that if we can play it, we should be able to win it. Limiting players to SRs that actually match their roster strength will largely alleviate this problem.

    From the player's side, a fixed xp gain system would let the devs properly design SCLs to match a more specific set of rosters. Right now, they have to assume that there's a broad mix of rosters competing at every SCL, and I'm sure they adjust the reward structure accordingly. If they knew for certain that only advanced 4* rosters and early 5* rosters could compete at SCL9 (for example), they could make better decisions about what rewards are appropriate for that level. They might even be able to entice players to play at their SCL, rather than slumming it in a lower SCLs because the rewards aren't worth the time.


  • firethorne
    firethorne Posts: 1,505 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited November 2017
    Brigby said:
    (Disclaimer: I'm not a developer, so this is purely my analysis, based on the information provided and my experience as a player)

    SHIELD Rank's intent is to be a key indicator as to a player's roster strength. How does a player's roster strength increase? It increases by recruiting new characters, training their powers, *leveling them up, and/or turning them into champions. (*Please see above talking point #2) A roster does not technically increase strength by playing missions, but rather by benefiting from the Iso-8 and Hero Points acquired from those missions' rewards.

    Theoretically in the current system, a player could refuse to level up, champion, or recruit a character, and still increase their SHIELD Rank through mission XP. This is obviously an issue, because players will then be introduced to competition that is stronger than their rosters can handle.

    For example, I am currently in the middle of champing all of my 3-Star characters, however I technically am able to enter SCL 8. I am unable to do so though, because I find SCL 8 to be too difficult for my roster. This can prove to be rather frustrating for many players, so making sure that SHIELD Rank more accurately reflects player roster will allow the development team to make more fitting adjustments to events in the future.
    If that is truly the goal, then why not implement the rank as an algorithm based upon the actual roster?  The count of how many times you max-champ and sell 2*s isn't truly an indication of actual roster strength.  It doesn't really tell you anything more accurately than the count of how many times you cleared a node did.  The new method seems just as spurious at getting you to this proposed goal, when the data that will actually get you to this goal is right there at your fingertips in the roster data itself.    
  • Merrick
    Merrick Posts: 198 Tile Toppler
    Of course that raises the question. Can anybody of SR65 actually complete pve in CL9 competitively. Can anybody of SR47 actually hope to compete in CL8?

    D3 is in a no win situation. They set the bar too low and now people are complaining that they can’t compete. But if they set the bar any higher, people would complain that they are locked out of the higher level play. 

  • ZeiramMR
    ZeiramMR Posts: 1,357 Chairperson of the Boards
    mexus said:
    Since you're here @Brigby, 
    can you confirm that a player can roster duplicate copies (at the same time or one after another) of whatever character, let's say Moonstone, and get XP from them both?
    To clarify for @Brigby :
    1) Will you get XP from Rostering a character after the initial time you have ever rostered that character? (Currently the answer is no)
    2) Do you get XP from such a duplicate character for applying covers, championing, and adding champion levels? (Currently the answer is yes)

    #1 is what has people thinking that someone could fill a roster slot with a 1* getting XP, sell it to open the slot back up again, and repeat for each of their pending 1* covers.
  • thisone
    thisone Posts: 655 Critical Contributor
    Wait, so they set the SCL bar too low, now have to take this really convoluted step to address what we are all saying at inception?
  • Moon Roach
    Moon Roach Posts: 2,863 Chairperson of the Boards
    ZeiramMR said:
    mexus said:
    Since you're here @Brigby, 
    can you confirm that a player can roster duplicate copies (at the same time or one after another) of whatever character, let's say Moonstone, and get XP from them both?
    To clarify for @Brigby :
    1) Will you get XP from Rostering a character after the initial time you have ever rostered that character? (Currently the answer is no)
    2) Do you get XP from such a duplicate character for applying covers, championing, and adding champion levels? (Currently the answer is yes)

    #1 is what has people thinking that someone could fill a roster slot with a 1* getting XP, sell it to open the slot back up again, and repeat for each of their pending 1* covers.


    It's the use of the word "Recruit" in the initial table.  If you have a cover you can't use immediately you have a nice big button that says Recruit.  If you have an open roster slot and get a cover you can't use immediately, there's a big black bar across it that says Recruit and it's added to your roster automatically.  The natural inference is that you'll get the XP for recruiting the character, regardless.

    If that's not the case the wording of the table should be changed.  For clarity.

  • vinsensual
    vinsensual Posts: 458 Mover and Shaker
    I don't follow this argument about protecting newer players from themselves when they overreach in choosing SCLs.  When you enter an event, it shows you the range of the enemy levels, doesn't it?  Why give thought to players who would knowingly walk into a den of enemies 100s of levels above their own, get mollywhopped, then do it again 3-4 days later?  

