Scaling Tied To S.H.I.E.L.D. Clearance Levels (5/25/17)
Comments
-
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.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)?
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.0 -
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)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?
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.
3 -
1. Entire team level 400 (or more accurately, entire team level 360-400 as it is listed in the announcement).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)?
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 CL71 -
There's something missing in the OP, for participating in this TEST all players will recieve _________
What do we get for beta testing this?1 -
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.veny said:
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...Alsmir said:
Your life must be real hard, when you can collect 4* covers and 25 cp from PvP.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.
Feel free to prove me wrong with printscreen of you reaching 4* + 25CP from PVP progress
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."0 -
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.0
-
You don't know that. Don't assume. Why else is there a range in the enemy levels?waywreth said:
There is no scaling based on your roster. Everyone in the same CL gets the same.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.
0 -
It's not assumption, it's been said. No roster scaling.bbigler said:
You don't know that. Don't assume. Why else is there a range in the enemy levels?waywreth said:
There is no scaling based on your roster. Everyone in the same CL gets the same.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.
Assumption is that the enemy range is based on type, because it's the only logical answer w/ roster scaling ruled out.0 -
I was asking this when SR and SCLs were first introduced and I was only playing for 6 months in at this point. This has a lot of benifets for new players:Eichen said:I think the only ones that were complaining were the guys with leveled 5*s who's scaling made PVE no fun. Instead of making scaling reliant on your CL which makes CL8 harder for many people, and bunching a ton of people in CL7, why not just make a 5* PVE bracket? Take 5*s out of PVE unless you select the 5* tier instead of CL1-8.
1. Finally fixes the oops I got a 5* and now my scaling is busted / how was I supposed to know not to level my 5*s problem. Now if a new player gets a 5* and wants to level use them instantly the can, and if they are in very low SCLs just simply having that high match damage will be a benefit to them.
2. The ability to scale back play. Say you need a break or know you will be too busy to play as much as normal, but you're in an alliance with strict requirements. Well play a really low SCL and blow through it super quick.
3, People who would rather have an extreme challenge have the option to try and play higher (assuming they have the SR).
4. Should reduce/eliminate issues where they mess up scaling.
This idea behind this is great, I just question deploying this before 9 & 10 and/or why the jump to 8 is so high.6 -
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....
1 -
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.
5 -
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.1
-
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.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.1 -
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.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 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.0 -
It's already a problem for newer players, which is unfair to them. Perhaps you're advocating it because you do it yourself?broll said:
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.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.
0 -
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.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.
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.
That won't happen. They'd have to make placement rewards so flat that they might as well get rid of them entirely.broll said:
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.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.
0 -
@Brigbywaywreth said:
DiscordJaedenkaal said:
Source? Brigby's post does not specifically preclude a small amount of roster-related scaling.waywreth said:
There is no scaling based on your roster. Everyone in the same CL gets the same.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.
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)2 -
bbigler said:
It's already a problem for newer players, which is unfair to them. Perhaps you're advocating it because you do it yourself?broll said:
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.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 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.
2 -
Starfury said:
That won't happen. They'd have to make placement rewards so flat that they might as well get rid of them entirely.broll said:
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.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.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.
3 -
SCL should work like boxing, you can fight above your class but not below. No one should be allowed to drop down for easier competition0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.8K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.3K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.6K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 508 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 424 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 299 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.7K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements