Would you be in favor of Hero level caps on different SCLs in PVE?

Rod5

zodiac339 said:

I would suggest each SCL have its own cap rather than the same cap being applied to two SCLs. I had actually made a post in Suggestions about those caps. I think they were about 16% above the enemy caps? Interestingly, that put SCL6 at a hero cap of 255, right at the starting point for Epics. Boosts would not apply after the cap; heros could be boosted up to, but not exceed that cap. SCL8 would have no cap at first, but would have one of 385 once SCL9 was released.
I disagree that coding would be a nightmare for this. It seems to me that a code saying "scale hero down to [set level]" would be easier than "average [top 5 heroes], multiply enemy level node 4 by [average * factor], multiply enemy node 5 by [average * factor], multiply enemy node 6 by [average * factor], etc.
Naturally there are those who dislike the idea. They felt punished before for strengthening their rosters (and it tended to sound like they were due to poor balance in scaling), and feel like they would be punished for it again (they would not, this would maintain a balanced experience for those players playing within their intended SCL, while allowing full power to those playing at max level). They want to take less time playing, and playing with heroes only 30 instead of 130 levels above the enemy is slower (I have zero sympathy; you shouldn't expect to get through 36 mission clears in 20-30 minutes). They want to avoid their peers? (Again, zero sympathy if that's the plan.)
I like the idea and would like to see it at least tested.

Ignorance is bliss. You have zero idea how painful the scaling was for 5* rosters. Try fighting Dark Avengers with 60k+ health, for the same rewards as someone who is fighting an enemy 200 levels lower. Total nonsense. 

The issue is only that CL9/10 aren't yet open. 

zodiac339

Yes

Rod5 said:

zodiac339 said:

I would suggest each SCL have its own cap rather than the same cap being applied to two SCLs. I had actually made a post in Suggestions about those caps. I think they were about 16% above the enemy caps? Interestingly, that put SCL6 at a hero cap of 255, right at the starting point for Epics. Boosts would not apply after the cap; heros could be boosted up to, but not exceed that cap. SCL8 would have no cap at first, but would have one of 385 once SCL9 was released.
I disagree that coding would be a nightmare for this. It seems to me that a code saying "scale hero down to [set level]" would be easier than "average [top 5 heroes], multiply enemy level node 4 by [average * factor], multiply enemy node 5 by [average * factor], multiply enemy node 6 by [average * factor], etc.
Naturally there are those who dislike the idea. They felt punished before for strengthening their rosters (and it tended to sound like they were due to poor balance in scaling), and feel like they would be punished for it again (they would not, this would maintain a balanced experience for those players playing within their intended SCL, while allowing full power to those playing at max level). They want to take less time playing, and playing with heroes only 30 instead of 130 levels above the enemy is slower (I have zero sympathy; you shouldn't expect to get through 36 mission clears in 20-30 minutes). They want to avoid their peers? (Again, zero sympathy if that's the plan.)
I like the idea and would like to see it at least tested.

Ignorance is bliss. You have zero idea how painful the scaling was for 5* rosters. Try fighting Dark Avengers with 60k+ health, for the same rewards as someone who is fighting an enemy 200 levels lower. Total nonsense. 

The issue is only that CL9/10 aren't yet open. 

No, I don't know the experience. I imagine it's still a bit simpler than using 300K boosted heroes vs 300K boosted heroes in a long PVP grind, but my ignorance I hope is more forgivable than how the issue of scaling was ignored for so long before any change was made.
I don't believe in the devs enough to see SCL9/10 as a solution. Considering how they barely changed top 10 rewards and spared a few extra CP in progression, even moving 4*s into top 20 sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else. They could surprise everyone of course and move those 4s to top 50. They could move CP progression up by 15 from 8. That might do it. But I still believe players in the early 450s will see level 400 enemies and decide they'd rather just drop down, and all the way to 7, rather than get any sense of what they'd finally managed to escape with SCL difficulty.

Rod5

I suspect that the majority of players who like me have 5s but aren't monsters still value a significant upside of CP over some time-saving.

There's a reason we have rosters like this, and it's not because we shy away from grind 

zodiac339

Yes

Rod5 said:

I suspect that the majority of players who like me have 5s but aren't monsters still value a significant upside of CP over some time-saving.

