Biggest misunderstanding about Shield Clearance Levels

bbigler

Orion said:

But that also ties into one of the points that I made in the OP.  Rosters that barely qualify for CL8 can't compete with the scaling in these tests.  So they have to drop down.  Are you Shield Rank 47 or below?  Or are you able to play in CL8 as well?  That's one of my complaints with the CL system, CL8 has way too broad a range right now where it lumps in 3* -> 4* transitioners with the 5* whales.

Well, yes, the minimum Shield Rank for SCL8 is way too low in my opinion too.  I'm at Shield Rank 87 at the moment with a solid 4* roster, and I've been playing SCL8 for a long time now.  When I move into 5* land in a few months, I'm not planning to play SCL7 for the reasons above.  The Unstable ISO-8 test event was the perfect example of why 5* rosters should not be allowed in SCL7.  Because it was so easy for them, the 5* rosters bumped out everyone else to lower ranks and lower rewards.  And now 5* players are begging to make that change permanent because it benefits them.  I just wish they realized how unfair it is to 3* and 4* players.  I would organize the SCLs this way:

...
SCL5: 2* - 3* Rosters
SCL6: 3* Rosters
SCL7: 3* - 4* Rosters
SCL8: 4* Rosters
SCL9: 4* - 5* Rosters
SCL10: 5* Rosters

The tricky thing is developing a good algorithm to determine the strength of someone's roster in order to put them in the correct SCL.  Like you said, we have everyone from 3* to 5* all qualifying for SCL8. 

Nepenthe

Wumpushunter said:

There comes a point where dropping down serves you roster no benefit. I am 1st in my bracket on this 7 day but when multi 5 star drop down in CL 6 and destroy everything in 10 mins I only make top 20. Dropping down to 5 gets me nothing.  They need to keep level 100 people out of 6.

Anyone with a 4* or 5* roster who could play CL7 or 8 and drops to 6 for better placement needs to take a good hard look at those reward tables.  The 8-7 drop can make sense, but going to 6 you lose a guaranteed 4* from progression in hopes of competing for a single 4* at #1, iirc.

I guess maybe if you like the character in placement more than the one in progression? Still seems silly to me.

revskip

I agree with the OP that many people who have up to now been able to compete in SCL 8 should probably be swinging for a lower SCL if the tests become permanent.  I jumped down to SCL 7 for the first test because 400s scared me off, although I probably could have handled the 330-340 range that actually showed up.  

I would however like to see a gating mechanism to keep rosters from dropping too far down to take rewards that transitioners need to continue to make progress.  Making it so that 5*s can only be used at the top one or two SCLs and 4*s (outside of the essential) can only be used at the two SCLs below the top two would ensure that everyone is playing on a more even playing field.  Could a 5* roster drop down to SCL 6 and still have a big advantage by having near max or max champed 4*s sure.  But that would be a much smaller gulf than that same 5* player taking 550s to an SCL where they can speed clear in under 20 minutes while the 4* and 3* crowd struggles to finish in a hour and a half.  

turul

bbigler said:

Fightmastermpq said:

bbigler said:

Orion said:

Bottom line - "dropping down" in CL is a choice made by each person for reasons that are entirely their own.  No one is forced to play at a certain level.  It's a risk/reward strategy that each person takes into account.  If you don't like 5* players taking up the placement slots you normally win in CL7, then drop down to CL6 and do the same thing to the 3* transitioners at that level.  Or play CL8 and hope that enough people have dropped down that you can get decent placement there.  Your choice.  No one else's.

I couldn't disagree more.  Let me explain your logic in a metaphor.  If there's a big bully at school that picks on you and steals your lunch money, that's OK because it's his choice and he has a right to do so.  If you don't like it, then find some kids smaller than you and just pick on them and steal their lunch money.  Don't feel bad, because it's your choice.

Well guess what?  Your choices hurt other people and you don't have a right to do that. 

That's a terrible metaphor rooted in your own sense of entitlement.  Those placement rewards do not belong to you.  You have to earn them.

So, you think you're honestly "earning them" by going down to SCL7 with a 5* roster?  No, that's still wrong.  Those rewards are not meant for you; they belong to them. 

Since low rosters bullied high roster Cl7-8 players with their lower playing difficulty, it is totally ok for veterans now to let them choose low difficulty in the next 3 years.

