Shield Clearance Levels (SCLs) don't line up with actual roster strength

Jwallyr

OJSP said:

What’s stopping you from playing SCL6 and winning better rewards there? I know from personal experience above that I could win better rewards in SCL6 than even SCL9.

Simple- the only rewards that matter for my progress in the game are 4star covers and CP. Dropping to SCL6 means I get no progression cover and reduced CP, and it means that instead of the 1-10 window for a placement cover I have to be 1st, which means that a *single* 5star slummer leaves me without the primary rewards I want.

At least in SCL7 I can pretty safely nab the progression 4star cover and the higher CP amount. Granted, I'm sure the CP difference is pretty small (can't check because I'm already committed for Webbed Wonder and the next event isn't viewable in-game) but the progression 4star cover is the single biggest gain that's available to me.

Phumade said:

Jwallyr said:

Give appropriate rewards at higher SCLs and the experience improves for everybody, IMO.

You could give LT to the entire top 10 , and there is a very real chunk of veteran players who will say.  "not worth the time and effort to compete for T10,  drop to scl7 and slum it for 25% of the effort.  In fact the better the rewards,  the more competition in 10, means more vets will seek out easier placements in lower brackets.

I'm not suggesting that they should improve the rewards specifically (and only) for extremely high placement in higher SCLs, I'm suggesting that they expand the range at which higher SCLs get better rewards, improve the progression rewards, etc.

Basically, if you're ABLE to play in SCL9 (as opposed to simply being unable to complete nodes) you should have lots of incentive to actually play at that SCL. The fact that higher SCLs are a worse return on your time investment is the problem. Fix that problem and there wouldn't be any reason to slum to lower SCLs.

(Not that I necessarily expect any of this to happen.)

Straycat

You could handicap players who drop below their appropriate SCL. They could use roster scaling and determine what SCL they should play. Then when their placement is calculated, its hit with a negative multiplier. So dropping down SCL means easier time for progression, but a harder time for placement.

Phumade

Jwallyr said:

Basically, if you're ABLE to play in SCL9 (as opposed to simply being unable to complete nodes) you should have lots of incentive to actually play at that SCL. The fact that higher SCLs are a worse return on your time investment is the problem. Fix that problem and there wouldn't be any reason to slum to lower SCLs.

(Not that I necessarily expect any of this to happen.)

Why?  As I stated there is a decent size population that doesn't care about the cover rewards in any one single pvp event.  These players are largely insulated from reward pressure in the same way that some players are post iso.

Yes, We all still need cover and cp to grow rosters,  but that pressure is largely insulated once you are safely in that tier with massive 2*/3*/4* farms.  These players can play according to their schedule, desires, and interest.  They are largely insulated from reward type drivers.

Fundamentally you are projecting your roster needs,  but comp players don't have those concerns and will pick based on convienance and what helps their alliance and friends out the most.

i.e. you keep making an economic argument about players who don't have economic concerns.

shartattack

Straycat said:

You could handicap players who drop below their appropriate SCL. They could use roster scaling and determine what SCL they should play. Then when their placement is calculated, its hit with a negative multiplier. So dropping down SCL means easier time for progression, but a harder time for placement.

Why? they are already handicapped by earning lesser rewards.  No need to over complicate it.  Some people (not me) choose lower scls to reduce the time they need to spend playing pve. They aren't going "hehe, I'm going to steal placement from all the lower rosters! i will taste their tears of defeat!" They just have a different equation for rewards/time spent that they're happy with.

Jwallyr

Phumade said:

Jwallyr said:

Basically, if you're ABLE to play in SCL9 (as opposed to simply being unable to complete nodes) you should have lots of incentive to actually play at that SCL. The fact that higher SCLs are a worse return on your time investment is the problem. Fix that problem and there wouldn't be any reason to slum to lower SCLs.

(Not that I necessarily expect any of this to happen.)

Why?  As I stated there is a decent size population that doesn't care about the cover rewards in any one single pvp event.  These players are largely insulated from reward pressure in the same way that some players are post iso.

