Keep this Scaling!

Pongie

Somehow managed to get #3 in my bracket. Technically you can put me down as a 5* roster due to having hawkeye championed. However, not once did I bother using him, the relevant nodes were all medusa/blade/nova, for essentials medusa was dropped. The trival nodes were all oml (not championed)/bucky/thanos 3*. So 4* roster should still be able to compete in scl8, provided you are quick enough compared to 5* roster.

Alsmir

Lukoil

That is the issue.  In theory, if SCL8 is for the top rosters, then yes I shouldnt be there.  However, if I "Should" be in SCL7 or SCL6 then those levels must have rewards that enable my roster development such that I can move up over time.  They arent even close.

Well SCL8 rewards not that much different than SCL7 rewards. The only "big" diference is +1 4* cover for top 10... So you are not moving up over time in SCL8 neither. So what's your point?

NewMcG

Alsmir said:

ZeroKarma said:

I seriously enjoyed this PvE, and my ally mates were exceptionally positive as well. The key items:

Quality of life improvement - I typically cleared cl8 in 20-25 minutes to start each sub and the final grind was a little bit less. With standard scaling, I'm looking at double that at the very least
No Dark Avengers! - They're not hard, they're just annoying. Level 455 Moonstone/Rags/Venom just takes forever to kill and it isn't enjoyable 4-7 times in a row.
Level playing field - Not everyone will be happy with this. Last event I was beaten by two people, each with a lvl 270 Blade as their highest character. I have 10 champed 5* and I guarantee that my enemies were double theirs. This event my top competitors were at similar levels and rosters.
Team flexibility - This was a new release, so I generally used my best team all the time. But with the scaling in place I could definitely have taken more time and used boosted 3* and 4* without always relying on the same 5 characters.

There are still improvements that can be made. Here are a couple of thoughts.

Release cl9 and cl10 - I don't begrudge lower level rosters their rewards. Adding the two new cl's will provide an additional challenge for those people interested, as well as allow the player base to spread out more appropriately.
Stop the Grind - With faster clears, I don't want to now have to grind the 3 point node for 20 minutes to place well. You gave us that time back, don't take it away. With low scaling and a Thanos you can best optimal players by grinding the last node. Fix it by adding 10-20 base levels to the enemies after the 6th or 7th clear every match. This way, you can hit the node a few extra times, but eventually it isn't worth the effort.

I really hope this doesn't go away. I'm already dreading Strange Sights and a Sandman essential node where the enemies are level 450. Like that makes any sense.

Level playing field - good joke, so you have it easier, but it's much harder for others, is that level playing field? Do you need a dictionary or something?

Yes, it actually will be an actual level playing field. But instead of dictating the enemies based on the player, the player must make the choice on what enemies to face, finally. 

Say you take two baseball players and tell them you'll give a hundred bucks to the first one to hit 10 balls into play off of the pitcher. One guy has been playing baseball for 15 years, the other for 3 months. In the old system, the guy playing 15 years has to hit off Clayton Kershaw throwing 95, and the guy playing for 3 months gets 40 MPH fastballs from a little leaguer. 

In the new system, the people competing would be able to pick how fast the pitcher threw, compete against others hitting off the same pitcher, and the reward would vary based on how hard the pitcher throws. That's a level playing field, as everyone competes for the same thing against the same opposition. What was happening before was handicapping, plain and simple.

Bowgentle

sh81 said:


How many 5* players think SCL8 is "right" for them in terms of rewards?  Ill bet only those that can hit top 5.  There is a reason most of them play PVP instead, PVE just isnt worth the effort.

Oh, but it is, with the new CL based fixed levels.

We'll take 2 or 3 champ levels for our 4* crew for an hour grinding each day.

That's about in line with PVP time - if you want T5 in PVP in CL8 you better be prepared to spend WAY more time on PVP than on PVE now.

