Scaling Tied To S.H.I.E.L.D. Clearance Levels (5/25/17)

zulux21

Bloody Marvel said:

I'm still debating what SCL to play in.

A lot of 5* rosters may play SCL 7, but I know that SCL 8 will be comprised of almost only 5* rosters. Competition in SCL 8 might be a lot stiffer than before because the competitive players are now condensed into a few brackets. Lots of people will now probably be playing SCL 7, which will spread the 5* rosters out over more brackets. Placement will likely worsen somewhat for people normally playing SCL 7. It will probably be a massacre in SCL 8.

I think I got the roster to be able to play SCL 8, but likely not competitively.

Decisions, decisions.

How about you think about it this way for your roster.

SCL7 - Working at a place where you just get to sit around and read a book or watch tv for $10 an hour.

SCL8 - Construction worker having to work hard the whole time for $10.10 an hour.

what sounds better? the job where you get paid for basically doing nothing, or the job that you get slightly more money but have to work hard?

Brigby

Jaedenkaal said:

waywreth said:

Jaedenkaal said:

There is no scaling based on your roster.  Everyone in the same CL gets the same.

Source? Brigby's post does not specifically preclude a small amount of roster-related scaling.

Discord

Brigby

If this is true, I think it would be fair to get this kind of important information on the forum as quickly as possible. I don't think I should have to scour every possible MPQ information outlet to get the complete story on this type of change (or anything, really)

@Jaedenkaal
Here's Anthony from Demiurge with some more info to clarify:

When the event is authored, a random number is chosen in that [mission's] range. The enemies will start at that level for all players, regardless of their roster or any other factors.. This is set up this way to hopefully create a slightly different experience from one mission to another.

Fightmastermpq

Brigby said:

Jaedenkaal said:

waywreth said:

Jaedenkaal said:

There is no scaling based on your roster.  Everyone in the same CL gets the same.

Source? Brigby's post does not specifically preclude a small amount of roster-related scaling.

Discord

Brigby

If this is true, I think it would be fair to get this kind of important information on the forum as quickly as possible. I don't think I should have to scour every possible MPQ information outlet to get the complete story on this type of change (or anything, really)

@Jaedenkaal
Here's Anthony from Demiurge with some more info to clarify:

When the event is authored, a random number is chosen in that [mission's] range. The enemies will start at that level for all players, regardless of their roster or any other factors.. This is set up this way to hopefully create a slightly different experience from one mission to another.

Just to clarify, this number is the same for everyone in that SCL right?  So while the experience might differ from mission to mission it will be the same from player to player, yes?

zodiac339

Brigby said:

Jaedenkaal said:

waywreth said:

Jaedenkaal said:

There is no scaling based on your roster.  Everyone in the same CL gets the same.

Source? Brigby's post does not specifically preclude a small amount of roster-related scaling.

Discord

Brigby

If this is true, I think it would be fair to get this kind of important information on the forum as quickly as possible. I don't think I should have to scour every possible MPQ information outlet to get the complete story on this type of change (or anything, really)

@Jaedenkaal
Here's Anthony from Demiurge with some more info to clarify:

When the event is authored, a random number is chosen in that [mission's] range. The enemies will start at that level for all players, regardless of their roster or any other factors.. This is set up this way to hopefully create a slightly different experience from one mission to another.

But why? Why would it be static for all players, regardless of roster strength? The chart suggested a hybrid system of scaling withing a range of difficulty. It made some kind of sense for less mature rosters to see (from what I was looking at) a max difficulty of 360, while stronger rosters have to deal with a potential of 400 for the highest reward zone.
Darn it. Community salt is getting to me.

Zalasta

Brigby said:

@Jaedenkaal
Here's Anthony from Demiurge with some more info to clarify:

When the event is authored, a random number is chosen in that [mission's] range. The enemies will start at that level for all players, regardless of their roster or any other factors.. This is set up this way to hopefully create a slightly different experience from one mission to another.

Zalasta

Because we all know how well the RNG works in MPQ.

Zalasta

This has to be about the worst forum software that I've interfaced with in a long time. Wouldn't let me post outside the quote field.  Grrrr... 

roberts_2

I preview a massive overbooking on SCL 7

Jaedenkaal

Zalasta said:

This has to be about the worst forum software that I've interfaced with in a long time. Wouldn't let me post outside the quote field.  Grrrr... 

You can switch to HTML view and start typing outside the quote block, and then switch back.

spatenfloot

roberts_2 said:

I preview a massive overbooking on SCL 7

Yes, but think how fast those brackets will flip.

Pylgrim

Since I usually play SCL7, this is actually positive as I should see a decrease of at least 70 levels across the board. I think that this is pretty much a statement: if you have a 4* roster, do SCL7, if 5*, do SCL8 and I am fine with that (though I really wish SCL9-10 were added to increase granularity between those two spots).

