Your experience in the Unstable ISO-8 Event...

bbigler

As for me, I'm not enjoying this event.....and I'll tell you why.  I finished #5 in SCL8 in the Deadpool vs MPQ event.  I also finished top 5 in the previous 2 PVE events.  But for the Unstable ISO-8 event, I chose SCL7 because SCL8 would have had higher level enemies for me.  After putting in the same level of effort, I was ranked #27 after the first round of clearing, which means that 26 people cleared faster than me.  I then looked at their rosters and found that about 10 of the 26 had multiple champed 5*s, which I don't.  In Deadpool vs MPQ, there was only 1 player in the top 20 that had multiple champed 5*s.

Honestly, I think it's unfair, because no matter how smart or perfectly I play, I can't compete with 5* rosters, which means that I can't get the 4* placement covers that I've gotten before.  If I go up to SCL8, I'll have harder enemies and won't be able to clear as fast as before, thus missing the top5 placement that way too. 

The end result is that this PVE test is favoring 5* rosters and hurting 4* rosters.  Is this the way it's supposed to be?  Did D3 want to give 5* rosters a better advantage?  Is anybody else experiencing the same difficulties as me?

MissChinch

I gotta think that falls squarely under "working as intended"

This is certainly a change that will make it more difficult/impossible for 4* rosters that were finishing in high placement to get as many rewards as they previously were.

I'm seeing less rewards than what I was previously able to do, I'm just not competitive in terms of placement, but I wouldn't go so far as to say its unfair...   its a lowering in rewards available to us at the 4* level, that makes it bad for us, but I cant go so far as to call it unfair.

I softcapped my roster at 3*s prior to vaulting so I could hit a sweet spot in the pve scaling that let me spend less time clearing, it worked, it wasn't a huge advantage, but it worked...  I am under no illusion that this was fair to rosters substantially more developed...  I got to put in less effort and less time to squeeze better rosters out of the top 5 or top 10...   I think its a bad mechanic, I don't think I should be getting an advantage in clearing PvE over a roster that has higher 5*s than me, handicapping makes things more competitive, it doesn't make them fair.

Regardless of the fair or unfair stance, I think the right fix is to extend progression rewards further (and NOT push back the existing rewards, just tack more on the end) and drop placement rewards entirely from pve.  Championed 5*s have an easier time getting higher points because of the mechanics of the refresh rewarding fast clears, better rosters don't have to spend as much time to get equal results...

crackninja

This was completely predictable.  It's not "fair", but my hope is that it is either a step towards placement rewards being removed and added into progression, or higher clearance being created with significantly better rewards that will entice better rosters to battle for those.

Rod5

It's a correction of something that was clearly unfair previously.

How could it be fair that totally different level teams are fighting totally different enemies for the same prize? My enemies used to top out at lvl 440+, yet 4* rosters that I'm competing with were getting substantially lower lvl enemies to fight...

It was effectively a punishment for having a strong roster. Made no sense.

bbigler

I understand that PVE has not been "fair" to 5* rosters, so this could be considered a "fix" to that, but the real problem is that 5* rosters can enter lower SCL's, giving them an "unfair" advantage.  So, I'm fine with everyone playing the same level of enemies, but they need to prevent players from going down to lower SCLs.  With that being said, they should also adjust the shield level for each clearance level, because there are 3* rosters at shield level 52+, which qualifies for SCL8.  The clearance level for SCL8 should probably be closer to 90+ and SCL7 could be around 65+.

I'm planning to enter 5* land in a few months, but if 5* rosters can continue to snipe SCL7, then it's going to slow down my progression (and others) to 5* land.

Wumpushunter

I completely agree with OP. This hurts more players then it helps.

Milk Jugz

Your know what would solve this, a maximum shield rank in each clearance level as well as a minimum. I. E., CL7 could be ranks 32-46, thus locking out big rosters.

That being said, does anyone else think those numbers are too low as it stands? How do they figure that? I'm a rank 95 and that's still gonna raise my scaling 15-20 levels at hardest on CL8.

Who is a rank 50 that can compete with 400 enemies? 

TPF Alexis

Milk Jugz said:

Your know what would solve this, a maximum shield rank in each clearance level as well as a minimum. I. E., CL7 could be ranks 32-46, thus locking out big rosters.

