2* Rosters vs 3* Rosters in PVE is Counter Productive

Dauthi

Forcing 2* rosters to face off against 3* rosters for new covers makes absolutely no sense. As a 3* roster, it is consistently frustrating to have to fight tooth and nail against a 3* transitional or 2* roster for new covers in PVE when they would be just as happy receiving Hood or Thor.

Three star rosters and 4* transitionals only need new covers, they already have everything, so why are we being pitted against each other? As a slap in the face, scaling makes it harder for developed rosters to compete for their needed covers! This of course is only exacerbated when 4*s are put up for PVE, and it all doesn't make sense. I am trying to transition to 4* and yet 2*s/3 star transitional are taking the covers I need and they don't?

The easiest solution would be to have two PVE's being played simultaneously, one with a new character and the other with an older 3* character. Three stars would target the new character, and smart 2*s would target the other PVE seeing it as an easy and better target. They wouldn't have a new character sit unfinished in their roster taking space. Two stars would still have the option to aim for the new characters if they choose, but this puts them in a larger pool with lower chances of success.

I bumped this because of Phantron quitting. I posted this awhile back but I still feel the same. I sit though this PVE and watch a 3* transitional roster take 1st place in my bracket. It is utterly ridiculous that he is going to get four 4*s that I need before his 3*s are even finished. Prizes are not being distributed correctly and it is slowing down everyone's progress in the end.

Shadow

Don't really see your point. Someone with a decent 2* roster would be someone who is starting to transition to a 3* roster. Things being the way they are, a new 3* character is easier to get covers for compared to an old 3* character since it has significantly less chance of being vaulted in the near future. Unless it is a character that has been recently released from the vault. Moreover, they do have old 3* characters in PvE in between the new character releases. Thor in the Hunt doesn't look like a new character to me.

More likely, what you are trying to say is that you find it hard to compete with the 2* player because your scaling is much higher and therefore puts you at a disadvantage. But if this is really the case, then perhaps you should consider when 4* Thor was released, those 2* players weren't the main competition at all. I came in 2nd in that PvE and you know who took first? It was someone from the X-Men. When the PvE reward is significant enough, suddenly the 2* players don't have that good a chance at getting ahead even with the easier scaling that they enjoy.

Dauthi

Shadow wrote:

Don't really see your point. Someone with a decent 2* roster would be someone who is starting to transition to a 3* roster. Things being the way they are, a new 3* character is easier to get covers for compared to an old 3* character since it has significantly less chance of being vaulted in the near future. Unless it is a character that has been recently released from the vault.

Exactly, the likelyhood of a 2* roster obtaining an older character and it being recently released from the vault is much more likely then trying to get a brand new character all together. Then contemplate all the work of getting the new character, as anything related to it will be targeted by 3*s in any given event.

Moreover, they do have old 3* characters in PvE in between the new character releases. Thor in the Hunt doesn't look like a new character to me.

Every new character is introduced in PVE counting 4*s. What you are talking about is infrequent at best lately. Im not sure where you are going with this.

More likely, what you are trying to say is that you find it hard to compete with the 2* player because your scaling is much higher and therefore puts you at a disadvantage. But if this is really the case, then perhaps you should consider when 4* Thor was released, those 2* players weren't the main competition at all. I came in 2nd in that PvE and you know who took first? It was someone from the X-Men. When the PvE reward is significant enough, suddenly the 2* players don't have that good a chance at getting ahead even with the easier scaling that they enjoy.

As a alliance leader I can guarantee you, you are wrong. There were 2* players used to push top alliances into the top 50 of the event temperarily. The sad part is the 2*'s are much more likely to burnout after something like that than a seasoned 3*.

Quebbster

Dauthi wrote:

Moreover, they do have old 3* characters in PvE in between the new character releases. Thor in the Hunt doesn't look like a new character to me.

Every new character is introduced in PVE counting 4*s. What you are talking about is infrequent at best lately. Im not sure where you are going with this.