There's a reason we have rosters like this, and it's not because we shy away from grind 

That's good to hear. There have been so many loud voices (how should I describe vehement typing?) saying "don't want to grind" "less time playing", it ends up feeling like everyone expects to spend 30 minutes or less and get everything handed to them. And of course, like I said, the historical increases in rewards don't suggest that a future increase will be seen as significant. Sorry, no, you were reponding to the last part about not wanting to feel a hint of the sting of old scaling. I have some hope that rewards will be good enough a draw if no other solition is found.
Thing is, unfortunately, that there are also those who belong in SCL8 who will drop for competition as well. I'm guilty of looking at 5s dropping as a problem, but 4s are a problem too. Partly to escape 5s if they can, but even if 5s move up to SCL9, dropping down will become a bad habit to break.
...I wonder how they plan to handle SCL9 PVP?

Borstock

No

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.

And that is the problem attitude. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting it. Nobody's stopping me from guaranteeing that people can't even compete at the level they're expected to be in." Reversal of injustice does not make one just. It makes one petty.

There's nothing petty about it. If I make the choice to have an easier time in the game and willingly forfeit the better rewards, there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe I don't want to spend the time one event burning through health packs and grinding against high level opponents. Maybe I want the game to be a little easier for a few days. Maybe I want to play with unboosted portions of my roster. Everyone can choose to do it, which makes it fair, not petty. 

And for the record, I've never done it. I always compete in the highest CL offered, which now has me competing against stronger rosters than my own regularly. 

Ah, then you aren't a tier 5 player who had been suffering from inbalanced scaling. I too remain in SCL 8, which holds the same levels I was facing before (aside from 2* required Hey Demi! Please cap that so our 2-stars aren't a burden!) I try to resist the temptation to compete down. Top 100 on a release gets me all I actually need.
The issue, you understand, isn't "having an easier time". It's "hitting below your weight class". Many players are simply unable to play up to the highest tier, so they have nowhere else to go and belong in SCL 7 or 6 (or lower, development depending) they deserve a place to develop with fair chance to compete with their peers while developing. They can no longer hit upwards with the old scaling and still compete with veterans, if they were. They must stay in the lower zone until ready to advance. Every cover they can manage to get helps that, and so placing is important for them to get there. With no actual leash of any kind (I truly doubt reward differences will ever be significant enough to change things), competition with their peers is taken away. Stronger rosters encroach where they don't belong and, with little effort, eliminate the chance to place. I could do it. I know I could. Even in 8, Grockmora with Medusa cuts through missions like the Scythe of Death. If I went to 7, facing enemies with far less health, I would be part of the problem. With capping, not denying a roster, but bringing what tou have in line with intended difficulty within the tier, I would still be murdering missions probably, but it would at least give the players who actually belong there a fighting chance.

I don't see the point. You've stated Top 100 rewards are all you need. How many people are really committing to lower levels on a regular basis in every single slice that they're destroying the lower tiers by 100 slots?

Is that really what's happening?

Rod5

It's simple - it's got to be worth it. The reason why so many, myself included, were happy about the PvE scaling changes is because we feel that the rewards we get are commensurate with effort.

if there are 20-30 CP+ available in CL9, people will just go. It's a no-brainer.

RedLion

No

No. No. And may I add just one more thing? No.

The devs have given us the option of controlling our playtime (to a degree). I've been playing in SCL 8 because of the extra rewards AND because I've got plenty of playtime. But sometimes my schedule can't give that kind of playtime, so I need to be able to dial down to 7 or 6. That freedom is worth a lot to me. 

zodiac339

Yes

Borstock said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.

And that is the problem attitude. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting it. Nobody's stopping me from guaranteeing that people can't even compete at the level they're expected to be in." Reversal of injustice does not make one just. It makes one petty.

There's nothing petty about it. If I make the choice to have an easier time in the game and willingly forfeit the better rewards, there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe I don't want to spend the time one event burning through health packs and grinding against high level opponents. Maybe I want the game to be a little easier for a few days. Maybe I want to play with unboosted portions of my roster. Everyone can choose to do it, which makes it fair, not petty. 