That being said, does anyone else think those numbers are too low as it stands? How do they figure that? I'm a rank 95 and that's still gonna raise my scaling 15-20 levels at hardest on CL8.

Who is a rank 50 that can compete with 400 enemies? 

The max definitely would need to be set higher than that, yeah. I just hit rank 57, and SCL7 is pretty much maxing out the capabilities of my roster (solidly 3*) in this one. When I was at 47, there's no way I could have handled this scaling, let alone where it is in SCL8 right now.

Milk Jugz

TPF Alexis said:

Milk Jugz said:

Your know what would solve this, a maximum shield rank in each clearance level as well as a minimum. I. E., CL7 could be ranks 32-46, thus locking out big rosters.

That being said, does anyone else think those numbers are too low as it stands? How do they figure that? I'm a rank 95 and that's still gonna raise my scaling 15-20 levels at hardest on CL8.

Who is a rank 50 that can compete with 400 enemies? 

The max definitely would need to be set higher than that, yeah. I just hit rank 57, and SCL7 is pretty much maxing out the capabilities of my roster (solidly 3*) in this one. When I was at 47, there's no way I could have handled this scaling, let alone where it is in SCL8 right now.

I figured it would be that way, I have 22 champ 4s and 5* @ 420, 375 , 360, 330. I went CL8 because I don't think it will be an issue for my roster, but it does still raise my scaling slightly. I'd consider myself a 4* roster, have one or more champ on the boost list every week, usually, and when I don't I have one or more on the list @215, so they are useable over my 3s

aa25

The real problem is the rewards don't scale with difficulty. Why would someone improve their roster (in the old system) or improve their rank (in this new system under testing) just to have to fight more difficult enemies for slightly better rewards if not the exact same rewards. Forcing players into a SCL based on their rank is, in my opinion, not a right thing to do. It will only reintroduce soft capping.

KGB

With the system they are using in this event there is no longer any reason to restrict access to a clearance level based on rank. The fixed enemy levels ensures that weaker rosters won't be entering into higher clearance levels
because they wouldn't be able to beat any nodes at all.

I have the same problem as the OP. I'm no longer remotely competitive in SCL7 which I need to play to get the 4* progression character. My scaling has jumped a fair bit too so even making 5 clears is iffy so max progression isn't even guaranteed in some events (simulator for example I'd have no chance of beating 5 times).

If they are trying to be fair to all rosters in terms of work/effort and fixed enemy levels is the way they are going they should also make clearance levels into heroics. So for example in SCL6-7 you could only use 4* characters and under. Thus 5* champs can't be used at all and you have to go to SCL8 to use all characters. In a similar manner SCL4-5 could be restricted to 3* and under + the 4* essential. SCL2-3 could be restricted to 2* and under plus the 3&4* essential.

Then everyone is competing with the same characters and sandbagging into lower SCL for faster clears with your 5* won't be possible.

KGB

astrp3

After one-and-a-half subs, my experience in CL 7 has been about the same as it was before, except that the sub was a bit easier. I played almost the way I normally do when the top placement reward is a non-vaulted 4*: 4 clears at start of sub (10 PM), one more at lunch the next day, one when I get home from work (6 PM), and, if needed for top-50, a few 7th clears at 8:30-9:30. The only difference this time was that I did clears 5 and 6 for the easy nodes a 9PM (since they no longer increase in difficulty). That method has always been enough to get me top 50 in CL 7 and usually enough to do so in CL8.  For the first sub in Unstable ISO-8, this got me top fifty as usual (though this sub is not an ideal one to gauge such things, given the Bullseye-Muscle-Muscle node, which I think is one of the toughest PvE nodes). Some were speculating that placement in CL 7 would be harder now, but that wasn't the case for me. If there is a decent vaulted 4* in the placement awards, I usually go for top ten. I don't know if that will be harder now in CL 7 but my guess is that it won't.  

jamesh

Milk Jugz said:

Your know what would solve this, a maximum shield rank in each clearance level as well as a minimum. I. E., CL7 could be ranks 32-46, thus locking out big rosters.

That sounds like a terrible idea: SHIELD rank only loosely correlates with roster strength, so a move like that could effectively lock some players out of story mode entirely.

If anything, I'd get rid of the SHIELD rank requirements entirely.  Once a player knows enough about how the game works why not let them try something harder, maybe with a warning message?  If they pick something too difficult, they can come back in a few days and pick a lower clearance level.

