MPQ support says that PVE difficulty set by top 3 characters

MyFeetStink

My alliance mate sent a e-mail to MPQ support about PVE difficulty:

Last night I attempted Maggia Assault IV 9 times. I lost 8 of those times when their levels were 222. I tried every roster combination available to me. When I woke up this morning their levels had scaled to 247-248. Why is the game making the nodes harder despite the fact that I cannot complete them on the lower levels? If it is some sort of community scaling, why choose that form when this is not a community game it is a single player game?

I found the response he got back from MPQ support interesting:

Thank you for contacting D3P Customer Support.

When entering a PvE event/sub-event for the first time, the AI reviews your current Roster (including buffs/restrictions), and bases the initial mission difficulty based on your top three characters. Many (but not all) of the nodes in the easier missions are capped at a fairly low level, which means they appear artificially low to a high level team; somewhere between 30-50 usually. Then, when you make the jump to harder missions, it looks really stark because you are jumping up to the level you should be playing against, without the caps.

The PvE mission difficulty is also adjusted in response to not only your overall PvE performance, but the overall PvE performance of all other players who have chosen the same event end time, or 'time shard'. These events are built for each individual player, enabling all players to encounter equally difficult foes. Due to this mechanism, opponent levels are based on that of the player's roster level and, as a result, even less robust rosters with fewer characters still have an opportunity to compete.

Please keep in mind that if you enter a PvE event for the first time with a Roster, and then quickly make changes, that event is not going to re-calibrate to the new Roster. You will need to enter another, brand new event/sub-event to see your current Roster changes reflected in the missions.

Does this explanation of the PvE event matchmaking system coincide with what you are experiencing?

Interesting part is bolded.

I found this interesting in light of the previous thread about PVE roster levels and difficulty http://www.d3pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26077. That thread left me with the take away of:

PVE scaling is based on personal performance and community scaling. This means we can feel free to upgrade our 3* roster without fear it will impact PVE, just continue to use 2* in PVE. However as soon as you start using upgraded 3* in PVE, expect your scaling to go crazy to the point that you will likely be unable to use un-boosted 2* any longer.

Based on the response my alliance mate received from support, my take away was 100% off. Your top three characters seem to have everything to do with defining your PVE difficulty, regardless of if you use them or not. Performance comes into play as well, but the previous plan of only using 2* in PVE so as to not impact scaling is obviously flawed.

Regardless of how the system works, it I do find it very frustrating that MPQ does not authoritatively answer the question of what defines PVE scaling. If we agree with their process or not is besides the point, as it stands now as players we are not in a position to make educated decisions, impacting overall enjoyment of the game.

Based on this response from support, if you play mostly PVE it sounds as if maxing out at 94 for all characters is the best thing to do, and understanding that you are not likely to do well in PVP. If you do want to upgrade past lvl 94 its likely best to wait until you can upgrade five or six characters at once so as to not get stuck playing with the same team over and over again.

fmftint

I would have thought it used the T4 average the same way TUs do. I already showed in the other thread viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26077&start=80#p329052 that levels DO affect node starting values. You can however throttle your personal scaling by using characters closer to the node level

TheOncomingStorm

This why I continue to ask/hope Demiurge_Will address the confusion and myths surrounding scaling. After seeing the announcements the last couple of weeks, I do not expect this to happen any time soon, but hopefully, it can be addressed in the not too distant future.

TheGunslingerr

They likely are both telling the truth. In the linked post they say "This account has played no matches in PVE and therefore has base scaling" which means whichever node they show will only be slightly affected by the roster, since they have not played anything ever. I wonder if everyone would post their top 3 character levels and the level of the initial node in a PvE event, how close the levels would be. That is, if previous PvE event history is not taken into account.

I really don't think they need to share more information about PvE. In my opinion, there is enough information on how to optimally score. If everyone knew exactly how to exploit the PvE scaling, where would the "fun" come from (X-force nerfs aside)?

RWTDBurn

While I've never seen anything official, it's been widely known that the level of your roster directly effects the scaling for the difficulty of PvE nodes. With the previous nerfing of 4thor and announcement of xforce being reverted back to x-farce soon, it will be interesting to see if the hardcore PvE members start selling off all of their 4* rosters as they function more as a liability for them than an asset.

