zodiac339 said: Yeah, the big questions would be about Boss events and Gauntlet runs. While Boss level should remain determined by round, would side mission scaling be based on roster level, increasing from trivial to easy to normal as the event progresses, or would it jump up in flat increases, matching an SCL difficulty model? Flat enemy levels would end up excluding newer players from making even minor contributions, unless personal progress was turned into a selectable SCL choice. Naturally, low level rosters are already at a handicap against growing bosses, but it's the difference between making minor contributions from side missions and getting some sparse rewards versus spending 2 days with nothing to do but play Deadpool Dailies.
Phumade said: zodiac339 said: Yeah, the big questions would be about Boss events and Gauntlet runs. While Boss level should remain determined by round, would side mission scaling be based on roster level, increasing from trivial to easy to normal as the event progresses, or would it jump up in flat increases, matching an SCL difficulty model? Flat enemy levels would end up excluding newer players from making even minor contributions, unless personal progress was turned into a selectable SCL choice. Naturally, low level rosters are already at a handicap against growing bosses, but it's the difference between making minor contributions from side missions and getting some sparse rewards versus spending 2 days with nothing to do but play Deadpool Dailies. The scaling in Boss events is already independent of your roster. Everyone starts with easy side nodes, easy boss. The side nodes get harder every 8 hrs with big jumps after 24, and 48 hrs. The boss node gets harder with ever level defeated. Your roster isn't factored into the scaling at all
Bowgentle said: Phumade said: zodiac339 said: Yeah, the big questions would be about Boss events and Gauntlet runs. While Boss level should remain determined by round, would side mission scaling be based on roster level, increasing from trivial to easy to normal as the event progresses, or would it jump up in flat increases, matching an SCL difficulty model? Flat enemy levels would end up excluding newer players from making even minor contributions, unless personal progress was turned into a selectable SCL choice. Naturally, low level rosters are already at a handicap against growing bosses, but it's the difference between making minor contributions from side missions and getting some sparse rewards versus spending 2 days with nothing to do but play Deadpool Dailies. The scaling in Boss events is already independent of your roster. Everyone starts with easy side nodes, easy boss. The side nodes get harder every 8 hrs with big jumps after 24, and 48 hrs. The boss node gets harder with ever level defeated. Your roster isn't factored into the scaling at all Roster sure is figured in.I doubt 4* players were seeing level 440+ side nodes in the end.
Wumpushunter said: Allow anyone to play any CL, release CL 9, lock characters out of certain CLs. This will keep each CL competitive with out need for adjustments later. Those that want no restrictions just want to slum on occasion.
broll said: zodiac339 said: Milk Jugz said: zodiac339 said: Milk Jugz said: broll said: Beer40 said: Justice Jacks said: broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for? I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice. Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense. And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level. Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!! So you must have rushed a smaller number of heroes to a higher level (level 310 or so Legendaries?). I'm at a slower build, looking to Champ everyone and try to roughly even out their levels with a top 5 from 293 to 287, and scaling from roster topped out my enemies at 330. Perfect for SCL8. My Shield Rank is 106. As far as SR is concerned, the system would give me access to SCL9 if it were out. I'll have to content myself with 8. I'm just not in a rush. Good fortune to those who can handle the jump. No, I have 32 champ 4s. 293 is the highest, 271 lowest. Most in the 273-284 range. IDK what I've done for all the xp. I'm usually a green checker, get to 900 in pvp consistently for the last 3-4 seasons, DDQ every day. I've dropped a few starks over the year and a half+, a couple treasures, but mostly just loonies (1/month), and I VIP (For the record, I have no shame supporting something I do EVERY DAY at $30/month, costs me $1/day (not bad for the enjoyment it gives me)). I'm even hoarding LTs and CP for the past 2.5 months, though I have spent some LTs when close to a rank up (100-150 away) to get it (maybe the last 3 ranks). I don't usually buy daily deals unless I need to move my 2 farm faster. I open every token, except legend (barring the previous exception mentioned). IDK, I just haven't missed a day in 600-something days...... Your highest is 293? Why would your enemies go to 370? Gah! How did that scaling system actually work? Our rosters top out at a similar level, but my hard mission is 40 levels below yours. Was. I had the same question. Is 293 your highest overall or do you have some 5*s you leveled higher? My roster is pretty comparable to yours (26 4* champs levels between 287 & 271). I wouldn't think 6 level difference in highest 4*s would equal 60 levels difference in enemy scaling. But who knows, this just further points to roster-based scaling being goofy and I'm glad it's gone.
