Biggest misunderstanding about Shield Clearance Levels

Phumade

Fightmastermpq 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.

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

This is 100% correct.  Aes or Jack has already done the legwork to show you which scl actually optimizes your rewards based on where you can consistently finish.

The bottom one is if your consistently T2 move up a tier.  If your consistently T5ish.  your exactly where the rewards say you should be.  If your consistently finishing outside the top 10.  Your actually giving up rewards and you should drop a tier till your a consistent T10 finisher.

broll

zodiac339 said:

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.  SCL based scaling is something I've been asking for/suggesting since SCL became a thing.  It's a no brainer part of the system that should have been included from the start.  Other than Bonus Heroes it's the thing only they've added to the game this year that isn't bad IMO.  

It solves the problem of new players not being able to roster/level 5*s and it allows the players to regulate their scaling to how they want to play/what works with their roster.  This is taking the scaling problem out of D3/Demis hands because they have miss-managed it for so long.  Give the player the power to self-regulate.

As far as people jumping down.  Much larger gaps in rewards would solve that problem because as Fight suggested, people will play what has the best reward to effort ratio, as they should.

zodiac339

broll said:

zodiac339 said:

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.  SCL based scaling is something I've been asking for/suggesting since SCL became a thing.  It's a no brainer part of the system that should have been included from the start.  Other than Bonus Heroes it's the thing only they've added to the game this year that isn't bad IMO.  

It solves the problem of new players not being able to roster/level 5*s and it allows the players to regulate their scaling to how they want to play/what works with their roster.  This is taking the scaling problem out of D3/Demis hands because they have miss-managed it for so long.  Give the player the power to self-regulate.

As far as people jumping down.  Much larger gaps in rewards would solve that problem because as Fight suggested, people will play what has the best reward to effort ratio, as they should.

Maybe if it meant that dropping to SCL7, 6 or lower in PVP meant that you wouldn't see enemy players of certain level rosters or be hit by those players, then these static enemy levels would make sense. That's not how the game works. You don't get to say, "today, I don't want to play against anyone with 4 or 5 star champions, so I'll drop to SCL5 in PVP. Get it straight. You. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Fight. Easy. Enemies.
You are supposed to fight appropriate enemies.

broll

zodiac339 said:

broll said:

zodiac339 said:

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.  SCL based scaling is something I've been asking for/suggesting since SCL became a thing.  It's a no brainer part of the system that should have been included from the start.  Other than Bonus Heroes it's the thing only they've added to the game this year that isn't bad IMO.  

It solves the problem of new players not being able to roster/level 5*s and it allows the players to regulate their scaling to how they want to play/what works with their roster.  This is taking the scaling problem out of D3/Demis hands because they have miss-managed it for so long.  Give the player the power to self-regulate.

As far as people jumping down.  Much larger gaps in rewards would solve that problem because as Fight suggested, people will play what has the best reward to effort ratio, as they should.

Maybe if it meant that dropping to SCL7, 6 or lower in PVP meant that you wouldn't see enemy players of certain level rosters or be hit by those players, then these static enemy levels would make sense. That's not how the game works. You don't get to say, "today, I don't want to play against anyone with 4 or 5 star champions, so I'll drop to SCL5 in PVP. Get it straight. You. Are. Not. Supposed. To. Fight. Easy. Enemies.
You are supposed to fight appropriate enemies.

Says who?  Ultimately this is a game.  Games are meant to be fun.  Fun for one player is keyboard rolling through with no effort, fun for others is playing something like Dark Souls where you're supposed to die a bazzillion times till you 'git gud' and there's tons of shades in between.  That's why many games have options to choose your difficulty level, which low and behold is what they added...

bbigler

nigelregal said:

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. 

I think 4 things need to happen simultaneously to fix these PVE problems:

1. Open up SCL9 with appropriate rewards, including "classic" 5* covers.
2. Upgrade SCL8 rewards to be significantly better than 7, but not as good as 9
3. Make enemy levels tied to the SCL, not your personal roster
4. Auto-assign everyone to an SCL based on their highest leveled characters (including boosted ones), and indicate to player's how close they are to transitioning to the next SCL.  It is possible that some players may flip-flop between SCLs due to the boosted characters for the week, but I still think that is fine. 

This way, it's more of a fair fight in each SCL.  As your roster progresses, it becomes easier to clear and get higher placement rewards.  When you transition to the next SCL, the rewards get much better, but it's harder to clear and get placement rewards, which evens out in terms of rewards vs effort.  Again, as your roster progresses, it becomes easier to clear and get those rewards.  This should give everyone a good feeling of progress in the game. 

The rewards and enemy levels in each SCL can be setup to give the player's more rewards for less effort as they go up the ladder in SCLs.  This should give people an overall feeling of gaining power as they progress, which would motivate them to reach the top.

