Now that PvP tanking has been eliminated...

simonsez

... how about if you get rid of PvE tanking as well? It's ridiculous that a player with a similar roster to mine, who outscores me in every PvE, should have opponent levels that are 70+ levels lower than mine.

Scoregasms

Do you know if they use the same level players for PVE? I'm wondering if I'll fall into this if what I'm trying to do with my PVE scaling works out. Just gonna use lower level characters for PVE in hopes my PVE scaling goes down to those character levels only. But if someone looked at my roster and saw 4* and max 3* that I only plan to use for PVP, they may wonder the same thing?

simonsez

Scoregasms wrote:

Do you know if they use the same level players for PVE?

He mostly uses patch/daken, and not his 4*s.

puppychow

For my pve nodes, I generally use the lower tier characters for the easier nodes. Here's an example. For the first 2 nodes with goonies, I used 1* storm, 1* juggernaut, 1* ironman. The essential goon nodes I used 2* capA and obw. The Reunion III node I switched over to 2* team of astwolf, johnny torch, daken. Only the last 2 (crazy) nodes on the far right i would use a higher tier team (xfw/laken/deadpool). And it's working well in keep the scaling manageable. After my last past through, Reunion VI is at level 157 and VII is at 206. Nothing crazy yet.

simonsez

Yeah, I get all that... what I'm saying is, if they want PvE to be consistent with what they've done to PvP, they need to remove this invisible benefit you get by intentional taking damage with low level teams.

Scoregasms

Hmm, don't know if you have 4* you use regularly in PVE, but if they are 70+ levels above 166, that could be a factor? Makes me think this little experiment of mine may eventually work if that's the case. Especially now with the Boost nerfs, facing 350+ level nodes without +6 boosts to alpha strike down at least one really quickly could be problematic.

Even without my top characters, I am somehow still top 50 in this TaT PVE oddly enough, it's early though. But I wasn't even able to do the last node at all in the first sub as it ended up scaling 140 levels above my selected characters (lol) during the final grind, gonna assume 99% of that was community scaling though. I gave it a few attempts with boosts but there just was no way.

I'm hoping "winning" with lower level characters helps drive down scaling, but I wonder if I somehow end up doing better than I originally thought, it would backfire? You had mentioned just to not play earlier in another thread, which does seem like a messed up way to lower scaling, so I agree with you on that one, haha.

puppychow

simonsez wrote:

Yeah, I get all that... what I'm saying is, if they want PvE to be consistent with what they've done to PvP, they need to remove this invisible benefit you get by intentional taking damage with low level teams.

My friend, you're talking logic here. Logic is not allowed at D3 forums!

When has D3 been consistent in anything, really? Look at BoP event for example. You would think that D3 would delay the change to boosts until AFTER the event is over, for the sake of consistency and to prevent the early pushers from having an unfair advantage over players who start pushing at the last minute, but nope. Consistency is apparently not a core D3 principle.

TLCstormz

We don't even know for 100% sure that receiving massive damage is a factor in scaling, though......

simonsez

TLCstormz wrote:

We don't even know for 100% sure that receiving massive damage is a factor in scaling, though......

Well, they just got through swearing to us that it's not roster-based, and if I can see via comparison with alliance mates that it's not outcome-based, we're running out of possibilities.

Arondite

TLCstormz wrote:

We don't even know for 100% sure that receiving massive damage is a factor in scaling, though......

Yeah, just like we don't for 100% sure know how evolution took place. Thing is, there's so much quantifiable, observable evidence that it's pretty easy and safe to put the information together and reach that conclusion without doubt unless new evidence to the contrary were discovered.

Further, we also have a plain, flat out developer statement that confirms as much.

C'mon, guy.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

TLCstormz wrote:

We don't even know for 100% sure that receiving massive damage is a factor in scaling, though......

Well, they just got through swearing to us that it's not roster-based, and if I can see via comparison with alliance mates that it's not outcome-based, we're running out of possibilities.

