Tuning SCL8 placements.

Phumade
Phumade Posts: 2,649 Chairperson of the Boards
in MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
Putting aside the debate on who or who should not be in scl8.  The current scaling design doesn't really differentiate out rosters in an appropriate fashion.

The top 4 players in my scl8 were all top end 5* players.  There scores were:
1. 66936
2. 66936
3. 66921
4. 66879

and the spread from 1 - 10 was around 800 points.

I have no disagreements on that relative ranking, but when the scores are that tight,  the differentiation becomes who plays on the faster more responsive device, a lucky board cascade which ends the match 1 round faster etc...

 I'm not necessarily advocating for one solution over another,  but from a competitive design perspective.  You should have more separation in placements.

20 points at a minimum lets players know that there was a decisive factor that decided placements.  When the scoring difference is less than 10 points, it becomes less about knowledge, skill or experience and more about who had to get up to take a pee break.

Comments

  • Skrofa
    Skrofa Posts: 388 Mover and Shaker
    Top 4 in mine
    1. 66291 8 champed 5*
    2. 66196 1 champed 5*
    3. 65876 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 286
    4. 65859 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 288

    Number 5 was me with 65415 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 284.

    Now, I am certain I lucked into a good slice where most of the competition could not play opttimally but the crux of the matter is that there is something fundamentally wrong with pve placement across slices.

    I feel like the t5 scores in my slice would barely qualify for t25 in other slices.

    And then you have bracket sniping for higher placement with less effort.

    I have always felt that player competition should be removed from pve and will continue to feel this way. Even more so if they do implement this Scl based scaling.

    It has worked out fine for me and it might continue to do so for the future but it does not mean I like it.

  • Pongie
    Pongie Posts: 1,413 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2017
    Skrofa said:
    Top 4 in mine
    1. 66291 8 champed 5*
    2. 66196 1 champed 5*
    3. 65876 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 286
    4. 65859 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 288

    Number 5 was me with 65415 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 284.

    Now, I am certain I lucked into a good slice where most of the competition could not play opttimally but the crux of the matter is that there is something fundamentally wrong with pve placement across slices.

    I feel like the t5 scores in my slice would barely qualify for t25 in other slices.

    That was my strategy and glad it worked. I normally prejoin and if I do get top 10 then so be it, if I don't then meh. However, having recently championed hawkeye, I was desperate to at least make top 5 in scl8 (or top 1 in scl7) for some sort of progress with my 1/5/2 Coulson. I knew top 1 in scl7 would be impossible with all the 5* rosters dropping down so I had to time my scl8 bracket. Still a long way to champion coulson now that he is 2/5/3 (3/5/3 when his yellow drop for progression. If I'm not mistaken, pvp 900 cover is also yellow. This means I have to wait 2 more cycles before reaching 13 covers)

    Note that the difference between top score in our bracket to op's bracket (assuming op joined as soon as event started) is the optimal score lost for waiting for bracket to flip a couple of times. 2-3hrs of the 1st sub 
  • Skrofa
    Skrofa Posts: 388 Mover and Shaker
    Pongie said:
    Skrofa said:
    Top 4 in mine
    1. 66291 8 champed 5*
    2. 66196 1 champed 5*
    3. 65876 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 286
    4. 65859 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 288

    Number 5 was me with 65415 0 champed 5* highest 4* at 284.

    Now, I am certain I lucked into a good slice where most of the competition could not play opttimally but the crux of the matter is that there is something fundamentally wrong with pve placement across slices.

    I feel like the t5 scores in my slice would barely qualify for t25 in other slices.


    Note that the difference between top score in our bracket to op's bracket (assuming op joined as soon as event started) is the optimal score lost for waiting for bracket to flip a couple of times. 2-3hrs of the 1st sub 
    I hadn't  really thought of that! But still, I will always be mentioning removing the placement element from pve :smile:
  • turbomoose
    turbomoose Posts: 864 Critical Contributor
    I think the time has come to make it top 20 for a 4* 

    I managed to do the repeat nodes in just over an hour which I thought was pretty fast but still only placed me 22ND for day 2 and 17th overall. The difference between 5 & 25 was under 100 points which is a bit unfair on those of us who haven't developed a 5* due to lack of ISO 
  • Pongie
    Pongie Posts: 1,413 Chairperson of the Boards
    turbomoose said:
    which is a bit unfair on those of us who haven't developed a 5* due to lack of ISO 
    If that is your only hurdle to 5* I wouldn't be complaining. ISO are easy to come by but no amount is ever enough
  • Pla5yer99
    Pla5yer99 Posts: 32 Just Dropped In
    edited June 2017
    I would suggest for scl8, 4-20 rank to get the same reward? Given how competitive the bracket is to get top20 for sub and main rewards and the effort needed to put in. I got rank 11 or 12 a few times and miss the top10 reward by juts a few points during the sub ending. 11-50 is kind of big difference in points but shared the same reward bracket
  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,649 Chairperson of the Boards
    It would be an interesting test if the only change was to extend the T10 reward to T20 for SCL8.

    A lot of top tier players drop to 7 for the simple reason that they don't feel confident fighting for T5 in SCL8.

    If you made those players feel safe by extending T10 to T20, you would see a lot of 450-460 5* players return to scl8 because T20 in Scl8 is easier than T5 in scl7.

Categories