Difficulty Levels Based on S.H.I.E.L.D. Clearance Levels - Update (8/4/17) *Updated

1…78101213…19

Comments

  • Rod5
    Rod5 Posts: 598 Critical Contributor
    You choose the level of enemies you fight...how can that possibly be unfair?
  • FokaiHI
    FokaiHI Posts: 272 Mover and Shaker
    sh81 said:
    FokaiHI said:
    You guys are right. They should keep it the same. Weaker rosters should be able to place higher than better rosters. That makes sense. My bad. Placement trophies for everyone. 
    Or, how about instead they find a solution to suit all?

    Open SCL 9 and 10, set the difficulties and rewards such that they present some challenge to higher rosters but are worth it, actually make it engaging to them.

    And leave SCL 7 and 8 alone where it already works for 4* rosters.

    Does that sound terrible to anyone?
    Ill bet it sounds better to everyone though!

    All they have done is made the game far to easy for 5* players, and kick those below out of placement.  Its the worst of both worlds.  And it really didnt need to be so.
    Uh, it's been easier for the lesser built rosters up to this point. I tell you what. Ask Disco Stucat how I did in pve before going 5*. He knows how well I did. He knows what a bummer it was from a pve standpoint for me when my scaling jumped. 
  • Rod5
    Rod5 Posts: 598 Critical Contributor
    sh81 said:
    Rod5 said:
    I don't think most actually resent the softcappers/4* rosters for winning PvE because their enemies were under-powered.

    What I do think people resent is any of those same players moaning now it's been fixed and their unfair advantage taken away.


    And this here is exactly my issue.

    Just because 5* players have an unfair disadvantage, it doesnt mean 4* players have an unfair advantage.

    Again, it doesnt need to be either/or, we dont need to be divided.

    The game has sucked for you?  That sucks.  Doesnt mean Ive been given a free ride, or been gaming the system, or been offered a golden challice to rewards I do not deserve.

    It just means youve had it bad.


    Yes, we've had it bad in PvE. Now it's a level playing field. So it's fine. And fair. You find it too hard, drop a CL. I genuinely don't see your point.
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    I've heard 5* players say before that boosted 4* are no joke. I also know that the last scaling test I finished #14, I don't have any champ 5s, but as a 3* roster I dumped too much iso into 5s. Now with 32 champ 4s my best 8 characters are still under covered 5*, my top 3 PHX @ 420 3/3/5, IM46 @ 375 5/5/1, CAP @ 360 0/4/3. This change is actually going to reduce my scaling slightly. I do not use my 5* for PVE when I have enough 4* on the boost list, which has been the case for awhile now. Phoenix is getting dusty on that shelf. Some of the complaints out here like we will never be able to place high again is crazy. As mentioned before I placed #14 in the last test, definitely in the midst of 5* rosters. It will be possible to place highly in CL8 still, especially when top tier 4* characters are boosted. With R4G and Medusa boosted this week, I foresee I'll be fine, at least in Unstable Iso. 
  • Bowgentle
    Bowgentle Posts: 7,926 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2017
    Milk Jugz said:
    I've heard 5* players say before that boosted 4* are no joke. I also know that the last scaling test I finished #14, I don't have any champ 5s, but as a 3* roster I dumped too much iso into 5s. Now with 32 champ 4s my best 8 characters are still under covered 5*, my top 3 PHX @ 420 3/3/5, IM46 @ 375 5/5/1, CAP @ 360 0/4/3. This change is actually going to reduce my scaling slightly. I do not use my 5* for PVE when I have enough 4* on the boost list, which has been the case for awhile now. Phoenix is getting dusty on that shelf. Some of the complaints out here like we will never be able to place high again is crazy. As mentioned before I placed #14 in the last test, definitely in the midst of 5* rosters. It will be possible to place highly in CL8 still, especially when top tier 4* characters are boosted. With R4G and Medusa boosted this week, I foresee I'll be fine, at least in Unstable Iso. 
    Grocket isn't boosted.
    Medusa on her own is slow.
    Good luck, the 4* boosted list isn't great for Unstable.