Yes, We all still need cover and cp to grow rosters,  but that pressure is largely insulated once you are safely in that tier with massive 2*/3*/4* farms.  These players can play according to their schedule, desires, and interest.  They are largely insulated from reward type drivers.

Fundamentally you are projecting your roster needs,  but comp players don't have those concerns and will pick based on convienance and what helps their alliance and friends out the most.

i.e. you keep making an economic argument about players who don't have economic concerns.

I'm really not at all clear on what you're trying to say here.

I can follow that there must be a lot of players in each bracket that aren't hyper-sensitive to placement rewards, because there have to be ~950 players more or less content with not getting t50 in each bracket, but I have to assume that the primary draw to players continuing to grind through Story mode is at some level rewards-based. I'm not sure how "schedule, desires and interest" make one SCL more or less appealing to a player.

Sure, there will be players that are more casual than others and will therefore gravitate to a lower SCL than the most bleeding-edge competitive players, but that's to be expected. I don't see how that is at all related to whether higher SCLs should have better rewards as a carrot to dangle before players that want to continue to improve their rosters, which is kind of the fundamental basis of the game.

I mean, if you don't have "economic concerns" (by which I think you mean "a desire to build your roster with useful rewards for your current stage of play") I'm not sure why you play the game at all, or above SCL1, because you can stomp SCL1 trivially and read what passes for a storyline if you're completely unconcerned with rewards.

Phumade

Jwallyr said:

I'm really not at all clear on what you're trying to say here.

I can follow that there must be a lot of players in each bracket that aren't hyper-sensitive to placement rewards, because there have to be ~950 players more or less content with not getting t50 in each bracket, but I have to assume that the primary draw to players continuing to grind through Story mode is at some level rewards-based. I'm not sure how "schedule, desires and interest" make one SCL more or less appealing to a player.

Sure, there will be players that are more casual than others and will therefore gravitate to a lower SCL than the most bleeding-edge competitive players, but that's to be expected. I don't see how that is at all related to whether higher SCLs should have better rewards as a carrot to dangle before players that want to continue to improve their rosters, which is kind of the fundamental basis of the game.

I mean, if you don't have "economic concerns" (by which I think you mean "a desire to build your roster with useful rewards for your current stage of play") I'm not sure why you play the game at all, or above SCL1, because you can stomp SCL1 trivially and read what passes for a storyline if you're completely unconcerned with rewards.

LOL  Thats super easy to point out.

There a cottage industry of players who monitor for pve flips.  and from their perspective they care more about the next open bracket in .7, .8, .9 to get an easier placement than the actual rewards.

So you will absolutely see big rosters in scl7 because that bracket flipped the most convieniently for their schedule.  

and the ultimate answer is because its Match 3, and could care less about strike force or pogo.  Many people will always have a match 3, scrabble, tetris on their phone or device.   MPQ is the default match 3 on my device and its the easiest game to play because there aren't any real restrictions on how I have to play.

Jwallyr

1) PvE flips are advantageous, sure, but you still have to select a time slice that works for your clears and the start of the next event. Are you suggesting that players join these flips and then get up in the middle of the night just because the flip time was convenient?

2) "From their perspective they care more about the next open bracket... to get an easier placement than the actual rewards." But the point of placement is the rewards, right? or these guys want to stomp SCL6 for the bragging rights of getting "first place" and not because of the rewards of first place?

3) I get that there are casual players of MPQ. I can only assume that these casual players are *not* the same people that are joining low SCLs and curb-stomping them with their 5star rosters with optimal play, because the super-casuals neither have well-developed 5star rosters nor are committing at that level to play optimally and secure the highest placement spots in story events.

I really think you're asserting there to be this category of "casual, convenience" players who are "are largely insulated from reward pressure" and yet are hardcore enough to have 5star rosters and to choose to play optimally so as to achieve high placement against other hardcore slummers in low brackets. I don't think such a category exists in any great number. I also think it's a lot easier and simpler to suppose that these 5star players are slumming in an effort to goose out placement covers for specific 4stars rather than playing up at an SCL more appropriate to their character level because the rewards at that level are insufficient to hold their attention.