It's actually at least half the PvEs that are for old characters - it tends to go new character, old character, new character, old character. Sometimes there are several old characters in a row too if the PvEs are short.

Dauthi

Quebbster wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Moreover, they do have old 3* characters in PvE in between the new character releases. Thor in the Hunt doesn't look like a new character to me.

Every new character is introduced in PVE counting 4*s. What you are talking about is infrequent at best lately. Im not sure where you are going with this.

It's actually at least half the PvEs that are for old characters - it tends to go new character, old character, new character, old character. Sometimes there are several old characters in a row too if the PvEs are short.

Right, PVEs themselves are infrequent, and a 50/50 new/old character ratio is terrible when PVEs are a 2* rosters best friend for acquiring new characters. So why are 3*s given incentives to take their needed covers, and vice versa?

Like I said, the system itself is set up counter productive.

Unknown

I think it is ok in PVE as higher your roster level higher the enemy levels

those 166ers are facing 200+ nodes and we 2* roster face 100 something.

200+ Ares / Daken / Ragnarok is totally different from 100 something

Unknown

I'm beginning to wonder if the '2* guy at top of PvE' we see is really just someone who keeps everyone purposely underleveled. I was poking around on the top alliance scores and I see a lot of '2* guy' with 4 pages of heroes. You don't just accidentally have enough HP to buy around 50 slots while somehow never getting anyone past level 100. I'm wondering if the real 2*/transition guys are indeed getting hammered in PvE but to the veterans it looks like yet another guy with no one higher than level 100 is easily dominating the event. If you work out the scaling, it should be very advantageous to use level ~100 characters that are max covered, and you have effectively infinite boosts when you play like that because you can't even use up all your iso 8 when you're keeping everyone purposely underleveled, but then you can't really call a guy like that as a 2* guy or a transition guy. He's every bit as hardcore as the guy with maxed out characters. The only difference is he's purposely keeping all his characters at a low level.

ballingbees

I'm in agreement with Shadow here. Always thought PVE is somewhat fair in that scaling puts everyone in the 'same' difficulty level corresponding to your squad, so it boils down to the most zombie guy who puts in the most time/work comes out top in PVE. Some will say no skill, purely mindless grind, that's accurate enough.

Some will swear by the case that 3*s face more scaling than 2* who in turn face more scaling than 1*. So far I have had reasonable success in PVE, trying to play optimally in waking hours without skipping sleep. That usually nets me T10 placement, so I thought maybe my 2* team does have some sort of advantage? That's when the R&G PVE rewarding 4* Thor totally blew me away. I played harder for that PVE than my usual, finished 16th. The only other 2* in my T20 was at 20th, the rest of the 18 out of T20 are an assortment of 166-270. And the PVE T100 alliance ranking suddenly looked like a PVP T100.
After that burnout, I slowed down in the R&G re-run rewarding Gamora, and got T10.

It is clear that when the prize is rewarding enough, ANYONE will put in the shift, regardless of roster. 3*s can compete as well as anyone, if not more, in PVE if they feel like putting in the effort, R&G was a classic evidence.

Unknown

ballingbees wrote:

That's when the R&G PVE rewarding 4* Thor totally blew me away. I played harder for that PVE than my usual, finished 16th. The only other 2* in my T20 was at 20th, the rest of the 18 out of T20 are an assortment of 166-270.

Using R&G GoT as an example ignores something quite major. Everyone went after those covers hard core including all the PvP Alliances that were normally nowhere in PvE since GoT was a must have. I think just about everyone on the forums played harder for those covers than any cover before or since - I know I did.

ballingbees

Sumilea wrote:

Using R&G GoT as an example ignores something quite major. Everyone went after those covers hard core including all the PvP Alliances that were normally nowhere in PvE since GoT was a must have. I think just about everyone on the forums played harder for those covers than any cover before or since - I know I did.

R&G was the one time that got literally everyone stoked in PVE and going for it. And in this case(at least my bracket), hard core 3* squads won out, which I have no issue with. I'm perfectly fine with whoever puts in the most effort gets rewarded, I am trying to dispel the myth that 3*s are handicapped by scaling in PVE, as a top rewarding event such as R&G(GoT) will prove otherwise.