And for the record, I've never done it. I always compete in the highest CL offered, which now has me competing against stronger rosters than my own regularly. 

Ah, then you aren't a tier 5 player who had been suffering from inbalanced scaling. I too remain in SCL 8, which holds the same levels I was facing before (aside from 2* required Hey Demi! Please cap that so our 2-stars aren't a burden!) I try to resist the temptation to compete down. Top 100 on a release gets me all I actually need.
The issue, you understand, isn't "having an easier time". It's "hitting below your weight class". Many players are simply unable to play up to the highest tier, so they have nowhere else to go and belong in SCL 7 or 6 (or lower, development depending) they deserve a place to develop with fair chance to compete with their peers while developing. They can no longer hit upwards with the old scaling and still compete with veterans, if they were. They must stay in the lower zone until ready to advance. Every cover they can manage to get helps that, and so placing is important for them to get there. With no actual leash of any kind (I truly doubt reward differences will ever be significant enough to change things), competition with their peers is taken away. Stronger rosters encroach where they don't belong and, with little effort, eliminate the chance to place. I could do it. I know I could. Even in 8, Grockmora with Medusa cuts through missions like the Scythe of Death. If I went to 7, facing enemies with far less health, I would be part of the problem. With capping, not denying a roster, but bringing what tou have in line with intended difficulty within the tier, I would still be murdering missions probably, but it would at least give the players who actually belong there a fighting chance.

I don't see the point. You've stated Top 100 rewards are all you need. How many people are really committing to lower levels on a regular basis in every single slice that they're destroying the lower tiers by 100 slots?

Is that really what's happening?

On a release, yes. Top 100. For me in my SCL. The thing is, even for releases, I have stayed in my SCL. Every person that drops down out of their own SCL means one more person playing that lower SCL pushed out of the top 100 for a release, while the invaders rush their way into top 10. Every person who moves in their takes with them an unfair advantage over the ones who belong. And for non-releases, it's so much worse, due to the reward structure as it was designed. SCL7 just gets some tokens if they don't make top 50. That is a problem, and like the scaling, it's the developers' fault, but they aren't fixing it. For every 3-4 players players with Epic champs taking top spots in 7, there's another 15-20 with developed Legendaries, all of them pushing players who belong in 7 out of that top 50, denying them covers they probably need for development and following event.
If you're in 8, and have a roster that belongs there, should stay there when 9 opens, you may not be pushed out of top 100, or even top 50, but how aggravating will it be to see top ten still dominated by tier 5 players hitting down for placement on a regular basis, with no kind of equalizing force to give you any reasonable chance?
I'm satisfied with top 100 release and the cover needed for full play on the following event. But I want a reasonable chance to truly compete at my tier once 9 is open.

purplemur

No

It's been pointed out how imbalanced the first 5 tiers are; that part of the game goes quick! resources(except for HP&CP) are abundant. In a reasonable alliance the Elites keep you going. Getting 1x3* cover is not that big a deal vs 3x3*s, the HP rewards are staggered by like 50 per drop, so 200hp vs 100hp is also not that crucial. I don't believe that scl3-5 is that affected by poaching. 

Just because I have access as a 3* player to SCL6 does not mean I am getting t10. to place in most of these lower tiers you still have to have a deep roster(or get lucky on req'ds), know your team combos, grind hard;at the right time, have surplus healthpacks and generally get lucky on drops. The players that desperately need those t10 scl5/6 covers are not , nor were they the ones getting them. It was always players with better rosters. If someone who's Patch is 60 levels above mine is gonna clear quicker than me and they prolly don't need those 2 extra SW covers, but I need em to champ her; thats not unfair, that's unreasonable expectations.

Devs have it set up so this game always keeps you just out of needed resources and then when you are caught up, "ohhh whats that I can just earn a 4* through progression instead of spending my 20cp on a gamble....hmm maybe i'll go for scl7 afterall, I don't need 2 extra covers of a 3* i've just got champed" is why I play in 7/8 as a solid t200 player, should I expect to crack t50 with my weak roster? my roster is probably suited for a t10 scl6, I could probably have a better roster if I kept to my peer level, but I am enticed upwards by better rewards

If I missed on release t100 so won't make progression anyway, and work is grinding me harder than venom bomb, and I have family stuff on saturday, let me salvage some exp and iso and play at an easier pace. It's not malicious, it's not robbing newbs and mr. burns-ing it while I gather ALL the rewards. i'm just trying to play the game and have fun as well as I can.