I understand why people go down in SCLs; they're doing what's best for them within the current construct of the game.  So, I guess D3 should see these problems as a reason to fix the system. 

broll

Yes 1-3, no to 4, emphatically.  All that would do is get us locked into the same scaling issues and bad D3 decisions that we've been struggling through and this should fix.

bbigler

Phumade said:

Fightmastermpq 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.

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

This is 100% correct.  Aes or Jack has already done the legwork to show you which scl actually optimizes your rewards based on where you can consistently finish.

The bottom one is if your consistently T2 move up a tier.  If your consistently T5ish.  your exactly where the rewards say you should be.  If your consistently finishing outside the top 10.  Your actually giving up rewards and you should drop a tier till your a consistent T10 finisher.

But if everyone followed that rule of dropping down until you can get top10 finishes, you would have people dropping down to SCL1 and still not getting top 10.  Everyone can't be a winner.

bbigler

broll said:

Yes 1-3, no to 4, emphatically.  All that would do is get us locked into the same scaling issues and bad D3 decisions that we've been struggling through and this should fix.

If the enemy levels are set appropriately for each SCL, then what's the problem?  I didn't say that the last PVE test event is the standard for tying enemies levels to SCLs. 

Phumade

bbigler said:

Phumade said:

Fightmastermpq 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.

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

This is 100% correct.  Aes or Jack has already done the legwork to show you which scl actually optimizes your rewards based on where you can consistently finish.

The bottom one is if your consistently T2 move up a tier.  If your consistently T5ish.  your exactly where the rewards say you should be.  If your consistently finishing outside the top 10.  Your actually giving up rewards and you should drop a tier till your a consistent T10 finisher.

But if everyone followed that rule of dropping down until you can get top10 finishes, you would have people dropping down to SCL1 and still not getting top 10.  Everyone can't be a winner.

Sure they can.  thats why I said consistently.

If you don't have a sense of where you are in the relative rankings, then it won't matter how the rules are stacked.  Good, knowledgeable players survey the landscape and adjust tactics to compensate.

Honestly if your legitimately at the 4* tier, then you should have a pretty good handle on how your roster competes and under what rule sets your roster has an advantage or disadvantage.

broll

bbigler said:

broll said:

Yes 1-3, no to 4, emphatically.  All that would do is get us locked into the same scaling issues and bad D3 decisions that we've been struggling through and this should fix.

If the enemy levels are set appropriately for each SCL, then what's the problem?  I didn't say that the last PVE test event is the standard for tying enemies levels to SCLs. 

So when someone with a new account with no champs get a 5*, they get thrown into a 255 L teir cause they got that character rostered?  Isn't that one of the longterm problems this was supposed to fix?

What happens when D3 sets the static levels poorly or decides with SCL you should be in based on roster poorly.  What you described is basically the same as we have no with slightly less granularity and it's a bad system.  I would consider your solution the worst of both worlds, I get the negatives of roster scaling and none of the benefits of SCLs.

zodiac339

broll said:

Yes 1-3, no to 4, emphatically.  All that would do is get us locked into the same scaling issues and bad D3 decisions that we've been struggling through and this should fix.

I think he meant auto-assign in the way it currently works: you are auto-assigned to your highest SCL, but can choose another. He meant it as the system should auto-suggest your SCL.
There's an excessively low chance that a 5* cover may be given to the top 1, maybe top 5 player at SCL10, the most likely thing is that we'll see Legendary Tokens for the top placements. Demiurge hasn't offered guaranteed 5*s outside of R8 on the first Civil War run. They really seem to like torturing us with RNG on those things. Then apparently punished the lucky players with the stupidly scaling PVE enemies while simulaneously taking away the effective strategies of earlier tiers. I have no idea why they didn't simply tweek the scaling they face rather than do this stupid test thing.

aa25

bbigler said:

:snip:

4. Auto-assign everyone to an SCL based on their highest leveled characters (including boosted ones), and indicate to player's how close they are to transitioning to the next SCL.  It is possible that some players may flip-flop between SCLs due to the boosted characters for the week, but I still think that is fine. 