Unknown

I think this is D3's answer to not letting the top tier players monopolize all the covers without too much effort. A 3* roster can win a 3* cover in PVP relatively easy. It takes a 2* transitioner at least 20 times the work to get the same 3* cover in PVE. Most 3* people just give up against these people because they can get the cover way easier in PVP a few days later.

Phantron is right: if you don't have 2 good 3* fully covered, there isn't much point in leveling anyone past 3*, particularly if you prefer PVE to PVP, and prefer to get your new character covers early. The problem is it forces any ultra-competitive roster (eg the forum crowd) to hit PVE just as hard as 2* are but with rougher scaling.

As a semi-casual player, I have 43 heroes, all under 110.

GrumpySmurf1002

I'm not sure this solves your "why are they competing against each other issue." (nor do I think it's a problem anyway)

Given the choice of Squirrel Girl and cMags running simultaneous, I'd absolutely have jumped in the cMags tourney. I'm sure a large portion of the 200+ day players have some cover(s) that are elusive, and would rather attack those than a new cover. So sure, you might remove the Colognoisseurs of the world from the old tourney, but you're still likely to have a healthy dose of 3* players fighting over the covers 2*s want.

Similarly, I'm sure there are 2* players who would much rather fight over the next release than slog for Sentry, Beast, or other older characters.

veneretio

Dauthi wrote:

Three stars receive little to no advantage too, therefor it is all up to who performs the best. This makes their previous work in the game meaningless while attempting to acquire a new character?

I can't get behind this issue. PvP already fills the role of giving people ahead a massive insurmountable advantage. PvE allows skilled, well researched players to compete with anyone. That seems like good design to me. Also, as a 3* player, don't you have a lineup twice or three times the size of a 2* player? That makes a huge difference in most PvE events.

Unknown

I would agreed with you for a special PVP format similar to BOP or CA, but not PVE.

To me, PVP is where the best players/rosters should win. PVE should be an equal playing field (if not titled slightly to newer players and less developed rosters).

All that said, I'll ask this again. What is the point of having a PVE that is actually PVP with a story mode?

So we got PVP with no story, PVP with a story, and then about once per month (or longer) we get an actual PVE (without story mode) for gauntlet.

I also do not get what keeps the vast majority of players who do not get any real rewards in PVE and PVP playing the game? 85% basically get the finger for playing PVE for a week.

MarvelMan

2*s getting an advantage in PVE definitely WAS not a myth.

With the way scaling changed chars past their max level a 2* facing a 119 Daken was WAY different than a 3* facing one at 191, even though that is only 25 levels above the player in each case. Hopefully the recent change to match damage past normal cap helps there (although it messed with carefully planned builds like the 141 to 166 tweak did).

Then you also have PVE appearing to be based on roster strength ignoring available chars even in events like Heroics. This favored 2*s as there are fewer so people are more likely to have a greater percentage of them, keeping scaling closer to their actual roster. Again though, this appears to have been worked on recently as the last Heroic was more "fair."

Those points made, they (thankfully) seem to be going the way of the dodo: leaving a more even playing field in PVE where effort/timing dictates placement.

Unknown

benben77 wrote:

I think it is ok in PVE as higher your roster level higher the enemy levels

those 166ers are facing 200+ nodes and we 2* roster face 100 something.

200+ Ares / Daken / Ragnarok is totally different from 100 something

Couldn't agree more.

Now let's look at this from another angle: The three stars boosted this time around are all BRAND NEW.

So unless you've paid to cover and then subsequently power leveled any of these characters you are basically screwed... 2 people fighting lvl 100 nodes with lvl 134 boosted characters = incredibly manageable and fun. But, since I have 3 characters leveled I'm facing crazy 200+ nodes where those boosted 2 characters are 70+ lvls short. Add to that it's over scaled Daken/Ares/Jugs etc etc... It's really draining tbh... And my minimal covers on the 3 characters who are boosted makes them unusable...

