fmftint said: SCL should work like boxing, you can fight above your class but not below. No one should be allowed to drop down for easier competition
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?
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.
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.
Wjohnson992 said: I thought they wanted to stop people hording. Unless they increase iso rewards the rest are really moot. All the covers in the world aren't any use if you cant get them leveled in time and have to sell the covers anyway. I'm gunna have to keep hording!
Orion said: A large part of the problem is that D3 has written themselves into a corner with Clearance Levels. They know that they'll only ever be allowed to have 10 CLs, but they've planned them horribly. Having CL8 open to levels 47+ is terrible - there's a HUGE difference in rosters between level 47 and say, 87. Nevermind the whales who are all 100+. CL8 should be at least 75+ right now, that way they can open up a 100+ CL9 in the future and a 125+ CL10 way in the future. As it is, they can't really adjust the rewards for CL8 like the vets want, because it has to be appropriate for people who are as low as level 47.Do they feel like they can't lock people out of CLs that they used to be able to access? If someone who's level 50 right now suddenly finds themselves unable to access CL7 or CL8, is that a big deal? It gives them something to aspire to. And then D3 can really make the rewards appropriate to the rosters in that CL. If the rewards are good enough, no one will be slumming it in a CL that's below their station. OK, a few would, but a lot less that this test will show.
Yeah it feels like they blew about 4/5ths of their available granularity on the 2->3* transitioning rosters and below, leaving them little granularity to work with for what amounts to the longest part of the game... but are they tightly coupled to 10 SCLs ? Am I missing something that would prevent them from slapping down 8 more SCLs with cutoffs at around levels 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135... etc ?
(FWIW I don't buy the sparsely populated SCL argument... even if you don't have 1000 people to fill out a bracket in each time slice, sim up some players to make it look like you do and spread out the distribution... aside from a whole bunch of new names that may look computer generated if they have a poor algorithm for selecting names, nothing will change...)
nick_chicane said: How is this fair? My scaling maxes out currently at 305, which my roster can handle. I dont fancy its chances against level 400. You are forcing me down to SCL7 and weaker rewards with this poor system.
Its fair because everyone going for the SCL8 rewards will be fighting the same level enemies.
I'm in your boat though, this will likely prevent me from being able to go SCL8 and force me down into SCL7... I'm looking at SCL4 when I don't care about the 4* progression cover...
Its fair, but its also going to amount to less rewards for you in the near term.
Handicapping isn't fair, its a mechanism you can use to try to ensure everyone has fun and can play together... if handicapping were actually fair you would see outta shape dads playing Lebron and the Cavs while being spotted 400 points, and golfers all taking their handicaps on the PGA...
Pongie said: May be obvious but this is likely the breakup of scl compared to your roster progressSCL 1: 30 - building up 1*SCL 2: 55 - 1* maxed (40-50), building up 2* (<94)SCL 3: 84 - 2* championed (94+), building up 3* (<166)SCL 4: 140 - 2* maxed (144), 3* championed (166+)SCL 5: 180 - 3* championed (166-266), building up 4* (<270)SCL 6: 230 - 3* maxed (266), 4* championed (270+)SCL 7: 260 - 4* championed (270+), building up 5* (255+)SCL 8: 400 - 4* championed (270-370), 5* championed (450+)Having boosted characters means you may be able to keep up with the scaling within your SCL
Nepenthe said: @MissChinch I think the SC10 is a Marvel canon thing. I've heard games aren't allowed to go beyond that because 10 is like the SHIELD Director's clearance level.I think one of the disconnects people are seeing here is that Shield Rank is not a very good judge of roster strength, and the SR requirements for CL 7 and 8 were always pretty low if they're supposed to be the top of the current game.
Jwhitmire36 said: I haven't the time to read through 9 pages of posts so forgive me if this has been talked about. My SCL is 71 and I've played in SCL 8 for quite a while. In Deadpool VS MPQ my essential node start levels are:4* - 1213* - 1102* - 80To keep closely equivalent start levels I have to drop down to SCL 5 and take a reduction in rewards??? I know this is a Test and subject to change, my hope is that this highlights that SCL level is not necessarily an accurate representation of your roster level.Adding this on top of vaulting and 5 clears for max progression is really discouraging for me personally.
Tajit said: Jwhitmire36 said: I haven't the time to read through 9 pages of posts so forgive me if this has been talked about. My SCL is 71 and I've played in SCL 8 for quite a while. In Deadpool VS MPQ my essential node start levels are:4* - 1213* - 1102* - 80To keep closely equivalent start levels I have to drop down to SCL 5 and take a reduction in rewards??? I know this is a Test and subject to change, my hope is that this highlights that SCL level is not necessarily an accurate representation of your roster level.Adding this on top of vaulting and 5 clears for max progression is really discouraging for me personally. I'm at basically the same point as you: couple shield ranks higher, but the enemies I face are a couple levels lower.http://i.imgur.com/97ehNy0.jpg is my starting SCL 8 4star node.I've got all the 3s champed, but the 4s don't have enough covers to do so yet. If I drop down to level 5 to face the stuff I can actually fight, my progression rewards go from three 3s and a 4 to one 3 and a 2? What good does that do me?