Upcoming Change: Character Level Shift

1235717

Comments

  • IceIXIceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 3,554 Site Admin
    Toxicadam wrote:
    IceIX, another way to differentiate veterans from transitionary players is to allow us to apply covers we have won to marginally increase their stats.

    This would also help with the fact that many veterans are tiring of having to compete to win our 100th Punisher cover that we just end up selling. At least it could go towards increasing his HP or increase dmg. It would bring the thrill back in 'getting lucky' from a token pull.

    Please stick that idea into someone's ear.
    We've talked about something similar to this, yep. It was actually part of our original design, in that there was no such thing as Iso leveling characters, instead it was just like covers. Still something that comes up from time to time, as is the similar thought of being able to "Prestige" characters.
  • IceIXIceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 3,554 Site Admin
    TL:RD -Is there an eta on/or any further plans to address the significantly low availability of 3 star covers relative to the number of ones we keep getting?
    <Snip>
    Yep, we're still looking into effective ways to do so. We tested something a few weeks ago with our little Stealth Buy-In No Hold Barred Tournies, and we've got ideas for other ways to do so. What we *don't* want to do is something as heavy handed as what we did with the 2*s and make them available through simple wins. We want 3* progression to be more skill/achievment/I-won-something based rather than grindy-grindy till it drops.
  • kensterrkensterr Age Unconfirmed Posts: 1,277 Chairperson of the Boards
    Thanks for answering IceIX. Have a good weekend!
  • IceIXIceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 3,554 Site Admin
    The comment on OBW's tile match damage does bring up the issue of level-specing. Many people have their characters carefully leveled so that they'll tank for each other in a particularly way.

    Easiest fix -- some sort of mechanism for putting a character at a lower level. For example, I might want to drop my Hood eight levels for awhile. On the character screen showing the stat block, there could be a "-1" and "+1" button, with the "+1" button initially grayed out. If they press "-1", then the "+1" button is activated, along with "1 available level", which would increment each time "-1" was pressed.
    Ideally, we want players to always level characters to max level. What you're talking about would definitely work, but it would also be yet another UI element that would be very potentially confusing for players when only a very small minority of users would actually make real use of it.
  • mohiomohio Age Unconfirmed Posts: 1,690 Chairperson of the Boards
    kensterr wrote:
    Thanks for answering IceIX. Have a good weekend!
    Seconded -thanks for staying here answering some questions so late on friday night. Much appreciated.
  • IceIXIceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 3,554 Site Admin
    Xeonic-Ice wrote:
    So my question is: Will this level shift make lower covered heroes usable to someone who has a couple maxed 141's or will it largely remain the same?
    If you're a number cruncher, probably largely the same. If you run off glances at ratios, then yes. Looking at a Level 15, getting them to 141 means almost 10x the levels! That's a ton! Meanwhile, a 40 to 166 is only 4x the levels! Much easier! When in all actuality, the Iso cost is exactly the same.
  • IceIXIceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 3,554 Site Admin
    mohio wrote:
    kensterr wrote:
    Thanks for answering IceIX. Have a good weekend!
    Seconded -thanks for staying here answering some questions so late on friday night. Much appreciated.
    No problem. It cost me all of a night not testing out some Wizard builds on the Diablo 3 2.1 PTR. Think that's a decent sacrifice. icon_e_smile.gif
  • IceIXIceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 3,554 Site Admin
    So you're saying that roster level is not directly factored in when matchmaking assigns opponents to you? Based off of what you said in the last two comments, the scenario then is that the 3x85 guy is at some random MMR, gets a level 100 3*, which lets him win more games and is enough to propel him to the next, shark infested MMR pool? I've just heard a bunch of stories where the level of 3* seemed like the direct reason why their MMRs jumped as opposed to what you're implying, which is that the 3* won them more games instead.
    Having levels of characters directly influence your PVE scaling or PVP MMR directly penalizes you for leveling if you can figure out the right balance ahead of time. So we simply don't do that. But what *does* happen is that since we have these people sticking out at 1* or 2*, they start to accrete around certain MMR values. As more 85s hit this area, there becomes less of a reason for the matchmaker to look outside that to anyone else. So you hit this pocket where all the 85s are all you really see. Then you put in a level 100 3* and with a few wins and maybe a few successful defenses, boom. You've broken the bubble. Now you're sitting out in the big pond beyond, where it's scary. You'll still get a few of your old buddies back in 85 land sometimes as the matchmaker looks backward in MMR a little, but it's also looking into the jaws of that one player who has a whole 25 points in the Tourney, 3x 141s, and low MMR since no one ever wants to attack him at that level.
  • Yay, even higher HP. Higher damage, I suppose, but in practice it certainly seems that 3 x 141 vs 3 x 141 matches take longer than 3 x 85 vs 3 x 85 did, and I expect that trend to continue with even higher levels. I hope the developers are aware that "matches taking longer and longer" is not something we the players like.

