It's time for SCL9 to come out

ChuckFan

While I'd love to have an additional method of getting 5s, T1 for a 5 would make it so competitive, you'd have guys trivial tapping for hours....

stewbacca

They need to fix scaling before they do this.. I shouldnt be facing hulks that are 100 lvls higher than everyone else in my bracket. Yeah I can beat him, but do you know how long it takes to defeat 160k in hit points..

People winning in scl8 are already sandbagging rosters as it is.. they really need to stop giving advantages to people that won't even use the 5* s if they reward them.

broll

broll wrote:

Here here! Let's not release CL9 the day after I'm high enough clearance for it. I'm not a vet I shouldn't be in the highest bracket....

GurlBYE wrote:

The SL aren't for vets vs not they are for roster progress.

Here here! Let's not release CL9 the day after I'm high enough clearance for it. My roster progression isn't that high I shouldn't be in the highest bracket....

Better? You knew what I meant.

GurlBYE wrote:

I think before it's released the developers need a serious discussion among them selves (preferably involving us)

I agree, but you might as well think about them making us all paid beta testers at that rate...

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

At this stage in my play I should not still have this much difficulty getting a 4* reward for placement. Not at CL8. You need a relatively high shield rank to be able to play CL8 and with that rank comes a certain expectation of what your roster strength will be. This was the point of them, surely? Rather than reworking the placement and progression for everyone, making it overpowers for newbies or underpowered for vets, pleasing no-one, they instead create a system that rewards you based on what your needs likely are at the stage you're at.

I actually disagree with this. I'm at a place where SCL rosters should (vs many people on these forums who would be 9 or 10 were they out) and I don't think I absolutely need to get 4* from placement every time. So when SCL 8 came out I was exactly the right level for it. At the time I was finishing off my 3* roster and had 1 or 2 usable 4*, none champed or 13 covered. The cover from progression is a huge help and exactly what I felt was a appropriate. It IMO would feel too early for it start raining 4*s everywhere.

That said SCL 9 4* should be relatively easy to get from placement and they should be a given by 10.

The Herald

CL9 needs an actual improvement.

CL8 was a joke.

wymtime

fmftint wrote:

hodayathink wrote:

And I agree with Ludaa, that given the not great bracket turnover that I've seen when I was competing in CL8 in PvE, I don't think there's enough people out there high enough to fill out more than a couple CL9 brackets per event, which would make that Clearance level even more of a grind than CL8 currently is.

The solution to that is, as SCL goes up bracket sizes get smaller

This is. Very good idea to shrink the bracket size for the higher CL.

In reality I think more players would play CL9 in PVP over PVE. If you look at the top of the leader board in CL7-8 there are some really high scores. If you moved PVP to CL9 you can add rewards in progression at 1000 and 1100 and even 1300. PVE brackets are tough since so many vets take PVE off. I went slice 1 in PVE for Venom bomb and got top 50 without doing 6 clears on the harder nodes. PVE is not ready for CL9 yet

KGB

One thing they should do for CL9 in PvE is change the required characters to 3, 4 and 5 instead of 2, 3 & 4.

Really high level rosters shouldn't have to drag along a **** 2* with their 2 5*s given the scaling they are facing. At least 3* reach much higher levels thanks to Championing.

KGB

Vhailorx

KGB wrote:

One thing they should do for CL9 in PvE is change the required characters to 3, 4 and 5 instead of 2, 3 & 4.

Really high level rosters shouldn't have to drag along a **** 2* with their 2 5*s given the scaling they are facing. At least 3* reach much higher levels thanks to Championing.

KGB

Interesting idea. Depending on hiw many players actually have lits of 5*s rostered. But if they do atart requiring 5*s, then they really need to put LTs or more CP into the placement and prog rewards, if not fixed 5* covers.

wymtime

Vhailorx wrote:

KGB wrote:

One thing they should do for CL9 in PvE is change the required characters to 3, 4 and 5 instead of 2, 3 & 4.

Really high level rosters shouldn't have to drag along a **** 2* with their 2 5*s given the scaling they are facing. At least 3* reach much higher levels thanks to Championing.