Trisul

Would nice to get dev clarification on this.

MyFeetStink

Trisul wrote:

Would nice to get dev clarification on this.

Yeah, from my POV its just a matter of knowing what the rules are. Like, I would not really enjoy playing a game of football with no idea what the rules of the game are.

TLCstormz

I don't believe what either of those answers to the questions say. lol. It's more than likely ALL of those factors.

GothicKratos

When entering a PvE event/sub-event for the first time, the AI reviews your current Roster (including buffs/restrictions), and bases the initial mission difficulty based on your top three characters. Many (but not all) of the nodes in the easier missions are capped at a fairly low level, which means they appear artificially low to a high level team; somewhere between 30-50 usually. Then, when you make the jump to harder missions, it looks really stark because you are jumping up to the level you should be playing against, without the caps.

The PvE mission difficulty is also adjusted in response to not only your overall PvE performance, but the overall PvE performance of all other players who have chosen the same event end time, or 'time shard'. These events are built for each individual player, enabling all players to encounter equally difficult foes. Due to this mechanism, opponent levels are based on that of the player's roster level and, as a result, even less robust rosters with fewer characters still have an opportunity to compete.

My own emphasis added.

The first paragraph is very clearly (to me) talking about your initial node levels upon entering an event/sub-event, whereas the second paragraph was talking about personal scaling and community scaling.

What's news here?

MyFeetStink

GothicKratos wrote:

When entering a PvE event/sub-event for the first time, the AI reviews your current Roster (including buffs/restrictions), and bases the initial mission difficulty based on your top three characters. Many (but not all) of the nodes in the easier missions are capped at a fairly low level, which means they appear artificially low to a high level team; somewhere between 30-50 usually. Then, when you make the jump to harder missions, it looks really stark because you are jumping up to the level you should be playing against, without the caps.

The PvE mission difficulty is also adjusted in response to not only your overall PvE performance, but the overall PvE performance of all other players who have chosen the same event end time, or 'time shard'. These events are built for each individual player, enabling all players to encounter equally difficult foes. Due to this mechanism, opponent levels are based on that of the player's roster level and, as a result, even less robust rosters with fewer characters still have an opportunity to compete.

My own emphasis added.

The first paragraph is very clearly (to me) talking about your initial node levels upon entering an event/sub-event, whereas the second paragraph was talking about personal scaling and community scaling.

What's news here?

Both of those quotes are from the MPQ support people, and yes they go along with each other perfectly. You are 100% right on that. The issue I see is that the MPQ support says that they base starting difficulty off of the top three roster slots you have. That goes 100% against what was stated in the previous thread where it was stated that roster level does not impact difficulty, just past performance and community scaling. That tread encouraged people to upgrade levels with confidence knowing that doing so won't make PVE harder. That in fact, you could upgrade your 3*s while only using 2* in PVE and you should not notice an increase in difficulty in PVE at all.

However the MPQ support persons answer makes it clear that upgrading your 3*s will in fact make PVE more difficult by setting the starting levels. Even if you only use 2*/lvl 94 in there it will get harder.

Even that is ok, its just a matter of knowing. If someone does not like to play PVP, then it seems that the best thing to do is keep all your roster slots at lvl 94 and enjoy PVE. There is no point in upgrading, as by staying with 94 you can use more of your roster across the PVE experience instead of just those you have been able to upgrade.

Infrared

And having level 270 characters is a big disadvantage now. They are barely any better than level 166 3*s, yet the system will see that they are 100 levels higher and scale up your opponents accordingly.

SnowcaTT

I forget who brought up the scaling in PVP as well as PVE the first time they ran the MMR test, but it was a valid point.

Won't level 94 fully covered 3*'s (and/or 4*'s) pretty much be the best way to play the game now? They are often better in abilities, you don't have to pay much for them, your PVE scaling will be way lower, and apparently you'll be put in the 2* only pool in PVP so you can clean up there as well.

Mikaveus

SnowcaTT wrote:

I forget who brought up the scaling in PVP as well as PVE the first time they ran the MMR test, but it was a valid point.

Won't level 94 fully covered 3*'s (and/or 4*'s) pretty much be the best way to play the game now? They are often better in abilities, you don't have to pay much for them, your PVE scaling will be way lower, and apparently you'll be put in the 2* only pool in PVP so you can clean up there as well.