    Non-sarcastic yay for Punisher's red, I suppose.
  • DD-The-MightyDD-The-Mighty Age Unconfirmed Posts: 350 Mover and Shaker
    IceIX wrote:
    So you're saying that roster level is not directly factored in when matchmaking assigns opponents to you? Based off of what you said in the last two comments, the scenario then is that the 3x85 guy is at some random MMR, gets a level 100 3*, which lets him win more games and is enough to propel him to the next, shark infested MMR pool? I've just heard a bunch of stories where the level of 3* seemed like the direct reason why their MMRs jumped as opposed to what you're implying, which is that the 3* won them more games instead.
    Having levels of characters directly influence your PVE scaling or PVP MMR directly penalizes you for leveling if you can figure out the right balance ahead of time. So we simply don't do that. But what *does* happen is that since we have these people sticking out at 1* or 2*, they start to accrete around certain MMR values. As more 85s hit this area, there becomes less of a reason for the matchmaker to look outside that to anyone else. So you hit this pocket where all the 85s are all you really see. Then you put in a level 100 3* and with a few wins and maybe a few successful defenses, boom. You've broken the bubble. Now you're sitting out in the big pond beyond, where it's scary. You'll still get a few of your old buddies back in 85 land sometimes as the matchmaker looks backward in MMR a little, but it's also looking into the jaws of that one player who has a whole 25 points in the Tourney, 3x 141s, and low MMR since no one ever wants to attack him at that level.
    Is this how its supposed to work?
    You get to 100 then get flooded with 141 attacks, preventing you from getting the cover to get your 100 -141, because there is a huge difference between a 100 and a 141. It doesnt sound very appealing at all.
    Is there a way the mmr figures out that you are not ready to get bombarded by these top squads? aka correct itself.

    Another major reason i think people sit on 85 3*s until they can unlock and rank enough of them up to 141, because that's what your going up against primarily.
  • IceIXIceIX ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 3,554 Site Admin
    Is this how its supposed to work?
    You get to 100 then get flooded with 141 attacks, preventing you from getting the cover to get your 100 -141, because there is a huge difference between a 100 and a 141. It doesnt sound very appealing at all.
    Is there a way the mmr figures out that you are not ready to get bombarded by these top squads? aka correct itself.

    Another major reason i think people sit on 85 3*s until they can unlock and rank enough of them up to 141, because that's what your going up against primarily.
    It's not optimal, no. But it's how things work out organically due to player's current play patterns. This change is intended to go a ways towards elongating those two bubbles and spreading those big clumps of users out.
  • kensterrkensterr Age Unconfirmed Posts: 1,277 Chairperson of the Boards
    I'm not too worried about the 85s unable to handle 141s. I've got quite a number of defensive losses to 85s in the recent HPK - I was running GSBW/Patch/Cmags or GSBW/LThor/LDaken, losing to teams with GSBW/Storm/MnMags or GSBW/Storm/Ares. Clearly there are some 85s who are willing to take the risk and enjoyed the rewards.
  • IceIX wrote:
    TL:RD -Is there an eta on/or any further plans to address the significantly low availability of 3 star covers relative to the number of ones we keep getting?
    <Snip>
    Yep, we're still looking into effective ways to do so. We tested something a few weeks ago with our little Stealth Buy-In No Hold Barred Tournies, and we've got ideas for other ways to do so. What we *don't* want to do is something as heavy handed as what we did with the 2*s and make them available through simple wins. We want 3* progression to be more skill/achievment/I-won-something based rather than grindy-grindy till it drops.


    Something definitely needs to be done about trying to hone in on the covers you need. I just cashed in nearly 450 tokens (295 standards, 44 heroics and 7 10 packs I think) and I got TWO covers I needed. And one of those was just for a respec. That was 2 months worth of saving for 2 covers i needed. I admittedly only need a few covers at this point but it still is disappointing to really have nothing to look forward to in tokens anymore.
  • OnesOwnGriefOnesOwnGrief Age Unconfirmed Posts: 1,387 Chairperson of the Boards
    I hit 100 and started seeing 141s but was perfectly fine at 97. 100 was the magic number for me but I didn't collect any info for 98 and 99. Anyways, on topic.

    I'm excited for the new caps but I just realized something, match damage also increases and fights may last a little longer. I'm unsure how this will personally influence most characters but I can see a couple nice bonuses for damage abilities.

    In the case of those new character announcements, that's pretty great but I'm going to hate getting the slots. Let's see how this goes.
  • killerkoalakillerkoala Posts: 1,185 Chairperson of the Boards
    sms4002 wrote:
    IceIX wrote:
    TL:RD -Is there an eta on/or any further plans to address the significantly low availability of 3 star covers relative to the number of ones we keep getting?
    <Snip>
    Yep, we're still looking into effective ways to do so. We tested something a few weeks ago with our little Stealth Buy-In No Hold Barred Tournies, and we've got ideas for other ways to do so. What we *don't* want to do is something as heavy handed as what we did with the 2*s and make them available through simple wins. We want 3* progression to be more skill/achievment/I-won-something based rather than grindy-grindy till it drops.