To solve the problem of veteran players stomping over new players in low clearance levels, they just need to structure the incentives so that doesn't happen.  Some changes they could make include:

• if you're going to give out almost the same rewards in CL7 and CL8, perhaps make it so you get those rewards after fewer battles at CL8.
• make the nodes worth more points in higher clearance levels.  This would make no difference to individual progression or placement, but would affect the chances of getting good alliance placement rewards.
  

Spidurman27

I did SCL7 as always and expect to finish t20 where normally I'd be fighting for t10.  I'd say I was finishing in the 6-10 place in about 2/3 of events and assuming now it's 1/20 (just picking a number, probably close enough) that's a loss of about 4 or 5 4* covers per month.  That's not devastating short term, but will add up in the long run.

I'm most concerned for new character releases - I'll have trouble getting top placements there which will set me back in the next PVE AND the PVP release, which snowballs fast enough.  

Milk Jugz

jamesh said:

Milk Jugz said:

Your know what would solve this, a maximum shield rank in each clearance level as well as a minimum. I. E., CL7 could be ranks 32-46, thus locking out big rosters.

That sounds like a terrible idea: SHIELD rank only loosely correlates with roster strength, so a move like that could effectively lock some players out of story mode entirely.

If anything, I'd get rid of the SHIELD rank requirements entirely.  Once a player knows enough about how the game works why not let them try something harder, maybe with a warning message?  If they pick something too difficult, they can come back in a few days and pick a lower clearance level.

To solve the problem of veteran players stomping over new players in low clearance levels, they just need to structure the incentives so that doesn't happen.  Some changes they could make include:

• if you're going to give out almost the same rewards in CL7 and CL8, perhaps make it so you get those rewards after fewer battles at CL8.
• make the nodes worth more points in higher clearance levels.  This would make no difference to individual progression or placement, but would affect the chances of getting good alliance placement rewards.
  

I understand that it loosely correlates to roster strength, but they already have a minimum. CL8 is 47+, CL7 is 32+, etc. From how I understand it, if you are less than rank 47 you don't even have the option to join 8 because it is locked. So adding a maximum rank to each CL would guarantee fairness to those that can only choose 6 or 7 by locking out rosters like mine, rank 95, or higher.

Or am I understanding it wrong? Can a rank 35 choose CL8 even though it says 47+?

Spidurman27

Milk Jugz said:

jamesh said:

Milk Jugz said:

Your know what would solve this, a maximum shield rank in each clearance level as well as a minimum. I. E., CL7 could be ranks 32-46, thus locking out big rosters.

That sounds like a terrible idea: SHIELD rank only loosely correlates with roster strength, so a move like that could effectively lock some players out of story mode entirely.

If anything, I'd get rid of the SHIELD rank requirements entirely.  Once a player knows enough about how the game works why not let them try something harder, maybe with a warning message?  If they pick something too difficult, they can come back in a few days and pick a lower clearance level.

To solve the problem of veteran players stomping over new players in low clearance levels, they just need to structure the incentives so that doesn't happen.  Some changes they could make include:

• if you're going to give out almost the same rewards in CL7 and CL8, perhaps make it so you get those rewards after fewer battles at CL8.
• make the nodes worth more points in higher clearance levels.  This would make no difference to individual progression or placement, but would affect the chances of getting good alliance placement rewards.
  

I understand that it loosely correlates to roster strength, but they already have a minimum. CL8 is 47+, CL7 is 32+, etc. From how I understand it, if you are less than rank 47 you don't even have the option to join 8 because it is locked. So adding a maximum rank to each CL would guarantee fairness to those that can only choose 6 or 7 by locking out rosters like mine, rank 95, or higher.

Or am I understanding it wrong? Can a rank 35 choose CL8 even though it says 47+?

No they can not choose an SCL they have not achieved the minimum rank for. 

Milk Jugz

Spidurman27 said:

Milk Jugz said:

jamesh said:

Milk Jugz said:

Your know what would solve this, a maximum shield rank in each clearance level as well as a minimum. I. E., CL7 could be ranks 32-46, thus locking out big rosters.

That sounds like a terrible idea: SHIELD rank only loosely correlates with roster strength, so a move like that could effectively lock some players out of story mode entirely.