Phumade

Jwallyr said:

1) PvE flips are advantageous, sure, but you still have to select a time slice that works for your clears and the start of the next event. Are you suggesting that players join these flips and then get up in the middle of the night just because the flip time was convenient?
---  I think most people have their eye on 2 shards and 6 brackets.  So 1-2, 2-3,3-4,4-5 and within each shard they are evaluating scl 6,7,8 and whether they are in brackets 1,2,3....  Plus with sub flips, it actually an easy win to jump into a sub that flips right before a sub closes.  So while they don't wake up middle of the night to hit flips.  many many players will defer starting one day to get a later sub, and or flip between an adjacent shard.
2) "From their perspective they care more about the next open bracket... to get an easier placement than the actual rewards." But the point of placement is the rewards, right? or these guys want to stomp SCL6 for the bragging rights of getting "first place" and not because of the rewards of first place?
--- To be fair rewards is the significant driver for the overwhelming population of players.  But it doesn't take many to disrupt placements for others (10 in pve and 5 in pvp) 10%, 5% respectively

3) I get that there are casual players of MPQ. I can only assume that these casual players are *not* the same people that are joining low SCLs and curb-stomping them with their 5star rosters with optimal play, because the super-casuals neither have well-developed 5star rosters nor are committing at that level to play optimally and secure the highest placement spots in story events.
---  When we make assumptions, then your guess is as good as mine.  But let ask you to consider this question.  

What happened to all of those vetern rosters that have retired/quit?  Do you actually believe that those accounts are in drawer?  Really those are your casual convience 5* players.  Those accounts have either been sold or gifted or are now fundamentally played in a different fashion.  And remember my response to point 2.  It doesn't need to be a majority or even a signficant population of casual 5* players.  5 people can take over scl8 and deny any 4* player placement. (and I just saw someone in my BC hit 1200 in 90m)

I really think you're asserting there to be this category of "casual, convenience" players who are "are largely insulated from reward pressure" and yet are hardcore enough to have 5star rosters and to choose to play optimally so as to achieve high placement against other hardcore slummers in low brackets. I don't think such a category exists in any great number. I also think it's a lot easier and simpler to suppose that these 5star players are slumming in an effort to goose out placement covers for specific 4stars rather than playing up at an SCL more appropriate to their character level because the rewards at that level are insufficient to hold their attention.

my points add in bold and italtics

---  In fact, would anyone be surprised if some retired vet specifically said they played scl5 or lower cause they didn't want to clog up a scl8,9 bracket?  I'm sure plenty of peeps just say, heck with it I'll play low and just stay out of the way. not worth the pms.

ZootSax

shartattack said:

Straycat said:

You could handicap players who drop below their appropriate SCL. They could use roster scaling and determine what SCL they should play. Then when their placement is calculated, its hit with a negative multiplier. So dropping down SCL means easier time for progression, but a harder time for placement.

Why? they are already handicapped by earning lesser rewards.  No need to over complicate it.  Some people (not me) choose lower scls to reduce the time they need to spend playing pve. They aren't going "hehe, I'm going to steal placement from all the lower rosters! i will taste their tears of defeat!" They just have a different equation for rewards/time spent that they're happy with.

As someone who enjoys taking "vacations" in lower SCL's from time to time, it's rare in my experience for more than one extremely out of place roster to place in the Top 10.  The rewards just aren't worth the effort.  The only exception is SCL1, where just hitting progression is typically good enough for Top 10, if not Top 5, regardless of clear timing, as so few SCL1 players have all the essentials (before I realized this, I accidentally placed 3rd or 4th in an SCL1 bracket when I hit progression...and honestly felt a little bad about it).  Maybe it's an SCL 6-7 problem, but even that's debatable.

shardwick

The solution isn't to sweeten the rewards in cl8 and 9 to get people to go up because people would still slum it in lower clearance levels, especially on new character releases. This is a widespread issue. The fairly obvious solution to me is to move to a progression only system for pve regular events. You eliminate the aspect of having to play optimally based on time. I mean right now I would love to play some pve but if I did then that would immediately eliminate me from finishing in the top 5-10 and then there goes my shot at some Shuri covers. And if my internet goes out on me tonight during my grind then I'm screwed. But in a progression only system then I would have the length of the event to finish it so if there's a family emergency then I can just play MPQ a bit later when things settle down.

