What affects PVE starting levels?

Raffoon

Not to be confused with the scaling that occurs during an event due to community and/or personal performance.

Any chance we could get a definitive, recent answer from a Dev about how starting levels for PVE are determined? Is overall roster level taken into account, or is it based solely on past PVE performance?

I know there's a post about some sort of scaling floating around from a year ago by IceX, but on that very same page he also mentions that the formula is frequently changed. It's also unclear whether he's discussing starting levels or changes to levels over the course of an event.

Personally, I enjoy playing through PVEs primarily with my "B-team" characters (2 stars and some 3 stars leveled 80-120) since it offers variety from the standard PVP setup. I'm worried that if I spend the ISO I've got saved to fully level my 4 stars I won't be able to still use my B-teamers in PVE, because they'll be outmatched by nodes balanced for 4*s.

It would be great to have a definitive response on this topic. It's been coming up on the forums frequently as of late, and is often confused with general scaling over the course of an event. I also see plenty of anecdotal evidence, but it's close to impossible to disentangle all the variables at play in those accounts.

Arondite

There are two schools of thought

1 - Performance in previous PvE's.
2 - Roster strength.

There is anecdotal evidence supporting both and no solid proof of either. Anyone who tells you otherwise is incorrect. I'd love to tell you that I 100% know that number 1 is correct, but that would be a lie on my part, and I can only tell you that I'm confident number 1 is correct. There will be people in this thread (after me, or possibly will snipe me) who tell you number 2 is 100% correct. They can't know that for sure.

I know you wanted a definitive answer, but there's not one.

Hulk11

I can tell you for a fact it had nothing to do with previous performance. I ranked in the top 50 without even the Deadpool essential, and I'm breezing through this one. Do you have to be top 1 or 10 to see this difference? I think we'd all take it then it we scored that good.

Arondite

Hulk11 wrote:

I can tell you for a fact it had nothing to do with previous performance. I ranked in the top 50 without even the Deadpool essential, and I'm breezing through this one. Do you have to be top 1 or 10 to see this difference? I think we'd all take it then it we scored that good.

Performance doesn't mean your ranking, performance means
-how many nodes you grinded, how often you grinded them, to what extend you grinded them
-how healthy your characters were going into a node, how healthy they were coming out of the node
-total damage dealt vs total damage received


If it were based on ranking, you could get screwed by landing a baby bracket, ranking number 1 without grinding hardly anything at all and suddenly being scaled out.

Further, performance in previous PvEs is not the same as the previous PvE. One success does not a scaling monster make.

And, as addressed in my original statement, your anecdote doesn't prove or disprove either camp. I increased my roster by around 200 levels between 2 recent PvE's (80 levels on a single character) and saw no discernible increase in difficulty between the two. My experience doesn't disprove either camp, as it's a simple anecdote and doesn't provide enough data. So no, you actually can't tell him anything for a fact.

Hulk11

I feel pretty safe that my next pve and the pve after that won't throw me for a loop. So go with that. Take the essential and you pretty much are guaranteed a good spot, unless your roster is all over the place.

Also it sounds like he didn't want to include performance as a reason." Not to be confused with the scaling that occurs during an event due to community and/or personal performance."

Arondite

Hulk11 wrote:

I feel pretty safe that my next pve and the pve after that won't throw me for a loop. So go with that.

That's well and good, but what you feel doesn't become fact just because you feel it strongly about it.

The fact is, you share an opinion with a lot of users that is actually well-supported. The problem is, this support is in the form of anecdotal evidence, and there is actually evidence that stands in contrast to what this "rule" would imply. There is even developer statements that, given the correct context, rule this out (however the context was unclear, so until clarification or expansion is made, these comments cannot be used to disprove this rule).

The second camp lacks nearly the level of anecdotal evidence, but there is virtually no information that contrasts this "rule". The lack of anecdotal evidence could be attributed to the fact that, when roster strength increases, performance and efficiency also tend to increase exponentially. This could have lead to the false attributation of starting levels to roster strength over time. Due to camp 1 being the more common mindset, camp 2 is virtually uninvestigated. It has less support than camp 1 but virtually 0 refute.

Hulk11

Well you take your experiences, and I'll take mine as well. Still it stands performance isn't what he was looking for. I wouldn't lean on that either. You raise your levels you're asking for trouble, that's the obvious one, if you read thoroughly.

