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

Bowgentle

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? 

Easy nodes are 35, hard 323.
It's not roster based.

bbigler

Milk Jugz said:

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.....

For further data: I'm at rank 86 with 15 x 4* Champs, but when I was at rank 50, I wasn't even close to champing any 4*s.  Because you can gain XP without actually improving your roster (farming), Shield Rank is not an accurate way of measuring your roster strength.  Plus, you get the same XP for champing bottom or top tier characters. 

So, I see Shield Rank as simply a way of getting more rewards, not a way to measure your roster.

bbigler

Milk Jugz said:

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.

Thanks for the info, my roster can definitely handle that, but this proves the point that there's no middle ground.  I hope they don't keep this scaling, because it's dumb.  I think it should be more like this:

SCL7
Easy to Hard nodes: 40, 85, 130, 175, 220, 265
Required nodes: 150, 190, 230

SCL8
Easy to Hard nodes: 50, 105, 160, 215, 270, 325
Required nodes: 170, 225, 280

SCL9
Easy to Hard nodes: 70, 135, 200, 265, 330, 395
Required nodes: 190, 260, 330

Spidurman27

I actually thought my old scaling was very fair for my roster (12+ champs, top 280).

end grind clears were roughly
Easy: 70-100-140
Hard: 291-305-320
Essential: (umm)-291-305

Don't remember the 2* value offhand, the rest are accurate within 1.  Initial would take me around an hour depending on the boosted list/opponent list.  Health rarely an issue.  

Zombionicdoom

I'm lvl. 80 and played scl 8. I thought the scaling was fair before and other than being irritated at now having to do 5-6 clears for top progression which I simply cannot do, as I have a family, I've been very happy with the game. (although I used to prefer the timers as I could place much higher being able to fit it around my work and family)

I wasn't paying that much attention to the scl and just joined scl. 8 as usual. I thought having a handful of championed 4* and the majority of the rest of them well covered, albeit under levelled would be fine. I was wrong. 

This is hard work and irritating and as a result I've played no where near as much as I normally would, especially on Unstable ISO8 as it's one of my favourites.

I would much prefer a return to how it was and ideally a return to 4 clears for the final progression award. 

I wonder if scl 7 would've been a better fit for me as 8 certainly isn't. 

If if it stays like this I'm going to have to concentrate on pvp which is annoying as there's not enough ISO to be had playing that alone meaning my roster will suffer and I'm far less likely to keep up my VIP membership. And I certainly won't be buying any more coins.

carrion_pigeons

This system makes it so 5* rosters don't need to compete unevenly with 4* rosters, but it still forces the competition in the first place, which is the real problem.  If SCL is going to impose a level restriction then it should also impose a roster restriction.  Make it so characters above 370 are only usable in SCL 8, and all the 5* players can compete for proper rewards for that tier, in that SCL.  Then SCL 7 can be for characters 270-370, with appropriate rewards for people in the 4* tier, and SCL 6 can be for characters at 200-270 for players in the 4* transition, etc. etc. etc.

Rod5

CL7 or even 6 would be a reasonable compromise surely?

Rewards are similar for much lower level enemies, albeit placement will possibly be compromised. 

The new format potentially saves me c. 1hr a day...I am able to play every event now (I have a family also) and not have it eating into PvP time. 

Wumpushunter

in CL 6 (3 * land the top 2 people both have more then five 5 stars.) This is scumming and it IS a problem. There are 2 ways to fix it. Separate the scum into a bracket of there own or let people tie, do not base placement on how fast you play but if you play all nodes to 6/6 or 7/6. But basic fairness has never been Demiurge's forte.

razor14

I think this change made pve more fair for 5* rosters and a little bit unfair for 4*, but it`s the way it should be, isn`t it? I consider myself a top pve player, just made the 5* transition last season, when I was at 4* land I have never been out of top 5 in CL8 and was 1st or 2nd 90% of time, when I champ my first 5* I could barely be at top 10, burning all 10 health packs at once and needed to use super whales sometimes to be competitive...
How could that be? I worked hard to achieve 5* tier and when I got there I was punished for being there...
I know a lot of pve players that could champ a 5* but they won`t cause of scaling...
So, this change works for 5* and now they just need to find a way to make it also fair for the others, but the improvements must go from top to bottom if can`t be done all at once cause most of the people that are in the top were the ones that sustained financially the game for all the others...

Rod5

Yes, it's now actually playable for 5* rosters. 

For all talking about fairness...how could giving players different enemies for the same reward be fair? Pre-change my hardest enemies were lvl 440+, with humongous health pools. 

Soft-capped rosters clearing faster than me against considerably smaller enemies just because they are taking advantage of some algorithm or other, that's not really fair is it?

At this rate I might actually play enough PvE to start closing my 3m ISO gap...

Bowgentle

I loved the event.

My clear times went from 60-70 minutes against level 449 enemies with 60K health back to sub-30 minutes against level 323s with 20K health.

This is how PVE should always have been - level your characters, have an advantage.

Not handicap the guys with the best rosters because of an extremely bizarre sense of "fairness".

