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

1…5681011…25

Comments

  • Khanwulf
    Khanwulf Posts: 103 Tile Toppler
    edited May 2017
    Well. I'll be in SCL 7 with 99% of the rest of the player base who could cut 8 on any other event. There's no point to being hammered when you need those boosted characters to finish the 5-6 tinykitty clears that are being forced.

    Or, 3-4 clears if you give up and take the 4* + 8 CP participation trophy. 

    Keeping in mind a week ago we'd be receiving a 4* + 25 CP for the same effort. My junk has not recovered from the kick, thanks.

    Lose a day? Lose a few clears on a day? Give up. I think someone in Demiurge had a stroke of brilliance, in his or her deep care about people over-playing MPQ, and decided to incentivize quitting as a tactic. After all, these games hook you by offering "just...one...more...reward", but if the reward is too far off--as it can easily be now, then you can in good conscience put the phone down, kiss your kids and go for a walk. Read a book. Do something creative.

    Now, you can stare at the overleveled opponents, think "for what we are about to receive let us be truly... tinykitty this!" Put the phone up, collect your participation prize, and walk into the sunshine of the world outside your bathroom!

    So, Devs are really shooting for a healthier, more balanced community. We should thank them. 

    @Brigby please pass on our thanks. I'll look for an appropriate meme again.

    --Khanwulf

    PS. I feel compelled to clarify that tying SCL to scaling is a good idea that's been requested. Introducing it after requiring multiple clears at highest opponent level and all days of event is the problem. Also, it illustrates how much you (Devs) need an SCL 9-10 at this point, as you're forced to make the scaling for SCL 8 appropriate for leveled 5* rosters, while in fact SCL 8 is intended by its rewards to be for players working on 4* rosters/transition.

    As a result, everyone will play SCL 7. Probably even the 5* roster folks, since the rewards aren't much different (3 CP, frankly). 
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,817 Chairperson of the Boards
    SpringSoldier said:
    I have a couple of questions (maybe they've been answered before and I missed it, so please don't judge me). When the devs say level 400 enemies do they mean
    1. an entire team of level 400 or just one (like that wave where you fought the giant Venom at the end- he was strong, but at least he was alone)?
    2. are they actual characters or just goons? Because a level 400 Hitman is infinitely easier to defeat than level 400 Daken, for example.

    3. if the SCL7 fills up, what's going to happen? Brackets, more competition? Also, would it be possible to make the placement rewards dependent on the number of competitors (example, 100 competitors- first 10 win big reward, 1000 competitors, first 100 win big reward)?
    1.  Teams of 400 at highest scaling in hardest nodes.  They will be just above my boosted 4 champs...manageable, I think.  Still not sure about SCL 8.
    2.  Unstable iso-8 features some Dark Avengers and some goons (Hammer and Maggia).  Also 3*Pun, Sentry, Ragnorak.
    3.  I don't think the test would be as valid if they change placement rewards etc.  I assume all bracket rules apply, so if SCL fills, new bracket for that slice. I'm sure they would have announced if anything changed in this regard.
  • GrumpySmurf1002
    GrumpySmurf1002 Posts: 3,511 Chairperson of the Boards
    Warbringa said:
    Not a big fan of this since I will have to move down to SCL 7 from SCL 8.  I suppose that my play will be slightly easier than it is now but I will be giving up  iso and a 3* cover that I would prefer to keep.  This will hurt many transitioning players who have somewhat balanced rosters and will really help people who have unbalanced rosters, not sure of the motivation.  At least it is just a test but it makes me think they have already decided they will implement it anyway.  What tests have they not implemented in the past?
    I'd guarantee we're getting this in some iteration.  But again, compare this to when they tested PvE difficulty:  (this should work to find all the announcements:  https://forums.d3go.com/search?Page=p1&Search=test&cat=13)

    March 17th - test 1
    March 30th - 1st feedback few tweaks. 2nd test in next event.
    April 12th - 2nd feedback, more tweaks.  3rd test in next event.
    May 15th - 3rd feedback, more tweaks, 4th test.
    June 17th - 5th test (the one with the finite points which led to a billion ties)
    July 14th - New difficulty goes live, still with tweaks.

    (side note, I think one didn't pull in the search, but you get the picture).