Free will, let players punch up, let lazy players slum it in scl3, Not everyone plays the same style as you or has the same goals as you. Really the only thing that's unfair about the game is the progression thresholds, bring those out of the sadism dungeon to 3 or 4 clears and players would play in higher brackets.

tl/dr: its a made up problem. cuz 'merica. no iso&no exp makes homer go crazy. grind so hard.

Wumpushunter

Yes

zulux21 said:

no, it's nice to be able to freely level characters that I like and play what ever PVE level that I feel like facing for the rewards I want.

the solution should be one of the following 2 things instead. (or even both of them)

A. remove placement in general and make all the rewards purely progression.
B. Make SCL8's rewards quite a bit better to actually make the increase in difficulty and effort worth it.

as the rewards currently are you are asking if someone wants to walk across the street for $100 vs run 5 miles for $110. Sure for some people running 5 miles isn't much harder than walking across the street, but in general people would rather just walk across the street :P

it's always been a major problem for SCL8, that the increase in rewards are absolutely pathetic compared to SCL7.

Make the rewards too good and you create a massive gulf between those already in 8 and the rest of the game. A small group will demand new content just for them 6 stars,  CL 10, and more.

animaniactoo

No

I voted no, primarily because I feel like it's not one of the better solutions to this issue. The game overall is struggling with big picture balance and I think this would only exacerbate it.

I agree with some of the other points being made in this thread about SCL scaling not being a true measure of roster strength, but I think that having SCL scaling at least allows people the option to determine the opponents they're fighting against - and being able to choose to fight against opponents that you can handle with the amount of time that you have and the roster you actually have.

One of the most important things I think that's missed here is that an undercovered level 200 4* - particularly a boosted one - far outstrips a fully covered level 200 3* with few exceptions. So limiting to "max level" still leaves that roster imbalance in play.

-------------------

What I would support:

• At SCL 7, lockout all 4*s except those on the boosted list. at SCL 6, lockout all of the 5*s as well. Players who have 5 star rosters and are beyond the initial 4* transition should have developed enough 3*s to still be able to clear the lower level enemies quickly enough, and retain an advantage over players whose 3* rosters are still in early to mid progress. It should also address the issue that some of them have mentioned here: the lack of incentive for using their lower level/star characters. 

• Reconfiguring the time slices to run every 4 hours giving players much more flexibility in finding one that works for them instead of their prime time being dropped into the middle of a 7 hour gap, removing the necessity to get through the clears faster.

• Reconfiguring node refresh times/max clears to cycle 3 initial clears for full points, additional clears at 8 hour refreshes for full points, 6 total clears. 1 additional clear available as grind, no 2-3 pt grinding. Alternatively, 3 initial clears, 12 hours to refresh, 2 additional clears available for full points then, 6 total clears.

Because I think the biggest issue with "spending less time in the game" is (apart from a general QOL issue) is the need to spend such a dedicated chunk all at one time around the end/beginning clear cycle.

zodiac339

Yes

animaniactoo said:

• At SCL 7, lockout all 4*s except those on the boosted list. at SCL 6, lockout all of the 5*s as well. Players who have 5 star rosters and are beyond the initial 4* transition should have developed enough 3*s to still be able to clear the lower level enemies quickly enough, and retain an advantage over players whose 3* rosters are still in early to mid progress. It should also address the issue that some of them have mentioned here: the lack of incentive for using their lower level/star characters. 
.

Roster lockout sucks hard. It made Heroic PVE awful. The advantage of having a roster of 4* set at 200 or 255, equal in level to the 3*s being used in the SCL against level 230 enemies is nowhere near the same adavantage as having a level 385 boosted 4* or 450 plus champion 5*, and it doesn't merit completely denying someone from using what they have. Besides which, some of the strongest 4* combos in the game currently remain at increased odds, and a lot of non-veterans are taking great advantage of that, having almost nothing of the older 4*s, but still cleaning house with the new ones. I judge roster denial as far more unfair than level capping.