I hope this becomes permanent very, very, very soon.

bbigler

I agree that you should be rewarded for progressing into 5* land and the game should get a little easier for you.  I suppose D3 could simply explain that 4* rosters have had an unfair advantage over champed 5* rosters in PVE for a long time now and they are going to fix it, so 4* players should no longer expect to get high placement in SCL8.  With that change though, I think they should lock out 5* rosters from playing SCL7 so that you don't hurt those 4* players from getting high placement.  I think that would be fair, which goes back to my original post.

Of course, the tricky thing is determining how to rate the strength of a roster and then enforce limits on your SCL.  Players would then try to figure out their algorithm in order to take advantage of it and try to remain just under the threshold (like softcapping).  Nevertheless, the game should be fair to all players at all levels of progression, and your Shield Level is not an accurate way to measure that.  A 4* roster should not expect the same rewards as a 5* roster, assuming they put in the same amount of time and money. 

Rank update: It looks like I'm going to place #10 in the SCL7 Unstable-ISO 8 event, and that is with my very best effort (I still feel like I'm missing out on a 4* cover though).  Most of the people ahead of me have 4* rosters, but 2 players have multiple champed 5*s and I don't think they belong there.  I guess we'll see what D3 makes of this PVE test. 

MissChinch

bbigler said:

I agree that you should be rewarded for progressing into 5* land and the game should get a little easier for you.  I suppose D3 could simply explain that 4* rosters have had an unfair advantage over champed 5* rosters in PVE for a long time now and they are going to fix it, so 4* players should no longer expect to get high placement in SCL8.  With that change though, I think they should lock out 5* rosters from playing SCL7 so that you don't hurt those 4* players from getting high placement.  I think that would be fair, which goes back to my original post.

Of course, the tricky thing is determining how to rate the strength of a roster and then enforce limits on your SCL.  Players would then try to figure out their algorithm in order to take advantage of it and try to remain just under the threshold (like softcapping).  Nevertheless, the game should be fair to all players at all levels of progression, and your Shield Level is not an accurate way to measure that.  A 4* roster should not expect the same rewards as a 5* roster, assuming they put in the same amount of time and money. 

Rank update: It looks like I'm going to place #10 in the SCL7 Unstable-ISO 8 event, and that is with my very best effort (I still feel like I'm missing out on a 4* cover though).  Most of the people ahead of me have 4* rosters, but 2 players have multiple champed 5*s and I don't think they belong there.  I guess we'll see what D3 makes of this PVE test. 

I understand where you're coming from, I just think that its probably worthwhile to think of it in a different way... 

Top 10 placement is only going to be obtained if you are sacrificing progression rewards from a higher SCL that you could have gotten, unless you're already playing in the highest SCL where the best rosters in the game will be competing against each other for placement. 

This absolutely does translate into less rewards overall for most people that placed well before the scaling change.  I think the right fix for it is a change to the progression rewards.

I don't think its reasonable to expect significant placement rewards when you're competing for progression rewards that are at your rosters appropriate level, unless of course you're in the top SCL competing with the best rosters in the entire game.

Brigby

Hi Everyone. This is definitely some great feedback following the test in Unstable Iso-8. I'll be sure to include this thread in my report to the developers for next week.

Just to add to the conversation though, how does everyone define an appropriate SCL? An example of what my question means is the following:

How do you determine whether an SCL is appropriate for a certain roster / shield rank:

• An SCL where enemies are all easy, and I can casually breeze through node completion.
• An SCL where it can get a bit tricky at times, but allows for an overall comfortable completion pace
• An SCL where I feel constantly challenged, and forces me to think strategically to win
• An SCL where enemies are all difficult, and I know I'll lose matches once it reaches high difficulty
• Other (Please explain)

Milk Jugz

@Brigby

I'd say the 3rd one. I don't want to breeze through everything with no problems that's not fun. But, I also don't want to lose every match, that's not fun either. It truly is a rock and a hard place for the devs.......

bbigler

MissChinch said:

I understand where you're coming from, I just think that its probably worthwhile to think of it in a different way... 

Top 10 placement is only going to be obtained if you are sacrificing progression rewards from a higher SCL that you could have gotten, unless you're already playing in the highest SCL where the best rosters in the game will be competing against each other for placement. 

This absolutely does translate into less rewards overall for most people that placed well before the scaling change.  I think the right fix for it is a change to the progression rewards.

I don't think its reasonable to expect significant placement rewards when you're competing for progression rewards that are at your rosters appropriate level, unless of course you're in the top SCL competing with the best rosters in the entire game.

I think I understand what you're saying, but let me put it this way: recently with my 4* roster I've been able to place top 5 in SCL8 for PVE events, thus earning 3 x 4* covers.  It was difficult only because of the 2-3 hr block of constant playing every night at a specific time, which is a little exhausting.  I didn't have trouble beating my enemies, the only difficulty is beating them as fast as possible in order to get top placement.  If I don't make such an effort, then I might be top 100 or 200. 