On top of why are ALL the nodes required SG yet the scaling is through the roof? My one cover SG is gimping the team to the point where the essential nodes are basically impossible...

Unknown

stephen43084 wrote:

I would agreed with you for a special PVP format similar to BOP or CA, but not PVE.

To me, PVP is where the best players/rosters should win. PVE should be an equal playing field (if not titled slightly to newer players and less developed rosters).

All that said, I'll ask this again. What is the point of having a PVE that is actually PVP with a story mode?

So we got PVP with no story, PVP with a story, and then about once per month (or longer) we get an actual PVE (without story mode) for gauntlet.

I also do not get what keeps the vast majority of players who do not get any real rewards in PVE and PVP playing the game? 85% basically get the finger for playing PVE for a week.

The best is when you get both of those fingers in the butt because you missed the last refresh and got edged out of the top 25/50/150 etc for the covers you worked an entire WEEK for... It's just an overbearing grind that lasts for waaaaay too long... Not to mention if you miss one of the new 3 covers you are more or less SCREWED for the next week and any 3 covers because of the way they've made the newest required for those Essential nodes...

Unknown

I decided to check my bracket's top 10 and out of the 7 or 8 guys that don't have anyone higher than about level 110, only one of them has just 3 pages of heroes (2.5 pages). Everyone else has at least 4 pages of heroes which implies at least 40 slots (14 per page).

So now I'm pretty convinced it's not 2*/transition dominating the top, unless you think it is normal for a transition guy to have enough HP to buy 40 slots while never leveling anyone past level 110. People are definitely gaming the system in some way. We know the scaling was never fair for high rosters, but even if it was perfectly fair, if you're running level 100 and I'm running level 200 against equally difficult opponent, it still takes me twice as long to regen, which matters a lot in the longer refresh format where you've a lot of time to incorporate into the final clear.

fmftint

In case you missed it, EVERYONE needs new characters. At least if you want to do the essentials in the next event. A has no more need for them than anyone what

ShanePHallam

You can split PVE for 3star and 2star rosters, but then you best split PVP too where having a 3star roster is a huge advantage over a 2star roster.

It seems the game is geared so PVE is easier for those starting out and PVP for those veterans with better rosters. I've basically committed myself to being PVE focused and capping my max leveled characters at 135, giving me quite easy scaling compared to 166 (or I could take XForce higher than that). It makes PVP tough sometimes if I don't get good draws. I've missed a few top 100s that I would have gotten if I maxed a couple characters to 166, but that is the path I am choosing until something changes.

Arondite

Phantron wrote:

I'm beginning to wonder if the '2* guy at top of PvE' we see is really just someone who keeps everyone purposely underleveled. I was poking around on the top alliance scores and I see a lot of '2* guy' with 4 pages of heroes. You don't just accidentally have enough HP to buy around 50 slots while somehow never getting anyone past level 100. I'm wondering if the real 2*/transition guys are indeed getting hammered in PvE but to the veterans it looks like yet another guy with no one higher than level 100 is easily dominating the event. If you work out the scaling, it should be very advantageous to use level ~100 characters that are max covered, and you have effectively infinite boosts when you play like that because you can't even use up all your iso 8 when you're keeping everyone purposely underleveled, but then you can't really call a guy like that as a 2* guy or a transition guy. He's every bit as hardcore as the guy with maxed out characters. The only difference is he's purposely keeping all his characters at a low level.

I'm thinking that mr 2* who sits on top is pretty much exactly as you have described - a powerful Vet who keeps his team intentionally underleveled for PVE sake. I am a legitimate 2 Star Transitioner (My highest 3* is a 94 5/5/1 Hood, next is 2/0/2 50 Patch) with a pretty much complete 2* roster who really struggles with PVE (though right now I've gone all-out for this event and hover at 20 for my bracket).

Granted, this is also from the perspective of someone who didn't build Storm-Neto because I didn't know the value of the combo at the time, so I'm somewhat **** compared to some 2* rosters.