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

GrumpySmurf1002

Starfury said:

I can totally follow your line of reasoning.

But the problem is that if the system goes live like this, everyone who isn't already in 5* land can completely forget about placement, in any SCL.

Disagree, I don't think many 5* players are dropping down to CL6 and below.

The issue I do agree with is 4* transitioners have it much harder with this test.  But there are solutions, and I'd like to think they'll be addressed somehow.

Broader picture:  No matter what change is made, some portion of the player base will get screwed.  I think the reason you're seeing more positivity than normal is because it's not very often the high-end portion of the forum base isn't the one screwed.

Lukoil

WEBGAS said:

@GrumpySmurf1002  
My statement was to complain for the 4*players treatment......(as you clearly understood   )
I included 2*-3* transiction palyers as well because I feel for them too and I think that if things are going this way, they will be forever in that limbo, unable to raise because in cl6 and cl7 they will be unable to reach top100, so the rewards will be very poor

Main source of 4* for 2*-3* is from legendary tokens -> CP -> progression rewards.

GrumpySmurf1002

Lukoil said:

WEBGAS said:

@GrumpySmurf1002  
My statement was to complain for the 4*players treatment......(as you clearly understood   )
I included 2*-3* transiction palyers as well because I feel for them too and I think that if things are going this way, they will be forever in that limbo, unable to raise because in cl6 and cl7 they will be unable to reach top100, so the rewards will be very poor

Main source of 4* for 2*-3* is from legendary tokens -> CP -> progression rewards.

If you're in the 2->3*, you still need 3s.  4s should be an afterthought.  (and there's more CP in CL6 than there used to be, assuming you're doing the extra grinds). 

Also, @WEBGAS, I think you overestimate how competitive T100 really is, especially for CL6.

adamdivine

For reference, I'm a 5* transitioner. I have Thanos champed and a few others max covered. I have about 30 4*'s champed. I went down to cl7 to save time. I prejoined the event and during the second sub RL got in the way and i didn't finish my initial 4/6 until 12 hours into the sub. Once i finished i was ranked 50 and the leaderboard is full of 3 and 4* rosters (with one or two similar to mine). So i think the worry about the high end rosters decimating placement for lower rosters in cl7 may be for nothing, at least in my bracket.

Tenaciousdecaf

Just in case someone's keeping a tally, chalk me up under the extremely-happy-with-these-changes group. 

Phumade

vinsensual said:

4* player here who played optimally the first day in CL8 taking about an hour to start and end with grinds to 1 point.  Still ended up around 25th place.  This has certainly gotten the 5* players out in full grind mode, and with the competition for top 10, I bet plenty of them are repeatedly hitting nodes for 1 point.  The exact thing D3 supposedly didn't want players doing.

not really possible now.  nodes now decay to 1 and takes a few min to even gen 1 point.

sirwookieechris

Demiurge has states one of the major issues with opening CL9&10 is that there are not enough people to compete at that level. Keeping scaling as it is in this test would make it even worse, wouldn't it? 5* Rosters will dominate in CL7/8. The top 3->4* transitions who were fighting for T10 for the extra 4* covers will no longer be able to do so. This will slow down the number of people reaching the next level of play while feeding additional 4* covers to people who need CP more than 4* covers. Seems like a waste and a case of "rich getting richer"

drayviper32

sirwookieechris said:

Demiurge has states one of the major issues with opening CL9&10 is that there are not enough people to compete at that level. Keeping scaling as it is in this test would make it even worse, wouldn't it? 5* Rosters will dominate in CL7/8. The top 3->4* transitions who were fighting for T10 for the extra 4* covers will no longer be able to do so. This will slow down the number of people reaching the next level of play while feeding additional 4* covers to people who need CP more than 4* covers. Seems like a waste and a case of "rich getting richer"

100% agree with this statement!!!

Merrick

If this test ends up being fully implemented, how long will it be until Thanos is nerfed?

He is the only 5* that mattered and must have been used in nearly 10% of the matches. 

acescracked

Rick OShay said:

acescracked said:

Thank you very much for this change! I can go back to playing pve more often again. 

Recently I had basically given up on pve and strictly doing PvP & ddq.  With this change I can start getting more rewards from the game again. Thanks again D3!

Let's be careful giving feedback to d3 without giving indication of your roster level.
If you are a 5* player, you represent a small percentage of the player base. And as you know, may set up the majority of players for grand misinterpretation by the devs.

Huh?? 5* is no longer a small percentage of the player base. If you think otherwise please post your data.

To be honest I only care about my game experience anyway just as you should. I've enjoyed this test immensely and has me playing pve again.

I should not be happy about a change that helps me if it hurts 52% (pick a percentage) of the player base? Lol!

edit - i have 3 of the oldest 5*s champed that aren't exactly speedy & I've spent $0 on this game in 2.5 years so no whale here

WelcomeDeath

acescracked said:

Rick OShay said:

acescracked said:

Thank you very much for this change! I can go back to playing pve more often again. 

Recently I had basically given up on pve and strictly doing PvP & ddq.  With this change I can start getting more rewards from the game again. Thanks again D3!

