Why D3 doesn't answer?

Unknown

There are a lot of people asking about "pve scaling",

It's not easy for D3 make a thread whit official information? We are all confuse about that,
Roster strength
Performance
Damage

Or what?

This is not a complain I really like this game, but I just want to know basic information.

Unknown

The thing is, D3 doesn't consider this to be "basic information". If we, as players, knew exactly how scaling worked, we would game that system so hard they would have to change it anyway.

If you look through dev posts though, you get small insights into it, and one of those is that they are constantly tweaking, altering and adjusting how it is calculated, so anything they tell you today might be completely inaccurate next week.

Xenoberyll

I wouldn't have thought anybody would consider that "basic information" really. It's part of the deeper game mechanics and they don't want you to know exactly how to beat it. Scaling is a way to provide a challenge and you're kinda asking for the opposite.

KrazyKeylime

not if it locks you into your strongest team for the rest of the game to have a "challenge". i think this is must have info if you like playing with most of your roster.

scottee

The fact that so many people **** their rosters to try to prevent scaling shows how much people are trying to game the system.

I say level your heroes to the max and don't worry about it. If you're good, the scaling doesn't matter. And then you don't have to whine about having underleveled heroes in PVP.

GothicKratos

They've given the "basic information". They've said it is based on your performance in each node. The only thing they didn't give were literal statistics.

KrazyKeylime

Xenoberyll wrote:

I wouldn't have thought anybody would consider that "basic information" really. It's part of the deeper game mechanics and they don't want you to know exactly how to beat it. Scaling is a way to provide a challenge and you're kinda asking for the opposite.

yeah i guess it is too much to ask for an detailed explanation why we can't use 90% of our roster any more due to scaling. i made a post earlier if they change the formula to only look at the current team fighting that node that way if they want they can grind with their strong team for more points and if they want, they can switch to the team of 2* and still beat it but not for the same amount of points. If having a high level 4* wolvie or thor forces you to use them in each fight then why are they charging for useless roster slots. there are two problems here
1) scaling takes into account your over all statistic and forces you to use your stronger or strongest team to play the levels, levels are too hard to consistently win against with any lesser team. ( the last few events have been better to that the intense scaling doesn't kick in until the last few nodes) this is one of the reasons releasing more 2* and 1* makes no sense
2)the challenge factor is the second. nothing is stopping them from making heroic versions( it would be nice to have each transition step represented but heroic is fine for now) of each event in a separate bracket for those who want a challenge. this can also solve some of the issue with transitions so that the 4* have somewhere else to go and are not completing with everyone else for the same rewards
this can be done by simply taking the team average level and hit it with a multiplier that gets stronger as the node progresses to get the enemy teams level ( i.e.0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1) and points. For the different tiers, like heroic, multiples the those factors to make it hard or easier for low teams or casual players( for less or higher rewards).
this makes it possible to beat every level with potentially each team for less optimal methods if desired.
it will take some tweaking to get the ratios right but once it is set it is just a cookie cutter for each event.

Unknown

dearbluey wrote:

The thing is, D3 doesn't consider this to be "basic information". If we, as players, knew exactly how scaling worked, we would game that system so hard they would have to change it anyway.

If you look through dev posts though, you get small insights into it, and one of those is that they are constantly tweaking, altering and adjusting how it is calculated, so anything they tell you today might be completely inaccurate next week.

The've told us exaclty how scaling works. The problem is some people do not believe them or think that because the developers do not re-post the same thing every week that's its not true because the answer came only when initially asked.

Trisul

The_Valeyard wrote:

The've told us exaclty how scaling works.

Eh, not exactly. There is enough ambiguity in what IceIX said (IMHO) so that it doesn't do enough to completely dismiss the primary opposing theory (starting levels of PvE nodes are based on your highest leveled character).

According to that theory, "starting levels" and "scaling" (aka "personal scaling") refer to two (of three) separate parts of determining PvE difficulty, and your roster directly affects "starting levels" but not "scaling" (except as a base multiplier).

I've broken out of my self-imposed 114 cap, so I'll be observing my PvE difficulty over the next few events and see if I can spot some clear differences. It definitely "feels" like it's harder, but I haven't done a quantitative analysis yet.

To be honest, if I were the devs, I wouldn't ever give a detailed answer just because it must be fun for them to observe our attempts to game the perceived systems.

Unknown

Trisul wrote:

The_Valeyard wrote:

The've told us exaclty how scaling works.

Eh, not exactly. There is enough ambiguity in what IceIX said (IMHO) so that it doesn't do enough to completely dismiss the primary opposing theory (starting levels of PvE nodes are based on your highest leveled character).

