So character levels don't effect scaling?

Options
2

Comments

  • simonsez
    simonsez Posts: 4,663 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    daibar wrote:
    [Couldn't we just stick to the English language equivalent and realize that we're not absoluting everything when we talk?
    We are. Like I said, I'm not going down that road again. If you must, look for the "scaling is more broken than ever" thread, where it was beaten to death. And then beaten some more.
    daibar wrote:
    I don't get what the benefit is in not calling the starting scaling, scaling
    Because if someone asks "does xyz affect scaling", it helps to answer the question if it's clear what he's asking. Maybe xyz affects starting levels but not subsequent increases, or vice versa.
  • Trisul
    Trisul Posts: 887 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Bottom line: Character levels (whether directly or indirectly) DO affect PvE difficulty, so if you're 100% focused on PvE then be wise about when you level your characters.
  • Druss
    Druss Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    My "scaling" seems to be going through the roof at the moment

    Facing lv 250+ goons etc in PvE

    Is this because I'm using Patch & Ldaken a lot and therefore not taking any "true damage" for most nodes?
  • Arondite
    Arondite Posts: 1,188 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Trisul wrote:
    Bottom line: Character levels (whether directly or indirectly) DO affect PvE difficulty, so if you're 100% focused on PvE then be wise about when you level your characters.

    I leveled all my guys after holding back for a while for fear of being unable to do PvE anymore on my F2P account. This proved not to be the case.

    Since bringing all my 3 stars up to like 120-150 range (from 50's and 60's), I've still used my 2 stars to do PvE and as a result, have seen 0 increase in difficulty at all in all nodes in all events since.
  • Colognoisseur
    Colognoisseur Posts: 804 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Just as a point of comparison for everyone to use. This is from a player who has a completely maxed roster and finish t10 or higher.

    I play PvE similarly to the way Beee does but he is much better at it than me.
    I use around half to two thirds of my roster as I go through a PvE. I use a 1* team on the trivial node(s) at levels less than 50 for example. If you still have them on your roster they can help.
    My starting levels are usually in the range of 185-225. In Iso-8 Brotherhood I only faced 300+ levels on one node in the final hard sub. The whole rest of the time most of my levels increased up to the 290's.
    It is my belief that my starting levels are set by a combination of my past performance and my roster.
    Once the event starts my scaling increases much slower because I am choosing teams which are closer in levels to the ones I'm playing. I think this is what the devs intended and it is my reward for having roster diversity. It is why I can keep going when my teams wipe because I just replace them with another. It also saves on health packs and allows for sustained runs especially in the final grinds of subs.
    I'd also like to address the speed issue. It may take me longer for the initial clear but I have a feeling it becomes a game of diminishing returns over the length of a sub. You might finish the initial clear 15 minutes faster than me but if your scaling keeps jumping you eventually end up with nodes that take a long time to finish even with your A-Team. I think because my scaling is under control I can go faster at the end. I also think because I can have a team wiped I can take more of a risk to end a match. Instead of trying to stun and heal up my x-force I can just go for the win and change teams.

    I think those who are limiting themselves in PvP by not leveling up their best 3* team are making their progression much longer. You can level up a good 3* team that will make you competitive in PvP and will face marginally higher starting levels, I think. If you just use all of your lvl 94 2*'s you should be able to keep your scaling pretty low.
  • Druss wrote:
    My "scaling" seems to be going through the roof at the moment

    Facing lv 250+ goons etc in PvE

    Is this because I'm using Patch & Ldaken a lot and therefore not taking any "true damage" for most nodes?
    Goon nodes' scaling seems to be a whole multiplier above other nodes because you can generally do them taking 0 damage (with a good enough roster). Community scaling on those nodes are always ridiculous, and it's not uncommon to have them cap at lvl 395 on hard subs for almost everyone.

