SCL10 Mission Changes

1…911131415

Comments

  • Chameleon
    Chameleon Posts: 183 Tile Toppler
    Basepuzzler said:
    I enjoy the challenge node.  Making it 1 time only would be less fun.  

    And CL10 should be more points than CL9. 

    Changing it to 3 clears/2 for grind and having it still be worth a bit more than CL9 sounds ideal.
    Personally, I agree with those who say 1, max 2, clears of the Challenge Nodes *for points*.  Leave it open for playing around for no points after.  Add rewards?  Fine.. Just not more points.
  • Bad
    Bad Posts: 3,146 Chairperson of the Boards
    In any case, scl10 is mostly for people wanting to chase 5* and 4* shards. If not interested in one or both, for saving a hoard or because the 4* is not wanted, as it was already said the amount of time and effort is not worth it unless having a really strong and speedy roster.
    Reduction of one clear is good, but more cps would be more enticing.
    And right now challenge nodes give just 1 cp.
    When scl10 was released I think they were giving 4 per sub.
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,817 Chairperson of the Boards
    Bad said:
    In any case, scl10 is mostly for people wanting to chase 5* and 4* shards. If not interested in one or both, for saving a hoard or because the 4* is not wanted, as it was already said the amount of time and effort is not worth it unless having a really strong and speedy roster.
    Reduction of one clear is good, but more cps would be more enticing.
    And right now challenge nodes give just 1 cp.
    When scl10 was released I think they were giving 4 per sub.
    The node and event rewards did get reduced a little (basically losing some iso, riso, an Elite and 50 4* shards) but the CP is the same as before this change.

    You get 1 CP from the 4E, 3 from the 5E (just like in 9) and one more from the Challenge Node.  So the total is actually 5 CP, one more than in SCL9.
  • Bad
    Bad Posts: 3,146 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2020
    bluewolf said:
    The node and event rewards did get reduced a little (basically losing some iso, riso, an Elite and 50 4* shards) but the CP is the same as before this change.

    You get 1 CP from the 4E, 3 from the 5E (just like in 9) and one more from the Challenge Node.  So the total is actually 5 CP, one more than in SCL9.
    Sorry, but not, sorry. 
    Challenge nodes were offering 2 cps as well as 4* required and 5*.
    Right now they are offering 1 cp as well as the 4*. Required 5* offers 1cp and 2 cps.
    Challenge nodes were offering 2 times 2cps too when they were released, as I said.
  • bluewolf
    bluewolf Posts: 5,817 Chairperson of the Boards
    Bad said:
    bluewolf said:
    The node and event rewards did get reduced a little (basically losing some iso, riso, an Elite and 50 4* shards) but the CP is the same as before this change.

    You get 1 CP from the 4E, 3 from the 5E (just like in 9) and one more from the Challenge Node.  So the total is actually 5 CP, one more than in SCL9.
    Sorry, but not, sorry. 
    Challenge nodes were offering 2 cps as well as 4* required and 5*.
    Right now they are offering 1 cp as well as the 4*. Required 5* offers 1cp and 2 cps.
    Challenge nodes were offering 2 times 2cps too when they were released, as I said.
    OK, I was wrong.  I forgot the H3 node gives you 1 CP as well, so you have 6 CP per day in SCL10, and 5 in SCL9.

    This has been the way since they released it.  I found this comment on the thread announcing SCL10 from 2/11/20:

    "I keep seeing this and it's wrong/bad information.  Cl9 has 5 cp in nodes.  1 for clearing the hardest node 4 times, 1 for clearing the 4 star essential 4 times, 3 for the 5 star essential.  That's 1+1+3=5.  
    Cl10 has the same 1 for the hard node, 1 for the 4E, 3 for the 5E, but also has 1 in the challenge node.  That's 1+1+3+1=6.  Its not 5 cp, its 6."  (User post from A_Wise_Man)

    Long story short, the new change hasn't removed any CP from rewards vs what they were when SCL10 launched.
  • Killa_Bees
    Killa_Bees Posts: 14 Just Dropped In
    After reading through this thread with everyone analyzing and dissecting the pros/cons to this change, I just want to say thank you for this change.  My wife thanks you.  My daughter thanks you.  I know it's not a huge time save, but it has definitely given me some time away from the screen.  Everyone I play with plays for progression (not placement) and I'm able to get all of those rewards in a much shorter time.
  • MoosePrime
    MoosePrime Posts: 969 Critical Contributor
    Moving the 4* cover later meant that I didn't get it on the first day.
    Since I didn't get a cover from placement on the previous event, I was unable to do the Essential node for the first sub.
  • grunth13
    grunth13 Posts: 608 Critical Contributor
    OJSP said:
    My further feedback after the first event is done: this change is a decent start. Like many have said, the majority of time spent in CL10 is during the 3x clears (grind) at the highest difficulty. So, lessening the first clears to start the timers only help slightly for people who intend to clear everything (optimally). However, I appreciate with the increase in points, playing just for progression could be a very rewarding in terms of time spent to rewards ratio.