According to that theory, "starting levels" and "scaling" (aka "personal scaling") refer to two (of three) separate parts of determining PvE difficulty, and your roster directly affects "starting levels" but not "scaling" (except as a base multiplier).

I've broken out of my self-imposed 114 cap, so I'll be observing my PvE difficulty over the next few events and see if I can spot some clear differences. It definitely "feels" like it's harder, but I haven't done a quantitative analysis yet.

To be honest, if I were the devs, I wouldn't ever give a detailed answer just because it must be fun for them to observe our attempts to game the perceived systems.

Also, they have this new feature, Monthly Q & A. Ask the question, get 25 people to like it, and presto, we get answer. If not happy with answer, follow up in the next month's Q & A. Easy Peasy.

KrazyKeylime

The_Valeyard wrote:

Also, they have this new feature, Monthly Q & A. Ask the question, get 25 people to like it, and presto, we get answer. If not happy with answer, follow up in the next month's Q & A. Easy Peasy.

thank you tons of help....

MyNameIsRed

Maybe if they release the source code for the whole game, then we can go through it all and be happy with their transparency? </sarcasm>.

Sorry, I'm in the "I don't care how it works" camp

KrazyKeylime

KrazyKeylime wrote:

The_Valeyard wrote:

Also, they have this new feature, Monthly Q & A. Ask the question, get 25 people to like it, and presto, we get answer. If not happy with answer, follow up in the next month's Q & A. Easy Peasy.

thank you tons of help....

@ GothicKratos really -1???? Really?!!
i would like to present you questions not addressed in Q&A with 25+ rep

Postby Colognoisseur » Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:43 pm

Would you consider forming a players advisory board? So maybe some simple things could be caught before they are rolled out while still flawed. 31 rep



Postby orbitalint » Mon Feb 09, 2015 2:47 pm

What are the plans for this "4* transition" that are in the works? The release of Star Lord was the same ole model of severely limited distribution in a single PVE event with a PVP event to follow. It seems like the transition is not even something most of us will ever achieve when you get 1 chance at all of them in a single event and then a growing rotation where only the top spot of events get any additional covers. Nothing in that seems like a possibility for anyone that isn't already there.

Are you considering more regular 4* events where we can compete for them maybe once a month? Expanding distribution of rewards upon initial release? We haven't heard any status updates and the release of a new 4* before this issue got resolved is hard to swallow for many of us. 54 rep



Postby Scoregasms » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:22 pm

Are there (or has there) been discussions on revamping the Placement Award system (for PVE only)? Has the thought of maybe moving the current Placement Rewards as Progression Rewards instead ever been discussed (and just give out Heroic 10-Packs to the Top 10 instead like what was done this current Gauntlet)?

Player community has grown and with factors like personal scaling (newbies vs vets), luck in bracket placement, etc, it seems to be a bit too erratic of a reward system. Perhaps have 4* Covers at 3x/4x/5x current Top Progression Reward levels instead (leaving Alliance Rewards the same). This would drive more folks playing the PVE's and incentivize more players to go for more points for covers. I'm going to assume most of players will probably not grind out what is needed for these point totals anyway, but it would alleviate the stress of these "bloodbath" type PVE's for new characters. The work to get there is still required, but it removes the x-factors out of a players control (i.e. folks are still going to grind optimally since that is required to even score 5x the top Progression Reward).

EDIT: Changed 4x/5x/6x to 3x/4x/5x to be a bit more reasonable

EDIT 2: Link to previous Suggestion thread on this topic for more background: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20979&p=294070#p294070
31 rep



Postby camichan » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:46 pm

Is there any plan to address scaling in PVE?

As it currently stands, there is an incentive to not level your characters to avoid this problem, and players who level their 3 and 4* chars to 166/270 suffer from disproportionate difficulty relative to low level rosters. You'd imagine the game would want to unequivocally encourage players to level up characters.

Thank you for any comment!

Edit: Regarding the word scaling, which can have several interpretations, I'm more specifically referring to initial enemy levels, not to community scaling or individual scaling of difficulty.
44 Rep



Postby JCTthe3rd81 » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:39 pm

Last month, you guys said that co-op play was too complicated with so many players. It felt to the player as if their contributions were nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

But what about alliance based co-op? An alliance enters an event, and when all scores are added up and reach a certain amount, every member gets a reward.