 

• Reconfiguring the time slices to run every 4 hours giving players much more flexibility in finding one that works for them instead of their prime time being dropped into the middle of a 7 hour gap, removing the necessity to get through the clears faster.

It has some merit. Unfortunately, the issue is that time slice dilution would make brackets even harder to fill than they already are. Might be doable, but we need to get the next 2 SCLs before such a reconfiguration is considered. If all 10 SCLs were adequately filled, they they could test it. (Has nothing to do with the thread subject though)

• Reconfiguring node refresh times/max clears to cycle 3 initial clears for full points, additional clears at 8 hour refreshes for full points, 6 total clears. 1 additional clear available as grind, no 2-3 pt grinding. Alternatively, 3 initial clears, 12 hours to refresh, 2 additional clears available for full points then, 6 total clears.

Like the above, not relative to the thread. Also, We already escaped from that setup. While dedicating a 2~3 hour block to PVE clears (competitively) can be tiring, the 8-hour schedule was honestly harder to work with. It meant clear times would occur some time during most work schedules, during school hours, or that you'd have to wake up earlier than otherwise necessary all to compete. It was exhausting and bad for a well-adjusted life.

animaniactoo

No

#1 - that's the price you pay for dropping down a bracket. Or not being able to develop "ahead of the game" as it were. Your choice now that you can pick the enemies you're fighting against.

#2 - this dilution argument is interesting to me since I've been following the bracket flip sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g24uo61ITTveZrUGx4ZY5nMoJp-n1NCxq5r4WMhAJU0/edit#gid=0 - there seem to be plenty of brackets filling, but they do seem to be rather uneven. I suspect 1 & 5 would even out with an additional bracket somewhere between 3 & 4.

#3 - Escaped under previous roster scaling for PVE. If you can choose your enemies and are no longer spending so much time doing a clear (or batch of clears) I suspect the 8 hour clears are going to be less of an issue for the well-adjusted life. Particularly in combo with better flexibility for #2.

zodiac339

Yes

animaniactoo said:

#1 - that's the price you pay for dropping down a bracket. Or not being able to develop "ahead of the game" as it were. Your choice now that you can pick the enemies you're fighting against.

#2 - this dilution argument is interesting to me since I've been following the bracket flip sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g24uo61ITTveZrUGx4ZY5nMoJp-n1NCxq5r4WMhAJU0/edit#gid=0 - there seem to be plenty of brackets filling, but they do seem to be rather uneven. I suspect 1 & 5 would even out with an additional bracket somewhere between 3 & 4.

#3 - Escaped under previous roster scaling for PVE. If you can choose your enemies and are no longer spending so much time doing a clear (or batch of clears) I suspect the 8 hour clears are going to be less of an issue for the well-adjusted life. Particularly in combo with better flexibility for #2.

#1 would also be the "price you pay" for playing where you belong, being kept from what you earn for months while working up to SCL8. PVP is not a viable place to use uncovered 4*s, and with the idea of 4*s being straight locked out, players developing would just be staring at them all that time. And with the enemy levels in SCL8 like they are, even getting the rank to enter that SCL wouldn't let many people effectively play for a while. That's some long term reduction in the fun of having characters.

#3 It has nothing to do with scaling making it slower to play. It's that people with a normal life can't go in to make clears on a strict 8-hour schedule regardless of how quickly they can clear it. I was talking about interruption of work and sleep. Speed of clears doesn't change that problem.

Bowgentle

zodiac339 said:

animaniactoo said:

#1 - that's the price you pay for dropping down a bracket. Or not being able to develop "ahead of the game" as it were. Your choice now that you can pick the enemies you're fighting against.

#2 - this dilution argument is interesting to me since I've been following the bracket flip sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g24uo61ITTveZrUGx4ZY5nMoJp-n1NCxq5r4WMhAJU0/edit#gid=0 - there seem to be plenty of brackets filling, but they do seem to be rather uneven. I suspect 1 & 5 would even out with an additional bracket somewhere between 3 & 4.

#3 - Escaped under previous roster scaling for PVE. If you can choose your enemies and are no longer spending so much time doing a clear (or batch of clears) I suspect the 8 hour clears are going to be less of an issue for the well-adjusted life. Particularly in combo with better flexibility for #2.