    Something definitely needs to be done about trying to hone in on the covers you need. I just cashed in nearly 450 tokens (295 standards, 44 heroics and 7 10 packs I think) and I got TWO covers I needed. And one of those was just for a respec. That was 2 months worth of saving for 2 covers i needed. I admittedly only need a few covers at this point but it still is disappointing to really have nothing to look forward to in tokens anymore.


    be glad i haven't gotten a single 3*+ in 7 weeks from a single stand or heroic token for 7 weeks. get about 3 when i cashed in a 10 pack, and i need all 3* mine aren't near covered enough.
  • over_clockedover_clocked Posts: 3,961
    Still reading, but LYCRA MAX OUT YOUR GAZILLION OF 140s, STAT!

    edit: although the ISO should be the same?.. Still, no reason to underlevel a character now, nice!
  • mohiomohio Age Unconfirmed Posts: 1,690 Chairperson of the Boards
    locked wrote:
    Still reading, but LYCRA MAX OUT YOUR GAZILLION OF 140s, STAT!

    edit: although the ISO should be the same?.. Still, no reason to underlevel a character now, nice!
    well, 165 is more of a nice looking number than 166 right? We have one of these guys in our alliance too and I joked he was going to have to delete all his 2* and re-level them cause 94 is just too unsightly.
  • over_clockedover_clocked Posts: 3,961
    I dunno, round-ish numbers are for princesses.
  • Nighthawk81Nighthawk81 Age Unconfirmed Posts: 166 Tile Toppler
    IceIX wrote:
    So you're saying that roster level is not directly factored in when matchmaking assigns opponents to you? Based off of what you said in the last two comments, the scenario then is that the 3x85 guy is at some random MMR, gets a level 100 3*, which lets him win more games and is enough to propel him to the next, shark infested MMR pool? I've just heard a bunch of stories where the level of 3* seemed like the direct reason why their MMRs jumped as opposed to what you're implying, which is that the 3* won them more games instead.
    Having levels of characters directly influence your PVE scaling or PVP MMR directly penalizes you for leveling if you can figure out the right balance ahead of time. So we simply don't do that. But what *does* happen is that since we have these people sticking out at 1* or 2*, they start to accrete around certain MMR values. As more 85s hit this area, there becomes less of a reason for the matchmaker to look outside that to anyone else. So you hit this pocket where all the 85s are all you really see. Then you put in a level 100 3* and with a few wins and maybe a few successful defenses, boom. You've broken the bubble. Now you're sitting out in the big pond beyond, where it's scary. You'll still get a few of your old buddies back in 85 land sometimes as the matchmaker looks backward in MMR a little, but it's also looking into the jaws of that one player who has a whole 25 points in the Tourney, 3x 141s, and low MMR since no one ever wants to attack him at that level.

    I hit this with GSBW PVP. Not sure how I did because I haven't leveled anything up to 100. It was not fun to see a bunch of teams with 100+ when I was running maxed 2* and a level 90 (with buff) GSBW. She spent half of my run on the bench (dead or dying) while I used the loaner. Alas, the first few nodes lined up in DD look to be the same. It sucks and makes me not want to level my 3* any further at the moment.
  • over_clockedover_clocked Posts: 3,961
    IceIX wrote:
    Most forumites seem to agree that Magneto is overpowered and deserves a small nerf, but also seem to agree that he isn't being heavily overused.
    He's not heavily overused in PVP. In PVE on the other hand, he and Good Ol' Tuxedo Man are by far and away the most used characters in the advanced 3* crowd.
    Hey! I have them both maxed, and I definitely don't abuse them in PvE these days, barring recent Heroic events. Last event with an unlimited roster, I had tons of fun with Doom and Black Panther, laying kitty-paw on the entire enemy team at once. Before that, when the Hulk was buffed, I ran the Hulk/lazyCap/Hood combo and was enjoying it a lot.
    My plea to the character designers as an avid Magneto lover/abuser (I stil run him a lot in PvP against all these maxed Hulks and Dakens):
    do not completely ruin him, for the love of Marvel! He's the only good board control character among 3*s and even 4*s (Mororo? IW? Loki? Ragnarok? Laughable. GSBW is decent-ish but so horribly slow. Sentry and She-Hulk are too new and rare.) and the best counter for Daken at the moment. So keep the essence, please, and don't leave Daken counter-less, because he's already got way too much power and influence for someone you called Clawkid yourselves. I guess Sentry and Human Torch counter Daken on red, but Sentry is still very rare, his red costs 11 and does significant self-damage, while HT is on the squishy side.
Sign In or Register to comment.