Rewards would, of course, be given out after the event to prevent players with high scores going to multiple alliances and getting multiple rewards.
37 rep



Postby fight4thedream » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:11 pm

In my opinion you guys did a wonderful job with the Daredevil, Loki and Doctor Doom buff so i was wondering if there are any plans to give Spider-Man an attack power? (i know he is not at the top of the buff list but every time i hear NorthernPolarity call Spidey a worthless 3* character i cry. mighty, manly tears. on the inside.)

Spidey
32 rep



Postby bonfire01 » Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:12 am

Is there any chance we can get a +1 level button alongside or instead of the max level button? Watching levels slowly dribble up is frustrating as hell and I will fairly often want to add a hand full of levels to a hero (5-10) who is featured but I will very rarely want to hit the max level button. Either because the hero doesn't "deserve" all that ISO or I simply don't have it.

If that's not possible can the rate ISO goes into a hero increase the longer I have the up arrow selected?

This is particularly annoying on PC which seems to level up heroes slower than my android phone.
28 rep



by zonatahunt » Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:44 am

The "skip" system in PvPs is clearly a train wreck. Many, many, many times we'll have to spend over 500 ISO just to see a new set of five possible opponents. Sometimes we'll even be matched with the same opponent we JUST skipped! The "skip tax" was initially introduced so that the strong wouldn't devour the weak by continually skipping strong adversaries. However, most of us skip to find matches worth any credible points (I.e., 15+ points). With shield costs now so expensive and cooldown times so long many of us won't break shield until we find a match with points that justify breaking shield. The current skip system is so obviously flawed that we can't help but feel that our ISO is being swindled from us.

When can we expect the skip system to receive a desperately needed overhaul that will benefit the game BY benefiting the players?
29 rep

ALL these Questions with + 25 rep where not addressed so i stand by my original comment.
with that post not being helpful in the least.

Trisul

I assume GothicKratos downvoted it for attitude reasons (your post wasn't helpful, just sarcastic and dismissive). I usually only downvote flame posts, but people are free to up/down vote however they want.

By the way, no need to make sloppy re-posts of existing threads to get your point across.

veneretio

I just wish I could get a firm answer on whether it was bad or good for me to level my 3* characters past 94. The transition is hard and grindy enough already, I'd hate to level up a 3* only to find myself facing significantly harder opponents effectively slowing down the transition even more than it already is.

Trisul

veneretio wrote:

I just wish I could get a firm answer on whether it was bad or good for me to level my 3* characters past 94. The transition is hard and grindy enough already, I'd hate to level up a 3* only to find myself facing significantly harder opponents effectively slowing down the transition even more than it already is.

A lot of vets have answered this question based on their experiences. Basically, if you are dependent on PvE to get your covers, keeping your characters 94 is a decent option. If you want to go a faster route and get PvP covers, then max your 2 best characters.

GothicKratos

Trisul wrote:

I assume GothicKratos downvoted it for attitude reasons (your post wasn't helpful, just sarcastic and dismissive). I usually only downvote flame posts, but people are free to up/down vote however they want.

By the way, no need to make sloppy re-posts of existing threads to get your point across.

Yeah, pretty much. I downvoted an obviously rude/troll post - I guess from now on I should explain my upvotes too, so people don't downvote them because they don't understand why I did it.

JamieMadrox

Trisul wrote:

veneretio wrote:

I just wish I could get a firm answer on whether it was bad or good for me to level my 3* characters past 94. The transition is hard and grindy enough already, I'd hate to level up a 3* only to find myself facing significantly harder opponents effectively slowing down the transition even more than it already is.

A lot of vets have answered this question based on their experiences. Basically, if you are dependent on PvE to get your covers, keeping your characters 94 is a decent option. If you want to go a faster route and get PvP covers, then max your 2 best characters.

The direct scaling from leveling your characters is minimal. Indirectly, leveling your characters makes it easier to beat PVE nodes and to come away with less damage (boosts help too) so that is where leveling your characters really impacts scaling. You want advice from a vet? Don't level anyone past 94 until you have a top tier team fully covered and the ISO to max them all. Then pop them all up to 166/270 and start PVP competitively.

KrazyKeylime

Trisul wrote:

I assume GothicKratos downvoted it for attitude reasons (your post wasn't helpful, just sarcastic and dismissive). I usually only downvote flame posts, but people are free to up/down vote however they want.

By the way, no need to make sloppy re-posts of existing threads to get your point across.

funny cause that is exactly how i felt when he posted it was so simple just make a post in the Q&A no need to discuss it here, with that even if you get 25 plus rep which is no easy task i made a post a while back to accomplish that task and even it it is accomplished there is no guarantee that they will even address the issue. all this when they can simply address it in the current thread.