Rod5 said: We were all once in the same position as you, don't forget that. No-one inherits a high-level roster.
Wumpushunter said: Sorry for using forum terms incorrectly. Slumming is the problem and it is not some simple issue that only impacts a few people.
Wumpushunter said: Any time there is a change the side that likes the change will always accuse the other side of whining and not understanding how awesome the change really is, however they don't care they just want the change without modification. Right now SCL scaling boosts a certain group unreasonably and damages another group. No matter the size of those groups or how morally superior the group that won believes itself to be, the change must be altered to bring balance. You can't run a business by pleasing one group. Change will come eventually.
sh81 said: New McG said: sh81 saidPart 2 is this, while its great 5*s can play PVE, how BORING IS THAT?! Seriously, Ive made the comparison to DDQ but I think its valid. I play DDQ in about 10 minutes daily, its a procession, its not interesting, and I do it only for the rewards. That is what PVE will be to 5*s now. I mean, are you really playing PVE because of how engaging and interesting it is? It's the same events, same enemies, over and over again, and you get maybe two new events a YEAR. PVE is a mindless slog, and it just got a whole lot less time-consuming for a whole lot of people. Actually yes.I play to place as high as I can, which means playing as optimally as I can, which means finding the right teams to play and performing well consistently.The actual events themselves mean little to me, playing does and being competitive does.And youre "whole lot of people" is the 5* tier, how large exactly do you think that is? And, honestly, does PVE hold any actual interest to you now? Or is it just a nice little cache of resources for minimal effort?
New McG said: sh81 saidPart 2 is this, while its great 5*s can play PVE, how BORING IS THAT?! Seriously, Ive made the comparison to DDQ but I think its valid. I play DDQ in about 10 minutes daily, its a procession, its not interesting, and I do it only for the rewards. That is what PVE will be to 5*s now. I mean, are you really playing PVE because of how engaging and interesting it is? It's the same events, same enemies, over and over again, and you get maybe two new events a YEAR. PVE is a mindless slog, and it just got a whole lot less time-consuming for a whole lot of people.
sh81 saidPart 2 is this, while its great 5*s can play PVE, how BORING IS THAT?! Seriously, Ive made the comparison to DDQ but I think its valid. I play DDQ in about 10 minutes daily, its a procession, its not interesting, and I do it only for the rewards. That is what PVE will be to 5*s now.
New McG said: Wumpushunter said: Sorry for using forum terms incorrectly. Slumming is the problem and it is not some simple issue that only impacts a few people. Yes, and it impacts many, many in a positive light. Judging from your post in the SHIELD rewards thread, you've been playing just shy of a year. Do you really think you should be automatically locked into competing for the highest level rewards against the highest levelled rosters in every single event? Against vets that have spent 3 years more than you building them up? High end rosters (which does not include my very above average one nearly to the same degree) have been penalized for years if they had the audacity to take the best characters to max level. On a level playing field (i.e. the same enemies, not exponentially higher scaled ones) they SHOULD reap the best rewards. That's what a high end roster should allow you to do.
sh81 said: FokaiHI said: You guys are right. They should keep it the same. Weaker rosters should be able to place higher than better rosters. That makes sense. My bad. Placement trophies for everyone. Or, how about instead they find a solution to suit all?Open SCL 9 and 10, set the difficulties and rewards such that they present some challenge to higher rosters but are worth it, actually make it engaging to them.And leave SCL 7 and 8 alone where it already works for 4* rosters.Does that sound terrible to anyone? Ill bet it sounds better to everyone though!All they have done is made the game far to easy for 5* players, and kick those below out of placement. Its the worst of both worlds. And it really didnt need to be so.
FokaiHI said: You guys are right. They should keep it the same. Weaker rosters should be able to place higher than better rosters. That makes sense. My bad. Placement trophies for everyone.
nick_chicane said: sh81 said: FokaiHI said: You guys are right. They should keep it the same. Weaker rosters should be able to place higher than better rosters. That makes sense. My bad. Placement trophies for everyone. Or, how about instead they find a solution to suit all?Open SCL 9 and 10, set the difficulties and rewards such that they present some challenge to higher rosters but are worth it, actually make it engaging to them.And leave SCL 7 and 8 alone where it already works for 4* rosters.Does that sound terrible to anyone? Ill bet it sounds better to everyone though!All they have done is made the game far to easy for 5* players, and kick those below out of placement. Its the worst of both worlds. And it really didnt need to be so. Theres a chance of SCL9 opening, zero chance of 10. Theres no way there are enough players at that high level to fill a bracket.