zodiac339 said: Milk Jugz said: zodiac339 said: Milk Jugz said: broll said: Beer40 said: Justice Jacks said: broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for? I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice. Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense. And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level. Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!! So you must have rushed a smaller number of heroes to a higher level (level 310 or so Legendaries?). I'm at a slower build, looking to Champ everyone and try to roughly even out their levels with a top 5 from 293 to 287, and scaling from roster topped out my enemies at 330. Perfect for SCL8. My Shield Rank is 106. As far as SR is concerned, the system would give me access to SCL9 if it were out. I'll have to content myself with 8. I'm just not in a rush. Good fortune to those who can handle the jump. No, I have 32 champ 4s. 293 is the highest, 271 lowest. Most in the 273-284 range. IDK what I've done for all the xp. I'm usually a green checker, get to 900 in pvp consistently for the last 3-4 seasons, DDQ every day. I've dropped a few starks over the year and a half+, a couple treasures, but mostly just loonies (1/month), and I VIP (For the record, I have no shame supporting something I do EVERY DAY at $30/month, costs me $1/day (not bad for the enjoyment it gives me)). I'm even hoarding LTs and CP for the past 2.5 months, though I have spent some LTs when close to a rank up (100-150 away) to get it (maybe the last 3 ranks). I don't usually buy daily deals unless I need to move my 2 farm faster. I open every token, except legend (barring the previous exception mentioned). IDK, I just haven't missed a day in 600-something days...... Your highest is 293? Why would your enemies go to 370? Gah! How did that scaling system actually work? Our rosters top out at a similar level, but my hard mission is 40 levels below yours. Was.
Milk Jugz said: zodiac339 said: Milk Jugz said: broll said: Beer40 said: Justice Jacks said: broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for? I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice. Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense. And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level. Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!! So you must have rushed a smaller number of heroes to a higher level (level 310 or so Legendaries?). I'm at a slower build, looking to Champ everyone and try to roughly even out their levels with a top 5 from 293 to 287, and scaling from roster topped out my enemies at 330. Perfect for SCL8. My Shield Rank is 106. As far as SR is concerned, the system would give me access to SCL9 if it were out. I'll have to content myself with 8. I'm just not in a rush. Good fortune to those who can handle the jump. No, I have 32 champ 4s. 293 is the highest, 271 lowest. Most in the 273-284 range. IDK what I've done for all the xp. I'm usually a green checker, get to 900 in pvp consistently for the last 3-4 seasons, DDQ every day. I've dropped a few starks over the year and a half+, a couple treasures, but mostly just loonies (1/month), and I VIP (For the record, I have no shame supporting something I do EVERY DAY at $30/month, costs me $1/day (not bad for the enjoyment it gives me)). I'm even hoarding LTs and CP for the past 2.5 months, though I have spent some LTs when close to a rank up (100-150 away) to get it (maybe the last 3 ranks). I don't usually buy daily deals unless I need to move my 2 farm faster. I open every token, except legend (barring the previous exception mentioned). IDK, I just haven't missed a day in 600-something days......
zodiac339 said: Milk Jugz said: broll said: Beer40 said: Justice Jacks said: broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for? I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice. Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense. And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level. Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!! So you must have rushed a smaller number of heroes to a higher level (level 310 or so Legendaries?). I'm at a slower build, looking to Champ everyone and try to roughly even out their levels with a top 5 from 293 to 287, and scaling from roster topped out my enemies at 330. Perfect for SCL8. My Shield Rank is 106. As far as SR is concerned, the system would give me access to SCL9 if it were out. I'll have to content myself with 8. I'm just not in a rush. Good fortune to those who can handle the jump.