    Also, I was 3% draw rate for 4s on 140 heroic tokens.  This is all kinds of bogus.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    vinsensual said:
    I don't follow this argument about protecting newer players from themselves when they overreach in choosing SCLs.  When you enter an event, it shows you the range of the enemy levels, doesn't it?  Why give thought to players who would knowingly walk into a den of enemies 100s of levels above their own, get mollywhopped, then do it again 3-4 days later?  

    Also, I was 3% draw rate for 4s on 140 heroic tokens.  This is all kinds of bogus.
    They specifically stated this is to support upcoming changes.  It's possible they are considering what many have suggested and locking people into playing the highest SCL or some small range of SCLs near the top (like the top 2 or 3).  I hope that's not the case, but it seems likely based on this.
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    broll said:
    vinsensual said:
    I don't follow this argument about protecting newer players from themselves when they overreach in choosing SCLs.  When you enter an event, it shows you the range of the enemy levels, doesn't it?  Why give thought to players who would knowingly walk into a den of enemies 100s of levels above their own, get mollywhopped, then do it again 3-4 days later?  

    Also, I was 3% draw rate for 4s on 140 heroic tokens.  This is all kinds of bogus.
    They specifically stated this is to support upcoming changes.  It's possible they are considering what many have suggested and locking people into playing the highest SCL or some small range of SCLs near the top (like the top 2 or 3).  I hope that's not the case, but it seems likely based on this.

    @GigerHR,

    Good post, not gonna quote because of length though.

    This is pretty much the argument for the new PvP system 
  • smkspy
    smkspy Posts: 2,024 Chairperson of the Boards
    broll said:
    vinsensual said:
    I don't follow this argument about protecting newer players from themselves when they overreach in choosing SCLs.  When you enter an event, it shows you the range of the enemy levels, doesn't it?  Why give thought to players who would knowingly walk into a den of enemies 100s of levels above their own, get mollywhopped, then do it again 3-4 days later?  

    Also, I was 3% draw rate for 4s on 140 heroic tokens.  This is all kinds of bogus.
    They specifically stated this is to support upcoming changes.  It's possible they are considering what many have suggested and locking people into playing the highest SCL or some small range of SCLs near the top (like the top 2 or 3).  I hope that's not the case, but it seems likely based on this.
    Then they should tell us what upcoming changes they are considering so we aren't rabid dogs speculating on it. Better to tell us now, so they can receive feedback now.
  • brisashi
    brisashi Posts: 418 Mover and Shaker
    I'd like to take a moment to disclaim that I am also not a developer
  • mega ghost
    mega ghost Posts: 1,156 Chairperson of the Boards
    Beer40 said:
    vinsensual said:
    I don't follow this argument about protecting newer players from themselves when they overreach in choosing SCLs.  When you enter an event, it shows you the range of the enemy levels, doesn't it?  Why give thought to players who would knowingly walk into a den of enemies 100s of levels above their own, get mollywhopped, then do it again 3-4 days later?  

    Also, I was 3% draw rate for 4s on 140 heroic tokens.  This is all kinds of bogus.
    When something doesn't adhere to common sense, then people start speculating about the "real" reason for change. And that's what we're all doing right now, because no one really knows why they made changes to the structure in this way.

    Here's how to fix this mess:
    1) Give everyone at SR 125+ their appropriate ISO influx tomorrow.
    2) Reset and start every single player at SR 0 under the new system.
    3) Have formula in place that PROPERLY calculates ISO earned based on number of characters rostered and levels of each character. Current roster only. Dupes do NOT, nor ever will count, farming counts as dupes as well.
    4) Give out appropriate ISO reward and new SR to all players.
    5) New system is a go. Only way to get XP is to roster new (to you) characters and level them (all levels from 1 cover up to max level gain some pittance of XP). 


    I'd be fine with my S.H.I.E.L.D. Rank being wiped clean and recalibrated to my roster if they also give us all of the ISO bonuses in the new system up to our new ranks, whether we're increasing or decreasing rank (like they did when they first implemented the system.)
  • Warbringa
    Warbringa Posts: 1,299 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited November 2017
    Shouldn't it be easy to calculate how much one point of XP is worth in iso for your roster?  I think that I am level 94 therefore I need 3600 xp for 50,000 iso.  That makes every point of xp worth 13.8889 iso.  If I get 95 xp for rostering and training a 1* and then sell for 100 iso that should earn me 1,419 iso vs. just selling the 10 covers.  If I can roster each cover for 5 xp and sell it for 100, that is better at 1694 total iso.  So it depends on if you can get that 5 xp every time you roster and sell a 1*, that is the best method.  If you don't get that 5 xp every time, then rostering, covering to 10 and then selling is better due to the xp.  At least at my shield level and xp needs, you would need to calculate your own situation I guess.

    On another note, looks like I will be opening my hoard of elite and heroic tokens tonight for the XP yay!

Categories