    Anecdotal evidence says that by throwing sacrificial characters into PVE to die (eg like PVP tanking) you can lower your personal scaling. You could always have LDaken and Patch take a bunch of damage and prologue heal them. I vaguely heard that the amount of damage affecting scaling was taken out, but maybe that was only hearsay, or maybe they only reduced the amount of the scaling, as other people claim that using worse characters and taking damage helps their scaling.
  • I'm not sure how people can think the scaling does not account for your roster. There's even a patch where they say the difficulty indicator (trivial/easy/normal/hard/impossible) now accounts for your buffed character's level, and even if that's purely a cosemetic thing, there is obviously something in the background that determines "if enemy are this level compared to your level then show node as 'Hard'". Why would they not use this when they already calculate enemy level relative to your roster's strength (indicated by a patch telling us it now accounts for your buffed character levels) and not use it?

    There's still a significant personal scaling factor for the top performers. I have nodes went up to 360 or so when I was clearing everything down to 1, and in the final subs they're more like 250-300 because I didn't have time to grind them all down to 1. Since not all brackets are equally competitive you can sometimes get away with playing a lot less compared to 'grind down to 1' and this greatly reduces the potential scaling, but that's not something you have control over. For The Hunt which I pretty much just did the minimum 1 pass every 8 hours my nodes were incredibly easy relative to my roster. Had I played more I'm sure they'd have reached 300 but I did not, so scaling was 'low' but that's only because I played less too.

    Looking at the leaderboard compression thread it's quite clear whether due to luck or some form of PvE sharding people do get into very easy brackets and very easy brackets also means very easy scaling because nobody in that bracket is grinding hard, but if you happen to get into a hard bracket your scaling is going to be high too if you want to be competitive.
  • Colognoisseur
    Colognoisseur Posts: 804 Critical Contributor
    Options
    daibar wrote:
    Druss wrote:
    My "scaling" seems to be going through the roof at the moment

    Facing lv 250+ goons etc in PvE

    Is this because I'm using Patch & Ldaken a lot and therefore not taking any "true damage" for most nodes?
    Goon nodes' scaling seems to be a whole multiplier above other nodes because you can generally do them taking 0 damage (with a good enough roster). Community scaling on those nodes are always ridiculous, and it's not uncommon to have them cap at lvl 395 on hard subs for almost everyone.

    Anecdotal evidence says that by throwing sacrificial characters into PVE to die (eg like PVP tanking) you can lower your personal scaling. You could always have LDaken and Patch take a bunch of damage and prologue heal them. I vaguely heard that the amount of damage affecting scaling was taken out, but maybe that was only hearsay, or maybe they only reduced the amount of the scaling, as other people claim that using worse characters and taking damage helps their scaling.


    Let me be clear here. Throwing a bunch of sacrificial teams and losing does not seem to have an effect on my scaling. That did work but most people figured it out and that was the day of prologue healing so it was easy to come out of match heavily damaged and go heal up and play again. That stopped working before true healing was implemented. I think what does work is winning with a team that takes damage that is close to level of the enemy. By working my way up my roster from trivial to hard with teams which win but are pretty beat up because they are equal is what I think works. This is especially important in Heroics to make sure you use the entire roster of characters they let you use.
    My hypothesis is scaling is a formula which takes into account the level of team you take into the match versus the level of the team you're playing plus how much health is remaining after the end of the match.
  • Colognoisseur
    Colognoisseur Posts: 804 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Phantron wrote:
    I'm not sure how people can think the scaling does not account for your roster. There's even a patch where they say the difficulty indicator (trivial/easy/normal/hard/impossible) now accounts for your buffed character's level, and even if that's purely a cosemetic thing, there is obviously something in the background that determines "if enemy are this level compared to your level then show node as 'Hard'". Why would they not use this when they already calculate enemy level relative to your roster's strength (indicated by a patch telling us it now accounts for your buffed character levels) and not use it?