KGB

Interesting idea. Depending on hiw many players actually have lits of 5*s rostered. But if they do atart requiring 5*s, then they really need to put LTs or more CP into the placement and prog rewards, if not fixed 5* covers.

Between PVE (2 per day, 25 progression) PVP (25 per event) and champion levels (all 2* and 3* championed) and daily rewards (25 CP or a LT every other week)earn Over 150 CP most weeks. This does not include season progression rewards or placement rewards. How many CP do you feel a player should earn a week in CL9?
In PVE you get 14 + 25 per event either 25 or 50 per week. So 39 or 64 CP per week from PVE that is not placement driven.

thanos8587

wymtime wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

KGB wrote:

One thing they should do for CL9 in PvE is change the required characters to 3, 4 and 5 instead of 2, 3 & 4.

Really high level rosters shouldn't have to drag along a **** 2* with their 2 5*s given the scaling they are facing. At least 3* reach much higher levels thanks to Championing.

KGB

Interesting idea. Depending on hiw many players actually have lits of 5*s rostered. But if they do atart requiring 5*s, then they really need to put LTs or more CP into the placement and prog rewards, if not fixed 5* covers.

Between PVE (2 per day, 25 progression) PVP (25 per event) and champion levels (all 2* and 3* championed) and daily rewards (25 CP or a LT every other week)earn Over 150 CP most weeks. This does not include season progression rewards or placement rewards. How many CP do you feel a player should earn a week in CL9?
In PVE you get 14 + 25 per event either 25 or 50 per week. So 39 or 64 CP per week from PVE that is not placement driven.

my only answer is someone in cl9 should earn more cp than people in cl1 to 8. thats the whole point of the cl system, giving higher rewards to higher level players that are more relevant to their rosters. i dont see them EVER giving out direct 5s even as a rank one placement award in cl10. all they can do is give you more cp, leg tokens and iso. thats all thats really relevant anymore.

JamesV

While I do think we need a CL9, I'm probably in the minority but I don't think there needs to be drastic changes for CL 9 to work (at least on the PVE side). CL 8 did feel like a let down, but these CL's are all supposed to be incremental steps.

IMO (on the Progression side:)

• Elite Token in progress (no more standards). I think you'll have to keep the standards in node rewards as I do not think CL modifies those.
• An additional proportional ISO bump up (both progression and placement).
• An additional 10 CP added to the event (total 30 CP in an event, with 5/10/15) increments. This gives additional CP cap space for additional CLs.
• A second four star progression cover between the first one and the final CP.

If anything a CL 10 should be the one that should be the BIG changer: a 5* cover in 1st place (honestly as I imagine by the time that we hit CL 10 we will have 20-25 5*s), 4s for top 100, etc.

El Satanno

Vhailorx wrote:

KGB wrote:

One thing they should do for CL9 in PvE is change the required characters to 3, 4 and 5 instead of 2, 3 & 4.

Really high level rosters shouldn't have to drag along a **** 2* with their 2 5*s given the scaling they are facing. At least 3* reach much higher levels thanks to Championing.

KGB

Interesting idea. Depending on how many players actually have lots of 5*s rostered. But if they do start requiring 5*s, then they really need to put LTs or more CP into the placement and prog rewards, if not fixed 5* covers.

Sounds good in principle, but in practice the random nature of 5* acquisition and the bonkers scaling issue would probably make a lot of people hate the **** out of that 5* node. Can you imagine trying to grind that out if you're one of the poor slobs using Cap?

broll

KGB wrote:

One thing they should do for CL9 in PvE is change the required characters to 3, 4 and 5 instead of 2, 3 & 4.

Really high level rosters shouldn't have to drag along a **** 2* with their 2 5*s given the scaling they are facing. At least 3* reach much higher levels thanks to Championing.

KGB

This is unlikely as the SCLs don't affect the actual gameplay, just the rewards and who your scores compete against. I would much rather see them adjust scaling/MMR by SCL before requiring 5*s.

TxMoose

totally agree that CL9 needs to be 'worth' playing. but whether its worth it or not, I'd be aok with rolling out whatever and giving me even more dilution in all the CLs 7+. really hope its worth it, but even if its not, I can't wait...