Arondite

Hulk11 wrote:

Well you take your experiences, and I'll take mine as well. Still it stands performance isn't what he was looking for. I wouldn't lean on that either.

I'm providing him both sets of information so that he can have all the relevant info, since neither rule of thought is proven. It doesn't matter what "you'd lean on", you came in here touting an unproven idea as proven fact. To maraud something around like that, touting false laurels is only harmful to education and, had I not posted, your misinformation could only have hurt him.

I've provided both feasible explanations for starting level. You've claimed that one of the two is immaterial without any support for your statement. If you're not here to help, you needn't be here at all.

Hulk11

Arondite wrote:

Hulk11 wrote:

Well you take your experiences, and I'll take mine as well. Still it stands performance isn't what he was looking for. I wouldn't lean on that either.

I'm providing him both sets of information so that he can have all the relevant info, since neither rule of thought is proven. It doesn't matter what "you'd lean on", you came in here touting an unproven idea as proven fact. To maraud something around like that, touting false laurels is only harmful to education and, had I not posted, your misinformation could only have hurt him.

I've provided both feasible explanations for starting level. You've claimed that one of the two is immaterial without any support for your statement. If you're not here to help, you needn't be here at all.

Wow, where do you find this info? I'm currently in a top 10 pve stable. Experience right here. Also some reading doesn't hurt.

Arondite

Hulk11 wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Hulk11 wrote:

Well you take your experiences, and I'll take mine as well. Still it stands performance isn't what he was looking for. I wouldn't lean on that either.

I'm providing him both sets of information so that he can have all the relevant info, since neither rule of thought is proven. It doesn't matter what "you'd lean on", you came in here touting an unproven idea as proven fact. To maraud something around like that, touting false laurels is only harmful to education and, had I not posted, your misinformation could only have hurt him.

I've provided both feasible explanations for starting level. You've claimed that one of the two is immaterial without any support for your statement. If you're not here to help, you needn't be here at all.

Wow, where do you find this info? I'm currently in a top 10 pve stable. Experience right here. Also some reading doesn't hurt.

You've mentioned rank again now, which demonstrates either a lack of reading comprehension or an unwillingness to read at all. Please, take your own advice and scroll up a few posts, then return once you understand.

Hulk11

Arondite wrote:

Hulk11 wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Hulk11 wrote:

Well you take your experiences, and I'll take mine as well. Still it stands performance isn't what he was looking for. I wouldn't lean on that either.

I'm providing him both sets of information so that he can have all the relevant info, since neither rule of thought is proven. It doesn't matter what "you'd lean on", you came in here touting an unproven idea as proven fact. To maraud something around like that, touting false laurels is only harmful to education and, had I not posted, your misinformation could only have hurt him.

I've provided both feasible explanations for starting level. You've claimed that one of the two is immaterial without any support for your statement. If you're not here to help, you needn't be here at all.

Wow, where do you find this info? I'm currently in a top 10 pve stable. Experience right here. Also some reading doesn't hurt.

You've mentioned rank again now, which demonstrates either a lack of reading comprehension or an unwillingness to read at all. Please, take your own advice and scroll up a few posts, then return once you understand.

What more is there? If you rank up, score points, many points. You do well. Sorry, if your point is to score low and get poor rankings and never get top rewards then yes, you have a point. Most players would rather enjoy higher ranks, and bigger scores.

Arondite

Hulk11 wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Hulk11 wrote:

Arondite wrote:

I'm providing him both sets of information so that he can have all the relevant info, since neither rule of thought is proven. It doesn't matter what "you'd lean on", you came in here touting an unproven idea as proven fact. To maraud something around like that, touting false laurels is only harmful to education and, had I not posted, your misinformation could only have hurt him.

I've provided both feasible explanations for starting level. You've claimed that one of the two is immaterial without any support for your statement. If you're not here to help, you needn't be here at all.

Wow, where do you find this info? I'm currently in a top 10 pve stable. Experience right here. Also some reading doesn't hurt.

You've mentioned rank again now, which demonstrates either a lack of reading comprehension or an unwillingness to read at all. Please, take your own advice and scroll up a few posts, then return once you understand.