    That's 5 tests (maybe 6) over the course of 4 months, each with it's own changes and tweaks.  So yeah, this is probably the framework, but our participation and feedback will ultimately help dictate the structure, which will inevitably be different that what was presented for test 1.
  • GrumpySmurf1002
    GrumpySmurf1002 Posts: 3,511 Chairperson of the Boards
    SpringSoldier said:
    I have a couple of questions (maybe they've been answered before and I missed it, so please don't judge me). When the devs say level 400 enemies do they mean
    1. an entire team of level 400 or just one (like that wave where you fought the giant Venom at the end- he was strong, but at least he was alone)?
    2. are they actual characters or just goons? Because a level 400 Hitman is infinitely easier to defeat than level 400 Daken, for example.

    3. if the SCL7 fills up, what's going to happen? Brackets, more competition? Also, would it be possible to make the placement rewards dependent on the number of competitors (example, 100 competitors- first 10 win big reward, 1000 competitors, first 100 win big reward)?
    1. Entire team level 400 (or more accurately, entire team level 360-400 as it is listed in the announcement).

    2. That range (360-400) is likely dictated by type of enemy.  3 tile movers is probably 360-360-360, whereas 3 goons is probably 400-400-400.   That hasn't been confirmed but that's how I'm interpreting the existence of ranges without roster based scaling.

    3.  Brackets will work as normal.  CL7 may flip brackets more than normal, but it'll still be 1000 players per bracket, with same reward structure as typical for CL7
  • fmftint
    fmftint Posts: 3,653 Chairperson of the Boards
    There's something missing in the OP, for participating in this TEST all players will recieve _________

    What do we get for beta testing this? 
  • zodiac339
    zodiac339 Posts: 1,948 Chairperson of the Boards
    veny said:
    Alsmir said:
    Bowgentle said:
    Alsmir said:
    So what is happenoing? Did we start 2017 with the new motto "Support the whales at all cost, screw anyone else."?

    Vaulting, HfH, now this?

    I'm definitely out of CL8. Can't do more than CL7 under the new system. I'm forec to do 5 clears instead of 4 for the same rewards, but now I can forget about any placement rewards as well.

    I'm so desperately trying to find logic in the recent changes, but all I see is greed. Surely whales and vets are happy, but everyone else is being told to leave at the same time.

    After they spent the last two years trying their best to alienate vets with insane scaling, punishment for leveling their characters and other great stuff I consider this change a small step in the right direction.
    Your life must be real hard, when you can collect 4* covers and 25 cp from PvP.
    Nice try Alsmir - it is almost impossible for most players to get above 700 points in PvP - tried that many times - after 700-800 points competitors are attacking so frequently you simply cant get points faster than lose them...
    Feel free to prove me wrong with printscreen of you reaching 4* + 25CP from PVP progress :)
    Yeah, it's rare to see anyone hit 1200 points in PVP who doesn't have at least 1 Epic Champion, usually 3 or more. So top 5, 1% of players, actually get the full progress, along with the Legendary covers that everyone else looks at with tears in their eyes.
    Howerer, I believe what he was saying was, "Wah, wah, vet. Your PVE scaling is so hard. Stop crying, cause those 5 stars you whaled keep anyone from fighting you in PVP. The rest of us need PVE rewards to advance."
  • madok
    madok Posts: 905 Critical Contributor
    I look forward to moving back down to CL7 for the test. If you bumped up all the rewards in CL8 to match the huge jump in scaling, I might think about staying in CL8. Just not worth that scaling jump when you are giving me a chance at much lower scaling for a few less rewards.
  • bbigler
    bbigler Posts: 2,111 Chairperson of the Boards
    waywreth said:
    Ducky said:
    For everyone complaining that they can't beat 400 level opponents...you may not even see them unless your scaling starts maxed out.
    There is no scaling based on your roster.  Everyone in the same CL gets the same.
    You don't know that.  Don't assume.  Why else is there a range in the enemy levels?
  • GrumpySmurf1002
    GrumpySmurf1002 Posts: 3,511 Chairperson of the Boards
    bbigler said:
    waywreth said:
    Ducky said:
    For everyone complaining that they can't beat 400 level opponents...you may not even see them unless your scaling starts maxed out.
    There is no scaling based on your roster.  Everyone in the same CL gets the same.
    You don't know that.  Don't assume.  Why else is there a range in the enemy levels?
    It's not assumption, it's been said.  No roster scaling.