    I think if this is an attempt to reduce playing time in CL10, it’s only a partial success. The top alliance players are more impacted by the change and not necessarily in a positive way.

    Seeing how the top alliances score, if the points are not adjusted anymore, as obvious as it sounds, I think it’s a matter of getting as many CL10 players as they can to get better scores. There might not be enough CL10 players for some events (like this event, there are still many CL9 players filling the t10 alliances), so there will be more work for the commanders and mercs to get the players they need, with less margins for errors. 

    It might have been the intention to push more people to play CL10, but this could backfire. Personally, I don’t think the time difference is enough to entice high placing CL8 or CL9 players, who intentionally drop down despite being eligible for CL10, to move up to CL10. Either the time required in CL10 needs to be reduced further (less clears at maximum difficulties or just the Challenge nodes), the points difference between CL9 or CL10 need to be adjusted (so there’s less pressure for people to jump up to CL10 if they want to get t10 alliance rewards), or improve the placement rewards in CL10 a bit more so players who can’t play optimally in CL10 would still get better rewards than in CL9 if they spend a similar amount of time.

    I think people who choose to drop down CLs do so mainly because of the shorter playing time (and for top alliance players, in addition to the potential to score higher in CL9 compared to CL10 and get t10 alliance rewards). They are willing to ignore the CL10 progression rewards because of that. 
    Some players just happened to have enough time to play optimally for a specific amount of time and not a lot more. I’ve heard of players playing optimally in CL8 and CL9 during their lunch breaks (or whatever break time they have in their schedules). So, for these players, playing in CL10 is probably still not appealing enough.

    The number of slice 3.10 players for Fight for Wakanda didn’t increase significantly compared to the previous run (perhaps there were still people moving down CLs trying to win Anti-Venom covers from placement rewards?). For Strange Sights, the numbers seem to be less than usual. Perhaps players who were not used to playing CL10 were mistiming their grinds (which is now more difficult to estimate because the first 3 clears are faster) and ended up missing out of placements/getting less than they usually would in lower CLs. I can understand if these players decided that CL10 is still not appealing enough for them.

    Do you think that more people didn't move to cl10 due to the fact that it was only mentioned on the forums like a day in advance of FFW and never mentioned in-game where majority of the players get their info?  I mean the event has come and gone and still no mention for it in the game. 
  • SheRa007
    SheRa007 Posts: 8 Just Dropped In
    edited August 2020
    I like that the c10 PvE clears are worth more than c9. It only makes sense that t10 PvE alliances that want the t10 alliance reward require that all of their players to do the c10 PvE. I really like this change overall as it does take less time.

    Now they just need to lock people into an ally for PvE & PvP events before people play like they do on boss events and things would be AWESOME!
    Without locking people in for events, alliances essentially mean nothing lol
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    SheRa007 said:
    I like that the c10 PvE clears are worth more than c9. It only makes sense that t10 PvE alliances that want the t10 alliance reward require that all of their players to do the c10 PvE. I really like this change overall as it does take less time.

    Now they just need to lock people into an ally for PvE & PvP events before people play like they do on boss events and things would be AWESOME!
    Without locking people in for events, alliances essentially mean nothing lol

    Everyone seems outraged by this, but if demi wants to prod more people into cl10, making cl10 worth significantly more points per time-spent is perhaps the easiest way to do so.  If optimally grinding cl10 produced a significant points advantage, that would basically force 1-2k players (everyone from the top 50-top 100 alliances) to play cl10 exclusively. No doubt many of those players were already doing so, but we know plenty of advanced rosters are staying in lower cl's for faster clears. 
  • justsing
    justsing Posts: 510 Critical Contributor
    Vhailorx said:
    SheRa007 said:
    I like that the c10 PvE clears are worth more than c9. It only makes sense that t10 PvE alliances that want the t10 alliance reward require that all of their players to do the c10 PvE. I really like this change overall as it does take less time.