Alsmir

Oh boy, yet another case of: "My problems are important, stop whining about yours".

If a 5* roster drops to SCL7 or lower - It's devs fault!
If a 3* (or lower) roster picks maximum SCL available - it's that player's fault!

How about using your own logic? Just because you can post something foolish, doesn't mean you have to.

Starfury

Orion said:

I think the solution is 2-fold...

1st - Raise the requirements to enter each Clearance Level.  This needs to happen anyway since the game is limited to only 10 Clearance Levels.  3* players should not be able to qualify for the highest level of play in the game currently and compete with the whales.

2nd - Give out the top rewards to MORE people for each CL.  The biggest complaint that I have with CL8 is that it kept giving out 4* rewards to only the top 10.  That's stupid.  CL7 should be giving out 4*s to the top 20 and CL8 should be giving them out to the top 50.  There won't be a single 5* player left in CL6 if this happened.  For new character releases, CL8 should give out a cover to at least the top 150, if not the top 200.  Again, far fewer people would drop down a level if they'd just do this.

That doesn't solve a thing except giving the players already at the top more rewards.

If your point is that 3* rosters aren't supposed to be in the highest SCL, then you have to offer 4* rewards at the lower SCL, not the higher ones. 3* rosters aren't choosing SCL 7/8 for the placement, they're choosing it because there's a 4* and up to 33 CP in progression. (i.e. the stuff they need to move out of 3* land)

Starfury

Nepenthe said:

Wumpushunter said:

There comes a point where dropping down serves you roster no benefit. I am 1st in my bracket on this 7 day but when multi 5 star drop down in CL 6 and destroy everything in 10 mins I only make top 20. Dropping down to 5 gets me nothing.  They need to keep level 100 people out of 6.

Anyone with a 4* or 5* roster who could play CL7 or 8 and drops to 6 for better placement needs to take a good hard look at those reward tables.  The 8-7 drop can make sense, but going to 6 you lose a guaranteed 4* from progression in hopes of competing for a single 4* at #1, iirc.

I guess maybe if you like the character in placement more than the one in progression? Still seems silly to me.

It's not just about the placement / progression.

There's also value in getting 3/4 of the rewards in 1/4 of the time.

AlluAllu

Placement rewards shouldn't be crucial to progress in the first place. They should be just nice bonuses. 

Perhaps placement rewards should be available only in each player's highest and maybe second most highest level. That would allow better rosters to clear progression in a relaxed manner without taking any goodies that aren't meant for them. 

bbigler

turul said:

bbigler said:

Fightmastermpq said:

bbigler said:

Orion said:

Bottom line - "dropping down" in CL is a choice made by each person for reasons that are entirely their own.  No one is forced to play at a certain level.  It's a risk/reward strategy that each person takes into account.  If you don't like 5* players taking up the placement slots you normally win in CL7, then drop down to CL6 and do the same thing to the 3* transitioners at that level.  Or play CL8 and hope that enough people have dropped down that you can get decent placement there.  Your choice.  No one else's.

I couldn't disagree more.  Let me explain your logic in a metaphor.  If there's a big bully at school that picks on you and steals your lunch money, that's OK because it's his choice and he has a right to do so.  If you don't like it, then find some kids smaller than you and just pick on them and steal their lunch money.  Don't feel bad, because it's your choice.

Well guess what?  Your choices hurt other people and you don't have a right to do that. 

That's a terrible metaphor rooted in your own sense of entitlement.  Those placement rewards do not belong to you.  You have to earn them.

So, you think you're honestly "earning them" by going down to SCL7 with a 5* roster?  No, that's still wrong.  Those rewards are not meant for you; they belong to them. 

Since low rosters bullied high roster Cl7-8 players with their lower playing difficulty, it is totally ok for veterans now to let them choose low difficulty in the next 3 years.

2 wrongs don't make a right. 

Orion

Starfury said:

Orion said:

I think the solution is 2-fold...

1st - Raise the requirements to enter each Clearance Level.  This needs to happen anyway since the game is limited to only 10 Clearance Levels.  3* players should not be able to qualify for the highest level of play in the game currently and compete with the whales.