Regular events would be set up like the Prologue or the gauntlet where finishing the last main node of a sub would unlock the next sub. I would get rid of the 5* node and replace it with a boss node that rewards iso or certain characters like Howard, Dino, Bagman or even regular characters like a shot at a 4* Deadpool in Deadpool vs MPQ.

 What about the competitive aspect of pve? Bring back heroic events but make them into a shorter lightning round version. Limited roster events with roster based scaling. No, it wouldn't just be against Dark Avengers either. I would do heroic versions of Wakanda and the X-Men version of Simulator. Hell yeah it would be tough, that's the point.

 People always talk about how they want more quality of life changes made to the game. Well, this would probably be the biggest one.

KGB

shardwick said:

The solution isn't to sweeten the rewards in cl8 and 9 to get people to go up because people would still slum it in lower clearance levels, especially on new character releases. This is a widespread issue. The fairly obvious solution to me is to move to a progression only system for pve regular events.

This clearly isn't going to happen unless the progression is set SUPER high (like 7 or 8 full clears) which would anger many because it increases the grind.

The reason is that progression would suddenly net 4 4* covers instead of just 1. That's a HUGE increase in covers given out. Essentially the same as running endless alliance boss PvE events which also award 4 covers (if you complete round 7). Not sure Demi wants to suddenly increase the flow of 4* covers that much.

The competitive rewards are always going to be there. The way to make it fairer for those slumming down is to restrict rosters.

SCL 8-9: Any character usable

SCL 5-7: 4* and below except for the 5* essential

SCL 1-4: 3* and below except for the 4 and 5* essentials.

You can still slum down with high powered rosters and easily clear 5-7 with 4* champs and likewise do the same in 1-4 with 3* champs. The difference is now all players in those levels will be competing with more or less same character levels.

Plus this gives those players in 5* land a way to revisit their 3* and 4* rosters.

KGB

shardwick

KGB said:

shardwick said:

The solution isn't to sweeten the rewards in cl8 and 9 to get people to go up because people would still slum it in lower clearance levels, especially on new character releases. This is a widespread issue. The fairly obvious solution to me is to move to a progression only system for pve regular events.

This clearly isn't going to happen unless the progression is set SUPER high (like 7 or 8 full clears) which would anger many because it increases the grind.

The reason is that progression would suddenly net 4 4* covers instead of just 1. That's a HUGE increase in covers given out. Essentially the same as running endless alliance boss PvE events which also award 4 covers (if you complete round 7). Not sure Demi wants to suddenly increase the flow of 4* covers that much.

The competitive rewards are always going to be there. The way to make it fairer for those slumming down is to restrict rosters.

SCL 8-9: Any character usable

SCL 5-7: 4* and below except for the 5* essential

SCL 1-4: 3* and below except for the 4 and 5* essentials.

You can still slum down with high powered rosters and easily clear 5-7 with 4* champs and likewise do the same in 1-4 with 3* champs. The difference is now all players in those levels will be competing with more or less same character levels.

Plus this gives those players in 5* land a way to revisit their 3* and 4* rosters.

KGB

I like your idea about restricting rosters to help stop people from slumming. In the current system 5 clears of every node will get you max progression. My system would be similar but would add an extra bonus sub which would essentially hold most of the placement rewards that would be in the current system. 6 clears of all nodes will give one cover of the 4* that is in placement rewards and would unlock the bonus sub which would be similar to DDQ. The boss node gives another 4* cover, other nodes will give 3* covers, iso, red iso and hp. Completing everything would give the final 4* cover.