#1 would also be the "price you pay" for playing where you belong, being kept from what you earn for months while working up to SCL8. PVP is not a viable place to use uncovered 4*s, and with the idea of 4*s being straight locked out, players developing would just be staring at them all that time. And with the enemy levels in SCL8 like they are, even getting the rank to enter that SCL wouldn't let many people effectively play for a while. That's some long term reduction in the fun of having characters.

#3 It has nothing to do with scaling making it slower to play. It's that people with a normal life can't go in to make clears on a strict 8-hour schedule regardless of how quickly they can clear it. I was talking about interruption of work and sleep. Speed of clears doesn't change that problem.

#3 but it does?
You can take a ten minute toilet break every 8 hours.
Doing 60 minutes for end grind plus initial grind is a bit harder.

Qubort

No

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.

And that is the problem attitude. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting it. Nobody's stopping me from guaranteeing that people can't even compete at the level they're expected to be in." Reversal of injustice does not make one just. It makes one petty.

Injustice? If someone moves down a tier they've excepted lesser rewards to play at that level. I find it funny that strategy is now considered an exploit. There is an inherit advantage to have a stronger roster in any game.

Qubort

No

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.

And that is the problem attitude. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting it. Nobody's stopping me from guaranteeing that people can't even compete at the level they're expected to be in." Reversal of injustice does not make one just. It makes one petty.

There's nothing petty about it. If I make the choice to have an easier time in the game and willingly forfeit the better rewards, there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe I don't want to spend the time one event burning through health packs and grinding against high level opponents. Maybe I want the game to be a little easier for a few days. Maybe I want to play with unboosted portions of my roster. Everyone can choose to do it, which makes it fair, not petty. 

And for the record, I've never done it. I always compete in the highest CL offered, which now has me competing against stronger rosters than my own regularly. 

Ah, then you aren't a tier 5 player who had been suffering from inbalanced scaling. I too remain in SCL 8, which holds the same levels I was facing before (aside from 2* required Hey Demi! Please cap that so our 2-stars aren't a burden!) I try to resist the temptation to compete down. Top 100 on a release gets me all I actually need.
The issue, you understand, isn't "having an easier time". It's "hitting below your weight class". Many players are simply unable to play up to the highest tier, so they have nowhere else to go and belong in SCL 7 or 6 (or lower, development depending) they deserve a place to develop with fair chance to compete with their peers while developing. They can no longer hit upwards with the old scaling and still compete with veterans, if they were. They must stay in the lower zone until ready to advance. Every cover they can manage to get helps that, and so placing is important for them to get there. With no actual leash of any kind (I truly doubt reward differences will ever be significant enough to change things), competition with their peers is taken away. Stronger rosters encroach where they don't belong and, with little effort, eliminate the chance to place. I could do it. I know I could. Even in 8, Grockmora with Medusa cuts through missions like the Scythe of Death. If I went to 7, facing enemies with far less health, I would be part of the problem. With capping, not denying a roster, but bringing what tou have in line with intended difficulty within the tier, I would still be murdering missions probably, but it would at least give the players who actually belong there a fighting chance.

LOL. Why would rosters not belong somewhere? As your roster grows, more of the game is turned off for you?

Qubort

No

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.

And that is the problem attitude. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting it. Nobody's stopping me from guaranteeing that people can't even compete at the level they're expected to be in." Reversal of injustice does not make one just. It makes one petty.

There's nothing petty about it. If I make the choice to have an easier time in the game and willingly forfeit the better rewards, there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe I don't want to spend the time one event burning through health packs and grinding against high level opponents. Maybe I want the game to be a little easier for a few days. Maybe I want to play with unboosted portions of my roster. Everyone can choose to do it, which makes it fair, not petty. 

And for the record, I've never done it. I always compete in the highest CL offered, which now has me competing against stronger rosters than my own regularly. 