2nd - Give out the top rewards to MORE people for each CL.  The biggest complaint that I have with CL8 is that it kept giving out 4* rewards to only the top 10.  That's stupid.  CL7 should be giving out 4*s to the top 20 and CL8 should be giving them out to the top 50.  There won't be a single 5* player left in CL6 if this happened.  For new character releases, CL8 should give out a cover to at least the top 150, if not the top 200.  Again, far fewer people would drop down a level if they'd just do this.

That doesn't solve a thing except giving the players already at the top more rewards.

If your point is that 3* rosters aren't supposed to be in the highest SCL, then you have to offer 4* rewards at the lower SCL, not the higher ones. 3* rosters aren't choosing SCL 7/8 for the placement, they're choosing it because there's a 4* and up to 33 CP in progression. (i.e. the stuff they need to move out of 3* land)

That's kind of the point, isn't it?  The highest CLs should have the best rewards?  If you want the best placement rewards, you have to work to get into the best CL.  3* players and 4* transitioners can get 4* covers from progression if they're in CL7.  I'm trying to keep the 5* players out of CL6 and CL7.  The best way to do that is to increase the number of people in CL8 that get 4*s in placement.

If you give out more 4* rewards in CL7, then what are you going to do for CL8?  Give out 5*s?  The tiny difference in rewards between CL7 and CL8 is the biggest problem with this new PvE system.  The heavy increase in scaling isn't worth the tiny increase in reward between 7 and 8.

Spoit

Orion said:

Starfury said:

Orion said:

I think the solution is 2-fold...

1st - Raise the requirements to enter each Clearance Level.  This needs to happen anyway since the game is limited to only 10 Clearance Levels.  3* players should not be able to qualify for the highest level of play in the game currently and compete with the whales.

2nd - Give out the top rewards to MORE people for each CL.  The biggest complaint that I have with CL8 is that it kept giving out 4* rewards to only the top 10.  That's stupid.  CL7 should be giving out 4*s to the top 20 and CL8 should be giving them out to the top 50.  There won't be a single 5* player left in CL6 if this happened.  For new character releases, CL8 should give out a cover to at least the top 150, if not the top 200.  Again, far fewer people would drop down a level if they'd just do this.

That doesn't solve a thing except giving the players already at the top more rewards.

If your point is that 3* rosters aren't supposed to be in the highest SCL, then you have to offer 4* rewards at the lower SCL, not the higher ones. 3* rosters aren't choosing SCL 7/8 for the placement, they're choosing it because there's a 4* and up to 33 CP in progression. (i.e. the stuff they need to move out of 3* land)

That's kind of the point, isn't it?  The highest CLs should have the best rewards?  If you want the best placement rewards, you have to work to get into the best CL.  3* players and 4* transitioners can get 4* covers from progression if they're in CL7.  I'm trying to keep the 5* players out of CL6 and CL7.  The best way to do that is to increase the number of people in CL8 that get 4*s in placement.

If you give out more 4* rewards in CL7, then what are you going to do for CL8?  Give out 5*s?  The tiny difference in rewards between CL7 and CL8 is the biggest problem with this new PvE system.  The heavy increase in scaling isn't worth the tiny increase in reward between 7 and 8.

Exactly, the reason why people drop down to CL7 is because the rewards in CL8 aren't worth the extra effort. If they made them actually worthwhile, less people would do so.

On the other side of the coin. If (a large number of) people with champed Thanoses come in and bumrush a CL7 slice in 20 minutes, taking all the placement slots? That pretty much makes it impossible for 3 and 4* transition players to actually progress. Because lets face it, are those players really going to be using those 4*s for anything other than when they're required?

Really, like we've been saying for years, they just need to make the pve primarily progression based.

nigelregal

That is an ethical issue.  You may have the ability, within the current rules of the game, to go down to SCL7 because it's better for you, but that is at the expense of other players, giving you an unfair advantage.  That's the ethical problem; it's not a fair fight for top rewards.  They don't let heavy weight boxers go down to a lower weight class to compete for the title; that would be unfair as well, which is why there's a rule against it.  Hopefully, D3 will make that rule change as well.  

If everyone with a 5* roster (3 or more) went to CL8 only you would have the 5* people with level 550s in top 10 and close to 500s in top 20 and anyone with level 450 5* roster would be top 50. 