When fighting 3* enemies and getting team ups they are scaling to 118 past 2 pve events. My 4 highest characters (not counting boosts) are 150, 120, 110 and 94, average of those is 118.5. I have feeling this average is how base node levels are set, to average level of your roster which is 4 first guys.

GothicKratos

simonsez wrote:

Yeah, I get all that... what I'm saying is, if they want PvE to be consistent with what they've done to PvP, they need to remove this invisible benefit you get by intentional taking damage with low level teams.

It works that way to scale according to how well you do. If you smash that node, you clearly need a harder node. If you barely finish it, you probably need one easier.

Is there ways to fudge the mechanic and game the system? Yup. There is for practically any mechanics system.

Is using Patch/Daken to take a bunc of damage and heal it back cheap? Yes. You know it also is? Smart. I'd be willing to bet it's time consuming too.

All that being said, maybe he deserves to be ahead of you if he's;
1.) Using weaker characters than you to clear nodes than you.
2.) Investing more time than you.
3.) Playing smarter than you.

Steellatch

GothicKratos wrote:

It works that way to scale according to how well you do. If you smash that node, you clearly need a harder node. If you barely finish it, you probably need one easier.

Is there ways to fudge the mechanic and game the system? Yup. There is for practically any mechanics system.

Is using Patch/Daken to take a bunc of damage and heal it back cheap? Yes. You know it also is? Smart. I'd be willing to bet it's time consuming too.

All that being said, maybe he deserves to be ahead of you if he's;
1.) Using weaker characters than you to clear nodes than you.
2.) Investing more time than you.
3.) Playing smarter than you.

Most games that have had sandbagging, the overall experience of the game drops. It's not for the benefit of the community or the progression of a great game. Don't encourage it.

GothicKratos

Steellatch wrote:

Most games that have had sandbagging, the overall experience of the game drops. It's not for the benefit of the community or the progression of a great game. Don't encourage it.

My point was not to encourage that behavior. My point is the system works in a logic and intelligent manner and there is going to be outliers, like anything else in the world.

People playing smart by utilizing all of their rosters should beat people brute forcing their way through it with X-Force in the long haul.

The only reason I elaborated on that specific scenario is because rather than being something cheap and gimmicky, it's actually quite a smart idea, and I'm personally okay with saying if you have a smart idea and make it effective you should probably succeed. I even admitted that it was a cheap tactic to game the system, but that doesn't take away from the idea behind it.

The people that really should be winning are people like Colog and Bee that used their whole roster the whole event. There's no doubt about that. However, sorry (not sorry) if I give more praise to the guy thinking outside the box and using game mechanics to his advantage over the folks just smashing at the game with a hammer and shouting when it's not working the way they want it to.

simonsez

GothicKratos wrote:

The only reason I elaborated on that specific scenario is because rather than being something cheap and gimmicky, it's actually quite a smart idea

So was tanking. But if you revisit the OP, this wasn't a discussion about ethics and how smart sandbagging is. It was a call to make the two game modes consistent with one another. Maybe we've becomes desensitized to the lack of logic and thought when it comes to some of the design decisions around here, but telling people, "We no longer want sandbaggers to have an advantage in PvP", while implicitly telling us, "We want sandbaggers to continue to have an advantage in PvE" is something I'd like someone with red type to address.

Stax the Foyer

GothicKratos wrote:

My point is the system works in a logic and intelligent manner.

Aw, c'mon, the system is Calvinball.

It's one thing to say that people playing by the unwritten and constantly changing rules deserve to come out on top. That's fine, they found the invisible hoops and spent time jumping through them.

But the idea of equalizing challenge in a competitive environment regardless of time and effort (and in some cases, money) invested, which seems to be where these changes have been going, isn't an underpinning design philosophy that people are going to expect to see, especially if they're new players, or players not involved in the community.

metabelian

GothicKratos wrote:

People playing smart by utilizing all of their rosters should beat people brute forcing their way through it with X-Force in the long haul.