    Now they just need to lock people into an ally for PvE & PvP events before people play like they do on boss events and things would be AWESOME!
    Without locking people in for events, alliances essentially mean nothing lol

    Everyone seems outraged by this, but if demi wants to prod more people into cl10, making cl10 worth significantly more points per time-spent is perhaps the easiest way to do so.  If optimally grinding cl10 produced a significant points advantage, that would basically force 1-2k players (everyone from the top 50-top 100 alliances) to play cl10 exclusively. No doubt many of those players were already doing so, but we know plenty of advanced rosters are staying in lower cl's for faster clears. 
    Forcing players to go SCL10 for alliance placement without reducing grind time will only lead to more people burning out and quitting / going casual. 
  • TPF Alexis
    TPF Alexis Posts: 3,826 Chairperson of the Boards
    Vhailorx said:
    SheRa007 said:
    I like that the c10 PvE clears are worth more than c9. It only makes sense that t10 PvE alliances that want the t10 alliance reward require that all of their players to do the c10 PvE. I really like this change overall as it does take less time.

    Now they just need to lock people into an ally for PvE & PvP events before people play like they do on boss events and things would be AWESOME!
    Without locking people in for events, alliances essentially mean nothing lol

    Everyone seems outraged by this, but if demi wants to prod more people into cl10, making cl10 worth significantly more points per time-spent is perhaps the easiest way to do so.  If optimally grinding cl10 produced a significant points advantage, that would basically force 1-2k players (everyone from the top 50-top 100 alliances) to play cl10 exclusively. No doubt many of those players were already doing so, but we know plenty of advanced rosters are staying in lower cl's for faster clears. 

    Points "per time-spent" is the key phrase here. Under this test system, SCL10 is worth significantly more points, but given the far greater time requirement, it's still nowhere near the points per minute of SCL9. Also, time is the least flexible resource for most people. No matter what their other resources are, no one has more than 24 hours a day, and there can be a lot of demands on those. IF they get the timers sorted out for only two reps per node on the grind, that might bring the total time down to the point where it's feasible, but for a lot of people, the sheer amount of time required for SCL10 is simply not an option, especially given that it has to be focused around the 5 specific time slices. "...that would basically force 1-2k players (everyone from the top 50-top 100 alliances) to play cl10 exclusively", or quit playing competitively or leave the game entirely. There's always another option. Forcing people to the point where one of the major options is "stop using your product" doesn't strike me as a great move.
    For me, personally, as a Progression-only player, this change is wonderful, but good lord it makes me glad I'm not trying to play competitively anymore.

  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2020
    justsing said:
    Vhailorx said:
    SheRa007 said:
    I like that the c10 PvE clears are worth more than c9. It only makes sense that t10 PvE alliances that want the t10 alliance reward require that all of their players to do the c10 PvE. I really like this change overall as it does take less time.

    Now they just need to lock people into an ally for PvE & PvP events before people play like they do on boss events and things would be AWESOME!
    Without locking people in for events, alliances essentially mean nothing lol

    Everyone seems outraged by this, but if demi wants to prod more people into cl10, making cl10 worth significantly more points per time-spent is perhaps the easiest way to do so.  If optimally grinding cl10 produced a significant points advantage, that would basically force 1-2k players (everyone from the top 50-top 100 alliances) to play cl10 exclusively. No doubt many of those players were already doing so, but we know plenty of advanced rosters are staying in lower cl's for faster clears. 
    Forcing players to go SCL10 for alliance placement without reducing grind time will only lead to more people burning out and quitting / going casual. 
    true, though burnout is less of an issue when you are makings changes for, almost by definition, the most dedicated 2000 players in the game.  So unless  the 12-20k players that regularly play cls 9 and 10 are really all going to quit en masse as a result of a change, I don't know that burnout should be the primary concern for demi (note that I personally, as a burned out vet, do consider burnout a more significant concern).
    Tthat particular argument, however, is happily mooted because demi also reduced the cl10 grind at the same time (and seemingly intends to reduce the end grind as well if we believe the discord statements).  So burnout is even less of an issue.

  • justsing
    justsing Posts: 510 Critical Contributor
    edited August 2020
    bowla33 said:
    justsing said:
    Vhailorx said:
    SheRa007 said:
    I like that the c10 PvE clears are worth more than c9. It only makes sense that t10 PvE alliances that want the t10 alliance reward require that all of their players to do the c10 PvE. I really like this change overall as it does take less time.

    Now they just need to lock people into an ally for PvE & PvP events before people play like they do on boss events and things would be AWESOME!
    Without locking people in for events, alliances essentially mean nothing lol

    Everyone seems outraged by this, but if demi wants to prod more people into cl10, making cl10 worth significantly more points per time-spent is perhaps the easiest way to do so.  If optimally grinding cl10 produced a significant points advantage, that would basically force 1-2k players (everyone from the top 50-top 100 alliances) to play cl10 exclusively. No doubt many of those players were already doing so, but we know plenty of advanced rosters are staying in lower cl's for faster clears. 
    Forcing players to go SCL10 for alliance placement without reducing grind time will only lead to more people burning out and quitting / going casual. 
    While I agree it will cause burnout for some, it also stops alliances from forcing people to play in 9 to drive higher scores. It's a two way road.
    I honestly haven’t seen alliances forcing people to play SCL9 for higher scores. In my alliance family, people are free to choose optimal 9 or 10, which is nice. Having two options is nice. Forcing people to move up to 10, which in its current setup takes a lot more time than 9 when going for optimal points, is less nice. 
    Vhailorx said:
    justsing said:
    Vhailorx said:
    SheRa007 said:
    I like that the c10 PvE clears are worth more than c9. It only makes sense that t10 PvE alliances that want the t10 alliance reward require that all of their players to do the c10 PvE. I really like this change overall as it does take less time.

    Now they just need to lock people into an ally for PvE & PvP events before people play like they do on boss events and things would be AWESOME!
    Without locking people in for events, alliances essentially mean nothing lol

    Everyone seems outraged by this, but if demi wants to prod more people into cl10, making cl10 worth significantly more points per time-spent is perhaps the easiest way to do so.  If optimally grinding cl10 produced a significant points advantage, that would basically force 1-2k players (everyone from the top 50-top 100 alliances) to play cl10 exclusively. No doubt many of those players were already doing so, but we know plenty of advanced rosters are staying in lower cl's for faster clears.  
    Forcing players to go SCL10 for alliance placement without reducing grind time will only lead to more people burning out and quitting / going casual. 

    Tthat particular argument, however, is happily mooted because demi also reduced the cl10 grind at the same time (and seemingly intends to reduce the end grind as well if we believe the discord statements).  So burnout is even less of an issue.

    The reduction from 4x initial clears to 3x initial clears is nice, but it was always the 3x final clears at the end that was the most time consuming, which hasn't been fixed. And given Discord comments, there's no timeline on how long it will take for them to change / fix the final grind aspect. So until that is announced and implemented, people in top alliances are forced to go SCL10 with its 3x initial clears and 3x final clears, which honestly doesn't reduce play time by that much. 
  • JSP869
    JSP869 Posts: 822 Critical Contributor
    Even though my Alliance is typically T100 I've been a T10 player in CL9 many times, and even finished T2/5 occasinally (although rarely). With the introduction of CL10, I played it a few times, but the extra grind was horrific, and the "Challenge" node was murder. It's gotten easier now that I've added Bobby to my stable of 5* Champions, but it can still sometimes ridiculous as @The rockett pointed out. And my roster doesn't hold a candle to Rockett's!

    My initial clears have been reduced marginally. That said, even before I finished Bobby and before these latest changes were implemented, there were some initial clears that took me around 40 minutes. On the flipside, there were also times where my CL10 initial clears would take me well over an hour. Contrast that with CL9 where, if I was on top of my game, I could crush my clears inside 25 minutes, and when Okoye is the 5E I'm doing sub-20 clears.

    Now I do like the rewards from CL10. I played it for Wakanda, and I'm back in there for Strange Sights. And it wasn't too bad now that I've finished Bobby to help with the Murder node, but the grind still sucks.

    Do the Developers really want us playing their game for 2+ hours a day? I hope not, because I don't want to be, either.
    Now I could not play for 2+ hours a day by playing down in CL9, but I'd rather play CL10 for its rewards. And frankly, as someone with a solid 5-star roster, I think I should be playing CL10 and leaving CL9 to the 4-star players.
  • Splunge
    Splunge Posts: 1 Just Dropped In
    IceIX said:
    We would like to make playing in SCL 10 attractive to more players so we are making some quality of life changes to SCL 10.
    When a change to a game affects quality of life, I think it's time for all of us to take a long, hard look at what we're doing here.
  • Michael1957
    Michael1957 Posts: 630 Critical Contributor
    I actually finished first in a slice today , NEVER happened in 3.5 years of 9. Granted there were only 25 players in the slice because so few play SCL 10 and I obviously got the bottom of the barrel. Also , my real uncle is mentioned in the sub I did , so I guess nepotism might be a contributing factor. Moral is it’s easier to place if you find your time niche .
  • Bad
    Bad Posts: 3,146 Chairperson of the Boards
    Its true that in this SS pve there is really few people playing on tops. It could be for holidays or it could be due to alliances burnout. It could be that a lot of people chose the same door lol.
    If it is for holidays a lot of players who were aiming to rank before now are playing just progression and they will like the change.
    Anyway its a data wich only devs could know.

Categories