a tale of 2 players; or yet another pve scaling thread

Salgy

or the anti Jamie Madrox scaling thread...

In order to try to understand PVE scaling a little better, I am going to recount a true story of 2 Players I know well. To protect their identities I am going to call them Player A & Player B... this will undoubtedly be a lengthy post, and I apologize in advance, but I am really curious about what insights members of this fora, who are far smarter than me (looking at you phantron, northern polarity & phaser hawk), might have into this prevalent issue.

Disclaimer: I am going to give way more information than I feel is necessary, just in case something I have added herein is helpful in determining what exactly is going on here...

PLAYER A:
- on day 270 in resupply
- roster size: 55 characters
- highest level character: 4 at level 200 (x2; xforce, 4hor)
- number of maxed 3 characters: 10
- next highest 4 character: fury at level 166
- level average of top 3 characters: 188.67
- level average of top 15 characters: 167.4
- level average of entire roster: 101
- Season 12 PVP performance: averaged 951.91 points
- Season 12 PVE performance: average top 10 finish

PLAYER B:
- on day 165 in resupply
- roster size: 75 characters
- highest level character: 4 at level 192 (x2; xforce, 4hor)
- number of maxed 3 characters: 5
- next highest 4 character: elektra at level 101
- level average of top 3 characters: 183.33
- level average of top 15 characters: 152.13
- level average of entire roster: 81.89
- Season 12 PVP performance: averaged 832.82
- Season 12 PVE performance: average top 5 finish

Players A & B have always had similar base scaling (within a couple of levels of each other). Which would make sense, especially if you buy into the “it’s the level of your top 3 characters that determine base scaling”, which seems to be a prevalent theory on the fora. Player A has an average of 188.67 and B averages 183.33.

All over the forums, there is speculation about what causes PVE scaling, and ways you can "fix" (lower) it, we have seen answers from CS and answers from the devs as to what factors into scaling, but these answers seemingly contradict each other at times. Thinking that they somehow could have an effect on their scaling, Player B decided (after season 12) to try to lower their mmr by essentially tanking PVE’s; using a roster of characters no higher than level 110, and playing as long as they could until they were scaled out of a node.

So these 2 players played through the first 2 PVE’s this season, and their results are as follow:

Thick as Thieves:
Player A: 110,000 points - top 10
Player B: 70,000 points - top 100

Prodigal Son:
Player A: 130,000 points - top 10
Player B: 80,000 points - top 100

We are currently in the 3rd PVE and Player B, after seeing no relief on his scaling after 2 PVE’s, and tired of the node scaling well above their roster level, contacted Player A about what levels they were seeing:
Meet Rocket & Groot
First chapter - last node - Rocket & a Hard Place
Player A’s levels after 2 optimal clears: 164/165/165
Player B’s levels after 2 optimal clears: 196/197/196

Player A’s team to clear node: xforce (level 200)/blade (166)/daken (166)
Player B’s team to clear node: fathor (level 110)/blade (level 110)/obw (94)

So essentially, Player B has not touched a character above level 110 in 2.5 PVE’s and is experiencing higher scaling than he normally would be?!? I know what you are going to say, and I will beat you to the punch, because I thought the same thing:
"Player B is in an especially grindy bracket, and is experiencing some extreme community scaling…"
Wrong! They are both in the same bracket and any community scaling would affect both in the same way.

I think that this exercise has shown us a few things (and I know it is still early in the experiment, but what good are forums if you can’t speculate?!?):
1. Scaling doesn’t appear to be based on the levels of the characters used in PVE, and therefore any theory that you can roster both a low level PVE team & a high level PVP team, seems to be nullified.
2. Scaling for similarly leveled rosters can be significantly different.
3. Scaling cannot be affected by tanking (at least not quickly).
4. Apparently past PVE performance plays a major role in PVE scaling. The only real difference in the above numbers was that prior to this experiment, Player B averaged top 5 finishes while Player A averaged top 10 finishes.

Point #4 above is the only, logical thing that I can come up with as a possible answer to this mysterious scaling experiment. Scaling has to be performance based. Except that in this case, the scaling of these 2 players should be reversed... so now I ask you, the wise readers of the fora (and i guess i can add ark and simonsez to my above list!), can you think of another reason this is so out of whack?!? what are your thoughts?!?

tl;dr: PVE scaling is a mystery and it appears that past PVE performance plays a major role in starting node levels.