    Wait. Cyke. OK yeah.
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2017
    Bowgentle said:
    Milk Jugz said:
    I've heard 5* players say before that boosted 4* are no joke. I also know that the last scaling test I finished #14, I don't have any champ 5s, but as a 3* roster I dumped too much iso into 5s. Now with 32 champ 4s my best 8 characters are still under covered 5*, my top 3 PHX @ 420 3/3/5, IM46 @ 375 5/5/1, CAP @ 360 0/4/3. This change is actually going to reduce my scaling slightly. I do not use my 5* for PVE when I have enough 4* on the boost list, which has been the case for awhile now. Phoenix is getting dusty on that shelf. Some of the complaints out here like we will never be able to place high again is crazy. As mentioned before I placed #14 in the last test, definitely in the midst of 5* rosters. It will be possible to place highly in CL8 still, especially when top tier 4* characters are boosted. With R4G and Medusa boosted this week, I foresee I'll be fine, at least in Unstable Iso. 
    Grocket isn't boosted.
    Medusa on her own is slow.
    Good luck, the 4* boosted list isn't great for Unstable.

    Wait. Cyke. OK yeah.
    Oh yeah, forgot R4G was just featured. Either way, I'll be fine I have SL champed too. So he makes things a little easier reducing ap costs
  • DarthDeVo
    DarthDeVo Posts: 2,178 Chairperson of the Boards
    Spudgutter said:
    DarthDeVo said:
    Rod5 said:
    sh81 said:
    Rod5 said:
    I don't think most actually resent the softcappers/4* rosters for winning PvE because their enemies were under-powered.

    What I do think people resent is any of those same players moaning now it's been fixed and their unfair advantage taken away.


    And this here is exactly my issue.

    Just because 5* players have an unfair disadvantage, it doesnt mean 4* players have an unfair advantage.

    Again, it doesnt need to be either/or, we dont need to be divided.

    The game has sucked for you?  That sucks.  Doesnt mean Ive been given a free ride, or been gaming the system, or been offered a golden challice to rewards I do not deserve.

    It just means youve had it bad.


    Yes, we've had it bad in PvE. Now it's a level playing field. So it's fine. And fair. You find it too hard, drop a CL. I genuinely don't see your point.
    Drop a CL? To where? CL6, where they don't even give a 4* in progression? How, pray tell, is that supposed to help my 4* development? Guess I'll just do that, stay right where I am in terms of roster development and suck up the rewards that should be going to 3* rosters. Yeah, real great solution. 

    It's a poor design that has SCL 8 open for ranks 52 and above when the cap is 125. That's more than half of all ranks crammed into one level. They need to open SCL 9 and 10 to space things out, rather than cramming all players at the 3* tier and above into the two final SCLs.

    I'm with @sh81. Why not find a solution that works for everyone? Or has PvE been so bad for you for so long that you really don't care if this screws over another class of players who've apparently had it too good for too long? 
    The problem, aside from everyone's hyperbolic responses, is that we are talking about the top 10 in a bracket.  1%.  You can't really make the claim that it "screw over another class of players," when it is a fraction of the playerbase.  We can all agree that opening up cl9 and cl10 should help, so aim your issues at the devs for that.  In the mean time, there are plenty of 5* rosters playing longer just because they improved their roster.   Just like in pvp, our goal as a playerbase should be to push the devs toward a system that is equitable and fair for as many as possible, and that it keeps newcomers and vets as engaged as possible. 
    It's not just overall placement though, it goes down to daily sub placement as well. People are gonna get pushed out there too, cutting down on daily resources. 

    Or they're gonna drop a CL or two to maintain those rewards, shoving 3* players out of rewards. Domino effect. 