:snip:

I disagree with this. The first thing is, having boosted characters should not increase your scaling. It was like that in the past (I'm not sure if it is still the case now). Sometimes, having a low-covered 4* that you leveled him up for CotT ends up punishing you instead in PvE by leading the scaling. People with wide roster should be rewarded not punished (I believe the devs want people to have wide roster rather than a small one.) Secondly, people should be able to choose SCL to play themselves. Forcing players to play a SCL is dangerous. The bottomline is, if a play choose to move up or forced to move up, he should get at the very least the same rewards per effort as what he would get from not moving up if not better rewards. Otherwise, this will re-introduce softcapping all over again. This won't effect upper rosters that much, but that could kill roster development of lower/middle roster if he is forced into an SCL that scaled over his/her rosters. At this point, I don't think the devs have a good idea about upper end scaling. (e.g. shield rank 47 vs. lv300+ enemies in the last test is a good evidence of this.)

bbigler

broll said:

bbigler said:

broll said:

Yes 1-3, no to 4, emphatically.  All that would do is get us locked into the same scaling issues and bad D3 decisions that we've been struggling through and this should fix.

If the enemy levels are set appropriately for each SCL, then what's the problem?  I didn't say that the last PVE test event is the standard for tying enemies levels to SCLs. 

So when someone with a new account with no champs get a 5*, they get thrown into a 255 L teir cause they got that character rostered?  Isn't that one of the longterm problems this was supposed to fix?

What happens when D3 sets the static levels poorly or decides with SCL you should be in based on roster poorly.  What you described is basically the same as we have no with slightly less granularity and it's a bad system.  I would consider your solution the worst of both worlds, I get the negatives of roster scaling and none of the benefits of SCLs.

Uggggghhhhhh....you're making false assumptions in order to prove that you're right.  D3 already treats low level 5* characters differently than 4*s at the same level.  So, new players with a few 5* covers won't be added to an SCL above their abilities.

I've said multiple times that the enemy levels would need to be set appropriately, so assuming that they are set badly is irrelevant (and does not prove that it's a bad idea).  If the levels are appropriate, then I think it would work great!

 

jamesh

Phumade said:

bbigler said:

Phumade said:

This is 100% correct.  Aes or Jack has already done the legwork to show you which scl actually optimizes your rewards based on where you can consistently finish.

The bottom one is if your consistently T2 move up a tier.  If your consistently T5ish.  your exactly where the rewards say you should be.  If your consistently finishing outside the top 10.  Your actually giving up rewards and you should drop a tier till your a consistent T10 finisher.

But if everyone followed that rule of dropping down until you can get top10 finishes, you would have people dropping down to SCL1 and still not getting top 10.  Everyone can't be a winner.

Sure they can.  thats why I said consistently.

If you don't have a sense of where you are in the relative rankings, then it won't matter how the rules are stacked.  Good, knowledgeable players survey the landscape and adjust tactics to compensate.

Honestly if your legitimately at the 4* tier, then you should have a pretty good handle on how your roster competes and under what rule sets your roster has an advantage or disadvantage.

If the 99% of players that aren't placing top 10 in a particular clearance level drop down, then that clearance level is going to contract to a single bracket per time slice, which in turn reduced the number of top 10 rewards available.

It isn't clear that rule of thumb makes sense for players who aren't placing in the top 10 of clearance level 7 either: they'd be giving up a guaranteed 4* cover from progression in order to fight it out for a single 4* cover awarded to only one player in the bracket.

Phumade

jamesh said:

If the 99% of players that aren't placing top 10 in a particular clearance level drop down, then that clearance level is going to contract to a single bracket per time slice, which in turn reduced the number of top 10 rewards available.

It isn't clear that rule of thumb makes sense for players who aren't placing in the top 10 of clearance level 7 either: they'd be giving up a guaranteed 4* cover from progression in order to fight it out for a single 4* cover awarded to only one player in the bracket.

Good players will just adjust their bracket and shard choices.  With the advent of bracket rooms,  people already know when counts flip and the better organized alliances know which whales are in which bracket.

Fundamentally, the number of players hasn't changed, even if the rules governing play have.

Over time (3 events tops)  people will sort their internal rankings on what type of roster should play in clearance levels.

Do I know how many 5*/4* are gonna play in each shard/cl?  No.  

Will the sames names and alliances be at the top of the leader board?  Yes

jamesh

The point is that your advice only works if 99% of the player population doesn't follow it.  So it can't be a general strategy for everyone.

Starfury

The (irresolvable) conflict that's created by tying scaling to SCL is that anyone who's serious about placement rewards needs to drop down an SCL or two from the level he'd actually be able of completing.

You either have only trivially easy (and quick) fights, or you just won't get the same number of points as someone who does.

This leads to the somewhat strange situation where top placement rewards are totally out of reach of whatever rosters that specific SCL's difficulty level is meant for.

Edit:
The conflict is irresolvable because you can't make 8 SCL differ enough in their progression rewards to make dropping down for placement unattractive. (there's just not enough room without raising SCL 8 progression to absurd heights)
And you can't make placement rewards themselves unattractive enough for people not to want to drop down without making them completely irrelevant to anyone even in the lower SCL.