Now with the Unstable ISO-8 event, I put in the same level of effort in SCL7, hoping for top 5 placement.  The event hasn't ended yet, but it looks like I'll get ranked #10, just barely getting 1 x 4* cover.  So, this change is significant to me.  I was competing in SCL8 for a long time until this event. 

But I suppose your point is that rewards in SCL8 need to be significantly better than SCL7, otherwise 5* rosters will go down a level and get nearly the same rewards, but with half the effort, which isn't right.  If I had a 5* roster, I would do the same thing, because I would like to spend less time playing the game, but I recognize that it's unfair to people in that SCL because I'm bumping them all down.  If 10 x 5* rosters all played SCL7 optimally, then 4* rosters have no chance of getting top 10 rewards, no matter how hard/smart they play.

TPF Alexis

@Brigby

If someone's at the appropriate level, the hardest Node should be at the point where it's hard to get through 6-7 Clears without at least one loss or a number of Health Packs, but if someone has an appropriate team and good play, they should be able to get through all 6-7 Clears, even after it hits its highest levels for Clears 5+. Then keep the others in roughly the same proportions to the highest level one as now.

As an example, my Roster tops out in the high 180s right now, and the SCL7 Scaling from this run on Unstable ISO was about right, although as people pointed out, there are a lot of Goon Nodes in that one, which are easier to deal with for a number of reasons, so that probably wasn't the best trial.

bbigler

Brigby said:

Hi Everyone. This is definitely some great feedback following the test in Unstable Iso-8. I'll be sure to include this thread in my report to the developers for next week.

Just to add to the conversation though, how does everyone define an appropriate SCL? An example of what my question means is the following:

How do you determine whether an SCL is appropriate for a certain roster / shield rank:

• An SCL where enemies are all easy, and I can casually breeze through node completion.
• An SCL where it can get a bit tricky at times, but allows for an overall comfortable completion pace
• An SCL where I feel constantly challenged, and forces me to think strategically to win
• An SCL where enemies are all difficult, and I know I'll lose matches once it reaches high difficulty
• Other (Please explain)

Thanks Brigby, I'm very glad some feedback is going back to them.  To answer your question: I think an appropriate SCL for your roster is one that "can get a bit tricky at times, but allows for an overall comfortable completion pace".  Since PVE is a highly time sensitive grindfest, we don't want hard battles.  But the battles need to be hard enough that strong rosters have an advantage over weaker rosters, at the same tier level. 

If you wanted to make PVE so hard that you have to stop and strategically think about every battle and team composition, then PVE should not be time sensitive.  Right now, PVE is simply a battle to see who can clear the nodes super fast and in the right order.  It's not a puzzle, per se.  You don't have to think very strategically about it.  The winner is the person who neglects everything every night for 2 hours straight. 

For example, I started using 4*Star Lord, Scarlet Witch and 3*Cyclops to clear Muscle nodes, which works great because it's both offensive and defensive, but it takes a little time and thinking to play it.  Noticing that I was falling behind in rank, I switched to using IM40, Patch and Peggy to clear all hard nodes.  They were faster and I didn't have to think very hard about the strategy.  For easier nodes, I simply used Medusa and Thanos.  Quick wins that require a few health packs.  I really only have 2 types of teams for the entire event.  Does that sound like a puzzle to you?

My point is that I like the puzzle/strategic aspect of the game.  I don't like grinding for hours on end in mindless battles with teams composed strictly for fast offense.  That leaves the majority of my roster unused.  The Boss events are a delight to me because it is a puzzle to solve and I'm not required to play for hours on end to get good rewards.  Boss events certainly take some effort and alliance coordination though. 

aa25

Brigby said:

Hi Everyone. This is definitely some great feedback following the test in Unstable Iso-8. I'll be sure to include this thread in my report to the developers for next week.

Just to add to the conversation though, how does everyone define an appropriate SCL? An example of what my question means is the following:

How do you determine whether an SCL is appropriate for a certain roster / shield rank:

• An SCL where enemies are all easy, and I can casually breeze through node completion.
• An SCL where it can get a bit tricky at times, but allows for an overall comfortable completion pace
• An SCL where I feel constantly challenged, and forces me to think strategically to win
• An SCL where enemies are all difficult, and I know I'll lose matches once it reaches high difficulty
• Other (Please explain)

@Brigby

Forgive me if I sound a bit rude. I think you miss the main point here. The point is NOT SCL vs Difficulty.

The problem is Effort vs Rewards.

You can set the difficulty for each SCL anyway you want. At the end of the day, players will pick the one that has the best Rewards per effort ratio or develop a strategy for that. As I posted in the thread announcing this change, I don't think this test will mean anything without touching the rewards.

If you want players to fight with lv 400 enemies, the rewards must be significantly better than fighting lv 260 enemies. In addition, the scaling (difficulty) in this game is exponential, the rewards have to follow the same trend too.

Rod5

Hi Brigby,

I really enjoyed the Unstable ISO event, for the first time in forever I felt like I wasn't getting **** for running a bigger than average roster.

I'd love a puzzle element also which rewards roster diversity as well as strength, not sure how that would work but it might be some way to ease the pressure to change everything back...