    Assumption is that the enemy range is based on type, because it's the only logical answer w/ roster scaling ruled out.
  • Gmax101
    Gmax101 Posts: 182 Tile Toppler

    In principle this makes a lot of sense.... but as stated above there are a couple of things missing...

    - Step up in node rewards... seriously, standard tokens at SCL 8?

    - A realistic SCL 8 that shows what it will look like of 9 & 10 exist.


    As a a level 102 roster I should be able to handle SCL 8 I expect, but although my 4* roster is wide, I lack anything above level 302 (Medusa) and while I have some fully covered 5* only Hawkeye (300) and Dr Strange (270) have been levelled... so hardest nodes of upto 400 are a bit fruity for my liking..


    But then SCL 8 is unlikely to stay at that level once 9 & 10 are introduced. (I hope)


    But if the node rewards were better then you would see people trying to punch above their weight.... :)

  • TxMoose
    TxMoose Posts: 4,319 Chairperson of the Boards
    I am cautiously optimistic about this change.  I've been wanting to spend less time in pve and instead of falling short of the new 5x progression, now I can spend less time in CL7 and still get there.  and when I fill out my 5*s CL8 will be available for me then.  I do think CL8 brackets will be packed with competitive vets and it might provide a less than positive experience, but that's why we have test runs.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.  
  • Killians8
    Killians8 Posts: 134 Tile Toppler
    justsing said:
    I started playing CL8 more due to the increase in rewards, and with this change, I'm going back to CL7. With current scaling, my hardest node tops out at 320. I don't need it to be harder considering how I only have a few 4* champs. I really hope the devs revaluate the scaling based on people's actual rosters given what shield rank range is intended for each SCL.
    I'm roughly in the same boat with just two champs and four others leveled to 223 as I creep them up one level at a time to see if it affects scaling. Hardest node currently capped at 316.

    I will drop down as well, but I think it's overall a better system if they keep it and tweak it correctly. SCL8 will now be something to achieve and I have always enjoyed feeling like I'm progressing. The rewards may still not be appealing enough after this change. The option of another 4*, extra heroic tokens or something to entice people to move up would help.
  • bbigler
    bbigler Posts: 2,111 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.  
    It's already a problem for newer players, which is unfair to them.  Perhaps you're advocating it because you do it yourself?
  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    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.

    As to 3: And while they're at it, they could look into optimizing the sluggish UI. That would cut into time requirements as much or more.
    Already for the three easy nodes I spend more time waiting for the game than I spend playing. (And then of course half the time "playing" is me looking at the same animations over and over again) Even against Lightning round seeds I need a minimum of about 1 minute per match, even if they're only 1 move + Thanos passive.

    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.
  • Jaedenkaal
    Jaedenkaal Posts: 3,357 Chairperson of the Boards
    waywreth said:
    Jaedenkaal said:
    waywreth said:
    Ducky said:
    For everyone complaining that they can't beat 400 level opponents...you may not even see them unless your scaling starts maxed out.
    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)
  • MissChinch
    MissChinch Posts: 509 Critical Contributor
    bbigler 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.  
    It's already a problem for newer players, which is unfair to them.  Perhaps you're advocating it because you do it yourself?


    I could cut it at SCL8 if I wanted to take quite a bit longer to do my PvE clears, and I wouldn't sniff placement...   For any events that I don't need the 4* in progression I absolutely plan on crushing lower rosters in SCL4 for the CP rewards.


    There is nothing unfair about it...  the fact that everyone competing for the same rewards does so by fighting the same enemies is far more fair than the previous system.


    If you're saying its unfair to a level 15 player playing at SCL4 to have to compete with my level 84 roster, then should I be whining that its unfair for my roster to have to compete with a maxed champion 5* roster ? 


    The best rosters have been getting completely screwed in PvE (I have never been a member of that club mind you) but its insane to have the best rosters be at a significant disadvantage for the same rewards.


    This will significantly cut my resources, but its a step in the right direction that I'm all for.

  • MissChinch
    MissChinch Posts: 509 Critical Contributor
    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.

Categories