It's not like we don't WANT those 4* covers, it's just that until now the odds were so stacked against us to give the lower rosters the illusion to be able to compete with 5* rosters.

It just wasn't FUN to grind 90 minutes against level 450+ moonstones with 70K health when you knew the 3-4 transitioner was clearing in 45 minutes with his boosted Blade who one-shots everything with his green.

Alsmir

sh81 said:

Fightmastermpq said:

sh81 said:

animaniactoo said:

I think the argument is that the rewards are more or less appropriate for each level if you have not developed ahead of your roster (which is what fight and broll are saying has happened) in terms of the overall pacing of where the game should be to prevent players from reaching "the end" (aka have outpaced new development to the point where they're going to be bored and giving up the game out of boredom next year).

So if you're ahead of the curve of where D3 thinks you should be as a player with the amount of time you've put into the game, it's because they made it possible for you to develop ahead of that curve, and they're cutting off that pipeline now.

I see where you are going, but I disagree.

I just dont think the rewards are appropriate at all.  I really think they were absolutely spot on, but 2 years ago.

The meta has moved significantly, the mechanics have moved significantly, the rewards have not.

So I dont believe they are appropriate/on point/about right at all.

If the were I honestly I would have an issue at all.

I disagree.  I'm pretty competitive and finish T5 in almost every PvP in SCL8, and will occasionally hit T10 in SCL8 PvE as well.  The reward structure in SCL8 for both is such that it looks like I'm going to be able to get the newest 4*s to 370 before they are vaulted.  I've also been earning enough covers from Latest Legends to champ them before they move to the classic pool.  That's a very, very high end level of play that really should not be open to 3->4* transitioners as it is.

SCL8 PvE rewards really are charity for younger rosters that are able to compete there.

So finishing in the top 1% to earn 4* rewards works for you, which means its a charitable structure for transitioning players?

I am trying to move from 3-4*, 99% of the time I finish top 50 in SCL8 (nearer 10 than 50 as I progress), which means 3* covers and HP.

THAT is being charitable to me?  You speak as though Im getting some sort of unfair advantage, and I simply dont see it.

To move into the 4* game I need to be able to get 4* covers.  The raised CP awards has done more to help me than anything else in this respect.  However, when we are geared toward playing for placement, I think placement should award 4* covers to a reasonable level.

In SCL8 I would have it more like:
Top = 5*
2-5 = 3 x 4*
5-10 = 2 x 4*
11-20 = 1 x 4*
21-50 = Multi 3*

That way, wherever people land they get rewards that will hep progress their roster.

Offering multi 3* is just having me stand still, nothing charitable about it.

That is the issue.  In theory, if SCL8 is for the top rosters, then yes I shouldnt be there.  However, if I "Should" be in SCL7 or SCL6 then those levels must have rewards that enable my roster development such that I can move up over time.  They arent even close.

Don't even bother responding to him. He is one of the individuals who have difficulties thinking about anone else other than themselves. Ignore option sure helps.

Alsmir

New McG said:

Alsmir said:

ZeroKarma said:

I seriously enjoyed this PvE, and my ally mates were exceptionally positive as well. The key items:

Quality of life improvement - I typically cleared cl8 in 20-25 minutes to start each sub and the final grind was a little bit less. With standard scaling, I'm looking at double that at the very least
No Dark Avengers! - They're not hard, they're just annoying. Level 455 Moonstone/Rags/Venom just takes forever to kill and it isn't enjoyable 4-7 times in a row.
Level playing field - Not everyone will be happy with this. Last event I was beaten by two people, each with a lvl 270 Blade as their highest character. I have 10 champed 5* and I guarantee that my enemies were double theirs. This event my top competitors were at similar levels and rosters.
Team flexibility - This was a new release, so I generally used my best team all the time. But with the scaling in place I could definitely have taken more time and used boosted 3* and 4* without always relying on the same 5 characters.

There are still improvements that can be made. Here are a couple of thoughts.

