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.
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
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.
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.
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"
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.