Let's be careful giving feedback to d3 without giving indication of your roster level.
If you are a 5* player, you represent a small percentage of the player base. And as you know, may set up the majority of players for grand misinterpretation by the devs.

Huh?? 5* is no longer a small percentage of the player base. If you think otherwise please post your data.

To be honest I only care about my game experience anyway just as you should. I've enjoyed this test immensely and has me playing pve again.

I should not be happy about a change that helps me if it hurts 52% (pick a percentage) of the player base? Lol!

edit - i have 3 of the oldest 5*s champed that aren't exactly speedy & I've spent $0 on this game in 2.5 years so no whale here

Umm....5* is still a very small percentage of the playerbase.  Otherwise youd see a lot more random 5* players in pvp and not the same names all the time

acescracked

Welcome Death said:

Umm....5* is still a very small percentage of the playerbase.  Otherwise youd see a lot more random 5* players in pvp and not the same names all the time

I bounce around slices in PvP all the time and my PvP MMR allows me to queue 5*/4* champed rosters up to dual 460 5* teams.

I see a bunch of different names all the time to where I've given up trying to remember who I've hit and whose hit me multiple times.

The dual 560's are rare but by no means the single champed 5*s for sure.

Stax the Foyer

Rick OShay said:

acescracked said:

Thank you very much for this change! I can go back to playing pve more often again. 

Recently I had basically given up on pve and strictly doing PvP & ddq.  With this change I can start getting more rewards from the game again. Thanks again D3!

Let's be careful giving feedback to d3 without giving indication of your roster level.
If you are a 5* player, you represent a small percentage of the player base. And as you know, may set up the majority of players for grand misinterpretation by the devs.

The percentage of people winning top 10 rewards is also, by definition, a small percentage of the playerbase.  A little bit over 1%.  This isn't the majority against the minority, to the extent that there's any friction here, it's one minority (small rosters who play PvE competitively) versus another (large rosters).  This change seems fantastic for all of the people who don't want to play competitively, especially coupled with the boost to CP available at lower levels.  That's the real majority.

The issue with artificially creating PvE structures in which smaller rosters are protected from competition from stronger rosters is that at some point, you have to spill over into the next pool, where you need to compete with bigger rosters for those ranking rewards.

If you're arguing for artificial restrictions on who can play where, you'll benefit temporarily, but you're not going to stay competitive as your roster progresses.  Eventually, you're going to spill over into pools with bigger fish, and it'll be your turn inside the barrel for a while.  That's a discouraging period, where you see a regression in your earned rewards for similar effort.  Those should be avoided.

If softcapping provides a more enjoyable play experience, by all means, continue to softcap.  It just won't provide you a competitive advantage, unless you're able to perch yourself right at the point before you spill into the higher pool.  The developers probably don't want that, it clogs the limited number of top progression rewards available by people who don't want to move to the next pool, slowing progress for non-softcapping rosters.  That's probably the wrong behavior to incentivize from an overall perspective.

Big rosters have to want to swim into the deeper pools.  If they don't right now, it's because the rewards system is skewed.  That's the way to adjust things so it's good for everyone, and the effort-to-reward ratio looks the best in the more challenging clearance levels.

Starfury

GrumpySmurf1002 said:

Starfury said:

I can totally follow your line of reasoning.

But the problem is that if the system goes live like this, everyone who isn't already in 5* land can completely forget about placement, in any SCL.

Disagree, I don't think many 5* players are dropping down to CL6 and below.

The issue I do agree with is 4* transitioners have it much harder with this test.  But there are solutions, and I'd like to think they'll be addressed somehow.

Broader picture:  No matter what change is made, some portion of the player base will get screwed.  I think the reason you're seeing more positivity than normal is because it's not very often the high-end portion of the forum base isn't the one screwed.

Does it matter to a SCL 5/6 player if he's trounced by a 5* player or by a 4* player driven out of SCL 8 by his inability to compete with 5* players? Going for top 10 in a lower SCL is almost always more attractive than going for top 200 in the next higher SCL. As long as this doesn't change, the top ranks in any SCL are simply out of reach of players with the rosters that SCL was meant for.

MissChinch

Starfury said:

GrumpySmurf1002 said:

Starfury said:

I can totally follow your line of reasoning.

But the problem is that if the system goes live like this, everyone who isn't already in 5* land can completely forget about placement, in any SCL.

Disagree, I don't think many 5* players are dropping down to CL6 and below.

The issue I do agree with is 4* transitioners have it much harder with this test.  But there are solutions, and I'd like to think they'll be addressed somehow.

Broader picture:  No matter what change is made, some portion of the player base will get screwed.  I think the reason you're seeing more positivity than normal is because it's not very often the high-end portion of the forum base isn't the one screwed.

Does it matter to a SCL 5/6 player if he's trounced by a 5* player or by a 4* player driven out of SCL 8 by his inability to compete with 5* players? Going for top 10 in a lower SCL is almost always more attractive than going for top 200 in the next higher SCL. As long as this doesn't change, the top ranks in any SCL are simply out of reach of players with the rosters that SCL was meant for.