As it is, SCL8 REALLY needs to improve the rewards, significantly. 3 CP, 50 HP and a pittance of ISO over SCL7 are nowhere near a sufficiently good reward for 5* people (or the brave 4* players that dare punching a bit above their level).

Dauthi

New McG said:

Dauthi said:

Pongie said:

May be obvious but this is likely the breakup of scl compared to your roster progress

SCL 1:  30 - building up 1*
SCL 2:  55 - 1* maxed (40-50), building up 2* (<94)
SCL 3:  84 - 2* championed (94+), building up 3* (<166)
SCL 4: 140 - 2* maxed (144), 3* championed (166+)
SCL 5: 180 - 3* championed (166-266), building up 4* (<270)
SCL 6: 230 - 3* maxed (266), 4* championed (270+)
SCL 7: 260 - 4* championed (270+), building up 5* (255+)
SCL 8: 400 - 4* championed (270-370), 5* championed (450+)

Having boosted characters means you may be able to keep up with the scaling within your SCL

There should be a slight correction thanks to vaulting in SCL 8. 

SCL 8: 400 - 4* championed (270-300), 5* championed (450+)

This is what I was alluding to in my other post, but I hope the developers see this. 4* champs are not in competition with 5*s because there will never be overlap thanks to vaulting, while in the other divisions shown there is. I hope they fix it soon.

Tell that to my Carol, who in less than two months of being champed, along with 4* Blade, has already blown past my highest vaulted 4*, which was IMHB, who was champed the day the system went into place. Four others in the current 12 are also within a few levels of the 283 that IMHB took over a year to get to with the older, ever-more-diluted tokens. I'm by no means an elite player, but I probably average about one LT pull a day, so I pressume for those that are spending and playing way more than I, accumulating high champ rewards for a pool of 12 will actually be significantly easier than doing so for a group of now around 50.

I'm about two to three weeks away from being at an equilibrium point where I will have the entire current 12 either champed, or ready to be levelled as I get the covers to finish them when they get added to the pool each month. After that, I can actually go back and level a few older 4*s with the iso I get while I've got everything in the current group accounted for. A scenario where I can assure no wasted covers (and actually effectively get characters finished as they release) would have been virtually impossible the ways things were just a few short months ago.

I knew I would get these responses, and let me clarify the situation.

First let me say how fast you obtain/level any character is going to revolve on how often you play and rewards obtainable by you, and some luck, so this is subjective. For instance my Carol is sitting at around 288 and I have had her as a bonus hero since it came out. I probably have got twice as much Mordo than Carol. 

Before vaulting it took my Hulkbuster almost a year to hit 300 though that sped up some as rewards and other additions were put in game. With the current situation, you can level fast until they are removed from the packs, where progress virtually stops.  So we have a situation where progress was very slow, vs it's great until it basically stops. I prefer having progress vs not having it at any point.

Also I can tell you that before vaulting I had maybe one wasted cover every 3 months or so, since I had most 4*s champed. Soon as vaulting hit I probably wasted at least 40 to this day. I have almost all the 12 finished and the waste is basically gone, except now I am not getting the high tier rewards I was from now abandoned 4*s.

In any case, it would be interesting to see where everybody's new 4*s end up after they leave, but I personally doubt they will be in fighting form to face off against champed 5*s.

Pongie

Pongie said:

SCL 1:  30 - building up 1*
SCL 2:  55 - 1* maxed (40-50), building up 2* (<94)
SCL 3:  84 - 2* championed (94+), building up 3* (<166)
SCL 4: 140 - 2* maxed (144), 3* championed (166+)
SCL 5: 180 - 3* championed (166-266), building up 4* (<270)
SCL 6: 230 - 3* maxed (266), 4* championed (270+)
SCL 7: 260 - 4* championed (270+), building up 5* (255+)
SCL 8: 400 - 4* championed (270-370), 5* championed (450+)

This was me trying to match up scaling with roster levels. Not really suggesting that's where you should be playing. If this was d3 intentions, it would be good if the rewards also match up with the roster too. 

stewbacca

This is the best news ever, I'll be staying in scl.8 and fighting enemies 60 levels lower. This is the change I've been asking for since scls started.

Bloody_Marvel

zulux21 said:

Bloody Marvel said:

I'm still debating what SCL to play in.

A lot of 5* rosters may play SCL 7, but I know that SCL 8 will be comprised of almost only 5* rosters. Competition in SCL 8 might be a lot stiffer than before because the competitive players are now condensed into a few brackets. Lots of people will now probably be playing SCL 7, which will spread the 5* rosters out over more brackets. Placement will likely worsen somewhat for people normally playing SCL 7. It will probably be a massacre in SCL 8.

I think I got the roster to be able to play SCL 8, but likely not competitively.

Decisions, decisions.

How about you think about it this way for your roster.

SCL7 - Working at a place where you just get to sit around and read a book or watch tv for $10 an hour.

