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.
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)
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
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.
There is no scaling based on your roster. Everyone in the same CL gets the same.
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.
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 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...
roberts_2 said: I preview a massive overbooking on SCL 7
New McG said: Dauthi said: Pongie said: May be obvious but this is likely the breakup of scl compared to your roster progressSCL 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.
Dauthi said: Pongie said: May be obvious but this is likely the breakup of scl compared to your roster progressSCL 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.
Pongie said: May be obvious but this is likely the breakup of scl compared to your roster progressSCL 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
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+)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).