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

1…1718202223…25

Comments

  • GrumpySmurf1002
    GrumpySmurf1002 Posts: 3,511 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.

    5* players flooding 8 doesn't strike me as an issue since that's as high as they can go and most already reside.

    As far as CL7, yes, my bracket is led by 5* rosters, in spots 1-3.  Behind that (as of last night) were majority 4* players, with a few 5s sprinkled in.  I'd guess most CL7 brackets mirror that but I'm sure there are 4* players that snuck through w/ strategy edges somewhere.

    Yes, 3* players got pushed down but the new reward system gives more for CL7 than the old system gave for CL8.  So those 3* competitive players are still coming out ahead, at least by progression.   Placement is another story obviously, but placement rewards are a long standing issue given the nature of bracketing.

    I've said it a few times in the thread, but the fact is that *most* changes in this game have rewarded softcapping and 3* transitioning while 'screwing' players who have leveled their roster.  It's a change of pace and it's of course going to lead to rejoicing among the veterans who got a much needed QoL breather here.

    Doesn't mean this test doesn't have flaws (it does), but you'll have to forgive those who got the first piece of good PvE news in a long, long while.   Hopefully the next couple iterations address both sides a bit better.
  • Magic
    Magic Posts: 1,199 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2017
    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. 
  • Magic
    Magic Posts: 1,199 Chairperson of the Boards
    Exactly how I see it as well Grumpy. The rewards need an update. The main reason I stick to 7 is that 8 doesn't provide anything that justifies the extra grind so I very much enjoy the change as a change of pace for me.
  • Skrofa
    Skrofa Posts: 388 Mover and Shaker
    Some background.

    I play s1.8 for quite some time now. I don't prejoin and usually I just wait a couple of hours before joining.

    I am a 4* transitioner, no usable 5*.

    I normally get t10 with a t5 thrown in there from time to time.

    My usual scaling is somewhere over 300 and even though I was intimidated by the 400 thing I figured I would still have a go at 8 again so I could provide proper feedback. That said, I was pleasantly surprised to see the numbers top at ~323.

    I managed to finish t5 in this event and I only used carol, medusa, wasp.

    To feedback now.
    This might have worked out fine for me this time with some luck involved but I can understand that if the 400 scaling comes with tile movers I will be obliterated. 

    Which begs the question: if people with multiple 4* champed do not feel they belong in s8, should we be in s7? S8 has two 4* covers for t10, s7 only 1. I would not want to grind and grind for just 1 4* cover.

    As many others have said before, the options are:

    1. Open up scl9 with significantly increased rewards.
    Something that will get people thinking, it might be harder, I enjoy a good challenge, why not??

    2. Remove placement completely and include those rewards in progression.
    If someone feels like they want to go for the much better rewards fir a bigger challenge they can just go for it at their own pace. (Of course this means that you might not feel the need to buy any health packs when/if they run out and play whenever they recharge)

    3. Keep the test scaling as it was but significantly increase rewards.
    Make the effort/reward thing positive.

    I had something else in mind which eludes me right now, I might add it later
  • MissChinch
    MissChinch Posts: 509 Critical Contributor

    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
    elvy75 Posts: 225 Tile Toppler
    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. 
  • MissChinch
    MissChinch Posts: 509 Critical Contributor
    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.

  • udonomefoo
    udonomefoo Posts: 1,630 Chairperson of the Boards
    No champed 5*, so I went down to SCL7

    Overall time commitment was better.  If this was the first step toward a progression only pve structure then i'd say it's great.  I don't believe that's the case.




  • Beer40
    Beer40 Posts: 826 Critical Contributor
    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.
  • Nepenthe
    Nepenthe Posts: 283 Mover and Shaker
    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]

    Bolding mine. This is the point of the change: Leveling up your heroes will no longer hurt you. It won't raise the enemy's level and drag out your fights. If this test goes live, leveling up will only help you! (In PvE at least, PvP mmr is a different story)

    I get that it sucks for people who were used to playing in CL8 and had to drop down a tier, but that is temporary. In the long run you will be better off as you continue to improve your roster without having it hurt your scaling. 

    The one change that would help is bumping up CL8 rewards so people who can cut it there are less likely to drop down, and the adding CL9.
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards

    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.