Lastly, if you agree that something squirrely is going on here, please upvote this to get the devs attention... maybe we can finally get one of them to weigh in on this… something's not right here...

Pylgrim

You are right but there's nothing squirrely going on. You found out exactly what the devs have stated: scaling is dependant mostly on past performance. However, I have an additional theory based on the experience of other players I have read and that you exemplify here:

Player B has a much bigger roster, yet his highest levelled characters are almost as good as player A's (which makes the top 15 3* average suffer quite a bit in comparison). I'm starting to believe that there's a relation between roster slots and highest level. I think that the system sees your 192 guy and your 75 characters and thinks that if that character is so high, all your other characters are not that far below, so that's a lot of power in your roster. In other words, the more characters you have the less advisable is to use your Iso to level up one or two particular characters instead of spreading it around. I believe this also influences PVP MMR.

I'd like to hear other people weighing in with their own observations.

Unknown

Are there more data than the one node listed? Is it higher levels across the board for Player B? Occasionally I see nodes jump up or down 30 levels in a matter of minutes, so it would be nice to see more data to rule this out.

Salgy

Pylgrim wrote:

You are right but there's nothing squirrely going on. You found out exactly what the devs have stated: scaling is dependant mostly on past performance. However, I have an additional theory based on the experience of other players I have read and that you exemplify here:

Player B has a much bigger roster, yet his highest levelled characters are almost as good as player A's (which makes the top 15 3* average suffer quite a bit in comparison). I'm starting to believe that there's a relation between roster slots and highest level. I think that the system sees your 192 guy and your 75 characters and thinks that if that character is so high, all your other characters are not that far below, so that's a lot of power in your roster. In other words, the more characters you have the less advisable is to use your Iso to level up one or two particular characters instead of spreading it around. I believe this also influences PVP MMR.

I'd like to hear other people weighing in with their own observations.

it may have been lost in the length of the post, but these 2 players have always had similar scaling, within a couple levels of each other... we are only seeing this separation on this PVE... that is what i was refering to as being squirrely...

you do raise an interesting point, one that i didn't consider myself, i didn't think about the roster size vs. potential power, so essentially, if this is correct, than we are being punished by d3 for having a large & diverse roster?!? are there others with large rosters who can weigh in?!?

Salgy

Davyx wrote:

Are there more data than the one node listed? Is it higher levels across the board for Player B? Occasionally I see nodes jump up or down 30 levels in a matter of minutes, so it would be nice to see more data to rule this out.

i will see if i can get the starting levels from the next node, opens in about 2 hours...

EDIT: i have contacted them both... Player A said "sure no problem", Player B said "i gave up on that once i hit the progression reward"... i have convinced Player B to run through the node once, for science!

Unknown

I'm also investigating why my levels seemed to have scaled down compared to the previous running of this event, despite having higher level roster. Currently suspecting that the level of the essential Quicksilver (previously Star-Lord / Mohawk / R&G) is somehow weighted highly . Can you also note the levels of your Quicksilver in the OP?

Salgy

Davyx wrote:

I'm also investigating why my levels seemed to have scaled down compared to the previous running of this event, despite having higher level roster. Currently suspecting that the level of the essential Quicksilver (previously Star-Lord / Mohawk / R&G) is somehow weighted highly . Can you also note the levels of your Quicksilver in the OP?

they both have equally leveled/boosted quicksilvers... their total boosted characters are as follow (and interestingly, Player A has the higher levels of boosted characters)

Player A
Fathor - 196
OBW - 134
2* Wolvie - 134
QuickSilver - 130
DareDevil - 120
Mrs. Marvel - 108

Player B
Fathor - 140
OBW - 134
2* Wolvie - 134
QuickSilver - 130
DareDevil - 125
Mrs. Marvel - 55

cletus1985

I could only come up with one theory and I don't know how valid it is, but is Player B going through all the nodes win or lose repeatedly? or is he just going back to the ones he knows he can beat?

I ask because if scaling is mostly effected by damage taken and he's simply wiping out easier nodes without taking much damage and Player A is playing every node while taking some substantial damage that could be a major difference.

