BeetleGeorge said: I find this whole discussion strange in a way. Recently I have the feeling there are more and more events where I loose fights at the 5* node even on 9. So 10 would mean that I can be sure not to get max. points and loose so many health packs in trying that I can not play pvp at all - until a few weeks ago I needed health packs mainly in pvp.A few minutes faster at the easy nodes are not changing anything for me in such a situation.What I think would make more sense would be to make 10 like 9 but just with higher levels to fight. And save the crazy combinations for a new event similar to DDQ but with some really challenging nodes.
Phumade said: BeetleGeorge said: I find this whole discussion strange in a way. Recently I have the feeling there are more and more events where I loose fights at the 5* node even on 9. So 10 would mean that I can be sure not to get max. points and loose so many health packs in trying that I can not play pvp at all - until a few weeks ago I needed health packs mainly in pvp.A few minutes faster at the easy nodes are not changing anything for me in such a situation.What I think would make more sense would be to make 10 like 9 but just with higher levels to fight. And save the crazy combinations for a new event similar to DDQ but with some really challenging nodes. The 5* node can be much tougher than the challenge node. Most players have a winfinite roster than can hit 650 reliably. But once you limit teams to a required 5*, you become much more limited in viable team choices. Depending on the strengths , weakened and health the 5* node can be straightforward or impossible to beat.
grunth13 said: Phumade said: BeetleGeorge said: I find this whole discussion strange in a way. Recently I have the feeling there are more and more events where I loose fights at the 5* node even on 9. So 10 would mean that I can be sure not to get max. points and loose so many health packs in trying that I can not play pvp at all - until a few weeks ago I needed health packs mainly in pvp.A few minutes faster at the easy nodes are not changing anything for me in such a situation.What I think would make more sense would be to make 10 like 9 but just with higher levels to fight. And save the crazy combinations for a new event similar to DDQ but with some really challenging nodes. The 5* node can be much tougher than the challenge node. Most players have a winfinite roster than can hit 650 reliably. But once you limit teams to a required 5*, you become much more limited in viable team choices. Depending on the strengths , weakened and health the 5* node can be straightforward or impossible to beat. I feel that it's the opposite for me. A 605 level isn't much worse than a 550 level. It's a glorified 5 star pvp node. What's worse is the 650 levels because the 5 star charges are doing like 10 to 20k match damage with passive damage up to 25k PER TURN. Doesn't matter what you use, its brutal. On top of that, the enemy team has 650 to 800k cumulative health pool. That's just crazy when you have only 350k.
Phumade said: I remember when pepper was the required 5*. Even my best meta combo brb kitty, ihulkokoye, at 460-480 were real underdogs to 3x 605 combos. Once you have to hit up over 3x 120 levels, the matches become marginal at best and that’s with boosts, TU , supports etcbut most can stunlock using worthy cap/ spidy2099/ 5* ice variations. Specifically I run a 460/370/350 Hawkeye/coulson/worthy combo and reliably stunlock a 650 team in 3 turns.
Vhailorx said: Phumade said: I remember when pepper was the required 5*. Even my best meta combo brb kitty, ihulkokoye, at 460-480 were real underdogs to 3x 605 combos. Once you have to hit up over 3x 120 levels, the matches become marginal at best and that’s with boosts, TU , supports etcbut most can stunlock using worthy cap/ spidy2099/ 5* ice variations. Specifically I run a 460/370/350 Hawkeye/coulson/worthy combo and reliably stunlock a 650 team in 3 turns. his is less of an issue if you have a 350+ worthy, but even the he can struggle to keep pace with 650s.
supergarv said: Did you play for prog woth 3x or 4x?Because I am very sure many players keep playing 4x for prog, because the score change hasn‘t been formally announced in-game. That could explain why you‘re a lot lower...?
PiMacleod said: I played the same way that I did the last umpteen amount of PvEs...enough to get full progression. To answer your question directly -- I did 3 clears. which is the same as I did for the last PvE, getting top 200, and the one before, getting top 200, and before that... and repeat.Sure, they could've done just ONE more clear. And they could've done that on the previous PvE too.... but the results there aren't nearly as different as this one. I got close to top 100 on the first "new SCL 10", with these 3 hit changes, because I did do a few extra clears, since I didn't know what the progression bar was gonna be set at. But once I saw that I kinda "overdid it", I just did 3 hits of each node. And back to top 200 I went.EDIT: I guess it's just crazy to ME, that we see people all the time stating A) Simulator is the hardest, and B ) "I'm dropping down to SCL9/lower, and C ) I'm just gonna skip Simulator this time... yet THIS is the PvE where I see the most people in SCL 10 hitting above me.
PiMacleod said: Switching gears, but staying on the topic of SCL 10 PvEs...People generally talk about (on these forums) how level 10 PvEs aren't always worth the time/grind. Wellllllllll....If you've read any of my posts regarding my playstyle in the post (hint: I've done it too much, IMO), you know that I haven't changed my style for anything. I stick with the highest SCL, and play to progression -- that's it.EVERYONE HERE knows that Simulator is the hardest. They have the troll-iest nodes, and no goons on any "hard" or higher node. Because of this, many people on these forums often declare that they "drop down" for Simulator... stating that the difficulty isn't worth their time.When I play a PvE to progression, I'm always in top 200 or higher. I play in the first "slice", but not right away in the morning. Usually, I'll join in around 10 AM, or even later sometimes. And I run it casually throughout the day, just doing hits (while working)... I'm doing it as fast as I can, but without trying to stress myself.So, I'm intrigued to report that for Simulator (where I hit full progression again), I'm in 273rd place. Not top 200... lower. This isn't normal. It doesn't happen EVER in my recollection. Don't read too deeply on this -- I'm not upset at all. Once again, I do not care about placement. HOWEVER -- if SOOOOOO many people drop down to lower SCLs due to Simulator's difficulty, it sure is not reflected here. If anything, it tells me that MORE people got in on the grind this time. Someone might argue that the 5* shards were worth it this time -- but I'd find that very hard to believe. It was 5* Hawkeye for placement. Sure, he's nice for completing those challenge nodes, and the countdown-powered meta team, but he's no Okoye, Kitty, BRB, etc, etc... you get my point.I'm not looking for an answer -- I'm just stating my results here. I don't think people are dropping down in mass quantities like these forums suggest. In fact, perhaps more people are taking up the challenge... and maybe more rosters are rising (like my own) due to shards and this new reward system. Just speculation.
bluewolf said: *headsmack* yeah, of course people are trying harder for more points in 10 now than they did a few weeks ago.....Even if you aren't placing all that high in 10 you are outscoring people in 9 with a little effort and securing yourself that T10 alliance slot. (Many players are, anyway.)
PiMacleod said: Someone might argue that the 5* shards were worth it this time -- but I'd find that very hard to believe. It was 5* Hawkeye for placement. Sure, he's nice for completing those challenge nodes, and the countdown-powered meta team, but he's no Okoye, Kitty, BRB, etc, etc... you get my point.