Speculation and questions about new scaling

OneLastGambit

I've never really considered this issue before but I guess it's kind of a valid one.

If CL dictated scaling then higher level players may drop CL to get easier prizes - Well this happens anyway, I'm one of those guilty of doing this especially during new releases. The way to fix this isn't with scaling, its with prizes. Make the prizes in higher CL worth the extra effort and you'll find higher level players abandon their forays into lower CL anyway.

Example - if cl9 or 10 had a 5* cover as a prize then I imagine you'll never see a 5* player in anything other than CL9 or 10. Not saying that's what devs will do but that is definitely how you encourage higher level players to stop dropping. We're all lazy and will always go with the option which we feel best fits our own personal Effort-reward ratio.

I do see an issue with people who are between clearance level. Like if person x (we'll call him Bob) has a roster which is too good for CL6 but not quite good enough for the scaling in CL7 then how does he progress? The prizes would need restructuring again as prizes from CL6 wont help bob to overcome the scaling in CL7 as he would need reasonably levelled 4* to overcome that scaling and the only way to obtain those 4* would be for him to play in CL7.
Of course I am ignoring the other game modes (PVP and DDQ) as I'm simply discussing this in a PVE vacuum. In reality Bob could hit 575 in pvp and get the CP from DDQ to advance his roster to the point that he could then play CL7 scaling and win.

No matter what the system this issue of 'transitioning' will always be present so it's almost a defunct complaint as it is an unsolvable one.

AlphaNik

In a scaling based on CL scenario I can think of 4 possible ways to handle people with higher roster preying on lower CL:


1 - Allow it. They have better roster, they rule.

2 - Get away with placement rewards altogether.

3 - A lock on CL based on SHIELD Rank.

4 - Allowed characters in a given event vary according to CL.
Example: In CL from 1 to 2 people can only use 1* character, from CL3 to CL4 2* and 3* and so on

Magic

I say allow the players to drop down and rule (when enough drops down they will not rule that much - I mean each of them). It's long overdue when players can benefit from developing rosters in PvE (not happening thanks brutal scaling). At the same time incentiveice them to go for higher scaling with much better rewards.

Unfortunately knowing the scrooges from D3/Demiurge the current SL8 rewards structure will be max scaling one. So people will drop and feast on the lesser rosters.

Fightmastermpq

Crowl wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Crowl wrote:

I hope that it isn't completely scaled by SCL as this would basically be an additional punishment to the people that have already suffered from RNG hating them, currently the person that has had a lot of bad luck when it comes to 5* draws can still compete in pve even if they cannot readily do so in pvp.

The level of challenge should be similar for everyone in an SCL and the benefits from a 5* roster should come from being able to compete in pvp on top of this rather than it automatically entitling them to dominate both pve and pvp.

But on the flip side, someone that has had good luck (or just spends/plays a lot) on their 5* draws should be able to compete in both PvP and PvE too, right?

I have a diverse 5* roster that tops out at 465 and for me to crack T10 requires better than optimal play. I need to time my clears down to within a 5 minute window, and use boosts to avoid leaving points on the table if I run into a bad board that really slows me down. I don't want a handout, but I definitely feel handicapped under the current system.

Your point would actually only be on the flipside if I had stated that 5* rosters should continue to be penalised for their good luck with harsh scaling, I stated that the level of challenge should be similar for everyone in an SCL, that seems like a fair approach given that two people with a similar level will have actually played or paid similar amounts and the difference in their rosters would actually be how much they suffered or benefited from rng.

The problem is that players with bad luck directly compete against players with good luck. To throw the bad luck players a bone while doing nothing for the others necessarily handicaps the good luck players. This is the current system we have. It encourages people to build their rosters to artificially simulate bad luck to give them a competitive edge.

The game should remain challenging, but there must also be incentive to progress. And while it makes sense that a roster focused on one game mode shouldn't necessarily bring success in another, it certainly shouldn't make the other MORE difficult as it does currently.

Polares

Punisher5784 wrote:

The current scaling should remain the same for SCL8 but lower for the other SCLs. If they make SCL7/8 harder then there will be a lot of backlash. Perhaps they will open SCL9 but with harder scaling.

What do you mean the same, the same for who? (maybe we both play in SCL8 but your max scaling is 350 and mine is 445). If scaling depends on SCL then it will be fixed, so it won't depend on roster. Right now you and me we can have very different difficulty levels in the same SCL (SCL is just based on how much you play/spend, not how good is your roster).

SCL8 should have an scaling level fitted for 270-360 level players.
SCL9 should have an scaling level for 360-460 level players.
SCL10 for 460-550.

BUT prices should be good for your max SCL, there should always be an incentive to play at your max SCL possible, because if someone would go one level down, he would easily dominate. So it shouldn't be like now, that there is almost no difference between SCL7-8 rewards.

broll

AlphaNik wrote:

3 - A lock on CL based on SHIELD Rank.