Wumpushunter said: New McG said: Wumpushunter said: Sorry for using forum terms incorrectly. Slumming is the problem and it is not some simple issue that only impacts a few people. Yes, and it impacts many, many in a positive light. Judging from your post in the SHIELD rewards thread, you've been playing just shy of a year. Do you really think you should be automatically locked into competing for the highest level rewards against the highest levelled rosters in every single event? Against vets that have spent 3 years more than you building them up? High end rosters (which does not include my very above average one nearly to the same degree) have been penalized for years if they had the audacity to take the best characters to max level. On a level playing field (i.e. the same enemies, not exponentially higher scaled ones) they SHOULD reap the best rewards. That's what a high end roster should allow you to do. The best rewards in CL 8 not 5 or 6, or do you advocate taking candy from babies? Should the great 5 stars take top 10 in every CL?
sh81 said:And youre "whole lot of people" is the 5* tier, how large exactly do you think that is? And, honestly, does PVE hold any actual interest to you now? Or is it just a nice little cache of resources for minimal effort?
--Adam said: What's the difference in node/progression rewards between CL 7-8?
DarthDeVo said: --Adam said: What's the difference in node/progression rewards between CL 7-8? As far as I know, node rewards are the same across all clearance levels. For progression, it looks like there's a total of 1,050 more ISO, 50 more HP, 3 more CP and one extra Vision cover in SCL 8 than 7. That's for enemies with a maximum level increase of 85 levels (245 in SCL 7 vs. 330 in SCL 8).
BoyWonder1914 said: I have no problem admitting that 5* rosters have had a rough go of it at the PVE level with scaling, but this assessment that people with 4* rosters or the people that are gradually adding levels to their 5-stars (softcapping) are somehow "cheating" the system is starting to get extremely annoying. Even saying that the scaling algorithm screwed you over is debatable, because I'm pretty sure you experienced scaling jumps when you transitioned to the 3* and 4* levels. Why would the 5* level be any different, and why you would not expect it to be much worse, given the power difference between 4-stars and 5-star characters? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for not knowing EXACTLY what to expect from a level 400+ Bullseye or Muscle goon, but your frustration needs to be at the game and its developers, not the people who see the benefit of biding their time until they get ready to enter 5* land. It isn't OUR fault that YOU can't go back. I'm pretty sure you don't criticize people that softcap their 4-stars until they're ready to transition to the 4* level, so I'm not seeing what makes this so different. Based on the number of 5-star rosters that I personally still see snagging t10 spots in CL8, clearly it isn't the end of the world either. None of my 5-stars are ready to be champed yet, so I'm "cheating", or "gaming" the system because I can clear faster than you from time to time on less difficult opponents. OKAY . I'm sorry that the level of MY roster is inconvenient for YOU.
zodiac339 said: BoyWonder1914 said: I have no problem admitting that 5* rosters have had a rough go of it at the PVE level with scaling, but this assessment that people with 4* rosters or the people that are gradually adding levels to their 5-stars (softcapping) are somehow "cheating" the system is starting to get extremely annoying. Even saying that the scaling algorithm screwed you over is debatable, because I'm pretty sure you experienced scaling jumps when you transitioned to the 3* and 4* levels. Why would the 5* level be any different, and why you would not expect it to be much worse, given the power difference between 4-stars and 5-star characters? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for not knowing EXACTLY what to expect from a level 400+ Bullseye or Muscle goon, but your frustration needs to be at the game and its developers, not the people who see the benefit of biding their time until they get ready to enter 5* land. It isn't OUR fault that YOU can't go back. I'm pretty sure you don't criticize people that softcap their 4-stars until they're ready to transition to the 4* level, so I'm not seeing what makes this so different. Based on the number of 5-star rosters that I personally still see snagging t10 spots in CL8, clearly it isn't the end of the world either. None of my 5-stars are ready to be champed yet, so I'm "cheating", or "gaming" the system because I can clear faster than you from time to time on less difficult opponents. OKAY . I'm sorry that the level of MY roster is inconvenient for YOU. Well, one major part of the problem that they are facing is that enemies scale with the expectation you will have your boosted Legendaries to get you through it. You get roughly a 16% boost in level above the highest level enemies.Epic Champions don't get boosted. They get no buffer, no advantage to deal with how the enemies scale. Players with Epic Champions have told us many times about how the PVE enemies scale up to stupid amounts of health and power. It's been said enough that I have to believe it. The question I have is how they compare to roster average. Are they 50 levels over their strongest, even, lower? Regardless, we have seen in Balance of Power, Epics do tend to end up with less health at 550 than other tiers, especially when compared to Juggernaut and the Hulks. And Moonstone. All that extra... health she has.And of course, everyone needs the Muscle to be fixed. Demi, please. Threaten is so bad. Please, fix it.
Rod5 said: I don't think most actually resent the softcappers/4* rosters for winning PvE because their enemies were under-powered.What I do think people resent is any of those same players moaning now it's been fixed and their unfair advantage taken away.