Ah, then you aren't a tier 5 player who had been suffering from inbalanced scaling. I too remain in SCL 8, which holds the same levels I was facing before (aside from 2* required Hey Demi! Please cap that so our 2-stars aren't a burden!) I try to resist the temptation to compete down. Top 100 on a release gets me all I actually need.
The issue, you understand, isn't "having an easier time". It's "hitting below your weight class". Many players are simply unable to play up to the highest tier, so they have nowhere else to go and belong in SCL 7 or 6 (or lower, development depending) they deserve a place to develop with fair chance to compete with their peers while developing. They can no longer hit upwards with the old scaling and still compete with veterans, if they were. They must stay in the lower zone until ready to advance. Every cover they can manage to get helps that, and so placing is important for them to get there. With no actual leash of any kind (I truly doubt reward differences will ever be significant enough to change things), competition with their peers is taken away. Stronger rosters encroach where they don't belong and, with little effort, eliminate the chance to place. I could do it. I know I could. Even in 8, Grockmora with Medusa cuts through missions like the Scythe of Death. If I went to 7, facing enemies with far less health, I would be part of the problem. With capping, not denying a roster, but bringing what tou have in line with intended difficulty within the tier, I would still be murdering missions probably, but it would at least give the players who actually belong there a fighting chance.

I don't see the point. You've stated Top 100 rewards are all you need. How many people are really committing to lower levels on a regular basis in every single slice that they're destroying the lower tiers by 100 slots?

Is that really what's happening?

On a release, yes. Top 100. For me in my SCL. The thing is, even for releases, I have stayed in my SCL. Every person that drops down out of their own SCL means one more person playing that lower SCL pushed out of the top 100 for a release, while the invaders rush their way into top 10. Every person who moves in their takes with them an unfair advantage over the ones who belong. And for non-releases, it's so much worse, due to the reward structure as it was designed. SCL7 just gets some tokens if they don't make top 50. That is a problem, and like the scaling, it's the developers' fault, but they aren't fixing it. For every 3-4 players players with Epic champs taking top spots in 7, there's another 15-20 with developed Legendaries, all of them pushing players who belong in 7 out of that top 50, denying them covers they probably need for development and following event.
If you're in 8, and have a roster that belongs there, should stay there when 9 opens, you may not be pushed out of top 100, or even top 50, but how aggravating will it be to see top ten still dominated by tier 5 players hitting down for placement on a regular basis, with no kind of equalizing force to give you any reasonable chance?
I'm satisfied with top 100 release and the cover needed for full play on the following event. But I want a reasonable chance to truly compete at my tier once 9 is open.

The unfair advantage you speak of is they have a better roster. You're suggesting a 3 star player should be able to get 3 covers of a brand new four star while in scl6, while a 4/5 star roster should get zero if they are the 101st best player stuck in 8. That's simply absurd. All that does is encourage soft capping.

zodiac339

Yes

Qubort said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

zodiac339 said:

Borstock said:

Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.

And that is the problem attitude. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting it. Nobody's stopping me from guaranteeing that people can't even compete at the level they're expected to be in." Reversal of injustice does not make one just. It makes one petty.

There's nothing petty about it. If I make the choice to have an easier time in the game and willingly forfeit the better rewards, there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe I don't want to spend the time one event burning through health packs and grinding against high level opponents. Maybe I want the game to be a little easier for a few days. Maybe I want to play with unboosted portions of my roster. Everyone can choose to do it, which makes it fair, not petty. 

And for the record, I've never done it. I always compete in the highest CL offered, which now has me competing against stronger rosters than my own regularly. 

Ah, then you aren't a tier 5 player who had been suffering from inbalanced scaling. I too remain in SCL 8, which holds the same levels I was facing before (aside from 2* required Hey Demi! Please cap that so our 2-stars aren't a burden!) I try to resist the temptation to compete down. Top 100 on a release gets me all I actually need.
The issue, you understand, isn't "having an easier time". It's "hitting below your weight class". Many players are simply unable to play up to the highest tier, so they have nowhere else to go and belong in SCL 7 or 6 (or lower, development depending) they deserve a place to develop with fair chance to compete with their peers while developing. They can no longer hit upwards with the old scaling and still compete with veterans, if they were. They must stay in the lower zone until ready to advance. Every cover they can manage to get helps that, and so placing is important for them to get there. With no actual leash of any kind (I truly doubt reward differences will ever be significant enough to change things), competition with their peers is taken away. Stronger rosters encroach where they don't belong and, with little effort, eliminate the chance to place. I could do it. I know I could. Even in 8, Grockmora with Medusa cuts through missions like the Scythe of Death. If I went to 7, facing enemies with far less health, I would be part of the problem. With capping, not denying a roster, but bringing what tou have in line with intended difficulty within the tier, I would still be murdering missions probably, but it would at least give the players who actually belong there a fighting chance.