Milk Jugz said: broll said: Beer40 said: Justice Jacks said: broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for? I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice. Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense. And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level. Yeah, SR is not a good quantifier of roster strength. I'm less than 1k xp from 104, my max scaling before change was around 370ish. Your only about 8 levels below me but your scaling was 60 levels lower?? He is 14 levels below me and scaling 40 levels lower?? That's way too all over the place!!
broll said: Beer40 said: Justice Jacks said: broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for? I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice. Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense. And there is the problem with the SR system i was just talking about (on a small scale). I'm SR 96 and my scaling pre-change was max 310. He's SR 90 and he says his didn't change so he was about 330. So despite being 6 levels higher my scaling was 20 level lower. Because SR != Roster level.
Beer40 said: Justice Jacks said: broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for? I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice. Sorry, while you may have a point about certain ranks only able to select certain clearance levels (whether I agree or not with that) your numbers are off.I'm rank 90 and the scaling in 8 is right around what I was seeing with roster based scaling. It could be argued that CL8 is actually designed more for me in mind than someone who is above rank 100. That's a different topic altogether tho. I just wanted to get some accurate info in here before people start running with ideas, no offense.
Justice Jacks said: broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for? I agree. The problem was they introduced CLs before they introduced fixed scaling. The reality is people below rank 100 should not able to select CL8. Below 80-85 should not be in CL7. And so on. The original caps don't make sense in the current meta, but fix that selection issue and you'll have many low-rank rosters complaining too, so just leave it as is and those rosters can select a proper CL or continue to learn the hard way.But the one issue that should be addressed is that there should also be a limit as to how far you can select under your scaling. Maybe only be able to go down 1 CL from the max you qualify for? 2? Without that, then the low-level rosters really do get hurt event after event.But as it stands now, the developers let you choose to try for better rewards than your rank/roster allows you to truly compete for. If some choose to punch up to the high CLs, so be it. But with that choice, comes consequence, like with any other choice.
broll said:People should be able to compete within their SCLs, if not what are the SCLs for?
GuiPerdigao said: Hello everyone. I think the forum don't have that many posts from new players.I'm currently on day 64 and I think I know my place. I know I should not be playing PVP...and I know that my best option is to grind PVE.I'm thankful that now I'm able to choose which SCL I'll play, because otherwise I would have to play SCL5, when my 2* roster can handle only SCL4.However, what annoys me is to see a much higher level player with much developed roster playing the same SCL that I.Does a guy with a 4* developed roster, with a bunch of 5* have to come and play in SCL4? To fight for 3* covers in the best places? That's really anoying...the only place I should be able to go well. Since I started playing for real I got placed top5 in the 5 PVEs I played, 2nd place whas the best I got. But there is awlays some really high level dude placed among the top when they should be playing other SCL.There should be a limit to wich SCL you could play depending on the level of your champions, allowing you to choose only between 3 SCLs...a mix between the new system and the older one. Or the event should trim down the levels of the heros in a way that it wouldn't be unffair.
SpringSoldier said: @Beer40I'm really curious: how can you have so many champed 4* and not a single 3*? Did you sell them at some point?
Beer40 said: I don't know what the Forum would officially call my roster/player rank but Low Level 4* player seems right to me.
jamesh said: So one side effect of this new scaling system is that the final hard node in Thick as Thieves was a lot easier than before. Previously, it was scaled to a higher level to compensate for the fact that you were just facing two enemies. Now the two enemies have the same levels as an equivalent node with three enemies.It's going to be interesting to see what happens when they rerun the Hulk event next time, with the nodes against solo Hulk.
Bowgentle said: jamesh said: So one side effect of this new scaling system is that the final hard node in Thick as Thieves was a lot easier than before. Previously, it was scaled to a higher level to compensate for the fact that you were just facing two enemies. Now the two enemies have the same levels as an equivalent node with three enemies.It's going to be interesting to see what happens when they rerun the Hulk event next time, with the nodes against solo Hulk. He'll be 330, just like Mags and Hood are 330.