Biggest misunderstanding about Shield Clearance Levels
Comments
-
Fightmastermpq said: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.
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.2 -
Orion said:Fightmastermpq said: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.
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.0 -
Yeah the big issue is that the rewards between SCL 6/7/8 need to be a bigger difference. Most of the overpowered rosters would then face the prospect of receiving significantly less rewards by moving down in order to play in the easier difficulty. Right now, the difference between SCL 7 and 8 is paltry. SCL needs to have significantly better rewards and that will then fix the majority of the problem. We have to keep in mind this is still a test so perhaps the devs are seeing this issue in the data.
It is a problem though because you will demoralize your newer players (by newer, I mean those who are competing in an appropriate SCL for their roster like SCL 5,6 and 7 - with developed enough rosters to do so but not with champed 4* etc) if they realize they can never reach a decent placement. Keep in mind too, as more people shift...everything runs downhill. Someone who was in SCL 7 just trying to get top 100 for example now, probably can't crack that because of all of the SCL shifting. It is a bigger problem than some choose to recognize. I am someone who normally plays SCL 8 but have shifted to SCL 7 for tests due to time savings and the fact that my scaling increased in the tests if I stayed in SCL 8. So yes I am part of the problem3 -
zodiac339 said:Orion said:Fightmastermpq said: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.
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.
A good roster can do 1200 in PVP in 60-90 minutes, now we can do PVE in about 45-60 minutes per day.
Which is how it should be. Most of us spent the last 3 years treating mpq like a second, unpaid job, with 20+ hours per week - now we're getting our free time back.
If you're not there, put in time and/or money and you WILL get there.
Before the tests, all you had to look forward to in PVE was spending more time the better your roster got, which was absolutely idiotic and encouraged softcapping.5 -
Because of the not so brilliant idea to make shield level raise for so many things NOT directly related to roster progression, (sending team ups, pulling tokens, grinding nodes 6 times, repeatedly champing 2's etc) peoples shield levels fluctuate too wildly for them to be useful for determining contents difficulty or rewards.
That was screwed from the get go.
2 -
I would suggest scl7 and 8 to be the same rewards so that 3 star rosters like me don't get trolled hard with level 400 enemies. It is not fair for us to compete with 5 star rosters which have the same levels? How is that fair0
-
Pla5yer99 said:I would suggest scl7 and 8 to be the same rewards so that 3 star rosters like me don't get trolled hard with level 400 enemies. It is not fair for us to compete with 5 star rosters which have the same levels? How is that fair
I'm sorry you didn't notice it this was another test of CL-based scaling and picked the wrong CL for your roster, but the solution for that is for you to pick CL6 or CL7 next time so you have nodes you can beat. Not to change the whole system around you.2 -
Nepenthe said:Pla5yer99 said:I would suggest scl7 and 8 to be the same rewards so that 3 star rosters like me don't get trolled hard with level 400 enemies. It is not fair for us to compete with 5 star rosters which have the same levels? How is that fair
I'm sorry you didn't notice it this was another test of CL-based scaling and picked the wrong CL for your roster, but the solution for that is for you to pick CL6 or CL7 next time so you have nodes you can beat. Not to change the whole system around you.
If the devs had been a bit smarter about it, they'd have coupled the progression reward changes with this change. Then you could say "Well, you'll have to play SCL 7 instead of 8 now, but SCL 7 now offers the same reward as SCL 8 did. And while you have to get a fifth clear now, those clears are going to be easier."
Instead they made people unhappy when they required another clear at max difficulty for slightly better rewards. And a month or two later they make people unhappy by forcing them down an SCL and thus lowering their rewards.
The net result is the same, but leave it to the devs to package in a way that generates twice as many negative reactions.
2 -
Fightmastermpq said: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.
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.
Would it make sense for them to do so? No.
Does it make sense for them in MPQ? Yes.
Why? Because the reward structure in MPQ incentivizes it.