Release cl9 and cl10 - I don't begrudge lower level rosters their rewards. Adding the two new cl's will provide an additional challenge for those people interested, as well as allow the player base to spread out more appropriately.
Stop the Grind - With faster clears, I don't want to now have to grind the 3 point node for 20 minutes to place well. You gave us that time back, don't take it away. With low scaling and a Thanos you can best optimal players by grinding the last node. Fix it by adding 10-20 base levels to the enemies after the 6th or 7th clear every match. This way, you can hit the node a few extra times, but eventually it isn't worth the effort.

I really hope this doesn't go away. I'm already dreading Strange Sights and a Sandman essential node where the enemies are level 450. Like that makes any sense.

Level playing field - good joke, so you have it easier, but it's much harder for others, is that level playing field? Do you need a dictionary or something?

Yes, it actually will be an actual level playing field. But instead of dictating the enemies based on the player, the player must make the choice on what enemies to face, finally. 

Say you take two baseball players and tell them you'll give a hundred bucks to the first one to hit 10 balls into play off of the pitcher. One guy has been playing baseball for 15 years, the other for 3 months. In the old system, the guy playing 15 years has to hit off Clayton Kershaw throwing 95, and the guy playing for 3 months gets 40 MPH fastballs from a little leaguer. 

In the new system, the people competing would be able to pick how fast the pitcher threw, compete against others hitting off the same pitcher, and the reward would vary based on how hard the pitcher throws. That's a level playing field, as everyone competes for the same thing against the same opposition. What was happening before was handicapping, plain and simple.

Except you don't deserve another freebie for playing longer than others. You already have an advantage of wider, more developed roster, easier placement and points in PvP, yet you keep screaming, because you weren't priveleged in PvE.
You can't even grasp the idea of level playing field, if you think that new system is fair. If it was fair all 5* plaeyrs would sit in a single bracket and compete against each other. As long as they're competing against weaker rosters, but getting a significant advantage - it's not fair.

Fightmastermpq

sh81 said:

Fightmastermpq said:

sh81 said:

animaniactoo said:

I think the argument is that the rewards are more or less appropriate for each level if you have not developed ahead of your roster (which is what fight and broll are saying has happened) in terms of the overall pacing of where the game should be to prevent players from reaching "the end" (aka have outpaced new development to the point where they're going to be bored and giving up the game out of boredom next year).

So if you're ahead of the curve of where D3 thinks you should be as a player with the amount of time you've put into the game, it's because they made it possible for you to develop ahead of that curve, and they're cutting off that pipeline now.

I see where you are going, but I disagree.

I just dont think the rewards are appropriate at all.  I really think they were absolutely spot on, but 2 years ago.

The meta has moved significantly, the mechanics have moved significantly, the rewards have not.

So I dont believe they are appropriate/on point/about right at all.

If the were I honestly I would have an issue at all.

I disagree.  I'm pretty competitive and finish T5 in almost every PvP in SCL8, and will occasionally hit T10 in SCL8 PvE as well.  The reward structure in SCL8 for both is such that it looks like I'm going to be able to get the newest 4*s to 370 before they are vaulted.  I've also been earning enough covers from Latest Legends to champ them before they move to the classic pool.  That's a very, very high end level of play that really should not be open to 3->4* transitioners as it is.

SCL8 PvE rewards really are charity for younger rosters that are able to compete there.

So finishing in the top 1% to earn 4* rewards works for you, which means its a charitable structure for transitioning players?

I am trying to move from 3-4*, 99% of the time I finish top 50 in SCL8 (nearer 10 than 50 as I progress), which means 3* covers and HP.

THAT is being charitable to me?  You speak as though Im getting some sort of unfair advantage, and I simply dont see it.

To move into the 4* game I need to be able to get 4* covers.  The raised CP awards has done more to help me than anything else in this respect.  However, when we are geared toward playing for placement, I think placement should award 4* covers to a reasonable level.