Those players do really well in PvE, so scaling does favor them in that arena. However, they struggle heavily with PvP production. Even scoring 300 is a task with well covered lvl 94 characters.

Arondite

Mikaveus wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

I forget who brought up the scaling in PVP as well as PVE the first time they ran the MMR test, but it was a valid point.

Won't level 94 fully covered 3*'s (and/or 4*'s) pretty much be the best way to play the game now? They are often better in abilities, you don't have to pay much for them, your PVE scaling will be way lower, and apparently you'll be put in the 2* only pool in PVP so you can clean up there as well.

Those players do really well in PvE, so scaling does favor them in that arena. However, they struggle heavily with PvP production. Even scoring 300 is a task with well covered lvl 94 characters.

However with the new MMR system, there's essentially a "Kiddie's Only" pool they can play in with legitimate level 94's that can't compete as closely as a level 94 3 / 4 Star that's fully covered. They can swim in this pool by themselves until they get to like 600 or 700, if they push at the appropriate times during the event, at which time they can shield up and collect easy rewards.

Unknown

Do note while 3* with 94 level are playable enough, lvl166 3* got nearly twice damage output, and certain nodes will be crazy even with full 2* roster. Would you rather fight lvl200 Ares with your level 94s having 2k nukes or lvl270 Ares with 166 and having 4k nukes? Now I probably don't recommend fighting lvl370 with current 4*...

3* 166 should be better in PvE as long as you can field wide roster of heroes and also let you get higher ranks in PvP, leveling only 2-3s will screw you over though.

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

Mikaveus wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

I forget who brought up the scaling in PVP as well as PVE the first time they ran the MMR test, but it was a valid point.

Won't level 94 fully covered 3*'s (and/or 4*'s) pretty much be the best way to play the game now? They are often better in abilities, you don't have to pay much for them, your PVE scaling will be way lower, and apparently you'll be put in the 2* only pool in PVP so you can clean up there as well.

Those players do really well in PvE, so scaling does favor them in that arena. However, they struggle heavily with PvP production. Even scoring 300 is a task with well covered lvl 94 characters.

However with the new MMR system, there's essentially a "Kiddie's Only" pool they can play in with legitimate level 94's that can't compete as closely as a level 94 3 / 4 Star that's fully covered. They can swim in this pool by themselves until they get to like 600 or 700, if they push at the appropriate times during the event, at which time they can shield up and collect easy rewards.

I'm a soft capped player and personally, I prefer the old MMR. This Kiide's Only pool is an illusion. With the 166s being forced to fight among themselves, I'm hitting the 166 wall much earlier because their scores are lower than usual. Just like how the devs said, they tried to match the 94s against the 94s and the 166s against 166s. But when I reach top 40 usually around 300 points, the gloves come off because there are no longer any more 94s to fight with and I'm forced to wear the big-boy's pants and struggle against the 166s.

You're correct that well-timed pushes still land us in 600-700 points in every single event but it now involve much more skipping. In the previous season I could steamroll my way through the stormnetos and shield to safety. Overall I still have to work as much or even more to sustain the same number of points I had in the previous season.

GothicKratos

@MyFeetStink: I never interpreted it that way. The post you're talking about specifically addressed personal scaling (and not initial node levels) and based on that interpretation this post it still accurate when compared to the other.

Arondite wrote:

However with the new MMR system, there's essentially a "Kiddie's Only" pool they can play in with legitimate level 94's that can't compete as closely as a level 94 3 / 4 Star that's fully covered. They can swim in this pool by themselves until they get to like 600 or 700, if they push at the appropriate times during the event, at which time they can shield up and collect easy rewards.

This is wrong. I have an entirely 2* roster (my highest level characters are all level 94 2*s) and after the initial seed teams I seed mid tier leveled 3*s and low level 4*s forever. It's playable, but arguably worse for me, because I don't have access to powerhouses like X-Force, Lazy Thor, or Iron Fist. I have to over reach with Stormneto or Ares/oBW. It's not really a cakewalk for me either.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

@MyFeetStink: I never interpreted it that way. The post you're talking about specifically addressed personal scaling (and not initial node levels) and based on that interpretation this post it still accurate when compared to the other.