Of course if they would just get rid of placement... But then they'd have one hamster wheel less.

broll

bbigler said:

broll said:

bbigler said:

broll said:

Yes 1-3, no to 4, emphatically.  All that would do is get us locked into the same scaling issues and bad D3 decisions that we've been struggling through and this should fix.

If the enemy levels are set appropriately for each SCL, then what's the problem?  I didn't say that the last PVE test event is the standard for tying enemies levels to SCLs. 

So when someone with a new account with no champs get a 5*, they get thrown into a 255 L teir cause they got that character rostered?  Isn't that one of the longterm problems this was supposed to fix?

What happens when D3 sets the static levels poorly or decides with SCL you should be in based on roster poorly.  What you described is basically the same as we have no with slightly less granularity and it's a bad system.  I would consider your solution the worst of both worlds, I get the negatives of roster scaling and none of the benefits of SCLs.

Uggggghhhhhh....you're making false assumptions in order to prove that you're right.  D3 already treats low level 5* characters differently than 4*s at the same level.  So, new players with a few 5* covers won't be added to an SCL above their abilities.

I've said multiple times that the enemy levels would need to be set appropriately, so assuming that they are set badly is irrelevant (and does not prove that it's a bad idea).  If the levels are appropriate, then I think it would work great!

 

I'm not making assumptions, I'm making projections based on historical patterns.  Scaling has been mishandled in game a lot, primarily at the lowest and highest levels.  So assuming that they are suddenly going to get scaling right for someone is insane.  Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result being the definition of insanity.

As far as 5*s being treated differently as far as I can tell that's just conjecture.  They've never shared how scaling works in a detailed way.  Taking it out of the picture, if nothing else, takes the whole 'scaling how does it work???' confusion out of PvE which is a hugely positive change anyway you slice it and I will never support anything that turns around and heads back in that direction.

Ultimately your problem can be solve in one of two (or both) ways:
- Larger jumps between SCL levels so there's a definite resource punishment for choosing a lower SCL.
- Take placement out of PvE completely.

Either of these would solve your concerns without breaking this new, great, and highly requested feature.

SpringSoldier

I'd be fine with removing placement rewards, especially since I never earn them myself... however, I doubt the devs would be ok with that, since it would increase the chances of players not following through to full progression if the prizes aren't worth it, especially the 3* and the 4*.

With the current system, odds are that, even if you don't want Blade, for example, you'll still want/need Iron Man for the next round, so everyone grinds through to try to get the placement reward, as opposed to skipping the event and waiting for the new one with guaranteed Sandman. It could be fixed if the final prize was the 4* you need for the future event- basically, different rewards (different 3*, 4* or even 5*) in one game, could increase the number of people playing.

Fightmastermpq

Starfury said:

The (irresolvable) conflict that's created by tying scaling to SCL is that anyone who's serious about placement rewards needs to drop down an SCL or two from the level he'd actually be able of completing.

You either have only trivially easy (and quick) fights, or you just won't get the same number of points as someone who does.

This leads to the somewhat strange situation where top placement rewards are totally out of reach of whatever rosters that specific SCL's difficulty level is meant for.

Edit:
The conflict is irresolvable because you can't make 8 SCL differ enough in their progression rewards to make dropping down for placement unattractive. (there's just not enough room without raising SCL 8 progression to absurd heights)
And you can't make placement rewards themselves unattractive enough for people not to want to drop down without making them completely irrelevant to anyone even in the lower SCL.


Of course if they would just get rid of placement... But then they'd have one hamster wheel less.

This is working as intended.  If you are dominating your current difficulty level then it's time to take your game to the next level where you will have to continue to work until you are dominating there and so on and so forth until you burn out or are dominating at the highest level.  This happens in all walks of life - from gaming, to sports, to even climbing the corporate ladder.

How long you slum it out at a lower level depends on the risk/reward of advancing.  Consider a highschool basketball player deciding whether he will go to college or go straight to the NBA.  The reward of moving up (progress) is huge, but the risk of not getting drafted (placement) is also big.  If he does go to the NBA but then doesn't do well it could set his career back indefinitely, but he could also do very well.  Or he could just go to college (stay in SCL7) where he knows he can dominate (T10 placement) and grow for 4 years (progress your roster for several events) until he is ready for the NBA (SCL8).  So he considers the likelihood of success in the NBA (estimates SCL8 placement) and makes the choice that will maximize his long term success (chooses the SCL that maximizes his progression + placement rewards).

Same thing happens to people at work - do you take a promotion that you maybe aren't quite ready for yet?  Do you take on a lot of additional responsibility for maybe not so much more pay?  What makes the most sense.

Life isn't set up for you to dominate everything as soon as you start doing it, and by the time you are able to dominate it's time for you to move to the next level where you can continue to grow.