Pylgrim wrote: Since you admittedly don't play competitively you don't know or cannot imagine how hard already is to place in the top 10. Who are you to say that we should work any harder? Why should you, the one who already played casually be rewarded with an even easier time at the cost of the people that have to put real effort into it? How would you feel if the change made your life more difficult in exchange of making it easier for the competitive players and we posted a post like yours disregarding the experience of the casual players because "they could use being more competitive"?
Sandwichboy wrote: I'd be interested to see what your roster looks like because it sounds like you had a much lower initial level scale than pretty much anyone that has gotten to a point where they have even one 4* championed. Just for comparison, my roster has just 4 championed 4*s, and none of the other ones I have (including the cover maxed fury and elektra) are even over level 170. And while I have all 5* characters save GG rostered, only one has as many as 4 covers, and none are leveled to their current maximum. And despite all of this, despite the fact that my boosted Iceman being the highest level character in my roster during the event by something like 80 levels and the average level of my roster being around 180, the STARTING scaling for the first mission was between 215 and 230. The highest it got for the final missions by the 6th clear was just shy of 400. That is absurd. Any attempt to complete even the 2nd clear of any of the missions with something other than my optimal team of Iceman, IM40 and JG was just one mediocre board away from being crushed, and even with my optimal team on the final missions, one yellow starved board was all it would take for me to need 3 health packs. I'm glad someone enjoyed this test, but that scaling is just WAY off.
Stanley71 wrote: It's lonley there, isn't it, XandorXerxes? You seem to be the only one who enjoyed the last PVE...
Spiritclaw wrote: Pylgrim wrote: Since you admittedly don't play competitively you don't know or cannot imagine how hard already is to place in the top 10. Who are you to say that we should work any harder? Why should you, the one who already played casually be rewarded with an even easier time at the cost of the people that have to put real effort into it? How would you feel if the change made your life more difficult in exchange of making it easier for the competitive players and we posted a post like yours disregarding the experience of the casual players because "they could use being more competitive"? Top ten of what, five hundred? Vs. bottom four hundred and ninety, I suppose. Probably good for you folk that this isn't a democracy.
TheWerebison wrote: Pylgrim wrote: Since you admittedly don't play competitively you don't know or cannot imagine how hard already is to place in the top 10. Who are you to say that we should work any harder? Why should you, the one who already played casually be rewarded with an even easier time at the cost of the people that have to put real effort into it? How would you feel if the change made your life more difficult in exchange of making it easier for the competitive players and we posted a post like yours disregarding the experience of the casual players because "they could use being more competitive"? The hell? He was making a post that said he had a pleasant experience with the test. So did I. It's already been addressed that the grind is ridiculous for people who play competitively, the OP just wanted a place where people could share positive feedback, so it isn't lost among all the posts saying "if this changes, I quit." It will show BOTH sides of the story, and give more info to the developers. It already seems like there's more negative feedback for this style than positive, at least among forumites, as shown by the numerous threads and posts. I doubt it'll happen, at least not without radical change. But please, let's let some people have their positive threads. OP was just speaking from his own personal experience, which is all any of us should be able to do.
XandorXerxes wrote: You missed the point, completely, of this thread and what competition is. You're right, I don't know, and I don't care to. Regardless, that's off-topic. There's no way that they can change the 8-hour point system without changing how the competition works.
Pylgrim wrote: I didn't miss your point. In fact, I'm intently not touching your point. Good thing that you enjoyed the test and it was beneficial for you and the likes of you, whatever, good on ya mate, et al. But I take trouble with your "I don't care for competitive playing, so tinykitty competitive players" attitude, especially with the arbitrary statement that it is perfectly ok to make things more difficult for us. My post was merely pointing out that you have no idea how difficult it is already as to support a further increase in difficulty, so long as it benefits you.
fmftint wrote: Bottom line, it wasn't an improvement for anyone, casual players targeting 3☆ progression had to play more, players targeting LT had to play more, competitive players had to play more.
Clamps2 wrote: It seems that a lot of people had similar experiences, but came to different conclusions. Conclusion 1: "The scaling was too hard, and the max progression was too high. But the new format was better, so it's a step in the right direction." Conclusion 2: "The scaling was too hard, and the max progression was too high. ABORT!! ABORT!!!" I think the biggest problem is that we don't know what the developer's intent is. I think they got the specifics of scaling wrong, but are on the right track. For instance, they never should have taken out trivial/easy nodes, at least for the first few clears. If you have 100 chars in your roster, the entire difficulty shouldn't only be based on your best ones. That's already what PVP is about. And progression may have just been a miscalculation with the increased difficulty and lack of rubberbanding. OR maybe it ends up just being like the championing system. "Oh, you realized that championed 3* are actually relatively less powerful than before? It's a feature!" tl;dr: I think it's better, but only if the devs are actually willing to fix the scaling and progression.