    Look, I'm glad this fixes things for high-end rosters. I would like to be there someday myself. And I would like as many people to enjoy this game as possible. More people playing makes it more likely the game continues in the future.

    Its just unfortunate it comes at the expense of others, when there's a pretty obvious solution that would benefit more people overall.

    I find it particularly interesting you mentioned the potential change to PvP rewards. It's a different side of the same coin. A great majority seemed to enjoy the change and a small, but vocal, contingent of players vehemently detested and protested the test because it had a negative impact on their rewards and the development to their roster. 

    I was one of the ones who greatly preferred the change, but sympathized with those negatively impacted by the change and said the devs needed to find a way to restore the CP to those who had been hitting 1200. A hybrid points/progression system was a good solution that seemed a nice compromise. 

    The longer this particular argument drags on though, the more I'm inclined to push the devs to change PvP to the test as soon as possible, just the way it was, with absolutely no changes. After all, it's only a small portion of the player base who is affected. Who cares what they think, or how much it sets them back?

    Maybe if some players feel the sting of losing the rewards they've become accustomed to, they'll be a little more sympathetic when it happens to others and push for compromises that work for the benefit of all, rather than one segment of the player base over another. 
  • Wumpushunter
    Wumpushunter Posts: 627 Critical Contributor
    Rod5 said:
    You choose the level of enemies you fight...how can that possibly be unfair?
    You choose the enemies but you must also choose the reward and now the two don't mesh anymore.  Lots will be pushed from 8 to 7, those in 7 will be pushed down to 6 and 6 people can't do anything because CL5 rewards won't progress their game.

    There are a half dozen ways to fix pve, this change is lazy and benefits one group on backs of another. 

    1. fold placement into progression.
    2. add higher CLS
    3. cut brackets down from 1000 
    4. Lock out characters based on CL
  • Rod5
    Rod5 Posts: 598 Critical Contributor
    Wumpushunter said:
    Rod5 said:
    You choose the level of enemies you fight...how can that possibly be unfair?
    You choose the enemies but you must also choose the reward and now the two don't mesh anymore.  Lots will be pushed from 8 to 7, those in 7 will be pushed down to 6 and 6 people can't do anything because CL5 rewards won't progress their game.

    There are a half dozen ways to fix pve, this change is lazy and benefits one group on backs of another. 

    1. fold placement into progression.
    2. add higher CLS
    3. cut brackets down from 1000 
    4. Lock out characters based on CL
    Notwithstanding that softcapped rosters should never have been earning the rewards they have in the first place, I agree with a lot of that. 

    1) and 2) are absolutely the right way to go. Placement in PvE is and has always been a nonsense really. 

    3) won't happen and 4) won't change much - big rosters have 4*s well into the 300s, quite a few have 370s.
  • Rod5
    Rod5 Posts: 598 Critical Contributor

    DarthDeVo said:
    Rod5 said:
    sh81 said:
    Rod5 said:
    I don't think most actually resent the softcappers/4* rosters for winning PvE because their enemies were under-powered.

    What I do think people resent is any of those same players moaning now it's been fixed and their unfair advantage taken away.


    And this here is exactly my issue.

    Just because 5* players have an unfair disadvantage, it doesnt mean 4* players have an unfair advantage.

    Again, it doesnt need to be either/or, we dont need to be divided.

    The game has sucked for you?  That sucks.  Doesnt mean Ive been given a free ride, or been gaming the system, or been offered a golden challice to rewards I do not deserve.

    It just means youve had it bad.


    Yes, we've had it bad in PvE. Now it's a level playing field. So it's fine. And fair. You find it too hard, drop a CL. I genuinely don't see your point.
    Drop a CL? To where? CL6, where they don't even give a 4* in progression? How, pray tell, is that supposed to help my 4* development? Guess I'll just do that, stay right where I am in terms of roster development and suck up the rewards that should be going to 3* rosters. Yeah, real great solution. 