Salgy

cletus1985 wrote:

I could only come up with one theory and I don't know how valid it is, but is Player B going through all the nodes win or lose repeatedly? or is he just going back to the ones he knows he can beat?

I ask because if scaling is mostly effected by damage taken and he's simply wiping out easier nodes without taking much damage and Player A is playing every node while taking some substantial damage that could be a major difference.

Player B is playing each node until it scales up so high that he no longer can win, then gives up... Player A is cruising through, mainly playing with laken(166)/xforce(200)/blade (166) for the entire clear (subbing out laken for qs on essentials), not using a single healthpack and laughing at Player B the whole time...

cletus1985

Salgy wrote:

cletus1985 wrote:

I could only come up with one theory and I don't know how valid it is, but is Player B going through all the nodes win or lose repeatedly? or is he just going back to the ones he knows he can beat?

I ask because if scaling is mostly effected by damage taken and he's simply wiping out easier nodes without taking much damage and Player A is playing every node while taking some substantial damage that could be a major difference.

Player B is playing each node until it scales up so high that he no longer can win, then gives up... Player A is cruising through, mainly playing with laken(166)/xforce(200)/blade (166) for the entire clear (subbing out laken for qs on essentials), not using a single healthpack and laughing at Player B the whole time...

That ends my theory. I'll guess, perhaps RNG hates Player B and has decided to make his life miserable by taking over his scaling. That's my new theory, until someone proves me wrong.

Pylgrim

Salgy wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

You are right but there's nothing squirrely going on. You found out exactly what the devs have stated: scaling is dependant mostly on past performance. However, I have an additional theory based on the experience of other players I have read and that you exemplify here:

Player B has a much bigger roster, yet his highest levelled characters are almost as good as player A's (which makes the top 15 3* average suffer quite a bit in comparison). I'm starting to believe that there's a relation between roster slots and highest level. I think that the system sees your 192 guy and your 75 characters and thinks that if that character is so high, all your other characters are not that far below, so that's a lot of power in your roster. In other words, the more characters you have the less advisable is to use your Iso to level up one or two particular characters instead of spreading it around. I believe this also influences PVP MMR.

I'd like to hear other people weighing in with their own observations.

it may have been lost in the length of the post, but these 2 players have always had similar scaling, within a couple levels of each other... we are only seeing this separation on this PVE... that is what i was refering to as being squirrely...

you do raise an interesting point, one that i didn't consider myself, i didn't think about the roster size vs. potential power, so essentially, if this is correct, than we are being punished by d3 for having a large & diverse roster?!? are there others with large rosters who can weigh in?!?

I do have a large and diverse roster but I very much spread my Iso around. As consequence, I don't have that many 166s but most of my characters are 110-150 (only the newest haven't gotten there yet.)

Zen808

Is Player B spending a disproportionate amount of time killing Goon-only nodes compared to Player A? Because those Nodes will lousy up your scaling like nobody's business. There's just no way to consistently beat them in a way them in a way that doesn't increase your scaling.

Arondite

My only note / correction to the op is that yes, you CAN tank in Pve. Slam teams into nodes to fail and watch the levels fall.

Bowgentle

Scaling is definitely _not_ based mostly on past performances.

I have the worst scaling in my alliance, and I have made T1 a single time, in the Starlord PVE.
Apart from that I'm oscillating between T10 and T150 in 3* PVEs, and T10 and "did not play" in 4* PVEs.

Meanwhile locked, who regularly takes T1 in every PVE she likes, has lower scaling than me.

It may be based on based performance, yes.

But the major, major, _major_ problem with scaling is that when it's gotten really bad, there is NO way to bring it down again through performance, taking damage, whatever. The only thing that does seem to work is taking a break for a few months, and that clearly is not an option for most of us.

simonsez

Do we all at least agree that with such similar rosters, there's no good reason why Player A and Player B should be seeing different scaling?

Salgy

Bowgentle wrote:

... Meanwhile locked, who regularly takes T1 in every PVE she likes, has lower scaling than me.

If her scaing "mysteriously" increases, she will know who to blame

fmftint

simonsez wrote:

Do we all at least agree that with such similar rosters, there's no good reason why Player A and Player B should be seeing different scaling?

Or at least a clearly identifiable reason why they aren't

Salgy

fmftint wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Do we all at least agree that with such similar rosters, there's no good reason why Player A and Player B should be seeing different scaling?

