Please apply scaling modifier to rewards in PvE

Unknown

TLDR: Strong roster = increasing difficulty of enemy. Apply same increases to rewards.

Experienced players that have invested time and/or money into this game will eventually have a strong roster. According to Demiurge_Will, having a stronger roster will increase the levels of the enemy in PvE.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=16321&p=223216#p223216

Demiurge_Will wrote:

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

I would agree that in something like this, that scaling should not be factoring in previous PvE competition and focus on only roster strength, but I suspect their scaling algorithm is based on the same algorithm that determines MMR, where your win-loss record in those events combined with roster strength is the ultimate driving force.

Your difficulty is set based only on your roster when you first enter the event.

Missions in the finale have a minimum difficulty that increases as that chapter goes on, so folks with a better-developed roster will have a much, much easier (though hopefully still very challenging) time there compared to newer players.

I am okay with increased difficulty. I had a bit of fun with the challenge of level 395 teams, and even managed to squeak out a win. The satisfaction of doing so feels slightly cheapened by the fact that a max 2* team fighting the same node that has half the level difficulty as I do gets the same rewards.

I propose that if the game is looking at my roster to determine difficulty, it could also look at my roster to determine the rewards.

Thanks for your time!

Unknown

Totally agree unless you want to make it blatantly obvious that you would prefer vets leave as newbies are your cash cows now. I don't mind the challenge but it seems silly that I can only get threw a few nodes before I am out of healthpacks but a 1*/2* can run the whole gauntlet in a day.

Unknown

You can't just scale the reward because it's making the same mistake that led to the unfairness in the first place. On one hand it's totally incorrect to say '2* fight level 150 guys so 3* fight level 395 looks totally right', but if you say 'level 150 guys give 200 iso so level 395 gives 1000 iso' is equally arbitary because you don't know how the difficulty correlates against the stronger team either. What they should do is, at least for the Gauntlet type event, is a system like:

1. Nodes start at fixed base level with 100% guaranteed chance of getting a reward.

2. All 1* and 2* are given a Combined Arms level increase to ensure they're usable. This is also a safeguard against being unfair to high end roster because if you overbuff the 1*/2*, at least the high end guys can just use those instead.

3. Each win increases the level of the node and the reward, up to whatever amount of time deemed necessary. There is still a 100% chance to get all rewards as well.

For example the hardest node in the Gauntlet can look something like:

1st time - Level 250 Sentry/X Force/OBW, 100 iso for winning (probably should be 2000 iso for finishing the bracket as per tradition).
2nd time - Level 300, 200 iso for winning
3rd time - Level 350, 500 iso for winning
4th time - Level 395, 1000 iso for winning

This is probably too generous but this is the last node which usually has a big pay off. I imagine the other nodes can just do a 70/100/250/500 deal. D3 can put the last level jump very high if they don't want to give away too many 500 iso8s.

Of course this system only works because nodes are only worth points the first time so it's okay to do something different on the reclears. This system wouldn't work at all for any standard event but the PvE points are probably meant to be the award there.

kidicarus

Phantron wrote:

You can't just scale the reward because it's making the same mistake that led to the unfairness in the first place. On one hand it's totally incorrect to say '2* fight level 150 guys so 3* fight level 395 looks totally right', but if you say 'level 150 guys give 200 iso so level 395 gives 1000 iso' is equally arbitary because you don't know how the difficulty correlates against the stronger team either.

Why not? what unfairness?I don't see why reward shouldn't correlate with risk/effort.

PVE shouldn't be welfare. I was actually enjoying the gauntlet, I'm one of those masochistic players who enjoys the challenge of beating teams with the roster that I have. I've made it as far as sim39 (the one with )without using boosts and I was pretty pleased with myself. And then I saw my leaderboards - no 1 only has 1 character at lvl 94 and only 1 character with all 13 covers.

Completing the gauntlet should be hard. 1* rosters should be able to complete the first sub and make some progress in the 2nd sub, 2* rosters should be able to complete 2nd sub and make some progress in 3rd sub with difficulty, while 3rd sub 3 should be for vets and elites with the very last nodes the toughest the game has to offer. I'm more for static difficulties but if you're going to scale difficulty then make it worth while for me to slog to the very end. As it is, a psylocke cover is just an extra 500iso to me is and is not enough to get me out of bed in the morning.

its the same with pvp, why should I beat up on a max166 team when I can take on 5 seed teams in the same amount of time, with less hp loss, less risk resulting in 5x more rewards and pvp scores. Put it this way, if there was reward scaling I'd be less inclined to tank.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

You can't just scale the reward because it's making the same mistake that led to the unfairness in the first place. On one hand it's totally incorrect to say '2* fight level 150 guys so 3* fight level 395 looks totally right', but if you say 'level 150 guys give 200 iso so level 395 gives 1000 iso' is equally arbitary because you don't know how the difficulty correlates against the stronger team either.

I see your point. You're basically saying that a lvl 94 team beating a level 194 team should have the same rewards as a 166 team beating a 266 team. So, If gauging the rewards based on difficulty of the mission to the player, it would be unfair from that standpoint. And by your own words, it is too difficult to see how the difficulty correlates. That being said, if it's too difficult to judge difficulty and match the reward to that difficulty, why not mostly ignore that factor. If you gauge the rewards based on roster, then things become more fair for gratification. This also encourages those with weaker rosters to have a desire to strengthen their roster.

Scaled rewards will work for both Progression and Node-based rewards. It will not work to the same extent for placement rewards. I'm not saying that scaled rewards have to be insane, they just have to be better.