    It's a poor design that has SCL 8 open for ranks 52 and above when the cap is 125. That's more than half of all ranks crammed into one level. They need to open SCL 9 and 10 to space things out, rather than cramming all players at the 3* tier and above into the two final SCLs.

    I'm with @sh81. Why not find a solution that works for everyone? Or has PvE been so bad for you for so long that you really don't care if this screws over another class of players who've apparently had it too good for too long? 
    I'm in 5* land, I don't get 5* rewards, that's not how it works. 

    They should and will open up higher CLs, and I look forward to it.

    Until then folks need to adjust their expectations, yes they've had it very good for a long time.
  • revskip
    revskip Posts: 1,158 Chairperson of the Boards
    DesertTortoise said:
    Wumpushunter said:
    New McG said:
    Wumpushunter said:
    Sorry for using forum terms incorrectly. Slumming is the problem and it is not some simple issue that only impacts a few people. 
    Yes, and it impacts many, many in a positive light. Judging from your post in the SHIELD rewards thread, you've been playing just shy of a year. Do you really think you should be automatically locked into competing for the highest level rewards against the highest levelled rosters in every single event? Against vets that have spent 3 years more than you building them up?

    High end rosters (which does not include my very above average one nearly to the same degree) have been penalized for years if they had the audacity to take the best characters to max level. On a level playing field (i.e. the same enemies, not exponentially higher scaled ones) they SHOULD reap the best rewards. That's what a high end roster should allow you to do.
    The best rewards in CL 8 not 5 or 6, or do you advocate taking candy from babies?  Should the great 5 stars take top 10 in every CL?
    It's better for the game that players are given the choice what rewards and challenges are worth their time rather than having the game punish you for pushing your roster above a certain level. As it stood, boosted 4-star heavy rosters were the kings of PvE, which was ridiculous, and now it's rosters with champed 5-stars which is more fitting. I'm not sure why you think someone who has a roster that has played four times longer than you owes you a reason for wanting to go down an SCL if they deem it to be a better use of their time. 
    Down one SCL is one thing.  Down two SCLs is a different thing.  Down more than that is pretty scummy in my opinion.  I don't mind competition and I don't mind giving up rewards in my preferred SCL for my 4* roster.  But dropping down to  SCL 6 or below is not really sporting.  
  • DarthDeVo
    DarthDeVo Posts: 2,178 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2017
    Rod5 said:
    Wumpushunter said:
    Rod5 said:
    You choose the level of enemies you fight...how can that possibly be unfair?
    You choose the enemies but you must also choose the reward and now the two don't mesh anymore.  Lots will be pushed from 8 to 7, those in 7 will be pushed down to 6 and 6 people can't do anything because CL5 rewards won't progress their game.

    There are a half dozen ways to fix pve, this change is lazy and benefits one group on backs of another. 

    1. fold placement into progression.
    2. add higher CLS
    3. cut brackets down from 1000 
    4. Lock out characters based on CL
    Notwithstanding that softcapped rosters should never have been earning the rewards they have in the first place, I agree with a lot of that. 

    1) and 2) are absolutely the right way to go. Placement in PvE is and has always been a nonsense really. 

    3) won't happen and 4) won't change much - big rosters have 4*s well into the 300s, quite a few have 370s.
    Who's talking about soft capping? Some people do that, I guess, but go ahead and take a look at my roster in my link. It's fairly recent. Tell me where you see the soft capping. Am I choosing to put ISO into my 4* tier before really moving on to the 5* tier? Yeah. That's what I did with the 3* tier before jumping into the 4* tier and for the most part the 2* tier before entering 3* land. If you consider that soft capping rather than natural roster development, then I don't know what to tell you.

    Rod5 said:
    Rod5 said:
    I'm in 5* land, I don't get 5* rewards, that's not how it works. 

    They should and will open up higher CLs, and I look forward to it. 