In SCL8 I would have it more like:
Top = 5*
2-5 = 3 x 4*
5-10 = 2 x 4*
11-20 = 1 x 4*
21-50 = Multi 3*

That way, wherever people land they get rewards that will hep progress their roster.

Offering multi 3* is just having me stand still, nothing charitable about it.

That is the issue.  In theory, if SCL8 is for the top rosters, then yes I shouldnt be there.  However, if I "Should" be in SCL7 or SCL6 then those levels must have rewards that enable my roster development such that I can move up over time.  They arent even close.

Yes, it is being charitable to you, and yes you do have an unfair advantage.  As @Bowgentle pointed out - you get to use your boosted Blade or Baby Groot and finish tough matches in 5 moves while us 5* players have to slog through massive health pools that take forever to fight.

The bulk of 4* covers DO NOT come from rewards, they come from Legendary tokens, and SCL8 rewards allow for enough of these for you to progress just as fast as a new 5* player.  The hidden gem of SCL8 PvE is in sub placement rewards.  T3 (very common for softcappers) will get you 5CP/day, that's almost 2 extra legendaries a week, that's a huge advantage.

Lastly, you should be getting a good bit of 4* covers from your 3* champ rewards.  And I'm not talking about the 3 you get in the reward table, I'm talking about all the extra CP and Heroics that generate 4* pulls.

SCL8 gives top end rewards - enough to progress incredibly deep into the 4* tier, and the bulk of those rewards are more attainable by soft cappers than 5* vets.  SCL-based scaling can't get here soon enough.

nigelregal

In my CL7 bracket 2 of top 10 were 4* players. 1st place was a 4* only roster who beat 2nd by over 600 pts. I play PVE more casually and i'm in 41 place. 

In top 20 about 8 are 4* rosters. 

What this tells me is that the system is not so bad for a 4* roster if you play more perfectly. Which makes perfect sense. A better roster will afford you some leniency. 

If there was no scaling test with my schedule over the weekend I would have been top 200 likely because I just could not play/grind since normally a grind takes over an hour for me but in this event it was 25 minutes. 

I will take less rewards for less than 1/2 the time investment. If people want first place and grind hard nodes endlessly well good for them they earned it. If D3 does not want that they can fix it.

Fightmastermpq

sh81 said:

Ill maintain the rewards arent enough, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree there.

However, fixed scaling brings the 5* players back, they all compete and lock out the top of SCL7 and 8 - for a transitioner how do you see that playing out?

Should I go to SCL6?  Where scaling is trivial for me, and the rewards are too?  Or should I flog myself in 7 but to no avail thanks to the bigger rosters locking it out?

My argument all along here isnt even SCL8 specifically, but rewards at all levels.

SCL scaling helps you as a big roster player, a player I think its fair to say would be in a minority of the player base, at the expense of everyone below you.

I am not saying as things stand it is fair on you, of course not.  But that change in isolation doesnt really fix anything, it just moves the problem elsewhere.

However - tie scaling to SCL AND re work the rewards such that rosters of different levels benefit from playing at different levels - and I think we are all onto a winner.

Agree to disagree.  I don't need any more rewards at SCL8, I'm earning enough to max champ all newest 4s.  For over a year I've been playing at a disadvantage, and it looks like things are finally moving to where they should be.  5* players SHOULD lock out transitioners from top end rewards.  I don't know how else to say it - you don't deserve the same or better rewards as players that have put in a lot more time and effort and continue to do so, and the reward structure should and does support that.

Starfury

Fightmastermpq said:

sh81 said:

Ill maintain the rewards arent enough, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree there.

However, fixed scaling brings the 5* players back, they all compete and lock out the top of SCL7 and 8 - for a transitioner how do you see that playing out?

Should I go to SCL6?  Where scaling is trivial for me, and the rewards are too?  Or should I flog myself in 7 but to no avail thanks to the bigger rosters locking it out?

