Difficulty Levels Based on S.H.I.E.L.D. Clearance Levels - Update (8/4/17) *Updated
Comments
-
If the answer is that larger rosters should always win then why should anyone new ever bother to pick up the game? They literally will never be able to win because those who came before will also have larger rosters. People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for?Blindman13 said:
I rarely finish in the top 100 in PVE, and rarely complete at all in PVP, but I have over half the 4*s champed and the rest could be better covered but I'm hoarding CP until I have enough ISO to level them up.Silverblade said:My problem with placement rewards as they are now is that those who lack 4*s will always lack 4*s covered and leveled enough to beat those with built rosters, no matter how fast you try to clear things without optimized and really well covered (read championed) 4*s you won't get more 4*s to actually advance your roster to compete.
So if you don't have championed 4*s (specially Medusa and Thanos) you won't earn 4*s to compete.
It's taking me close to quit because no matter how much I try to compete it feels fruitless.
And the same feeling goes to PVP, since you don't have a strong roster with championed Medusa/C4rol you can't compete to reach 900 points (I have been flatly told that and yes, if is a fact, no matter how hard one tries, it is impossible).
Which is why I loved rewards by wins instead of points.
Getting 4*s from placement in PVE is not going to quickly advance your roster. Even if they give 4*s to the top 50 or 100, one cover every 3/4/7 days won't make or break you.
Additionally, your complaint is that people with smaller rosters can't beat those with larger rosters. Why should they? The game provides plenty of opportunities to progress that don't involve competition with any other player, so you can build your roster up top the same level as those you wish to compete against.7 -
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.0 -
My comment was not about SCLs, more that everyone should expect to be on the same playing field.broll said:
If the answer is that larger rosters should always win then why should anyone new ever bother to pick up the game? They literally will never be able to win because those who came before will also have larger rosters. People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for?Blindman13 said:Getting 4*s from placement in PVE is not going to quickly advance your roster. Even if they give 4*s to the top 50 or 100, one cover every 3/4/7 days won't make or break you.
Additionally, your complaint is that people with smaller rosters can't beat those with larger rosters. Why should they? The game provides plenty of opportunities to progress that don't involve competition with any other player, so you can build your roster up top the same level as those you wish to compete against.
A kid playing basketball in the street should not expect to be able to compete against an NBA player. They build skills against other players of their level and work their way up.
I agree that there should be more stratification in the SCLs, particularly at the top end. Adding 9 and 10 would go a long way toward that.
0 -
I agree with most of what you say.Justice Jacks said:
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
Agree:- SCLs are open to way too low of ranks.
- They should have fixed scaling or had scaling change ready to go with the launch of SCLs.
- Limits to how far people can drop.
The reason I don't think it should be restricted is the devs IMO tend to make mistakes and plan for things poorly. Restrictions to how far you can drop could lead to them overdoing future scaling change to the point where a player is unable to play in the 2-3 SCLs they are locked into. This is especailly true when SR are based on things like opening tokens and not based on strength of roster. It's theoretically possible for someone to level to SR 100 without ever rostering a 4* (in practice it's ludricrous but it's technically possible). If that person were locked into just SCL 7 & 8 they wouldn't be able to play and they'd be in one of the same problems SCL fixed, unreasonable scaling ruining gameplay.
I'm always a fan of let the players chose vs restrict them. Penalize them with lower rewards for dropping, but don't lock it out.2 -
Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.Justice Jacks said:
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.0 -
And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level.Beer40 said:
Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.Justice Jacks said:
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.1 -
Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!!broll said:
And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level.Beer40 said:
Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.Justice Jacks said:
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.