If I have every 4* championed and 6 5* championed at level 450 maybe I don't want to compete with people who can complete nodes in a 1/3 of the time as me so I get a couple 3* prizes. Maybe I want a chance at getting a 4* cover. 

It's not my fault that I have to go down to CL7 it's D3 for only making 2 CL levels for a massive subset of the player base. Being 4* transitioners, 4* MMR, 5* Transitioners, 5* MMR, Whales. 

In this new system who benefits from CL7 if all 5* players go to CL8? Whoever has the higher level 4* roster. A whale 4* cap roster can go into CL7 with there level 360 4* rosters boosted to 470 and get 1st place easy while still using only a 4* roster. Is that fair to you? If jean grey is boosted and you do not have her champed but someone else does and can beat nodes 2x as fast as you is that fair or should they move to a higher clearance level than you?

PVE is a massive time sink and players are going to take the easiest path to get the best rewards. 

BoyWonder1914

There's no winning this argument for either side, so I honestly wish at this point that D3 would just solve the problem and shut everyone up. A CL8 player that is having difficulty with scaling has the right to choose a lower clearance level and subject themselves to less rewards, and CL6-7 players have every right to complain about it not being fair that someone who's wayyyy above the CL6-7 Weight class gets to play in the same sandbox. The players are not to blame here for their choices, its the developers that need to make an overhaul to the rewarding system.

This argument carried a lot less weight when people who dropped CLs still had to deal with the same scaling. If someone could still clear Lv 400-500 goons quicker than I could drop Lv 290-325 ones, then by all means I had no problem with them placing higher than me. But scaling being locked by CL, it definitely exacerbates this issue of people dropping down, because you get to clear the same level of opponents as me, but with 5-stars. 

 

Starfury

Orion said:

Starfury said:

Orion said:

I think the solution is 2-fold...

1st - Raise the requirements to enter each Clearance Level.  This needs to happen anyway since the game is limited to only 10 Clearance Levels.  3* players should not be able to qualify for the highest level of play in the game currently and compete with the whales.

2nd - Give out the top rewards to MORE people for each CL.  The biggest complaint that I have with CL8 is that it kept giving out 4* rewards to only the top 10.  That's stupid.  CL7 should be giving out 4*s to the top 20 and CL8 should be giving them out to the top 50.  There won't be a single 5* player left in CL6 if this happened.  For new character releases, CL8 should give out a cover to at least the top 150, if not the top 200.  Again, far fewer people would drop down a level if they'd just do this.

That doesn't solve a thing except giving the players already at the top more rewards.

If your point is that 3* rosters aren't supposed to be in the highest SCL, then you have to offer 4* rewards at the lower SCL, not the higher ones. 3* rosters aren't choosing SCL 7/8 for the placement, they're choosing it because there's a 4* and up to 33 CP in progression. (i.e. the stuff they need to move out of 3* land)

That's kind of the point, isn't it?  The highest CLs should have the best rewards?  If you want the best placement rewards, you have to work to get into the best CL.  3* players and 4* transitioners can get 4* covers from progression if they're in CL7.  I'm trying to keep the 5* players out of CL6 and CL7.  The best way to do that is to increase the number of people in CL8 that get 4*s in placement.

If you give out more 4* rewards in CL7, then what are you going to do for CL8?  Give out 5*s?  The tiny difference in rewards between CL7 and CL8 is the biggest problem with this new PvE system.  The heavy increase in scaling isn't worth the tiny increase in reward between 7 and 8.

So you see SCL 8 for 5* rosters and SCL 7 for the rest of the world?

You'd obviously get the same problem with 3* rosters not being able to compete with 4* rosters in SCL 7. Are the three star rosters supposed to get their 4* covers from SCL 6? You can't solve this problem in SCL 8 alone. You have to make-over the entire SCL spectrum.

And generalizing, once you introduce fixed scaling, you won't be able to come up with a good scheme for placement rewards. If in SCL X you offer prizes relevant to getting you to SCL X+1, you'll always have people from SCL X+1 dropping down to take them, because they're relevant to them as well, and they can outcompete people with SCL X rosters.

And if you want to make the difference between SCL X+1 top 100 placement and SCL X top 10 placement big enough to make it unattractive to drop down, you're back at a point where you'd end up having to offer 5* rewards in SCL 8.