IMO playing smart and utilizing rosters would be someone finding a way to kick butt with IW or Beast or any of the other low ranked characters. What's actually being done doesn't sound so much smart as cheap.

GothicKratos

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/370900/resized_confucius-says-meme-generator-confucius-says-try-one-more-time-278bf8.jpg

Re-reading, I realize I'm not being very clear in distinguishing my three separate statements, so I'm going to try again.

1.) Basing scaling on overall performance in each node is the most logical way to go about it (in my opinion). If you excel in a node, you should probably need a harder node. If you're having difficulties with a node, you should probably get some assistance. PvP is not PvE - it's not comparable. PvP is competitive and mostly about raw power. PvE is indirectly competitive but has a heavy emphasis on roster depth.

2.) Gaming the system is bad for the community as a whole, but I can give players that do game the system the little bit of credit for thinking outside the box.

3.) Using Patch/Daken to be able to take large amounts of damage without much of a netlose of overall health is creative, and worth a nod in that direction, but to clarify, however, it's still gaming the system, and if a stopgap can be placed, it should be. Emphasis on effectively using your roster should be the premium, not taking advantage of mechanical weaknesses.

Stax the Foyer

GothicKratos wrote:

1.) Basing scaling on overall performance in each node is the most logical way to go about it (in my opinion). If you excel in a node, you should probably need a harder node. If you're having difficulties with a node, you should probably get some assistance.

I might not have been clear in my point either, but I absolutely agree with this -- in any game where the rewards scale with difficulty. Scaling the difficulty level makes perfect sense in a game where the rewards increase accordingly.

With the minor exception of Essential nodes, that's not the case in MPQ PvE. The maximum number of points in any given PvE, assuming that you have at least one cover for each of the essential characters, is the same for everyone, regardless of roster levels.

So if the rewards don't scale, the other way to make progress is to have the improved characters/roster benefit you by making it easier to clear nodes. Personal scaling undercuts that. Deep rosters already see a benefit from being able to use more appropriate teams for any given nodes, and by saving healthpacks by being able to rotate characters. Throwing personal performance-based scaling on top of that, especially as a hidden mechanic, undercuts any feeling of progress.

Undercutting any feeling of progress in 3* and 4* land seems to be the driving force between the changes, lately, so at least they're consistent.

Unknown

Stax the Foyer wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

1.) Basing scaling on overall performance in each node is the most logical way to go about it (in my opinion). If you excel in a node, you should probably need a harder node. If you're having difficulties with a node, you should probably get some assistance.

I might not have been clear in my point either, but I absolutely agree with this -- in any game where the rewards scale with difficulty. Scaling the difficulty level makes perfect sense in a game where the rewards increase accordingly.

With the minor exception of Essential nodes, that's not the case in MPQ PvE. The maximum number of points in any given PvE, assuming that you have at least one cover for each of the essential characters, is the same for everyone, regardless of roster levels.

So if the rewards don't scale, the other way to make progress is to have the improved characters/roster benefit you by making it easier to clear nodes. Personal scaling undercuts that. Deep rosters already see a benefit from being able to use more appropriate teams for any given nodes, and by saving healthpacks by being able to rotate characters. Throwing personal performance-based scaling on top of that, especially as a hidden mechanic, undercuts any feeling of progress.

Undercutting any feeling of progress in 3* and 4* land seems to be the driving force between the changes, lately, so at least they're consistent.

Scaling also punishes "optimal" play which is to clear a node as quickly as possible. If you can full clear in 20 minutes you can 5x clear in 100 minutes which gives you more recharged nodes on your grind than if you can only full clear in 30 minutes so you have to 5x clear in 150 minutes. So the "best" play strategy is to win ASAP, yes? But doing this raises your scaling and then makes your next clear that much harder.

I wish they would just do away with scaling all together, and make nodes the difficulty they want them to be from the start. Diverse rosters can grind more because more available characters if health packs become an issue but other than that "hammering" with your XF/IF combo (or your favorite team) should not really be punished.