0 -
The difference between rewards in SCL7 & 8 are very minimal. I've never understood the rage. The amount of time saved from going in CL7 makes up for that.1
-
Warbringa said:Yeah the big issue is that the rewards between SCL 6/7/8 need to be a bigger difference. Most of the overpowered rosters would then face the prospect of receiving significantly less rewards by moving down in order to play in the easier difficulty. Right now, the difference between SCL 7 and 8 is paltry. SCL needs to have significantly better rewards and that will then fix the majority of the problem. We have to keep in mind this is still a test so perhaps the devs are seeing this issue in the data.
It is a problem though because you will demoralize your newer players (by newer, I mean those who are competing in an appropriate SCL for their roster like SCL 5,6 and 7 - with developed enough rosters to do so but not with champed 4* etc) if they realize they can never reach a decent placement. Keep in mind too, as more people shift...everything runs downhill. Someone who was in SCL 7 just trying to get top 100 for example now, probably can't crack that because of all of the SCL shifting. It is a bigger problem than some choose to recognize. I am someone who normally plays SCL 8 but have shifted to SCL 7 for tests due to time savings and the fact that my scaling increased in the tests if I stayed in SCL 8. So yes I am part of the problem
0 -
nick_chicane said:The difference between rewards in SCL7 & 8 are very minimal. I've never understood the rage. The amount of time saved from going in CL7 makes up for that.
2. Speed and optimal clears are essential for good placement.
3. As the difference between scl7 and scl8 rewards is minimal, then a lot of 5* rosters drop to 7 for a much MUCH easier scaling and a lot less grinding time.
This creates a problem for those who were used to being in scl7 (and should be there IMO.
And just to add to my number 3 point. Not only 5* rosters have dropped to scl7 but many 4* as well! I am also guilty of the drop. I have consistently played scl8 for quite some time and always finish somewhere in t10. I didn't budge for the first test because it was mostly goons and I knew my roster could handle them even at lvl400. This test? I didn't feel like risking it.
The result? At the moment, in my bracket of s1.7 the top 5 all have champed 5*s. I am 6th in second sub with a 40 minute grind.
If this is the future, I don't like it.
0 -
Starfury said:Fightmastermpq said: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.
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.
Would it make sense for them to do so? No.
Does it make sense for them in MPQ? Yes.
Why? Because the reward structure in MPQ incentivizes it.0 -
Nepenthe said:Pla5yer99 said:I would suggest scl7 and 8 to be the same rewards so that 3 star rosters like me don't get trolled hard with level 400 enemies. It is not fair for us to compete with 5 star rosters which have the same levels? How is that fair
I'm sorry you didn't notice it this was another test of CL-based scaling and picked the wrong CL for your roster, but the solution for that is for you to pick CL6 or CL7 next time so you have nodes you can beat. Not to change the whole system around you.0 -
Pla5yer99 said:This test will force 3 star players down to scl 6 instead since 7 and 8 are not possible to do for ranking
0 -
Phumade said:Pla5yer99 said:This test will force 3 star players down to scl 6 instead since 7 and 8 are not possible to do for ranking
As it is, a 3* player dropping down to SCL 6 would get less than half as many 4* from PvE as he did before.
0 -
Bowgentle said:zodiac339 said:Orion said:Fightmastermpq said: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.
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.
A good roster can do 1200 in PVP in 60-90 minutes, now we can do PVE in about 45-60 minutes per day.
Which is how it should be. Most of us spent the last 3 years treating mpq like a second, unpaid job, with 20+ hours per week - now we're getting our free time back.
If you're not there, put in time and/or money and you WILL get there.
Before the tests, all you had to look forward to in PVE was spending more time the better your roster got, which was absolutely idiotic and encouraged softcapping.0 -
Spoit said:Bowgentle said:zodiac339 said:Orion said:Fightmastermpq said: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.
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.
A good roster can do 1200 in PVP in 60-90 minutes, now we can do PVE in about 45-60 minutes per day.
Which is how it should be. Most of us spent the last 3 years treating mpq like a second, unpaid job, with 20+ hours per week - now we're getting our free time back.
If you're not there, put in time and/or money and you WILL get there.
Before the tests, all you had to look forward to in PVE was spending more time the better your roster got, which was absolutely idiotic and encouraged softcapping.
But their clear times will STILL be about halved compared to what they have in the old system, which is the main point.
Free time >>>>> one more 4* cover.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.8K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.2K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.6K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 503 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 421 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 298 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements