Proposal for "Play when you want" PVE

HoundofShadow

I'm not sure what good placements mean to you but what % of the scl 10 players truly benefit from such change, as far as placement reward is concerned? I recently played scl 10 (the pve before the Hunt) where I did x4 clears in one sub, played only a few nodes in another sub. And that was all I played. My placement was around 470. I look at the rewards for T10 to T300 and the difference is insignificant.

The below is the difference between x tier reward and the tier immediately below them:

T20: + 10hp, + 500 iso-8, +25 5* shards, + 1 4* cover, + 25 4* shards
T50: + 10hp, + 500 iso-8, , + 25 4* shards
T100: + 10hp, + 500 iso-8, + 50 4* shards

I hardly see how baby champed 5* players benefit from this because the "better placement rewards" are insignificant. The biggest benefits are to 550 rosters, who are fighting for T10 placements, which is 1% of the total placement. Basically this entire change will shakeup the top 1% while the rest of baby champed 5* rosters get some extra loose change.

As for cheaters, all you need is 1 cheater in each slice and you will push T1 into T5, 5th place into T10 and 10th place into T20. There might not be a lot of cheaters, but the impact of cheaters is huge.

Now that I take a proper look at the placement rewards, does it make sense to make a huge change to the structure of pves just to cause a big shakeup to the top 1% of the placement and give some extra loose change to the rest of the baby 5* champ players?

BlackBoltRocks

A good suggestion by @Punzaman , and the usual suspects derail this thread by having a debate about cheating. Typical.

HoundofShadow

If you really think about it, the players benefiting from this particular change are 550 players. You can't tell me with a straight face that jumping from T100 to T50 is significant. T20 is likely to be lined up with other 500-550 players with this change.

If anyone is genuinely interested in shaking up T10 placements instead of just making changes such that the significant change is simply "rotation of 550 players' names", the dev should be changing win conditions in such a way that even baby champed 5* players can hit T5 or even T1 due to skills or strategies, rather than having 550 rosters.

The resurrection of limited rosters (can't remember the term) boss event (Dark Avengers restrictions) prove that having 550 roster doesn't mean that you automatically win matches. Skills still trump big rosters.

To conclude, this change is simply a superficial change of seeing different 550 players taking up to T20 placements. However, making changes to win conditions such that baby champed rosters can hit T5 or even T1 is a significant change. At the end of the day, do we want to continue the trend that only 550 rosters can hit T1 to T5 consistently? Do you know it takes 1.5 years or more to save up enough CP/LTs to hit 550 rosters? How many players could actually do that?

I will vote "no" to superficial change and "yeah" to impactful changes (win conditions the like of puzzle gauntlet or restricted rosters like Dark Avengers restrictions) to pves.

Punzaman

You misunderstand my goal. I'm not trying to shake up T10 or any placements, for myself or anyone else. I don't particularly care how the standings shake out, even though it's interesting to think about.

I'm seeking real quality of life improvements for PVE for all players who want to play competitively. Being able to play when you want isn't a superficial change. I believe there are a lot of players out there who don't want to be beholden to a clock anymore. There could be other ways to achieve this, but I proposed what I did to try to preserve the overall feel of the PVE and minimize how much change the devs would need to do.

And yes, by all means, let's also bring back restricted roster events and add new kinds of challenges too!

DAZ0273

If skills trump big rosters then why don't you play in SCL10 all the time @HoundofShadow?

Bowgentle

Forcing players to play at specific times is a core design element of F2P games.
They're not going to get rid of that.

fight4thedream

**Mod note: In keeping with the OP's request, please refrain from any further discussion on cheating. Any further posts on that issue will be treated as off-topic and removed. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation. **

Mrcl25

@Punzaman said:
You misunderstand my goal. I'm not trying to shake up T10 or any placements, for myself or anyone else. I don't particularly care how the standings shake out, even though it's interesting to think about.

I'm seeking real quality of life improvements for PVE for all players who want to play competitively. Being able to play when you want isn't a superficial change. I believe there are a lot of players out there who don't want to be beholden to a clock anymore. There could be other ways to achieve this, but I proposed what I did to try to preserve the overall feel of the PVE and minimize how much change the devs would need to do.

And yes, by all means, let's also bring back restricted roster events and add new kinds of challenges too!

I completely agree with you. Personally I wouldn't benefit from this change in terms of placement, but the QoL benefit of not having to play at specific times is immeasurable.

Godzillafan67

I see the point about losing out on some of the strategies that weaker rosters are able to deploy to punch up for placement.

As a workaround, with the five time slices removed when entering the event, there could be five MMR slices under the hood that take into account boosted characters alongside the roster strength. You would have no idea which MMR slice you're competing in, but you wouldn't be competing against significantly stronger rosters. This would also help those SCL7 players that lose out on placement to the folks with rosters that can easily handle SCL10 (I remember those days). Those "SCL10" players can still choose to play in SCL7-9, but now they're not directly competing against rosters for whom the SCL was intended.

wymtime

I want to say this is a very well thought out proposal. I actually like this very much since there are a lot of times I can’t close or open optimally.

I do see an issue with how many players would be stacked together. Basically 1-100 could in theory be within a couple of points of each other. With the way top alliances work I can see it being frustrating for the current top players and top alliances.

Overall well thought out

HoundofShadow

Because I find the placement reward for T10 in scl 10 not worth the effort. Also, it's boring to hit T10. Sometimes, I sneak into T5 due to those top players making mistakes, but that's it.

Without any change in how pve wins, doing this will likely see T20 in scl 10 being line up with 500-550 rosters. There are also mega rosters 500-550 players playing in lower scls. Currently, 4* players can sleepwalk into T10 or T5 with Polaris/R4G in scl 9. With this change, would they be able to see their T10 or T5 again? Also, do we want to send out a message to new players that if they want to smell a chance of getting T5 or T10 in scl 10 pve or even scl 9 in the future, they need to hoard LT/CP for the next 3-5 years to hit 550 roster?

.

DAZ0273

@HoundofShadow said:
Because I find the placement reward for T10 in scl 10 not worth the effort. Also, it's boring to hit T10. Sometimes, I sneak into T5 due to those top players making mistakes, but that's it.

Without any change in how pve wins, doing this will likely see T20 in scl 10 being line up with 500-550 rosters. There are also mega rosters 500-550 players playing in lower scls. Currently, 4* players can sleepwalk into T10 or T5 with Polaris/R4G in scl 9. With this change, would they be able to see their T10 or T5 again? Also, do we want to send out a message to new players that if they want to smell a chance of getting T5 or T10 in scl 10 pve or even scl 9 in the future, they need to hoard LT/CP for the next 3-5 years to hit 550 roster?

.

So lock 5* players into SCL10 which should swell numbers and result in more brackets so more chances at higher positions and the 4* players get the rewards they should in SCL9?

Bowgentle

@DAZ0273 said:

@HoundofShadow said:
Because I find the placement reward for T10 in scl 10 not worth the effort. Also, it's boring to hit T10. Sometimes, I sneak into T5 due to those top players making mistakes, but that's it.

Without any change in how pve wins, doing this will likely see T20 in scl 10 being line up with 500-550 rosters. There are also mega rosters 500-550 players playing in lower scls. Currently, 4* players can sleepwalk into T10 or T5 with Polaris/R4G in scl 9. With this change, would they be able to see their T10 or T5 again? Also, do we want to send out a message to new players that if they want to smell a chance of getting T5 or T10 in scl 10 pve or even scl 9 in the future, they need to hoard LT/CP for the next 3-5 years to hit 550 roster?

.

So lock 5* players into SCL10 which should swell numbers and result in more brackets so more chances at higher positions and the 4* players get the rewards they should in SCL9?

Notice how his own playing in 9 is not a problem at all, only the 500+ rosters.

Sekilicious

@DAZ0273 said:

@HoundofShadow said:
Because I find the placement reward for T10 in scl 10 not worth the effort. Also, it's boring to hit T10. Sometimes, I sneak into T5 due to those top players making mistakes, but that's it.

Without any change in how pve wins, doing this will likely see T20 in scl 10 being line up with 500-550 rosters. There are also mega rosters 500-550 players playing in lower scls. Currently, 4* players can sleepwalk into T10 or T5 with Polaris/R4G in scl 9. With this change, would they be able to see their T10 or T5 again? Also, do we want to send out a message to new players that if they want to smell a chance of getting T5 or T10 in scl 10 pve or even scl 9 in the future, they need to hoard LT/CP for the next 3-5 years to hit 550 roster?

.

So lock 5* players into SCL10 which should swell numbers and result in more brackets so more chances at higher positions and the 4* players get the rewards they should in SCL9?

I would love PvE to get MMR for who you compete with. Especially if SCL10 was for baby champed 5s, and they added SCL11 for 480+ and SCL12 for 520+.

Maybe I’m misremembering. Years ago when I was in SCL5 to 7. I always hated that players with 4 or 5* rosters dominating the top 3. While I was stuck being awful with my 3* characters

DAZ0273

@Sekilicious said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@HoundofShadow said:
Because I find the placement reward for T10 in scl 10 not worth the effort. Also, it's boring to hit T10. Sometimes, I sneak into T5 due to those top players making mistakes, but that's it.

Without any change in how pve wins, doing this will likely see T20 in scl 10 being line up with 500-550 rosters. There are also mega rosters 500-550 players playing in lower scls. Currently, 4* players can sleepwalk into T10 or T5 with Polaris/R4G in scl 9. With this change, would they be able to see their T10 or T5 again? Also, do we want to send out a message to new players that if they want to smell a chance of getting T5 or T10 in scl 10 pve or even scl 9 in the future, they need to hoard LT/CP for the next 3-5 years to hit 550 roster?

.

So lock 5* players into SCL10 which should swell numbers and result in more brackets so more chances at higher positions and the 4* players get the rewards they should in SCL9?

I would love PvE to get MMR for who you compete with. Especially if SCL10 was for baby champed 5s, SCL11 for 480+ and SCL12 for 520+. Hypothetically speaking anyways.

I have never really understood why PVP got limits on what SCL higher level players could play at but PVE didn't. Additional SCL were ruled out by the old Devs but now we have new Devs I guess it would be the player numbers that counted for any such additional expansions.

Sekilicious

It would be easy enough to adjust progression rewards at lower SCLs if PvE was MMR based. I don’t care in my SCL says 10 but I would not want to go back to the rewards from lower

Ptahhotep

I certainly think that it is time to introduce SCL 11. When I first joined SCL 10 just getting progression was enough to guarantee a top 100 finish. Now full clearing is necessary, if not optimally, and even then may not be sufficient. This indicates that the numbers playing SCL 10 have increased considerably.
I also think that it would be a good idea to apply the same three SCL restriction to PVE that PVP uses.

skittledaddy

@DAZ0273 said:

@HoundofShadow said:
Because I find the placement reward for T10 in scl 10 not worth the effort. Also, it's boring to hit T10. Sometimes, I sneak into T5 due to those top players making mistakes, but that's it.

Without any change in how pve wins, doing this will likely see T20 in scl 10 being line up with 500-550 rosters. There are also mega rosters 500-550 players playing in lower scls. Currently, 4* players can sleepwalk into T10 or T5 with Polaris/R4G in scl 9. With this change, would they be able to see their T10 or T5 again? Also, do we want to send out a message to new players that if they want to smell a chance of getting T5 or T10 in scl 10 pve or even scl 9 in the future, they need to hoard LT/CP for the next 3-5 years to hit 550 roster?

.

So lock 5* players into SCL10 which should swell numbers and result in more brackets so more chances at higher positions and the 4* players get the rewards they should in SCL9?

But why penalize those of us with 4* rosters who can easily complete CL10?
Why should I be excluded from a CL that I have put all the pre-requisite time and effort into unlocking just because I choose not to champ (or hardly use) my 5*s?
I know I will never achieve the highest placement rewards (guess what, even if I champed them I still wouldn't), but (as Hound detailed above) the difference between T20 in T100 is so immaterial that I am more than content getting my typical 1.4-1.7x progression and T100 placement and calling it a win.

DAZ0273

@skittledaddy said:

@DAZ0273 said:

@HoundofShadow said:
Because I find the placement reward for T10 in scl 10 not worth the effort. Also, it's boring to hit T10. Sometimes, I sneak into T5 due to those top players making mistakes, but that's it.

Without any change in how pve wins, doing this will likely see T20 in scl 10 being line up with 500-550 rosters. There are also mega rosters 500-550 players playing in lower scls. Currently, 4* players can sleepwalk into T10 or T5 with Polaris/R4G in scl 9. With this change, would they be able to see their T10 or T5 again? Also, do we want to send out a message to new players that if they want to smell a chance of getting T5 or T10 in scl 10 pve or even scl 9 in the future, they need to hoard LT/CP for the next 3-5 years to hit 550 roster?

.

So lock 5* players into SCL10 which should swell numbers and result in more brackets so more chances at higher positions and the 4* players get the rewards they should in SCL9?

But why penalize those of us with 4* rosters who can easily complete CL10?
Why should I be excluded from a CL that I have put all the pre-requisite time and effort into unlocking just because I choose not to champ (or hardly use) my 5*s?
I know I will never achieve the highest placement rewards (guess what, even if I champed them I still wouldn't), but (as Hound detailed above) the difference between T20 in T100 is so immaterial that I am more than content getting my typical 1.4-1.7x progression and T100 placement and calling it a win.

On the one hand soft capping really goes against the spirit of the game (why even be able to level or have iso?) but I am not here on any crusade. On the other hand I never said anything about locking 4* players out of SCL10. I am talking about locking CHAMPED 5* players IN to SCL10 (or as Sekilicious says expanding the number of SCL10). If 4* players want to play in SCL10 then that is fine with me. I would hope that players such as yourself and KGB continue to play in SCL10 as your rosters are good enough to do so and leave the lower SCL to those who have developing 4* rosters or who don't want to step up. We shouldn't however have 5* players who have multiple champs playing down and affecting placement in lower SCL's in my opinion. It is just an opinion though.

DAZ0273

@Sekilicious said:
Skittle daddy and KGB’s rosters are developed to the point any MMR should consider locking them into SCL10, lol.

Well I didn't want to say so but...