    There's still a significant personal scaling factor for the top performers. I have nodes went up to 360 or so when I was clearing everything down to 1, and in the final subs they're more like 250-300 because I didn't have time to grind them all down to 1. Since not all brackets are equally competitive you can sometimes get away with playing a lot less compared to 'grind down to 1' and this greatly reduces the potential scaling, but that's not something you have control over. For The Hunt which I pretty much just did the minimum 1 pass every 8 hours my nodes were incredibly easy relative to my roster. Had I played more I'm sure they'd have reached 300 but I did not, so scaling was 'low' but that's only because I played less too.

    Looking at the leaderboard compression thread it's quite clear whether due to luck or some form of PvE sharding people do get into very easy brackets and very easy brackets also means very easy scaling because nobody in that bracket is grinding hard, but if you happen to get into a hard bracket your scaling is going to be high too if you want to be competitive.

    Phantron this is not what I have experienced recently. That categorization of a node as trivial/easy/normal/hard/deadly is just a pure comparison which doesn't seem to have an effect on the increase of my levels. I only face level 395's very rarely now and only in a few nodes especially in non-Heroics. I only had one node increase to lvl 325 in Iso-8 Bortherhood and I finishes top 2 in every sub by doing two clears and grinding down to one. If you were correct my scaling should have been 395, but it wasn't. I am only a single data point but it does not correspond with what you are saying.
  • IamTheDanger
    IamTheDanger Posts: 1,093 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    I'll post my situation and let all you guys/gals take from it what you will icon_e_biggrin.gif .

    based only on my personal experiences playing the game

    I have 2 accounts/rosters. One for hardcore play, the second is casual. My main roster has over 120 characters that are leveled pretty high. Characters like 200 Xforce, 200 Thorette, 166 Steve Rogers, 166 Hood, 160 Hulk. You get the idea. My second roster has a few maxed 2*s and a Hulk around level 100.

    From my personal experiences, I can tell you all, there IS a difference. A BIG difference. My competitive roster starts PvE events against enemies in the 175 - 250 range. But I play my low level characters as much as I can and I rarely have enemies above 300 - 320 or so by the end of the event. In fact, I've only seen level 395 opponents one time in the past 4 or 5 months. That was because I used my A-team through the entire event for speed runs, and didn't use any lower level teams to take damage.

    As for my casual roster, it starts PvE events against enemies in the 85 - 125.

    So, I can say, from personal experience, that character level does seem to affect the starting levels of opponents. And from personal experience, that performance affects how much and how fast scaling goes up. (keep in mind that this from my own personal playing with 2 very different rosters).
  • Trisul
    Trisul Posts: 887 Critical Contributor
    Options
    I just don't like mechanics that punish you for playing well (i.e. minimizing damage on your characters). You are rewarding people who just figure out the system and game it as much as possible (I am one of those people).
  • Phantron this is not what I have experienced recently. That categorization of a node as trivial/easy/normal/hard/deadly is just a pure comparison which doesn't seem to have an effect on the increase of my levels. I only face level 395's very rarely now and only in a few nodes especially in non-Heroics. I only had one node increase to lvl 325 in Iso-8 Bortherhood and I finishes top 2 in every sub by doing two clears and grinding down to one. If you were correct my scaling should have been 395, but it wasn't. I am only a single data point but it does not correspond with what you are saying.

    I'm not saying the node categorization has an effect on your scaling, but there's clearly something that game considers 'hard' as opposed to 'impossible' that's a function of the node's level relative to your roster so why would they even compute this stuff if it's not used? The node's difficultly rating is obviously someone's idea of how hard that node is, and the scaling factor on your enemy also determines how hard it is. Unless there are two separate group of people working on each, they'd have to be related in some way so your roster level must play a role somewhere.

    I think I saw some 350s during my clears and at that point it's not worth it to figure out if's worth some tricks to get it 25 levels lower. What order were you clearing them in? Because if you did the highest node first I'm pretty sure I'd neve have seen anything past 300, since I'm pretty sure the nodes go up in levels for each node cleared and I generally cleared the easiest nodes first for position trickery (if I clear highest point node first I'd have a huge lead on #1 immediately and might invite other players to chase). I think on one of the last sub where I ran of time I just clear the hardest node 5 times in a row and it never got past 250 because I didn't have enough total clears.