To address your comment about grinding the new system completely opens things up and really allows people to play how they want without penalizing them for not playing "optimally" to get placement rewards. So you could still play only one sub a day if you want or you could essentially knock out the entire event on the first day if you really wanted to. And honestly the current system feels like more of a grind than anything. Play as fast as you can every day at the exact same time. It just gets boring having to use your speed team day after day because if you don't then you're putting yourself at risk of not getting decent placement rewards. And it makes boosted characters almost useless in pve unless they're characters that can clear nodes quickly. It's really no wonder why so many people get burned out on the game in the current system.

KGB

shardwick said:

. And honestly the current system feels like more of a grind than anything. Play as fast as you can every day at the exact same time. It just gets boring having to use your speed team day after day because if you don't then you're putting yourself at risk of not getting decent placement rewards. And it makes boosted characters almost useless in pve unless they're characters that can clear nodes quickly. It's really no wonder why so many people get burned out on the game in the current system.

What do you consider decent placement awards? The 4* covers for T10 (CL7&8) or do the 3* covers count too? Understand that only 20 players out of 1000 are realistically pushing hard for T10 placement.

I play CL7 and used to push hard for T10 and at least one 4* cover but once the 5* essential was added that became problematic because I only have the 5* about half the time. So even with super casual play (clear all nodes 6 times whenever I want) I always finish T20 (when I have 5*) or T50 (when I don't). That nets me the 3* covers for champ rewards. Yes, I miss out on a potential 4* cover (roughly 100 covers a year at 2 events per week or 1.3 covers per character given 70+ 4*) but I also have no stress or worry about when I play and how fast I clear.

On the other hand I relentlessly use my fastest team (Grockmordusa) to do the clears. The reason is that it frees up actual real life time to do other things besides grind MPQ PvE nodes.

KGB

shardwick

KGB said:

shardwick said:

. And honestly the current system feels like more of a grind than anything. Play as fast as you can every day at the exact same time. It just gets boring having to use your speed team day after day because if you don't then you're putting yourself at risk of not getting decent placement rewards. And it makes boosted characters almost useless in pve unless they're characters that can clear nodes quickly. It's really no wonder why so many people get burned out on the game in the current system.

What do you consider decent placement awards? The 4* covers for T10 (CL7&8) or do the 3* covers count too? Understand that only 20 players out of 1000 are realistically pushing hard for T10 placement.

I play CL7 and used to push hard for T10 and at least one 4* cover but once the 5* essential was added that became problematic because I only have the 5* about half the time. So even with super casual play (clear all nodes 6 times whenever I want) I always finish T20 (when I have 5*) or T50 (when I don't). That nets me the 3* covers for champ rewards. Yes, I miss out on a potential 4* cover (roughly 100 covers a year at 2 events per week or 1.3 covers per character given 70+ 4*) but I also have no stress or worry about when I play and how fast I clear.

On the other hand I relentlessly use my fastest team (Grockmordusa) to do the clears. The reason is that it frees up actual real life time to do other things besides grind MPQ PvE nodes.

KGB

Well, decent placement rewards for me is top 10 because I always aim for top 5 though decent is pretty subjective as everyone has different goals. I hate the 5* essential. They would have been better off making it a boss node and then introducing the 5* node on cl9. In my progression only system the 5* node would not be required to get all rewards so someone like you, or someone in cl6 that wants to move up to cl7 for the better rewards, wouldn't be  penalized for not having the 5* essential.

bbigler

Since we're on the topic of how to improve PVE, I would start with eliminating the grind of it and making it more "puzzle-like".  First, make the rewards progression based, like DDQ or SHIELD training.  Second, restrict the characters that can be used, which rewards a diverse roster and makes you use characters that you normally wouldn't use.  Make the battles get gradually harder to the point where only a strategic player can do it.  This makes it more of a puzzle and not a grind.  Diversify the enemies and reduce the total number of matches to get all rewards (if you can make it).  Forget about placement, PVE should be the puzzle aspect of the game.  PVP should be where you go to pit your roster against another and fight for placement rewards. 