Arondite wrote:

However with the new MMR system, there's essentially a "Kiddie's Only" pool they can play in with legitimate level 94's that can't compete as closely as a level 94 3 / 4 Star that's fully covered. They can swim in this pool by themselves until they get to like 600 or 700, if they push at the appropriate times during the event, at which time they can shield up and collect easy rewards.

This is wrong. I have an entirely 2* roster (my highest level characters are all level 94 2*s) and after the initial seed teams I seed mid tier leveled 3*s and low level 4*s forever. It's playable, but arguably worse for me, because I don't have access to powerhouses like X-Force, Lazy Thor, or Iron Fist. I have to over reach with Stormneto or Ares/oBW. It's not really a cakewalk for me either.

My experience with an entirely 2* roster (three level 94 2*s, no fully covered 3*s or 4*s) has been different from both of yours. After beating the three seed teams in Smash Hit, I had to cycle through about ~20 teams with 200-290 Hulks and 150-166 3*s or 220-270 4*s. After spending the 150 ISO in skip tax, I randomly got matched with a 1* roster of loaner Hulk, 50 IM35, 40 Jugg. After beating that node it was back to 3*-4* enemies and I couldn't even break 100 points in the event. Needless to say I'm about to quit playing entirely on my alt.

Unknown

gobstopper wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

@MyFeetStink: I never interpreted it that way. The post you're talking about specifically addressed personal scaling (and not initial node levels) and based on that interpretation this post it still accurate when compared to the other.

Arondite wrote:

However with the new MMR system, there's essentially a "Kiddie's Only" pool they can play in with legitimate level 94's that can't compete as closely as a level 94 3 / 4 Star that's fully covered. They can swim in this pool by themselves until they get to like 600 or 700, if they push at the appropriate times during the event, at which time they can shield up and collect easy rewards.

This is wrong. I have an entirely 2* roster (my highest level characters are all level 94 2*s) and after the initial seed teams I seed mid tier leveled 3*s and low level 4*s forever. It's playable, but arguably worse for me, because I don't have access to powerhouses like X-Force, Lazy Thor, or Iron Fist. I have to over reach with Stormneto or Ares/oBW. It's not really a cakewalk for me either.

My experience with an entirely 2* roster (three level 94 2*s, no fully covered 3*s or 4*s) has been different from both of yours. After beating the three seed teams in Smash Hit, I had to cycle through about ~20 teams with 200-290 Hulks and 150-166 3*s or 220-270 4*s. After spending the 150 ISO in skip tax, I randomly got matched with a 1* roster of loaner Hulk, 50 IM35, 40 Jugg. After beating that node it was back to 3*-4* enemies and I couldn't even break 100 points in the event. Needless to say I'm about to quit playing entirely on my alt.

This! So much this!

Heavy Metal the pairing were +/- 40 levels basically. Seemed fair matching (one of the people who the mmr worked for). Smash with the rework I go straight to 166+ wall after seed teams, which from the thread should NOT be happening. I have 11 characters I think at 94. NONE above 94 and only 2* at max cover. Current mmr is more broke then before. Feel free to look at my roster and verify 94. My PvP is worse then it's ever been....

Alliance PhoenixxRising
IGN same name

MyFeetStink

GothicKratos wrote:

@MyFeetStink: I never interpreted it that way. The post you're talking about specifically addressed personal scaling (and not initial node levels) and based on that interpretation this post it still accurate when compared to the other.

Its very possible that I misunderstood, but if I did I believe I was in the majority on that. And again, whatever the system is is fine. It would just be great to have the rules spelled out so that we know how to play. Driving in invisible lines is pretty hard to do.

Obviously the game should encourage you to level up your roster. However if the difficulty level is in any way significantly set by your top three roster slots, its important to know that if you do upgrade them you are pretty much committing to use them on any non-level capped node. If thats the system, cool. But its good to know so that someone that does not want to play with the same three characters all the time will know to perhaps stop at level 94 until you can upgrade say six characters all at once, and have some diversity in your play.

GothicKratos

No, you're definitely not alone on that, and I feel ya as far as transparency is concerned, but on the other side of the fence, if they give too much information, people just use that to game the system.