My argument all along here isnt even SCL8 specifically, but rewards at all levels.

SCL scaling helps you as a big roster player, a player I think its fair to say would be in a minority of the player base, at the expense of everyone below you.

I am not saying as things stand it is fair on you, of course not.  But that change in isolation doesnt really fix anything, it just moves the problem elsewhere.

However - tie scaling to SCL AND re work the rewards such that rosters of different levels benefit from playing at different levels - and I think we are all onto a winner.

Agree to disagree.  I don't need any more rewards at SCL8, I'm earning enough to max champ all newest 4s.  For over a year I've been playing at a disadvantage, and it looks like things are finally moving to where they should be.  5* players SHOULD lock out transitioners from top end rewards.  I don't know how else to say it - you don't deserve the same or better rewards as players that have put in a lot more time and effort and continue to do so, and the reward structure should and does support that.

One small thing: If SCL based scaling comes as it is now, that's no longer the case. The strongest roster will have to put in the least amount of time and effort.

SpringSoldier

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing that the rewards I was earning in SCL8 were "undeserved" for me- there's no clear amount of prizes I do or don't deserve. Considering I've been getting all progression rewards for a while now (without cheating), I think I deserved them and any change that will lower them will make me feel more frustrated with the game. To say that it's all ok because at least others are getting better rewards is some serious lack of empathy. A good fix in the game would've allowed me to keep my rewards and those with better roosters to get even better rewards, thus making everyone happy.

Also, please stop saying that I should just play in SCL7 and get more from placement - I did that I'm still only in top 100 (as I was in SCL8 before), because there are too many people in SCL7 now, including those with far far better roosters. Progression rewards are still the only thing I can realistically expect to win. I'm getting less hp - which I need for more rooster spots (I currently have 89), less Elite covers, which are also quite useful to me and, of course, less cp. (some say the difference in rewards is too little between SCL7 and 8- well it would make a difference to me and I'd play level 8, if I could).

I know some feel that it's a lot easier to get into the 3*/4* tier now than in was in the beginning, but you also need to consider that 1* and 2* aren't what they used to be and, unless you have a lot of 3* champs and/or some decent 4*, PVP is basically out of question- not even progression rewards aren't achievable, at least not the meaningful ones: hp, cp, 3*, 4*. DDQ isn't available daily either since I don't have all 3* and 4*. PVE is currently the only place were, with a lot of grinding, I can progress. I don't want that taken away from me, even if it was given to me "undeservedly" in the first place.

TL;DR I'd be happy with the scaling too if I wasn't forced to go down a level and earn less rewards for the same effort.

Fightmastermpq

Starfury said:

Fightmastermpq said:

sh81 said:

Ill maintain the rewards arent enough, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree there.

However, fixed scaling brings the 5* players back, they all compete and lock out the top of SCL7 and 8 - for a transitioner how do you see that playing out?

Should I go to SCL6?  Where scaling is trivial for me, and the rewards are too?  Or should I flog myself in 7 but to no avail thanks to the bigger rosters locking it out?

My argument all along here isnt even SCL8 specifically, but rewards at all levels.

SCL scaling helps you as a big roster player, a player I think its fair to say would be in a minority of the player base, at the expense of everyone below you.

I am not saying as things stand it is fair on you, of course not.  But that change in isolation doesnt really fix anything, it just moves the problem elsewhere.

However - tie scaling to SCL AND re work the rewards such that rosters of different levels benefit from playing at different levels - and I think we are all onto a winner.

Agree to disagree.  I don't need any more rewards at SCL8, I'm earning enough to max champ all newest 4s.  For over a year I've been playing at a disadvantage, and it looks like things are finally moving to where they should be.  5* players SHOULD lock out transitioners from top end rewards.  I don't know how else to say it - you don't deserve the same or better rewards as players that have put in a lot more time and effort and continue to do so, and the reward structure should and does support that.

