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 leastNo 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.
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.
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 leastNo 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 leastNo 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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".
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.