  • zodiac339
    zodiac339 Posts: 1,948 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.
  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2017
    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.
    450 enemies were for "average" 5* rosters of about level 450-460.
    And they're way more powerful than 450+ 5s.

    Higher level 5s see higher level enemies, there is no cap.

    Also, we start PVP seeing nothing but dual champed 5s from 0 to about 1100.

    Please stop raging about things you have no clue about.
  • MissChinch
    MissChinch Posts: 509 Critical Contributor
    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...

  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards
    Thank you Elvy, that was a lot more words than I was willing to use.
  • Nepenthe
    Nepenthe Posts: 283 Mover and Shaker
    My pve slice just finished and my thoroughly 4* roster managed to place #7 in CL8.  Maybe a lot of people who are normally competitive dropped down to CL7?  I did start about 3 hours late on the first day, but when I joined there were over 850 players already so it wasn't a bracket snipe.

    All in all, I highly approve of this change but think it needs the rewards tweaked to make people less likely to go lower. I expect they'll run some other tests with tweaks to the scaling levels before it goes live.
  • zodiac339
    zodiac339 Posts: 1,948 Chairperson of the Boards
    elvy75 said:
    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.
    As a 5* player i normally had to fight my last grind with 440 scaling. And those scale to higher level of health than most of 5* characters, and take a lot of time to deal with. Also it is not unusual for 5* roster to wipe against that kind of scaling, but it doesn't happen often. 

    When it comes to pvp, i fight seeds at the beginning and from there on its all dual 5*, ranging from 450-480 in my MMR range. I suppose this is what you call Epic roster? After some 1100 points or so MMR open and i am able to see other teams, but i will not hit anything that gives me less then 50 points per match, and only 5* rosters are actually worth points i am looking for. PVP is the constant fight against the same strength opponents. I don't know in which world do you think we live? The issue with PVP is that after certain period MMR breaks down, and it happens to those early climbers, so they will be presented with easier teams to climb on, but someone has to generate points in the slice. But as more and more people join the slice, there are more people in your MMR range, and you cant queue easy teams anymore.

    The reason why we like this PVE change is not because we want to play trivial matches, and get best rewards, it is because it takes away lots of time commitment that PVE was, if you wanted to play it competitively. And that we finally feel that all building of our roster was worth it. 
    Yeah, I saw higher health scaling in Balance of Power, with Juggernaut and the Hulk-like Moonstone being the biggest offenders. Health pools are a pain. On the other hand, that health goes to, say, 1.2 to 1.3 times that of the Epics (is that about right?). And Epic match damage is still 4 or 5 times higher with abilities that do 2~3 times the damage (though I remember seeing something about Ultron Sentries being particularly broken in their scaling). I'm having to guess on that of course. Have you compared your heroes' match damage and damage/AP to the enemies you usually face in PVE?

    Once you have more than I Epic Champ (450+. I usually see at least 3 in each roster in the top 5), then yeah, I consider that early Epic roster. I was under the impression that you were able to see weaker rosters/defense teams early on because I've been attacked by such rosters (not often mind you) within the first 6 to 12 hours of a PVP, when I haven't even used a Legendary, and may not even have used a Rare. I would have less than 300 points, defending with 2-stars, and see a retaliation available of 450+ Epics sitting there. Maybe that's been fixed? I'm pretty sure retaliations still show the team that was used rather than the system-determined defense team. I understand why he used those Epics as well, since he obviously checked my roster against my bait team and wasn't about to let me counter after he got some points.

    Still, what you've said shows me some of what I thought: your PVP experience is not that different from our PVE experience. You're fighting enemies of a similar level and putting effort into winning and advancing. PVE is supposed to take time and effort to compete in, just like PVP does in its way. Not wanting to spend the time is no excuse for asking for PVE to become a vastly trivial experience for yourself and your peers.

    Last week, I played through The Hunt. I spent 3-4 hours clearing in the beginning of a day and close to 2 at the end. Apparently, everyone was resting, because I got 5th. The unfair part to you, and it is unfair, is when characters like Red Hulk, Iceman, or Jean Grey get boosted. It can take about 55 minutes to 1 and a half hours to clear at the beginning, and as little as 45 minutes at the end. How does that compare to your clear speed when you're really trying?

    As for feeling like your roster was worth it, getting better gear in games has always, almost invariably, meant fighting bigger, stronger, scarier things. Why should MPQ suddenly become vastly different from that?

Categories