1 -
So you must have rushed a smaller number of heroes to a higher level (level 310 or so Legendaries?). I'm at a slower build, looking to Champ everyone and try to roughly even out their levels with a top 5 from 293 to 287, and scaling from roster topped out my enemies at 330. Perfect for SCL8. My Shield Rank is 106. As far as SR is concerned, the system would give me access to SCL9 if it were out. I'll have to content myself with 8. I'm just not in a rush. Good fortune to those who can handle the jump.Milk Jugz said:
Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!!broll said:
And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level.Beer40 said:
Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.Justice Jacks said:
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.0 -
And this system only works if all characters are equally usable at equivalent rarities, levels, and coverage, or at least close to.aesthetocyst said:
Rank COULD be more of a power rating .... be based literally on a snapshot of your roster (like, sum of rarity • levels for all toons on roster) ... and such a scheme could take buffs into account ... but it doesn't. Such a rating would go up and down depending on buffs, characters being sold.
Or if not, if Demi actually acknowledges that they're not all equal, and assigns a different power rating to each character (again, based on level and coverage, and spec, even) which sounds like way more work than anyone would ever want to commit to. Never mind that it would be tantamount to admitting that some characters suck while others are overly amazing. Which I'm positive they'll never officially do (outside of buffing and nerfing characters, I guess).0 -
Admittedly, I just popped those levels on the fly, without looking at them in great detail, but the point remains. And yes, while CL8 scaling may not have changed for you, your ability to place almost certainly has gone way down because the scaling for many of the bigger rosters has come down 100 levels, so their speed has gone up. As Grunth posted in another thread (a 550 roster), he's playing PVE again. So my point was that the CL should meaningfully balance rewards, placement, and roster strength rather than just be a de minimis threshold where you can join the CL but have no option but to get crushed.Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.
I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.0 -
No, I have 32 champ 4s. 293 is the highest, 271 lowest. Most in the 273-284 range. IDK what I've done for all the xp. I'm usually a green checker, get to 900 in pvp consistently for the last 3-4 seasons, DDQ every day. I've dropped a few starks over the year and a half+, a couple treasures, but mostly just loonies (1/month), and I VIP (For the record, I have no shame supporting something I do EVERY DAY at $30/month, costs me $1/day (not bad for the enjoyment it gives me)). I'm even hoarding LTs and CP for the past 2.5 months, though I have spent some LTs when close to a rank up (100-150 away) to get it (maybe the last 3 ranks). I don't usually buy daily deals unless I need to move my 2 farm faster. I open every token, except legend (barring the previous exception mentioned). IDK, I just haven't missed a day in 600-something days......zodiac339 said:
So you must have rushed a smaller number of heroes to a higher level (level 310 or so Legendaries?). I'm at a slower build, looking to Champ everyone and try to roughly even out their levels with a top 5 from 293 to 287, and scaling from roster topped out my enemies at 330. Perfect for SCL8. My Shield Rank is 106. As far as SR is concerned, the system would give me access to SCL9 if it were out. I'll have to content myself with 8. I'm just not in a rush. Good fortune to those who can handle the jump.Milk Jugz said:
Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!!broll said:
And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level.Beer40 said:
Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.Justice Jacks said:
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.
1 -
Your highest is 293? Why would your enemies go to 370? Gah! How did that scaling system actually work? Our rosters top out at a similar level, but my hard mission is 40 levels below yours. Was.Milk Jugz said:
No, I have 32 champ 4s. 293 is the highest, 271 lowest. Most in the 273-284 range. IDK what I've done for all the xp. I'm usually a green checker, get to 900 in pvp consistently for the last 3-4 seasons, DDQ every day. I've dropped a few starks over the year and a half+, a couple treasures, but mostly just loonies (1/month), and I VIP (For the record, I have no shame supporting something I do EVERY DAY at $30/month, costs me $1/day (not bad for the enjoyment it gives me)). I'm even hoarding LTs and CP for the past 2.5 months, though I have spent some LTs when close to a rank up (100-150 away) to get it (maybe the last 3 ranks). I don't usually buy daily deals unless I need to move my 2 farm faster. I open every token, except legend (barring the previous exception mentioned). IDK, I just haven't missed a day in 600-something days......zodiac339 said:
So you must have rushed a smaller number of heroes to a higher level (level 310 or so Legendaries?). I'm at a slower build, looking to Champ everyone and try to roughly even out their levels with a top 5 from 293 to 287, and scaling from roster topped out my enemies at 330. Perfect for SCL8. My Shield Rank is 106. As far as SR is concerned, the system would give me access to SCL9 if it were out. I'll have to content myself with 8. I'm just not in a rush. Good fortune to those who can handle the jump.Milk Jugz said:
Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!!broll said:
And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level.Beer40 said:
Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.Justice Jacks said:
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.0 -
@zodiac339
@broll
Before I knew better I put iso into 5*, 3/3/5 Phoenix @420, 5/5/1 IM46 @375. Not complaining, she carried me through in 3* land. But PVP sucked until I had a good base of 4* champs.