Dormammu

KGB said:
So even with super casual play (clear all nodes 6 times whenever I want) I always finish T20

I find this hard to believe.

ZootSax

Dormammu said:

KGB said:
So even with super casual play (clear all nodes 6 times whenever I want) I always finish T20

I find this hard to believe.

Doing that level of effort in SCL-7 has never put me in the Top 100 and only once or twice has it ever gotten me in the Top 200.  I don't pay attention to bracket turnover, though, so this may be true for snipers.

KGB

ZootSax said:

Dormammu said:

KGB said:
So even with super casual play (clear all nodes 6 times whenever I want) I always finish T20

I find this hard to believe.

Doing that level of effort in SCL-7 has never put me in the Top 100 and only once or twice has it ever gotten me in the Top 200.  I don't pay attention to bracket turnover, though, so this may be true for snipers.

I always join a slacker bracket in slice 5. By that I mean on day 1 of the event I join CL7 in the last 5-6 hours before day 1 ends. By then all the hard core players (competitive alliance players) have long since joined other flips.

I'm currently 29th in Webbed Wonder (62K score) and I don't have the 5* essential. I also haven't finished my 6 clears yet either because I just got home. The 38th score (lowest I can see in my T20 shows 57.5K) so I figure I'll finish somewhere in 30s because I lack the 5*.

They may not be T100 scores in competitive brackets but in slacker ones they are. If you only want to play casually you should never sign up early for an event.

KGB

ZootSax

KGB said:

ZootSax said:

Dormammu said:

KGB said:
So even with super casual play (clear all nodes 6 times whenever I want) I always finish T20

I find this hard to believe.

Doing that level of effort in SCL-7 has never put me in the Top 100 and only once or twice has it ever gotten me in the Top 200.  I don't pay attention to bracket turnover, though, so this may be true for snipers.

I always join a slacker bracket in slice 5. By that I mean on day 1 of the event I join CL7 in the last 5-6 hours before day 1 ends. By then all the hard core players (competitive alliance players) have long since joined other flips.

I'm currently 29th in Webbed Wonder (62K score) and I don't have the 5* essential. I also haven't finished my 6 clears yet either because I just got home. The 38th score (lowest I can see in my T20 shows 57.5K) so I figure I'll finish somewhere in 30s because I lack the 5*.

They may not be T100 scores in competitive brackets but in slacker ones they are. If you only want to play casually you should never sign up early for an event.

KGB

That is interesting. I’ve never tried a late join in Slice 5.  Unfortunately for me, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten 6 clears in a 5-6 hour window (at least against SCL 6-9 opponents), so it might be less reliable for a late start with 12-14 hours left in the sub.  Regardless, it’s worth trying.  I’ve already given up on placement anyway, so there’s really no downside.  

Thanks for the tip.             

shardwick

KGB said:

ZootSax said:

Dormammu said:

KGB said:
So even with super casual play (clear all nodes 6 times whenever I want) I always finish T20

I find this hard to believe.

Doing that level of effort in SCL-7 has never put me in the Top 100 and only once or twice has it ever gotten me in the Top 200.  I don't pay attention to bracket turnover, though, so this may be true for snipers.

I always join a slacker bracket in slice 5. By that I mean on day 1 of the event I join CL7 in the last 5-6 hours before day 1 ends. By then all the hard core players (competitive alliance players) have long since joined other flips.

I'm currently 29th in Webbed Wonder (62K score) and I don't have the 5* essential. I also haven't finished my 6 clears yet either because I just got home. The 38th score (lowest I can see in my T20 shows 57.5K) so I figure I'll finish somewhere in 30s because I lack the 5*.

They may not be T100 scores in competitive brackets but in slacker ones they are. If you only want to play casually you should never sign up early for an event.

KGB

Well, so much for that being a slacker bracket now.