Heck, I'm fairly certain that even if your solution was implemented, you'd still end up with enough people dropping down (and thus making placement for lower SCL unattainable) just because they'll happily agree to a 20% drop in rewards for a 50% reduction in time requirements.

Orion

Starfury said:

Orion said:

Starfury said:

Orion said:

I think the solution is 2-fold...

1st - Raise the requirements to enter each Clearance Level.  This needs to happen anyway since the game is limited to only 10 Clearance Levels.  3* players should not be able to qualify for the highest level of play in the game currently and compete with the whales.

2nd - Give out the top rewards to MORE people for each CL.  The biggest complaint that I have with CL8 is that it kept giving out 4* rewards to only the top 10.  That's stupid.  CL7 should be giving out 4*s to the top 20 and CL8 should be giving them out to the top 50.  There won't be a single 5* player left in CL6 if this happened.  For new character releases, CL8 should give out a cover to at least the top 150, if not the top 200.  Again, far fewer people would drop down a level if they'd just do this.

That doesn't solve a thing except giving the players already at the top more rewards.

If your point is that 3* rosters aren't supposed to be in the highest SCL, then you have to offer 4* rewards at the lower SCL, not the higher ones. 3* rosters aren't choosing SCL 7/8 for the placement, they're choosing it because there's a 4* and up to 33 CP in progression. (i.e. the stuff they need to move out of 3* land)

That's kind of the point, isn't it?  The highest CLs should have the best rewards?  If you want the best placement rewards, you have to work to get into the best CL.  3* players and 4* transitioners can get 4* covers from progression if they're in CL7.  I'm trying to keep the 5* players out of CL6 and CL7.  The best way to do that is to increase the number of people in CL8 that get 4*s in placement.

If you give out more 4* rewards in CL7, then what are you going to do for CL8?  Give out 5*s?  The tiny difference in rewards between CL7 and CL8 is the biggest problem with this new PvE system.  The heavy increase in scaling isn't worth the tiny increase in reward between 7 and 8.

So you see SCL 8 for 5* rosters and SCL 7 for the rest of the world?

Heck, I'm fairly certain that even if your solution was implemented, you'd still end up with enough people dropping down (and thus making placement for lower SCL unattainable) just because they'll happily agree to a 20% drop in rewards for a 50% reduction in time requirements.

If it wasn't clear by now, I see all Clearance Levels for whoever wants to play in them, regardless of roster.

And yes, even if the rewards were changed, there would still be people dropping down because of the easier difficulty.  It's probably the main reason why I played CL7 last time and why I'll do it again this time.  There's an absurd difference in scaling between CL7 and CL8 right now.  CL7 takes me less than half the time it would take me to finish CL8.   That matter to me.

So the scaling difference needs to be addressed as well.  Either bump up CL7 scaling or drop CL8 down a bit.  Either option wouldn't be too popular though.

zodiac339

Orion said:

Just because you CAN play at a certain Clearance Level, doesn't mean that you SHOULD play at that level.

I saw a lot of comments during the last test that the CL8 scaling was out of control for most rosters that qualified to play in CL8.  And admittedly, that was true.  Even though scaling topped out at less than the level 400 that people were expecting, someone at Shield Rank 47 had no chance at most of the nodes during that test.  So then those people should be playing CL7.  Or CL6.  Or whatever level they feel comfortable playing.  No one is forcing anyone to play at a certain level.  If you're just going for progression and you'll play the nodes when and where you can, then jump into CL8 if you want a challenge.  Or play CL7 if you don't.  It's entirely up to you.

As for placement, again, your preference is entirely up to you.  Yes, 5* players will drop down to CL7 and CL6 so they can guarantee themselves a higher placement.  I think this is the fault of the devs that stubbornly limit 4* rewards to top 10 finishers in CL8.  There's no reason for the CL8 placement rewards to be that stingy.  But until they change, you have to ask yourself what Clearance Level is best for you.  Maybe you should drop down to CL6 so you can face easier enemies and place higher than you would in CL7 or CL8.  Maybe you'll try CL8 to give you the best rewards for wherever you place.