    At any rate I'm pretty sure there's some magic that involves winning a fight while taking significant damage and using a weaker team would naturally create more situations where you won a fight closely. I don't think the game lowers your scaling for losing anymore since it was too easy to fake that, and I don't think getting something from 350 to 325 is worth the effort to figure this out.
  • GothicKratos
    GothicKratos Posts: 1,821 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    The alternative is letting characters like 4* Thor, X-Force, Hood, Captain America, etc etc completely trivialize PvE. Scaling is unfortunately a necessary evil (with PvE how it is) and performance is the only logical way to base scaling. Besides, you think it' a grindfest now? Just wait until all the vets can trivially clear every node to infinity and beyond with no repercussions.

    On a sidenote, it makes me laugh though, like, this really capsulizes the forumite mindset to a tee; "Brute force it until it can't talk anymore - that's the best way!"

    [EDIT]: Removed the quote because I wasn't really meaning to respond directly to Trisul, but the sentiment that a lot of people seem to be sharing. They just happened to be the last person to post.
  • Trisul
    Trisul Posts: 887 Critical Contributor
    Options
    I'm not saying remove scaling, just that basing it off lost health % is weird and favors a really gamey kind of workaround to take advantage of. Basing it off pure win/loss from node is not THAT much better (considering tanking is a thing), but at least it's less convoluted.
  • Colognoisseur
    Colognoisseur Posts: 804 Critical Contributor
    Options
    I'll post my situation and let all you guys/gals take from it what you will icon_e_biggrin.gif .

    So, I can say, from personal experience, that character level does seem to affect the starting levels of opponents. And from personal experience, that performance affects how much and how fast scaling goes up. (keep in mind that this from my own personal playing with 2 very different rosters).

    I agree completely with that. Roster helps set starting levels but how fast they go up is dependent on how you choose to play.
  • simonsez
    simonsez Posts: 4,663 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    The alternative is letting characters like 4* Thor, X-Force, Hood, Captain America, etc etc completely trivialize PvE.
    No reason why this is the only alternative. You can have scaling that doesn't necessarily try to level the playing field. Sure, make it more challenging because I'm running XF/GT, but not to the point where I'm playing on an equal footing with someone that has a 2* roster. There needs to be a PvE benefit to playing hard and developing a good roster.
  • Colognoisseur
    Colognoisseur Posts: 804 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Phantron wrote:
    Phantron this is not what I have experienced recently. That categorization of a node as trivial/easy/normal/hard/deadly is just a pure comparison which doesn't seem to have an effect on the increase of my levels. I only face level 395's very rarely now and only in a few nodes especially in non-Heroics. I only had one node increase to lvl 325 in Iso-8 Bortherhood and I finishes top 2 in every sub by doing two clears and grinding down to one. If you were correct my scaling should have been 395, but it wasn't. I am only a single data point but it does not correspond with what you are saying.

    I'm not saying the node categorization has an effect on your scaling, but there's clearly something that game considers 'hard' as opposed to 'impossible' that's a function of the node's level relative to your roster so why would they even compute this stuff if it's not used? The node's difficultly rating is obviously someone's idea of how hard that node is, and the scaling factor on your enemy also determines how hard it is. Unless there are two separate group of people working on each, they'd have to be related in some way so your roster level must play a role somewhere.

    I think I saw some 350s during my clears and at that point it's not worth it to figure out if's worth some tricks to get it 25 levels lower. What order were you clearing them in? Because if you did the highest node first I'm pretty sure I'd neve have seen anything past 300, since I'm pretty sure the nodes go up in levels for each node cleared and I generally cleared the easiest nodes first for position trickery (if I clear highest point node first I'd have a huge lead on #1 immediately and might invite other players to chase). I think on one of the last sub where I ran of time I just clear the hardest node 5 times in a row and it never got past 250 because I didn't have enough total clears.

