Alsmir said: That test just flooded the SCL 7, 8 with 5* players who kicked anyone else out of placement spots. Same thing that we had in PvP for long time.
Magic said: This change is calling for scl9 to top at 400 and scl10 at 450 (previous top level for the championed rosters... more or less). Scl8 should end around 300 (preferably)-350.
I'd really like to see more separation in progression rewards in each SCL... I'd love it if they would adopt a progression reward scheme that ensures that all progression rewards in the previous tier are obtained in the current tier by around 60-75% max progression.
Make the decision more easily visible to players so they know completing anything beyond 75% of SCL X ensures they wouldn't miss out on anything from SCL X-1.
I'm all for continued emphasis on progression reward value over placement reward value...The more value they can take out of placement and put into progression the better.
elvy75 said: So finally finished this test.My roster has 4 5* championed, and one 5* at 13 covers that is yet to be championed (need iso)I prejoined S2.8, expecting levels to reach 400 for the hardest node in last 3 clears. That didn't happen, as 323 was the top scaling anyone of us in CL8 encountered. In my bracket 3 of us were clearing it pretty fast, all 3 of us having 5* rosters. I messed up with my end grinds, as i finished each of them way too early, and that costs you points. Good job on other two on timing it much better. I ended up #3 and thought it awesome for the effort i put in. My playtime was cut in half or more and i placed better than in a while. In most new character releases i used to place still t10, but for the repeat ones i only played to checkmarks.While i really enjoyed it i am aware that devs said it int he first post that max 400 will not stay, so i am aware that this test was more to test lower rosters than my own. I expect that devs will roll out higher CL that will be challenging for my roster. But in order for them to do so they need to make rewards good enough in order to make us with 5* going to lower CL. If that is not the case players will keep on sandbagging, and i dont believe that is devs intention, just like softcaping is not their intention. This test is meant to solve the problem of softcaping, but it will create problems of sandbagging if rewards are almost identical between CL. As with previous scaling tests i believe it will take devs multiple trials before they set on what is the desired outcome.
Despite personally reaping some of the rewards of softcapping the scaling system, I'm happy to hear higher level rosters and doing comparatively better, that's how it should have been all along. I'll happily trade my better rewards I get for being in a sweet spot w.r.t. scaling for the knowledge that growing my roster in power will result in better rewards and faster clear times.
I'm actually impressed that they did as well as they did with scaling, the challenges of having week old rosters compete with years old rosters and have it work as well as it did is quite a feat, but I think this system offers far more promise, provided they do well with tweaking rewards at each SCL.
MissChinch said: elvy75 said: So finally finished this test.My roster has 4 5* championed, and one 5* at 13 covers that is yet to be championed (need iso)I prejoined S2.8, expecting levels to reach 400 for the hardest node in last 3 clears. That didn't happen, as 323 was the top scaling anyone of us in CL8 encountered. In my bracket 3 of us were clearing it pretty fast, all 3 of us having 5* rosters. I messed up with my end grinds, as i finished each of them way too early, and that costs you points. Good job on other two on timing it much better. I ended up #3 and thought it awesome for the effort i put in. My playtime was cut in half or more and i placed better than in a while. In most new character releases i used to place still t10, but for the repeat ones i only played to checkmarks.While i really enjoyed it i am aware that devs said it int he first post that max 400 will not stay, so i am aware that this test was more to test lower rosters than my own. I expect that devs will roll out higher CL that will be challenging for my roster. But in order for them to do so they need to make rewards good enough in order to make us with 5* going to lower CL. If that is not the case players will keep on sandbagging, and i dont believe that is devs intention, just like softcaping is not their intention. This test is meant to solve the problem of softcaping, but it will create problems of sandbagging if rewards are almost identical between CL. As with previous scaling tests i believe it will take devs multiple trials before they set on what is the desired outcome. Despite personally reaping some of the rewards of softcapping the scaling system, I'm happy to hear higher level rosters and doing comparatively better, that's how it should have been all along. I'll happily trade my better rewards I get for being in a sweet spot w.r.t. scaling for the knowledge that growing my roster in power will result in better rewards and faster clear times.I'm actually impressed that they did as well as they did with scaling, the challenges of having week old rosters compete with years old rosters and have it work as well as it did is quite a feat, but I think this system offers far more promise, provided they do well with tweaking rewards at each SCL.
Tiger Wong said: I've been a SCL8 player almost since its inception. So I stayed with SCL8. You can see a couple nodes start out way higher but they cap at lvl 320. It's not a big deal for me as I've got 14 4* champed and hovering around lvl 273. But I know why I've been handling it well though.....the highest lvl of my 5* is Black Widow at 2/2/3 at 345. I can get her to 360 but.... I know that's just gonna up the enemies level. So I give my other 5* covers but don't lvl them higher than 330. Even though ive got.....[snip]
I dropped to CL7 as well and only played a little past the 8CP. The top 2 in my bracket were 5* players, but 3-20 were almost entirely 4* rosters (there was a 3* and a 5* player, but that was it).
All in all, I agree that the time commitment was improved. While I agree, in theory, that progression-only would be better, I can't in my wildest dreams imagine it being implemented in this game without a loss of awards for the average player, especially when things like sub awards are included...in particular for Strange Sights, which is usually a windfall of tokens.