For me, placement is secondary to more important quality of life issues.  It takes me 2-2.5 hours to do 7 clears in a typical 1-day CL8 sub.  It takes me about 45 minutes to do the same in CL7.  So I can get slightly less rewards for far less effort.  That matters to me.  It may not matter to others, and that's ok too.  I'm going to see what the levels for each CL have been adjusted to before I make my decision on where I'm going.

Bottom line - "dropping down" in CL is a choice made by each person for reasons that are entirely their own.  No one is forced to play at a certain level.  It's a risk/reward strategy that each person takes into account.  If you don't like 5* players taking up the placement slots you normally win in CL7, then drop down to CL6 and do the same thing to the 3* transitioners at that level.  Or play CL8 and hope that enough people have dropped down that you can get decent placement there.  Your choice.  No one else's.

Do you want SCL9? If you do, then the whole OP is wrong. You should always play at the highest SCL you have access to. Why don't we have SCL9? Didn't the devs say it's because there aren't enough players to make it worth doing? Is that players as a whole? Is that players at CL80 or higher? Or is it a lack of engagement in SCL8?

If there aren't enough players as a whole, opening up SCLs, but giving the enemies static levels that they aren't able to face won't encourage them to continue, potentially losing players. They need to be able to fight what they have access to and gain at least the progression rewards.

If there aren't enough players at [arbitrarily decided CL], see above basically. encouraging play encourages advancement (although this could be argued as a reason to drop down for speed's sake. Do you get the same amount of experience in less time? and is it worth the loss of Champion levels from more rare covers, which leads to more experience to advance CL?)

If there aren't enough players in SCL8, static enemy levels will make the problem far worse. This will delay SCL9 by a great deal, because the more SCL8 becomes a barren wasteland compared to SCL7, the less reason devs will have to make anything higher.

Bottom line - play in your highest available SCL. "Dropping down" in CL is a choice made by the player base to tell developers that they don't want SCL9 or 10 to be added.

Fightmastermpq

zodiac339 said:

Orion said:

Just because you CAN play at a certain Clearance Level, doesn't mean that you SHOULD play at that level.

I saw a lot of comments during the last test that the CL8 scaling was out of control for most rosters that qualified to play in CL8.  And admittedly, that was true.  Even though scaling topped out at less than the level 400 that people were expecting, someone at Shield Rank 47 had no chance at most of the nodes during that test.  So then those people should be playing CL7.  Or CL6.  Or whatever level they feel comfortable playing.  No one is forcing anyone to play at a certain level.  If you're just going for progression and you'll play the nodes when and where you can, then jump into CL8 if you want a challenge.  Or play CL7 if you don't.  It's entirely up to you.

As for placement, again, your preference is entirely up to you.  Yes, 5* players will drop down to CL7 and CL6 so they can guarantee themselves a higher placement.  I think this is the fault of the devs that stubbornly limit 4* rewards to top 10 finishers in CL8.  There's no reason for the CL8 placement rewards to be that stingy.  But until they change, you have to ask yourself what Clearance Level is best for you.  Maybe you should drop down to CL6 so you can face easier enemies and place higher than you would in CL7 or CL8.  Maybe you'll try CL8 to give you the best rewards for wherever you place.

For me, placement is secondary to more important quality of life issues.  It takes me 2-2.5 hours to do 7 clears in a typical 1-day CL8 sub.  It takes me about 45 minutes to do the same in CL7.  So I can get slightly less rewards for far less effort.  That matters to me.  It may not matter to others, and that's ok too.  I'm going to see what the levels for each CL have been adjusted to before I make my decision on where I'm going.

Bottom line - "dropping down" in CL is a choice made by each person for reasons that are entirely their own.  No one is forced to play at a certain level.  It's a risk/reward strategy that each person takes into account.  If you don't like 5* players taking up the placement slots you normally win in CL7, then drop down to CL6 and do the same thing to the 3* transitioners at that level.  Or play CL8 and hope that enough people have dropped down that you can get decent placement there.  Your choice.  No one else's.

Do you want SCL9? If you do, then the whole OP is wrong. You should always play at the highest SCL you have access to. Why don't we have SCL9? Didn't the devs say it's because there aren't enough players to make it worth doing? Is that players as a whole? Is that players at CL80 or higher? Or is it a lack of engagement in SCL8?

If there aren't enough players as a whole, opening up SCLs, but giving the enemies static levels that they aren't able to face won't encourage them to continue, potentially losing players. They need to be able to fight what they have access to and gain at least the progression rewards.