I just don't see that as a problem.  You are guaranteed the progression rewards for the SCL you choose if you get the points regardless of whatever anyone else does. 

Top 10 in any SCL is the top 1% of the people playing in that bracket, its definitely not a requirement for progress 99% of people wont get it no matter what, and its not something anyone is entitled to.  That said its a matter of changing the reward as D3/Demi sees fit to attract the type of player it wants...  

If SCL(X-1)'s top 10 placement rewards plus progression rewards are greater than SCL(X)'s top 100 placement rewards plus progression rewards then I'd expect some players to gamble on dropping down. 

I see rosters in my alliance that are better suited for SCL6 going SCL7 for the progression rewards knowing they wont finish as well in placement, just like I see rosters better suited for SCL8 going SCL7 for the placement rewards (though not as many as I expected) and forgoing the extra CP and cover in progression. 

Simply consider the rewards available in the SCL you choose, knowing that you should only factor in the top 10 or maybe even top 50 if your roster is substantially outclassing the enemies, don't consider t10 or better an entitlement for clearing nodes as fast as you can, because you have to clear faster than 99% of everyone else.

FWIW I'm getting less rewards with this system in place (just have a handful of 4* champs) than I was with roster scaling, but I still think this is a vastly superior system.

GrumpySmurf1002

Starfury said:
Does it matter to a SCL 5/6 player if he's trounced by a 5* player or by a 4* player driven out of SCL 8 by his inability to compete with 5* players? Going for top 10 in a lower SCL is almost always more attractive than going for top 200 in the next higher SCL. As long as this doesn't change, the top ranks in any SCL are simply out of reach of players with the rosters that SCL was meant for.

As I said, I'd be quite surprised if 5* players are playing CL6 and below, as there's no 4* in that progression.  Ditto for 4* transitioners really.

I'm in 7 for this, I still see plenty of 4* rosters competing.  This happens to be an easier event opponent-wise, but anyone with a 3* Thanos and the boosted 4s can complete these fast enough.

Sluggo

I am loving this test so much. LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE IT. Can we make it permanent ASAP? Because going back to level 442 enemies on Thursday is going to seriously tinykitty. 

As currently implemented, this might be the single best quality-of-life improvement ever added to MPQ. Eliminating the need to softcap, not worrying about leveling characters, and having the ability to decide how long I want to spend clearing, based on which SCL level I choose? Sign me up. 

Warbringa

Yeah 5* rosters don't need to be playing in SCL 7 either.  I think it is a glaring issue for those trying to transition into 4* territory.  There is no way that you can compete for placement with such superior rosters and anything below SCL 7 doesn't really help you transition effectively. It is already difficult enough to compete with fully developed 4* rosters.  I think the test idea is on the right track but more changes need to be made so people aren't dropping down to feast on SCL they shouldn't be.  The issue imo is that that the rewards between SCL 7 and 8 are too close.  SCL 8 should have significantly better rewards as SCL 7 doesn't need less rewards. For the record, I have been playing SCL 8 for a long time (since basically it's roll out) but this test would have made my scaling more difficult based on the numbers provided so I moved into SCL 7.  I am competing ok but all of the top 50 are basically 4* developed and even some 5* rosters which is not good for people trying to transition.

revskip

adamdivine said:

For reference, I'm a 5* transitioner. I have Thanos champed and a few others max covered. I have about 30 4*'s champed. I went down to cl7 to save time. I prejoined the event and during the second sub RL got in the way and i didn't finish my initial 4/6 until 12 hours into the sub. Once i finished i was ranked 50 and the leaderboard is full of 3 and 4* rosters (with one or two similar to mine). So i think the worry about the high end rosters decimating placement for lower rosters in cl7 may be for nothing, at least in my bracket.

Pretty much my experience too, I also dropped to SCL 7 because I have no 5*s with more than 8 covers and none are leveled.  Out of the top ten in my bracket only two players have functional 5*s and neither has dual 5*s higher than 375.  Most of the rosters competing for top 10 are 4* players, myself included.  

zodiac339

PVP Placement: Top 5 is almost invariably 5* tier. Those players still have to put effort into coordinating with other shielded playersin order to make points and not lose them to another 5* player. Biggest guns win.
Roster scaled PVE Placement: Top 5 highly variable. Often dependant on whether or not you have the boosted characters at Champ levels (this is where the 5* players have issue). Even mostly 3* players have a chance. Effort and capability wins.
Static Levels PVE Placement: 5* tier destroys without making an effort. Thanos plus 2 other Epic Champs trivializes everything. Placement is not supposed to be trivial.

I understand the frustration Epic players face in Scaling PVE. Scaling was made with the expectation that you will use boosted characters to deal with enemies scaling past your roster. Epic players effectively have no boosted heroes, and the enemy scaling can get bizzarely difficult from what has been discussed. They have also leveled themselves out of being able to use strategies that the majority of players use, and instead rely on the same few sledgehammers all the time. Those same slegehammers beat down the majority of players in PVP already. Is there any actual reason why players who rely on skill and strategy rather than Thano5 shouldn't have PVE as a place they can actually compete?