Terrible idea. There people in my alliance that have 0 4*s and aren't close to it yet that are in SCL8. You're saying they should be locked into scaling that's going to be near impossible for them to beat? There should always be a choice. They way they limit people dropping down is by making the bump in rewards to good to pass up.

AlphaNik

broll wrote:

AlphaNik wrote:

3 - A lock on CL based on SHIELD Rank.

Terrible idea. There people in my alliance that have 0 4*s and aren't close to it yet that are in SCL8. You're saying they should be locked into scaling that's going to be near impossible for them to beat? There should always be a choice. They way they limit people dropping down is by making the bump in rewards to good to pass up.

When I say a lock on CL based on SHIELD Rank I mean: right now the higher CL you can choose is based on your SHIELD Rank. To enter CL6 you have to be at least at SHIELD Rank 27 (I think, maybe was changed). When you gain experience you go up in rank and unlock higher CLs. Should you be able to choose every CL? Even if you are, say rank 100? Or maybe if you are rank 100 it's better if the game let you only choose, for example, between CL7, CL8 and higher (but not lower)?

Anyway I didn't say it was the best idea, I was just listing ANYTHING that came to my mind regarding scaling based on CL to discuss pro and cons.
If it were my decision I'd just move PVE placement rewards into progression and call it a day.


By the way right now people can choose whatever CL they want because scaling is the same. Your opponents level is the same regardless of CL. If scaling were determined by CL some of the people playing in CL8 maybe be forced to choose a lower level by the sheer brute force of scaling no matter if the game let them go higher or not.

Crowl

Fightmastermpq wrote:

The problem is that players with bad luck directly compete against players with good luck. To throw the bad luck players a bone while doing nothing for the others necessarily handicaps the good luck players. This is the current system we have. It encourages people to build their rosters to artificially simulate bad luck to give them a competitive edge.

The game should remain challenging, but there must also be incentive to progress. And while it makes sense that a roster focused on one game mode shouldn't necessarily bring success in another, it certainly shouldn't make the other MORE difficult as it does currently.

You keep trying to throw up this strawman that I want the system to stay how it is, but I have not said that in any of my posts, all I have suggested is that SCL should not be the only mechanism by which they scale an event.

This is particularly the case since the top tier of rewards are heavily reliant on rng and it seems unnecessarily unfair that a person should be penalised a second time for their bad luck with the rng by giving them exactly the same scaling as a person who might have spent a similar amount of money and time on their roster but just had better luck while doing so. The current system is flawed, but switching to another system that is potentially just as flawed in others ways seems like an error when there should be a happy medium between the two extremes.

As I have already said previously several times now, the level of challenge should be fairly similar for everyone within the same SCL, the 5* roster shouldn't automatically cruise through pve, but equally they should not have to clear any more optimally than anyone else in their bracket.

mohio

Crowl wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

The problem is that players with bad luck directly compete against players with good luck. To throw the bad luck players a bone while doing nothing for the others necessarily handicaps the good luck players. This is the current system we have. It encourages people to build their rosters to artificially simulate bad luck to give them a competitive edge.

The game should remain challenging, but there must also be incentive to progress. And while it makes sense that a roster focused on one game mode shouldn't necessarily bring success in another, it certainly shouldn't make the other MORE difficult as it does currently.

You keep trying to throw up this strawman that I want the system to stay how it is, but I have not said that in any of my posts, all I have suggested is that SCL should not be the only mechanism by which they scale an event.

This is particularly the case since the top tier of rewards are heavily reliant on rng and it seems unnecessarily unfair that a person should be penalised a second time for their bad luck with the rng by giving them exactly the same scaling as a person who might have spent a similar amount of money and time on their roster but just had better luck while doing so. The current system is flawed, but switching to another system that is potentially just as flawed in others ways seems like an error when there should be a happy medium between the two extremes.

As I have already said previously several times now, the level of challenge should be fairly similar for everyone within the same SCL, the 5* roster shouldn't automatically cruise through pve, but equally they should not have to clear any more optimally than anyone else in their bracket.

The current system attempts to do what you're saying but by all accounts it fails miserably. I don't see how a separate base layer of scaling due to SCL could somehow make the current model of roster based scaling magically work. If they could figure out how to do that, wouldn't they have already done it?

What pure scaling based on SCL will do is what people have been clamoring for on the forums for forever, a level playing field for people competing for the same rewards. No longer will you have to wonder if you could have beaten out several people above you if only you didn't have to fight 40k+ health Juggs while they were cruising through against 20k Juggs. If you think it's unfair that RNG didn't hand you multiple fully covered 5* I think you should go comment in some of the threads about RNG, because your issue is with that, not with scaling.