Or at least a clearly identifiable reason why they aren't

Other than Player B is either being punished for a large/diverse roster, or being punished for his top 5 finishes...

I'm really hoping that phantron phantrons this post...

Lee T

Coming from the universe of boardgames and miniature wargaming I'm puzzled by all these secret rules. There's not much point to this except if the system is unsound or "gameable". Even then the only way to promote fairness, should that be what you will, is to publish the rules so that every one can play the same game. I've never heard of chess players trying to take advantage of the ELO system...

Unknown

I'm still in the process of collecting data on my first sub with no X Force but so far it looks like it is no longer possible for max rosters to compete with 2*/transition guys on a low scaling event, like Rocket & Groot. Basically now DPS is roughly strictly a function of level across tiers (level 200 = twice the DPS as level 100, and treat 4* as a 166 for DPS purposes), but you face enemies that are more than twice your level compared to a roster with half of your strength, so just on that alone you're going to lose on crunch time. Note that if this is not true, the 2*/transition guys would never have been competitive back when X Force is around, since X Force's damage is way above the curve and generally not present in a weak roster, so if strong/weak roster face equal competition there's no way the weak roster would ever get close.

It remains unknown what might happen on a high scaling event like Prodigal Sun. Community scaling in general is lower, but this is actually bad for the strong roster because the weaker the scaling is, the less competitive a max roster is. Given that 2* gets +40 levels and generally on a character that's leveled and useful (because there are far fewer 2*s), for scaling to be fair if 166s is matched up against 200s, the 94s have to be matched up against level 150 because you need to account for the nearly certain +40 level buff to 2*s.

In short, X Force was so powerful that he made scaling look balanced. But X Force has abandoned us and scaling is going to come back with a vegenance, not in the way people think with inflated levels. You'll just find that those level 250 nodes that didn't seem very hard turned out to be very hard after all when X Force isn't around to bail you out.

Unknown

Any update on this? I'm still curious as to if the strange level trends continue.

@Phantron: I think very few events are actually decided by clearing speed alone. Even if a 2*roster could clear faster, they also have fewer characters to use and run a higher risk of running out of health packs and characters that can fight.

I have a newbie account in the same bracket as so I'll give a comparison:
Main max Lv 130 (average of top 4 is 125, average powered up top 4 is 137) / newb max Lv 75 (average of top 4 is 70, average powered up top 4 is 89)

Following levels listed as Lv for main / Lv for newb (Lv as % of main's top 4 / Lv as % of newb's top 4) (Lv as % of main's top 4 powered up / Lv as % of newb's top 4 powered up):
March of the Bots: 24 / 24 (19% / 34%) (18% / 27%)
Identical Doom: 23 / 23 (18% / 33%) (17% / 26%)
Mystique's Trail: 34 / 34 (27% / 49%) (25% / 38%)
Brotherhood of Doom: 41 / 41 (33% / 59%) (30% / 46%)
Face to Face: 48 / 48 (38% / 69%) (35% / 54%)
Wrath of Doom: 131 / 73 (105% / 104%) (96% / 82%)
The Heart of Castle Doom: 139 / 72 (111% / 103%) (101% / 81%)
Lab Work: 152 / 79 (122% / 113%) (111% / 89%)
The Big Boom: 195 / 91 (156% / 130%) (142% / 102%)
Strange Allies: 68 / 44 (54% / 63%) (50% / 49%)
Latverian Brotherhood: 109 / 63 (87% / 90%) (80% / 71%)
Metal on Metal: 82 / 51 (66% / 73%) (60% / 57%)

Total % added up: 836% / 920% (10% harder), powered up 764% / 722% (6% easier)

So I'm not sure if a newbie has it easy when it comes to scaling or clear speed. They basically have no option but the powered-up characters to have an advantage in scaling. If Balance of Power is any indication, Ares is pretty much the only 2-star that is damage-wise competitive to higher tiers, and Ares is only featured in Prodigal Sun where you play Dark Avengers. If you wanted to make a case for scaling of 4-stars being harder than 3-stars, you might have a case, but I don't think 4-stars are clearly at a disadvantage compare to a 2-star roster, assuming that a 4-star roster also has almost all the 3-stars maxed and a large selection of 3-stars.