One small thing: If SCL based scaling comes as it is now, that's no longer the case. The strongest roster will have to put in the least amount of time and effort.

Don't be absurd.  When I say "time" I'm talking about longevity.  When I say "effort" I'm talking about number of matches played.  Obviously a larger roster is going to be able to play the same number of matches in less time.

Fightmastermpq

No, both tests have been too easy.  The time was great, but the difficulty was way too easy.  I'd MUCH rather have tougher enemies, but fewer clears required, than just blasting through everything in a couple moves.

The speed that your device/platform processes the different loading screens and animations shouldn't be nearly as large a factor as it currently is.

fmftint

Fightmastermpq said:

No, both tests have been too easy.  The time was great, but the difficulty was way too easy.  I'd MUCH rather have tougher enemies, but fewer clears required, than just blasting through everything in a couple moves.

The speed that your device/platform processes the different loading screens and animations shouldn't be nearly as large a factor as it currently is.

The only way too give you tougher enemies without making it impossible for the entry level (rank 47) is open SCL9 and set the entry bar high. 47-125 is too large of a pool for a single SCL

Fightmastermpq

fmftint said:

Fightmastermpq said:

No, both tests have been too easy.  The time was great, but the difficulty was way too easy.  I'd MUCH rather have tougher enemies, but fewer clears required, than just blasting through everything in a couple moves.

The speed that your device/platform processes the different loading screens and animations shouldn't be nearly as large a factor as it currently is.

The only way too give you tougher enemies without making it impossible for the entry level (rank 47) is open SCL9 and set the entry bar high. 47-125 is too large of a pool for a single SCL

Or people can exercise a bit of personal responsibility and join a SCL suited for their roster.  Seriously, open up all SCLs to all ranks and just let people pick where they want to play based on the rewards offered there.  The only reason we needed rank requirements was to lock out weak rosters from top end rewards that would have been attainable due to scaling.  Now that scaling is gone the difficulty should do a good enough job of locking them out.

NewMcG

sh81 said:

Fight - Please explain to me how this works for a 4* transitioner.  And maybe a 3* player.

I understand they get bumped out of the top levels where they never deserved to be - but what do you think happens then?

And how exactly do they move their roster on to finally be able to compete at those top levels?

If anyone's primary source of 4* development is PVE placement awards, their progress will be staggeringly slow, no matter what. There are no shortage of avenues to accumulate 4* covers and the resources to acquire them. PVE placement rewards are way down on the list of "most efficient ways to build a 4* roster".

Starfury

Fightmastermpq said:

Starfury said:

Fightmastermpq said:

sh81 said:

Ill maintain the rewards arent enough, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree there.

However, fixed scaling brings the 5* players back, they all compete and lock out the top of SCL7 and 8 - for a transitioner how do you see that playing out?

Should I go to SCL6?  Where scaling is trivial for me, and the rewards are too?  Or should I flog myself in 7 but to no avail thanks to the bigger rosters locking it out?

My argument all along here isnt even SCL8 specifically, but rewards at all levels.

SCL scaling helps you as a big roster player, a player I think its fair to say would be in a minority of the player base, at the expense of everyone below you.

I am not saying as things stand it is fair on you, of course not.  But that change in isolation doesnt really fix anything, it just moves the problem elsewhere.

However - tie scaling to SCL AND re work the rewards such that rosters of different levels benefit from playing at different levels - and I think we are all onto a winner.

Agree to disagree.  I don't need any more rewards at SCL8, I'm earning enough to max champ all newest 4s.  For over a year I've been playing at a disadvantage, and it looks like things are finally moving to where they should be.  5* players SHOULD lock out transitioners from top end rewards.  I don't know how else to say it - you don't deserve the same or better rewards as players that have put in a lot more time and effort and continue to do so, and the reward structure should and does support that.

One small thing: If SCL based scaling comes as it is now, that's no longer the case. The strongest roster will have to put in the least amount of time and effort.