What more is there? If you rank up, score points, many points. You do well. Sorry, if your point is to score low and get poor rankings and never get top rewards then yes, you have a point. Most players would rather enjoy higher ranks, and bigger scores.

Performance-based scaling isn't dependant upon rank, as previously stated. Performacne, again, is not rank. Since you seem to be illiterate, I'll repeat once more - Performance does not mean rank, in this context.

Please, learn to read, then return. I've plainly stated this already in this thread. If you can't go review that, we're quite done here.

[Further, my personal rank is quite alright. I received my first Lady Thor on my paying account through a number 1 rank in PvE. That same Lady Thor is now level 270].

Hulk11

We have one thing clear though it sounds. You can place well that's the obvious statement I'm making, now if you want to assume my rank goes off my points, makes sense, then that's clear. Ok so back to the beginning, if you put up a strong score, have good performance, your rank and rewards go along with that. Hmm, pattern, good performance, good rewards. Makes sense too, and I don't have to read your doctrines on performance and rank.

Arondite

Hulk11 wrote:

We have one thing clear though it sounds. You can place well that's the obvious statement I'm making, now if you want to assume my rank goes off my points, makes sense, then that's clear. Ok so back to the beginning, if you put up a strong score, have good performance, your rank and rewards go along with that. Hmm, pattern, good performance, good rewards. Makes sense too, and I don't have to read your doctrines on performance and rank.

If you won't even read a sentences-long explanation, how can we believe your opinion on the subject is well-informed? Nay, informed in the least?

That's why your posts should be dismissed without prejudice. You make no effort to inform yourself. If you are uneducated, you simply can't educate others.

Hulk11

Arondite wrote:

Hulk11 wrote:

We have one thing clear though it sounds. You can place well that's the obvious statement I'm making, now if you want to assume my rank goes off my points, makes sense, then that's clear. Ok so back to the beginning, if you put up a strong score, have good performance, your rank and rewards go along with that. Hmm, pattern, good performance, good rewards. Makes sense too, and I don't have to read your doctrines on performance and rank.

If you won't even read a sentences-long explanation, how can we believe your opinion on the subject is well-informed? Nay, informed in the least?

That's why your posts should be dismissed without prejudice. You make no effort to inform yourself. If you are uneducated, you simply can't educate others.

Please lay out the exact sentence you need me to read to see the light?

Mawtful

I've got a level 270 X-Force, and 6 or 7 level 166 3* characters.
All my PvE events begin with level 40-60 nodes; after the first day or two (depending on how long the subs go for) most pins are between 100-200. By the end, levels usually stabilise around 240. Only in the Gauntlet do the last few pins hit 395.

Definitely a big factor is that I play PvE fairly casually - I was never going to change my sleep patterns for 3 hour refreshes. I'm still getting to learn the best pattern for 8 hour subs. I thought I had played the first two subs of ISO8 Brotherhood perfectly (one clear at the start, then after the refersh, grind down to 1 point each before the sub ends) but there were still 250-300 people higher than me after that first set of subs.

Even playing casually I'll pick up all progression rewards and can usually get 1 cover from top 150.

It could be that scaling from reward bracket scales exponentially, because I don't see very much from ending in the 100-150 bracket even when using maxed Xforce.

Hulk11

Wasn't there some miracle sentence you had it all boiled down to? Sorta disappeared there.

Arondite

It's already in this thread. You're an adult, find it yourself. If I do any more for you, I'd expect fair compensation.

Hulk11

Sorry you dissappeared, you might want to clear that question up.

Trisul

By definition, almost all the evidence we have is completely anecdotal. That's not debatable at all. If anyone has a problem accepting that... well, stay in school.

The only piece of real evidence we can rely on is IceIX's comment about scaling. That statement is somewhat controversial due to:
1. Lack of clarification of what "scaling" specifically means (base levels? multiplier?).
2. IceIX's explicit statement that he doesn't want to talk specifics because they are constantly tweaking the systems governing scaling.

Running an actual statistically relevant test would involve controls on environment that we aren't feasibly capable of, so all we can do is speculate and try to come to some practical consensus. Right now, it seems like the general feeling among PvE vets is that evenly leveling your roster is the best way to succeed in PvE, at the cost of PvP. But by no means is this _fact_.

IamTheDanger

Let's keep it nice and polite here please.