SCL8 - Construction worker having to work hard the whole time for $10.10 an hour.

what sounds better? the job where you get paid for basically doing nothing, or the job that you get slightly more money but have to work hard?

SCL 7 it is.

NMANOZ

This is what CL8 should be for the harder nodes (with difficulty increase of 15 levels per completion):

Hard 240 (Max of 300)
Hardest 260 (Max of 320)
4 Star 230 (Max of 290)

This will allow the people on lower levels to be able to compete. Some might say it is low but the current levels would be used for CL9 or 10. It would also discourage people with stronger rosters from dropping to CL7.

Starfury

MissChinch said:

Starfury said:

broll said:

bbigler said:

I really like this new PVE scaling concept, but it needs some adjustments:

1. Lower the max level for SCL8 to 350.  If this is too easy for 5* rosters, then introduce SCL9 with higher levels and better rewards and they will go there instead.
2. Only allow players to go down one SCL, which still gives them the choice but doesn't make it unfair to players in those lower levels. 
3. Track the clearing times, roster strength and enemy levels for the top 50 in each slice and make future adjustments to the enemy levels so that it takes about 1 hr for 4 clears.

I completely disagree with 2.  If someone wants to drop down many levels to breeze thru they should be able to.  If people sniping low levels for T1/T5 becomes a problem then they need to look at the gap between the placement rewards between levels.  

That won't happen. They'd have to make placement rewards so flat that they might as well get rid of them entirely.

You got it backwards on this point...   flat placement rewards would make dropping a SCL or two less costly.  If there was a flat 25CP for placing in the top 10 across SCLs I'd be sandbagging hard (right now it looks like SCL4 is a pretty sweet spot)  If there were sharp differences in rewards between SCLs (progression or placement) it would be more costly to move down and less likely you see monster rosters moving down to snipe rewards, because the rewards are significantly different.

If sandbagging SCLs is a problem, Broll is correct, they need to look at the gap between placement rewards between these levels...   make the gap bigger to incentivize people to play higher SCLs.

I mean flat within a given SCL. Top 10 would need to be too close to top 200.

You can't have a big step between SCLs and still keep meaningful differences within those SCLs. Otherwise you'd end up with SCL 8 awarding tens of thousands of iso and throwing around 4 and 5* covers.

Nick441234

They really should have brought SCL9 with these changes and then it might have worked better. Theres too much of a jump between the scaling of SCL7 and SCL8. I'm in that awkward position of my scaling topping out at 305 right now so I'm either joining SCL7 and fighting guys 40+ levels below what I was fighting or joinging SCL8 and fighting guys 95 levels above what I was fighting. I have to go down cause I think 95 levels is too far up on what my roster can handle. 

Had they introduced SCL9, then they could have made it a more gradual jump with SCL9 topping out at level 400 and SCL8 topping out at round 330. I could have probably handled that smaller increase then. 

Crowl

Pylgrim said:

Since I usually play SCL7, this is actually positive as I should see a decrease of at least 70 levels across the board. I think that this is pretty much a statement: if you have a 4* roster, do SCL7, if 5*, do SCL8 and I am fine with that (though I really wish SCL9-10 were added to increase granularity between those two spots).

As it is, SCL8 REALLY needs to improve the rewards, significantly. 3 CP, 50 HP and a pittance of ISO over SCL7 are nowhere near a sufficiently good reward for 5* people (or the brave 4* players that dare punching a bit above their level).

If they did any increases they should mainly be on the progression side, if people have no chance of placement then they clearly need to shift the balance away from that as then they will be less concerned about missing out on those rewards and less likely to drop down to a lower CL.

jamesh

Starfury said:

MissChinch said:

If sandbagging SCLs is a problem, Broll is correct, they need to look at the gap between placement rewards between these levels...   make the gap bigger to incentivize people to play higher SCLs.

I mean flat within a given SCL. Top 10 would need to be too close to top 200.

You can't have a big step between SCLs and still keep meaningful differences within those SCLs. Otherwise you'd end up with SCL 8 awarding tens of thousands of iso and throwing around 4 and 5* covers.

From the placement rewards side, I think the incentives to play at higher clearance levels are fine at the very top end.

For example, the reward for placing first in CL7 is three 4* covers and 4.5k Iso, which you can get for placing top 5 in CL8.  Similarly placing first in CL6 gives the same reward as placing top 10 in CL7.  You get similar effects as you move further out: you can get most of the prizes for placing top 50 in CL7 by placing top 200 in CL8.

Given that increasing your ranking in an event can require exponentially more work, not having to compete as hard is a strong benefit to moving up a clearance level.

I think things break down is that many people value the progression rewards over placement.  For most clearance levels, you need to be placing top 10 or top 20 for the placement rewards to be comparable to what you get for progression.

I'm not sure what the best way to solve this is.  For a start, they'd need to make placement rewards relevant to more than 1 or 2% of the player base.  Maybe adjusting the progression rewards was an attempt at this, but I think more changes would be needed.