    At any rate I'm pretty sure there's some magic that involves winning a fight while taking significant damage and using a weaker team would naturally create more situations where you won a fight closely. I don't think the game lowers your scaling for losing anymore since it was too easy to fake that, and I don't think getting something from 350 to 325 is worth the effort to figure this out.

    My levels were mostly in the high 200's for the great majority of Iso-8 Brotherhood which was, in my opinion, worth it. Having opponents in the 280-300 range allows for more flexibility.
    As to the way I did my grinding. In every sub I had grinded down every node to baseline and finished by playing the highest non-essential five times. If the hypothesis that scaling was going to go through the roof by the time I reached that node it should have been well over 300 except it wasn't. Even grinding it five times didn't get it over 300. I would then finish with the two hard Deadpool Essentials. By the time I got to the hardet non-essential I had finished 25 figts in the easy sub and ten fights in the hard sub.
    I am playing the event the way I want to with more versatile lineups because it makes it more fun for me. That it also has a side benefit of keeping my scaling lower that's good too.
  • Arondite
    Arondite Posts: 1,188 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    simonsez wrote:
    The alternative is letting characters like 4* Thor, X-Force, Hood, Captain America, etc etc completely trivialize PvE.
    No reason why this is the only alternative. You can have scaling that doesn't necessarily try to level the playing field. Sure, make it more challenging because I'm running XF/GT, but not to the point where I'm playing on an equal footing with someone that has a 2* roster. There needs to be a PvE benefit to playing hard and developing a good roster.

    A good argument can be made that, in PvE, you're supposed to be on equal footing with the 2 star players.
  • Colognoisseur
    Colognoisseur Posts: 804 Critical Contributor
    Options
    simonsez wrote:
    The alternative is letting characters like 4* Thor, X-Force, Hood, Captain America, etc etc completely trivialize PvE.
    No reason why this is the only alternative. You can have scaling that doesn't necessarily try to level the playing field. Sure, make it more challenging because I'm running XF/GT, but not to the point where I'm playing on an equal footing with someone that has a 2* roster. There needs to be a PvE benefit to playing hard and developing a good roster.

    I feel like I am getting a PvE benefit because I am playing hard using rosters that are more even matches and I have the depth to be able to do that. I can't just steamroll opponents or boost my way to victory by the teams I am choosing. Instead by looking at the board and having to make decisions so I can win in the end it puts some of the puzzle in Puzzle Quest back into the game for me. I think this is why PvE never entirely seems like as bad a grind for me because I have some variety to playing. That previous sentence does not apply to Heroics. The limited roster there lets me know how soul crushing it is to use the same few characters against the same opponents.When I have my full roster available I enjoy PvE a lot.
    Bottom line I think there is a reward for playing well and having a diverse roster. I think if people go a little deeper into their rosters they will see this might be true for them, too.
  • GothicKratos
    GothicKratos Posts: 1,821 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Trisul wrote:
    I'm not saying remove scaling, just that basing it off lost health % is weird and favors a really gamey kind of workaround to take advantage of. Basing it off pure win/loss from node is not THAT much better (considering tanking is a thing), but at least it's less convoluted.

    I'm not sure there's a "perfect" way to go about it really. Character Levels, even if the average level, could be a disaster for developing rosters (especially in the 1* and early 2* stages) because one 3* or 4* cover would completely throw that equation off. People would game this the same way the PvE Alliances currently do - softcapping their roster.

    Performance is really just the only way to do it "fairly". Whether it by damage taken and other variables, or if by straight up win:lose, they're both equally "gameable". I feel like tanking damage is a lot of time consuming that tanking loses, though. Having to go into a match, take all the damage, then go prologue heal, rinse and repeat a few times is quite time consuming, I would think, whereas if it was simply based on wins and loses, I'd just retreat three matches in a row and suicide - a couple minutes tops.