    Until then folks need to adjust their expectations, yes they've had it very good for a long time.
    I'm aware that's not how it works, and I think it's not very good game design. They need to be opening higher CLs, and it's time to add 5* covers to placement rewards for T5 in CL9 and T10 in CL10. The fact the 5* tier is still purely RNG-based (aside from covers being given out in Daily Resupply after the two year mark) is becoming rapidly outdated as more characters are added to Classic Legends.

    In CL9, 4*s need to be awarded to T20 at least, T50 at least in CL10. Give players something to shoot for, to aspire to. I've got to hand it to you, if I'd essentially reached the end game and had been waiting on them to make some of these changes, I'm not sure how long I would have continued playing. I know I've seen other long-term players drop out waiting for some of these changes.

    But I think they're missing a real opportunity by holding off on CL9 and CL10 for so long. Are you familiar with the movie Field of Dreams and the phrase, "If you build it, they will come."? That's how I feel about 9 and 10. I've seen other people say the reason why they haven't opened up these ranks is because there's not enough players to fill those ranks. But it seems to me that players reach the "end game" and lose interest, and stop playing because there's nowhere for them to go.

    So there's not enough people to open 9 and 10, but players stop playing because there's no 9 and 10. So there's not enough players to open 9 and 10... vicious circle, self-fulfilling prophecy and all that. People only have so much patience. I say, start with opening 9 with enemies that max out at 400 and see how that goes. 

    Will that take a little longer to clear than SCL 8? Sure, but there's a chance for a guaranteed 5* for T5 and 4* covers out to T20. Also, drop the 3* covers from progression and have two 4* covers at that level. While 3* covers don't hurt, 4* covers are a bigger help to rosters at that level. Bump up ISO, CP, HP, etc.

    Would that be enough to entice people to sacrifice a little extra time on longer clears? Maybe. Maybe not. I know that would be appealing to me, at least. Maybe those rewards are too generous and not realistic. At any rate, I'd at least like to see them try, or something similar.
  • Pylgrim
    Pylgrim Posts: 2,332 Chairperson of the Boards
    It is interesting to see how, going by all the "but my placement!!" posts, apparently the top 10 of any given bracket is achieved by, somehow, dozens of people.
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    acescracked said:
    Let me get this straight.

    Some posters think it's uncool that 5* rosters will have easier clears now and can drop CL's for t20 and better placement.

    Some of those same posters think it's cool that 4* rosters (soft capped or not) had easier clears and could enter higher CL's for t20 and better placement over 5* rosters.

    Do I have those positions correct?
    I think that's the position some are taking. Apparently 5*s have it good enough already, and don't deserve to place well in PVE. (I guess I can investigate further with the extra 7-10 hours a week I'll have once I get in the SCL scaling event in a few hours.)
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    Wumpushunter said:
    Rod5 said:
    You choose the level of enemies you fight...how can that possibly be unfair?
    You choose the enemies but you must also choose the reward and now the two don't mesh anymore.  Lots will be pushed from 8 to 7, those in 7 will be pushed down to 6 and 6 people can't do anything because CL5 rewards won't progress their game.

    There are a half dozen ways to fix pve, this change is lazy and benefits one group on backs of another. 

    1. fold placement into progression.
    2. add higher CLS
    3. cut brackets down from 1000 
    4. Lock out characters based on CL
    Best of luck on getting those changes.

    Based on the changes they made to 8 for the permanent change, (dropping enemy levels by a lot), most 5s will now probably still be in 8. If they dropped lower in the test runs, it's because 8 wasn't appreciably easier than it already was for lots of folks in the 4-5 transition or low 5* realm, with close to level 400 or so enemies still being there. Why not drop down, when the drop to 7 made things laughably easy? Lower 300s looks to be a significant improvement in difficulty for my 4* roster, and I'm sure that will be enough to keep most 5s in SCL 8, while still shortening clear times by a noteworthy chunk of time. 

    My guess is, you can take a 4* roster, drop into 7, still have a decent shot at 4* rewards, and not have to deal with too many 5* players dropping below 8.

Categories