I don't see the point. You've stated Top 100 rewards are all you need. How many people are really committing to lower levels on a regular basis in every single slice that they're destroying the lower tiers by 100 slots?

Is that really what's happening?

On a release, yes. Top 100. For me in my SCL. The thing is, even for releases, I have stayed in my SCL. Every person that drops down out of their own SCL means one more person playing that lower SCL pushed out of the top 100 for a release, while the invaders rush their way into top 10. Every person who moves in their takes with them an unfair advantage over the ones who belong. And for non-releases, it's so much worse, due to the reward structure as it was designed. SCL7 just gets some tokens if they don't make top 50. That is a problem, and like the scaling, it's the developers' fault, but they aren't fixing it. For every 3-4 players players with Epic champs taking top spots in 7, there's another 15-20 with developed Legendaries, all of them pushing players who belong in 7 out of that top 50, denying them covers they probably need for development and following event.
If you're in 8, and have a roster that belongs there, should stay there when 9 opens, you may not be pushed out of top 100, or even top 50, but how aggravating will it be to see top ten still dominated by tier 5 players hitting down for placement on a regular basis, with no kind of equalizing force to give you any reasonable chance?
I'm satisfied with top 100 release and the cover needed for full play on the following event. But I want a reasonable chance to truly compete at my tier once 9 is open.

The unfair advantage you speak of is they have a better roster. You're suggesting a 3 star player should be able to get 3 covers of a brand new four star while in scl6, while a 4/5 star roster should get zero if they are the 101st best player stuck in 8. That's simply absurd. All that does is encourage soft capping.

The better roster will still be a better roster. The tier 4-5 player will have fully covered and championed 4*s that can be respecced as needed and access to better combos. The advantage is still there. The unfair part is bringing that down to a tier that's intended for players still developing rosters and who have no better place to go. Players deserve a fighting chance within their intended tier. The veteran will still have an advantage in strength with heroes capped down to 255 vs the player who has a handful that need boosting just to reach the cap, but it's a difference of finishing 10-15 minutes faster capped down vs 40 minutes faster with no limitations. With a level capping system, nobody is "stuck in 8". And none of it encourages softcapping either. Unless you level up, you won't have the option to move up to something better. With a high level roster you can get good rewards, drop down and still have about the best roster there, and move back up next event. The advantage just shouldn't be so overwhelming against players who can't move up and are playing where they're supposed to be.

zulux21

No

Wumpushunter said:

zulux21 said:

no, it's nice to be able to freely level characters that I like and play what ever PVE level that I feel like facing for the rewards I want.

the solution should be one of the following 2 things instead. (or even both of them)

A. remove placement in general and make all the rewards purely progression.
B. Make SCL8's rewards quite a bit better to actually make the increase in difficulty and effort worth it.

as the rewards currently are you are asking if someone wants to walk across the street for $100 vs run 5 miles for $110. Sure for some people running 5 miles isn't much harder than walking across the street, but in general people would rather just walk across the street :P

it's always been a major problem for SCL8, that the increase in rewards are absolutely pathetic compared to SCL7.

Make the rewards too good and you create a massive gulf between those already in 8 and the rest of the game. A small group will demand new content just for them 6 stars,  CL 10, and more.

eh... in general the people that are quite ahead at this point either pay a ton or play a lot more than other people. having more of a gulf is really a non issue as it's already a distance almost no one can catch up.

plus as a long term steam user it isn't like there wasn't years there of being constantly screwed over in terms of resources thanks to facebook connect and shield intercepts. 

I mean at SCL8 you need to have a team of champed 4* to get anywhere so the rewards should be mostly 4* based with a lot more CP to pull more and maybe get some 5*.

SCL9 should be some 4* and a progression 5*
and SCL10 should be focused on 5* to keep building them up.