Alsmir said: I'm seriously concerned about future of this game. At this time, not because of recent changes, but because of attitude of 5* players.I know that entire 5* meta is weird, inconsistent and drastically needs changes + improvements. Set lvl difficulties don't fix that, unless they come with SCL 9, 10 and changes to reward structure. That test just flooded the SCL 7, 8 with 5* players who kicked anyone else out of placement spots. Same thing that we had in PvP for long time.5* players got super easy fights, but everyone else got slapped into the face. That fixes nothing and you don't have to be that smart to realize that.It troubles me when I read "Let's make that permament, my opponents are super easy now and I can do full clear in 25 minutes." What about people who don't have 5* rosters? 3* players were pushed out of CL8, others keep facing similar or stronger opponents, but you only think about yourself. Disguisting.
zodiac339 said: Magic said: This change is calling for scl9 to top at 400 and scl10 at 450 (previous top level for the championed rosters... more or less). Scl8 should end around 300 (preferably)-350. Is that true? The cap was 450? And 5* players were complaining when they can champ their heroes up to 550? What kind of smolcat is that?Do 5* players in PVP only attack Legendary and below players? Or do they have to fight other Epic players too? It's foolish of them to expect this PVE test to be the way of things. No matter how much they spent or built, they don't have the privilege to get more Progression rewards and more Placement rewards for fighting trivially weak opponents. Every one of us suffers when entering a new tier. Every one of us has to deal with the higher scaling, the harder enemies, when we've only got 1 or 2 heroes in the new tier to count on.If they really wanted to be competetive PVE players, they would have been the "softcappers" they seem to feel such disdain for. But how do they start their PVP climbs? Hitting Legendary and lower rosters. Taking easy points until they have to fight bigger rosters. Do they actually want end end to "softcapping"? Do they want PVP to be a constant slugfest against other Epic rosters with absolutely nothing to get some easier points from? Personally, I doubt they want that, since they love the trivial effort for the rewards they're getting from this test.Do us a favor: Play the game the way it's been and stop whining for things you aren't privileged to have. Rewards require effort. Make some.
Beer40 said: MissChinch said: elvy75 said: So finally finished this test.My roster has 4 5* championed, and one 5* at 13 covers that is yet to be championed (need iso)I prejoined S2.8, expecting levels to reach 400 for the hardest node in last 3 clears. That didn't happen, as 323 was the top scaling anyone of us in CL8 encountered. In my bracket 3 of us were clearing it pretty fast, all 3 of us having 5* rosters. I messed up with my end grinds, as i finished each of them way too early, and that costs you points. Good job on other two on timing it much better. I ended up #3 and thought it awesome for the effort i put in. My playtime was cut in half or more and i placed better than in a while. In most new character releases i used to place still t10, but for the repeat ones i only played to checkmarks.While i really enjoyed it i am aware that devs said it int he first post that max 400 will not stay, so i am aware that this test was more to test lower rosters than my own. I expect that devs will roll out higher CL that will be challenging for my roster. But in order for them to do so they need to make rewards good enough in order to make us with 5* going to lower CL. If that is not the case players will keep on sandbagging, and i dont believe that is devs intention, just like softcaping is not their intention. This test is meant to solve the problem of softcaping, but it will create problems of sandbagging if rewards are almost identical between CL. As with previous scaling tests i believe it will take devs multiple trials before they set on what is the desired outcome. Despite personally reaping some of the rewards of softcapping the scaling system, I'm happy to hear higher level rosters and doing comparatively better, that's how it should have been all along. I'll happily trade my better rewards I get for being in a sweet spot w.r.t. scaling for the knowledge that growing my roster in power will result in better rewards and faster clear times.I'm actually impressed that they did as well as they did with scaling, the challenges of having week old rosters compete with years old rosters and have it work as well as it did is quite a feat, but I think this system offers far more promise, provided they do well with tweaking rewards at each SCL. I really liked this test as well. Although I'm not a 5* player (or even a fully 4* player yet) the goal is to get there and the results be worth the time and effort put in. I keep skimming the discussions about this new system. I really can't find anyone who dislikes it, unless they simply picked the wrong level for their roster. I feel bad for them but that is going to happen in tests. Learn from the mistake for the next time. Here's what the realist in me doesn't like about the test. It seems pretty universal among the player base that the rewards would need to be adjusted (increased) to keep people in their appropriate brackets. So I imagine the bean counters sitting with the management team and the conversation going like this:Bean Counter: "Tell the developers excellent work on the latest test. We have a good foundation to decide how to proceed".Management: "Then with a few new tweaks this system is a go? Do we tell the developers to implement it in all PVE?".Bean Counter: "NO! This made play more enjoyable, but clearly we're going to need to GIVE AWAY more rewards to make this really work. We're just going to stick with the old system. Its better for our bottom dollar".Management: "Ok, what do we tell the developers to work on then?"Bean Counter: "Give them something to work on they can't get done right in two weeks. Make sure its bugged and causes extra damage so people need to buy more health packs".Or, you know, something like that.
Hah I've got low expectations but they're not THAT low
I expect 2-3 more scaled PvE events, then a move to exactly what we saw, no change in rewards, possibly a tweak or two to the levels of enemies seen in each SCL with the promise of addressing rewards later (but rewards staying the same)
The shame of that would be that this change has such high potential, but it can only be reached with good management of the rewards...