If anything, I'd get rid of the SHIELD rank requirements entirely.  Once a player knows enough about how the game works why not let them try something harder, maybe with a warning message?  If they pick something too difficult, they can come back in a few days and pick a lower clearance level.

To solve the problem of veteran players stomping over new players in low clearance levels, they just need to structure the incentives so that doesn't happen.  Some changes they could make include:

• if you're going to give out almost the same rewards in CL7 and CL8, perhaps make it so you get those rewards after fewer battles at CL8.
• make the nodes worth more points in higher clearance levels.  This would make no difference to individual progression or placement, but would affect the chances of getting good alliance placement rewards.
  

I understand that it loosely correlates to roster strength, but they already have a minimum. CL8 is 47+, CL7 is 32+, etc. From how I understand it, if you are less than rank 47 you don't even have the option to join 8 because it is locked. So adding a maximum rank to each CL would guarantee fairness to those that can only choose 6 or 7 by locking out rosters like mine, rank 95, or higher.

Or am I understanding it wrong? Can a rank 35 choose CL8 even though it says 47+?

No they can not choose an SCL they have not achieved the minimum rank for. 

Thank you spidurman27!!! I stand by my original comment with that info. Adding a maximum to what CL you can join as well as a minimum would level the playing field and guarantee more fairness

bbigler

Update to my rank in the event: After finishing the first sub, I was ranked #10, which is a great improvement from #27.  Apparently, the order in which I clear is better than most, which is the only advantage I have.  After starting the second sub (Mediterranean) and clearing fast, I was ranked #25 in the sub and #12 overall.  I assume I will catch up at the end of the sub like before.  We'll see.

My Coulson is at 2/4/5, so getting top 5 rewards (yellow & purple covers) would allow me to champ him.

Milk Jugz

sh81 said:

Milk Jugz said:

Your know what would solve this, a maximum shield rank in each clearance level as well as a minimum. I. E., CL7 could be ranks 32-46, thus locking out big rosters.

That being said, does anyone else think those numbers are too low as it stands? How do they figure that? I'm a rank 95 and that's still gonna raise my scaling 15-20 levels at hardest on CL8.

Who is a rank 50 that can compete with 400 enemies? 

I dont think shield rank is actually a decent rank of a player at all.

Im in the 4* transition, 8 champs (and not much useable after that) and no useable 5*s.

Thanks to a lot of grinding and a 2* farm I go up a shield rank every 10 days (approx) and am at shield rank 82 (soon to be 83).

All it really represents is time and effort, not strength or ability.  


If you want to partition players based upon rank there effectively needs to be a scoring mechanism for rosters.
5* at X level = Y points 
5* at Z level = A points .... kind of thing.

If there was a "score" relevant to a characters rarity and level, then you could reliably rank a players roster and where it would be appropriate for it to play.

Shield rank most certainly isnt that in my opinion.

I certainly agree with you that shield rank is not a completely accurate way of measuring roster strength based on all the ways to earn xp. But, I will also point out that I am rank 95 with 22 champ 4s compared to your almost 83 with 8 champ 4s. So there is some correlation there.....

bbigler

There's another problem with this event:

My easy nodes have all enemies at level 23, but my hard nodes have enemies at levels 216, 229, 251.  There's no middle ground!  Why can't they just make a gradual ramp up in their levels?  It would be so easy to do.  My required nodes are at levels 198, 229, 227, again, no middle ground.  This really doesn't make any sense.

What is SCL8 like for 4* rosters?  Easy nodes at level 45 and hard/required nodes at 350? 

Milk Jugz

bbigler said:

There's another problem with this event:

My easy nodes have all enemies at level 23, but my hard nodes have enemies at levels 216, 229, 251.  There's no middle ground!  Why can't they just make a gradual ramp up in their levels?  It would be so easy to do.  My required nodes are at levels 198, 229, 227, again, no middle ground.  This really doesn't make any sense.

What is SCL8 like for 4* rosters?  Easy nodes at level 45 and hard/required nodes at 350? 

Right now on sub 2 (Mediterranean) with 4 clears done, so timers started, I'm at 35 on all easy nodes and 307, 312, 326 on the hard nodes. Essentials are 256, 275, 303. That is CL8

EDIT: Those numbers are slightly higher than sub 1 after timers were started.