But, that only explains my scaling, not my SR. You don't earn experience for levels that spend iso.0 -
At first when I saw this update, I though 'oh god, yet another modif coming without paying attention of the community.'
Then I though more carefully... I remembered that I gave a feedback after the trial, that I answered with care and honesty. And in fact they have maid what I asked for.
After testing SCL 8, well... I think this is a good change. For me, this modification has a very little impact and I'm still able to clear the biggest difficulty node. But for new comers, that rather seems an awesome change. Like I said in my test feedback, this change should have been in place from the very beginning of the game.
So, overall, really appreciated. Thanks!1 -
I had the same question. Is 293 your highest overall or do you have some 5*s you leveled higher? My roster is pretty comparable to yours (26 4* champs levels between 287 & 271). I wouldn't think 6 level difference in highest 4*s would equal 60 levels difference in enemy scaling. But who knows, this just further points to roster-based scaling being goofy and I'm glad it's gone.zodiac339 said:
Your highest is 293? Why would your enemies go to 370? Gah! How did that scaling system actually work? Our rosters top out at a similar level, but my hard mission is 40 levels below yours. Was.Milk Jugz said:
No, I have 32 champ 4s. 293 is the highest, 271 lowest. Most in the 273-284 range. IDK what I've done for all the xp. I'm usually a green checker, get to 900 in pvp consistently for the last 3-4 seasons, DDQ every day. I've dropped a few starks over the year and a half+, a couple treasures, but mostly just loonies (1/month), and I VIP (For the record, I have no shame supporting something I do EVERY DAY at $30/month, costs me $1/day (not bad for the enjoyment it gives me)). I'm even hoarding LTs and CP for the past 2.5 months, though I have spent some LTs when close to a rank up (100-150 away) to get it (maybe the last 3 ranks). I don't usually buy daily deals unless I need to move my 2 farm faster. I open every token, except legend (barring the previous exception mentioned). IDK, I just haven't missed a day in 600-something days......zodiac339 said:
So you must have rushed a smaller number of heroes to a higher level (level 310 or so Legendaries?). I'm at a slower build, looking to Champ everyone and try to roughly even out their levels with a top 5 from 293 to 287, and scaling from roster topped out my enemies at 330. Perfect for SCL8. My Shield Rank is 106. As far as SR is concerned, the system would give me access to SCL9 if it were out. I'll have to content myself with 8. I'm just not in a rush. Good fortune to those who can handle the jump.Milk Jugz said:
Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!!broll said:
And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level.Beer40 said:
Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.Justice Jacks said:
I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.
But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.
But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.0 -
Are you guys talking about the regular 6th repeatable mission (or 4* essential)? Not some mission where you're only fighting a single enemy at a much higher level?
For the record, I used to top out at 325 with 35 (wow, I thought it was way less) 4* champs between 271 and 290
0 -
I have 33 4-star champs with the highest being a 309 outlier and a handful at or above level 300. My highest scaled node was 340 before the change.0
-
I'm talking about the 6th regular node, I'm assuming the rest are as wellStarfury said:Are you guys talking about the regular 6th repeatable mission (or 4* essential)? Not some mission where you're only fighting a single enemy at a much higher level?
For the record, I used to top out at 325 with 35 (wow, I thought it was way less) 4* champs between 271 and 2900 -
Sorry if this has been asked and answered already, but...
How will these changes affect alliance events?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