Unknown

BubBLeB0y1977 wrote:

Phantron wrote:

You can't just scale the reward because it's making the same mistake that led to the unfairness in the first place. On one hand it's totally incorrect to say '2* fight level 150 guys so 3* fight level 395 looks totally right', but if you say 'level 150 guys give 200 iso so level 395 gives 1000 iso' is equally arbitary because you don't know how the difficulty correlates against the stronger team either.

I see your point. You're basically saying that a lvl 94 team beating a level 194 team should have the same rewards as a 166 team beating a 266 team. So, If gauging the rewards based on difficulty of the mission to the player, it would be unfair from that standpoint. And by your own words, it is too difficult to see how the difficulty correlates. That being said, if it's too difficult to judge difficulty and match the reward to that difficulty, why not mostly ignore that factor. If you gauge the rewards based on roster, then things become more fair for gratification. This also encourages those with weaker rosters to have a desire to strengthen their roster.

Scaled rewards will work for both Progression and Node-based rewards. It will not work to the same extent for placement rewards. I'm not saying that scaled rewards have to be insane, they just have to be better.

No I'm not saying they should have the same reward. I'm just saying you can't say those two encounters are equally difficult or that the 266 version is twice as hard. That is why we have this problem in the first place, since D3 has arbitarily decided that fighting a 395 for a max roster is apparently the same difficulty as 94 versus 200. Right now we get the same rewards which is obviously very unfair for the better rosters, but is it still unfair if they're doubled? Depending on the event/scaling involved it can still be unfair to the max roster, or it even be unfair to the weak roster. You can't simply look at two vastly different roster strength versus equally vastly different enemy levels and expect you to be able to draw any kind of general conclusion of how hard it is. It clearly doesn't work for setting the difficulty as most fights the max roster face in Gauntlet is way too hard, so why would it work for setting rewards?

We need to first have a even playing field on roster (which is why I suggested a Combined Arms type boost to all rosters) and then we can have fixed enemy level for all roster strength, and then we can appropriately reward people for beating the hard nodes. If the levels are boosted correctly then the weak rosters still have a chance but the max roster have an advantage, and if they're not boosted correctly nobody's stopping a max roster from headbutting everyone with a level 270 Juggernaut.

SunCrusher

kidicarus wrote:

Phantron wrote:

You can't just scale the reward because it's making the same mistake that led to the unfairness in the first place. On one hand it's totally incorrect to say '2* fight level 150 guys so 3* fight level 395 looks totally right', but if you say 'level 150 guys give 200 iso so level 395 gives 1000 iso' is equally arbitary because you don't know how the difficulty correlates against the stronger team either.

Why not? what unfairness?I don't see why reward shouldn't correlate with risk/effort.

PVE shouldn't be welfare. I was actually enjoying the gauntlet, I'm one of those masochistic players who enjoys the challenge of beating teams with the roster that I have. I've made it as far as sim39 (the one with )without using boosts and I was pretty pleased with myself. And then I saw my leaderboards - no 1 only has 1 character at lvl 94 and only 1 character with all 13 covers.

Completing the gauntlet should be hard. 1* rosters should be able to complete the first sub and make some progress in the 2nd sub, 2* rosters should be able to complete 2nd sub and make some progress in 3rd sub with difficulty, while 3rd sub 3 should be for vets and elites with the very last nodes the toughest the game has to offer. I'm more for static difficulties but if you're going to scale difficulty then make it worth while for me to slog to the very end. As it is, a psylocke cover is just an extra 500iso to me is and is not enough to get me out of bed in the morning.

its the same with pvp, why should I beat up on a max166 team when I can take on 5 seed teams in the same amount of time, with less hp loss, less risk resulting in 5x more rewards and pvp scores. Put it this way, if there was reward scaling I'd be less inclined to tank.

Just wanted to mention that unless the newbie player - I say newbie because your argument is that newer players should be further behind the vets in something like a Gauntlet and you're indignant that the player is number 1 on the leaderboard so therefore they must be a new 1-2* player - you're describing has all 3 Essential characters - Punisher, Black Panther, Grey Suit Black Widow - there's no possible way they could finish the Gauntlet with full points.

If they DO have the characters and built enough to get through and earn all the points and rewards, then it's pretty clear they are no longer 'new'/1-2* players.

Levels are deceiving; covers and number of characters and which characters is more accurate and it's also possible people are cheating or whatever else.

Additionally, I don't hear any 'newbies'/1-2* players crowing about easy wins in Gauntlet - especially not Heroic or Finale. In fact, it is the opposite and as we all know, people are usually pretty quick to cry Victory.

ErikPeter

I agree in principle, but not in execution. I'm proud to have beaten the level 322 Sentry, and I know my friends all had lower difficulties during the event and that doesn't matter to me. I got my Psylocke black and managed to beat missions that seemed impossible at first. In this type of event we're all just playing against the game, and there's no easy way to quantify how difficult a mission was for a team. After all, I beat the Level 322 Sentry node with 256 Punisher, 100 Hood and 130 Storm (Classic). I bet it was harder for me than 395 with 256 Punisher, 196 Black Panther and 270 Nick Fury. I hear more players grumbling about the difficulty of the event than the "ease" at which other players beat it.

But yeah, since everyone who beats the Gauntlet has the same score, it'd be nice if the ranking had tie-breaking based on difficulty level, not speed, and at the end of the event we got some sort of "bonus chest" rewarding the players who had the highest difficulty. It could either be rank based, or just tied to difficulty adjustment. The players who beat the final node at 395 could get a champion token, players above 300 could get a couple heroics or some ISO, etc.

It doesn't exactly reward "overcoming the biggest challenge", as I mentioned above, but that's ok. It would be a nice reward for the maxed players who didn't need the Psylocke anyway. Even just ISO bonuses in the 2-5k range would be nice.