Don't be absurd.  When I say "time" I'm talking about longevity.  When I say "effort" I'm talking about number of matches played.  Obviously a larger roster is going to be able to play the same number of matches in less time.

Then why write "... who have put in a lot more time and effort and continue to do so"?

Don't get me wrong. If you want to argue that you deserve an easier path to top placement based on past merits, that's fine by me. But that's not what you said. Hence my post.

NewMcG

sh81 said:

New McG said:

sh81 said:

Fight - Please explain to me how this works for a 4* transitioner.  And maybe a 3* player.

I understand they get bumped out of the top levels where they never deserved to be - but what do you think happens then?

And how exactly do they move their roster on to finally be able to compete at those top levels?

If anyone's primary source of 4* development is PVE placement awards, their progress will be staggeringly slow, no matter what. There are no shortage of avenues to accumulate 4* covers and the resources to acquire them. PVE placement rewards are way down on the list of "most efficient ways to build a 4* roster".

At no point have I said they are the most efficient or even primary source of 4*.

However, in a game geared towards placement and competition, I think they rewards should be greater and more appropriate to building a 4* roster.

Could be 4* covers, LTs, more CP, it all adds up.  As it stands you need to be in the top 1% to earn a 4* - and thats for 3 or more days effort.  Everyone else gets trivial 3* and some iso.

When you talk about getting the injustice of getting "bumped out of top levels" then you're talking about the increased placement rewards available there. That's pretty much the only difference there.

When you ask "how exactly do they move their roster on to finally be able to compete at those top levels?" the answer is "in every other of the numerous ways that rosters get better on a day to day basis". The way you're stating it makes it sound like not having the highest level PVE placement awards makes it impossible to transition.

Fightmastermpq

Starfury said:

Fightmastermpq said:

Starfury said:

Fightmastermpq said:

sh81 said:

Ill maintain the rewards arent enough, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree there.

However, fixed scaling brings the 5* players back, they all compete and lock out the top of SCL7 and 8 - for a transitioner how do you see that playing out?

Should I go to SCL6?  Where scaling is trivial for me, and the rewards are too?  Or should I flog myself in 7 but to no avail thanks to the bigger rosters locking it out?

My argument all along here isnt even SCL8 specifically, but rewards at all levels.

SCL scaling helps you as a big roster player, a player I think its fair to say would be in a minority of the player base, at the expense of everyone below you.

I am not saying as things stand it is fair on you, of course not.  But that change in isolation doesnt really fix anything, it just moves the problem elsewhere.

However - tie scaling to SCL AND re work the rewards such that rosters of different levels benefit from playing at different levels - and I think we are all onto a winner.

Agree to disagree.  I don't need any more rewards at SCL8, I'm earning enough to max champ all newest 4s.  For over a year I've been playing at a disadvantage, and it looks like things are finally moving to where they should be.  5* players SHOULD lock out transitioners from top end rewards.  I don't know how else to say it - you don't deserve the same or better rewards as players that have put in a lot more time and effort and continue to do so, and the reward structure should and does support that.

One small thing: If SCL based scaling comes as it is now, that's no longer the case. The strongest roster will have to put in the least amount of time and effort.

Don't be absurd.  When I say "time" I'm talking about longevity.  When I say "effort" I'm talking about number of matches played.  Obviously a larger roster is going to be able to play the same number of matches in less time.

Then why write "... who have put in a lot more time and effort and continue to do so"?

Don't get me wrong. If you want to argue that you deserve an easier path to top placement based on past merits, that's fine by me. But that's not what you said. Hence my post.

No, that's how you interpreted what I said, which was wrong and so I clarified.  I'm firmly against handouts based on past play/spend, but people should be rewarded for past efforts as long as they continue to put forth the same effort - otherwise there is no incentive to progress.  A 5* roster should have an easier time than a 4* roster - that's the reward for putting in all the time and effort to build that 5* roster.