If there aren't enough players at [arbitrarily decided CL], see above basically. encouraging play encourages advancement (although this could be argued as a reason to drop down for speed's sake. Do you get the same amount of experience in less time? and is it worth the loss of Champion levels from more rare covers, which leads to more experience to advance CL?)

If there aren't enough players in SCL8, static enemy levels will make the problem far worse. This will delay SCL9 by a great deal, because the more SCL8 becomes a barren wasteland compared to SCL7, the less reason devs will have to make anything higher.

Bottom line - play in your highest available SCL. "Dropping down" in CL is a choice made by the player base to tell developers that they don't want SCL9 or 10 to be added.

Sorry no.  You should play in the SCL that maximizes your progression + placement rewards.

Bowgentle

zodiac339 said:

Bottom line - play in your highest available SCL. "Dropping down" in CL is a choice made by the player base to tell developers that they don't want SCL9 or 10 to be added.

I think it's more to tell the devs that we don't want SCL9 with the same miniscule increase in rewards that 8 is over 7.

If they give out 5 more CP and one more 4* cover to T10, but raise the levels from 400 to 450 in SCL9, then I don't want SCL9 to be added, correct.

Cause this is what I have now with scaling and I know exactly what a pain those enemies are - definitely not worth doing them over level 400 ones for slightly lower rewards.

Higher SCLs need to have massively higher rewards to entice players to not drop down.
We've been saying this from the start, in both PVE and PVP, where it's even worse.

I don't drop down in PVE, but I can totally see other 5* players doing it just to spend as little time on PVE as possible.

broll

zodiac339 said:

Bottom line - play in your highest available SCL. "Dropping down" in CL is a choice made by the player base to tell developers that they don't want SCL9 or 10 to be added.

This makes zero sense.  So let's say they opened up SCL9 tomorrow (they won't but let's pretend) and SCL9 was scaled for players with champed 5* and open to ranks 60+ (that's 13 levels higher than 8 and in line with their jumps) then people with 0 5* champs should be forced to play unwinnable battles just because?  SImularly SCL7 is open to as low as 32, I'm sure there are plenty of people that low who have 0 4*s who would be unable to compete at that level.  I guess they just get to enjoy losing.

Get serious guys, one of the whole points of this is choice (something largely lacking in this RNG haven).  If they take away choice they should just dismantle the whole system.

zodiac339

broll said:

zodiac339 said:

Bottom line - play in your highest available SCL. "Dropping down" in CL is a choice made by the player base to tell developers that they don't want SCL9 or 10 to be added.

This makes zero sense.  So let's say they opened up SCL9 tomorrow (they won't but let's pretend) and SCL9 was scaled for players with champed 5* and open to ranks 60+ (that's 13 levels higher than 8 and in line with their jumps) then people with 0 5* champs should be forced to play unwinnable battles just because?  SImularly SCL7 is open to as low as 32, I'm sure there are plenty of people that low who have 0 4*s who would be unable to compete at that level.  I guess they just get to enjoy losing.

Get serious guys, one of the whole points of this is choice (something largely lacking in this RNG haven).  If they take away choice they should just dismantle the whole system.

It's the test and the static levels that don't make sense. The OP was that SCL as a whole had a misconception that you shouldn't play an SCL just because you can. It wasn't just about the static level test.
As far as I'm concerned, this static level thing was a bad idea. The community kept asking for SCL-based enemy levels, because they somehow thought the developers would do a good job with it. Players with massive rosters liked it, because it meant they could clear all the missions with no effort, get the progression super fast, and get the best placement too. It's not supposed to be an effortless game in which you don't have to try. The entirely non-competitive Deadpool Daily is the only part of the game with easy rewards. Even the gauntlet (with appropriately gaunt rewards) has scaled in difficulty. If there's one other story side thing that should have static enemies, the Gauntlet is it.
Scaling is a good thing. It maintains that players should be making an effort for rewards and that they should play to the highest level they can. I wasn't trying to say that players should take on unwinnable battle just because. What I was meaning to say is that there shouldn't be unwinnable battles just because the player base didn't realize that was what they were asking for. This test, and any potential permanency to static levels, should not have happened and should not continue.