Is there any way that the Iso change could backfire on us?

TLCstormz

Other than getting scaled to death, if you push every one of your characters up too high?

Could the developers (I purposely didn't say WOULD, cuz I put nothing past them, at this point) make it so that anyone with a certain number of characters above a certain level get.....I dunno.....further punished?

Or could they completely change the way that PvE or PvP or God forbid even Deadpool is handled or bracketed?


Could they do that, or do they know that the fallout would be worse than it's ever been before?

I am literally terrified to level up my 3*s with my 750,000 Iso, because there's just no freaking way that they'd gift us with this seemingly amazing Iso Leveling change and have it NOT work out to their advantage, in the long run.....

:+/

Thorzhamer

Post deleted due to unnecessary and vulgar insults.
Consider this a warning!

dkffiv

Boosting nearly every PvP match and matches taking longer / skipping lightning rounds I'm pretty sure I'm making far less than 80% of the iso I was before so this 15% cut in leveling costs is still overall more expensive than it was. Helps new players level them to 100, veterans still screwed. Flat reduction across the board would be more helpful than this scaling ****.

Unknown

Gotta love this forum, complaining literally about anything.

It took 2 days to put a negative on 30% reduction of levels. This is a whole new level.

No wonder the devs stay the **** away from this place.

Pylgrim

It is true. There is no gesture of good will, no new feature or improvement that is NOT concealing a noxious poison-covered knife that will ultimately deal more damage than any benefit it initially promised. The financial motivation is only a façade, Demiurge is actually staffed with anti-succubi that thirst for the psychological pain and frustration of humans. They did not create a fun game, they wrought an infernal device of bone, blood and bile that both enslaves and mortifies the hapless souls lured in by the hypnotising colourful orbs in display and the flashy mascots they power. I'd say that you do well being wary, but truth is that the black venom that seeps forth from your screen when you touch it to "play" the game is already running through your veins. There is no scape now, fool!

More seriously, it has been proved that roster level has minimum impact in scaling. Please stop believing/spreading that myth.

Mawtful

Ah geez, I don't know where to start. I think we can all agree that Demiurge faked the moon landing, but you might be reading too much into this one. We've already had the forum mythbusters prove that roster count + character levels don't impact scaling, but I'll play along anyway.

The recent health boosts and return of the weekly buff list have both served to encourage wider roster diversity. I think it's fair to say that a lot of veterans have fairly diverse rosters by virtue of simply playing longer. Certainly, newer players will have a harder time through the middle of their transition into the 3* tier due to the increasingly diluted pool. The change to ISO costs for levelling (in particular, up to level 120) change the game so that players are no longer punished for investing in the characters theyhave, rather than hoarding until they get the 1 or 2 characters from the top tier that the metgame is currently focused on. Furthermore, the weekly buff list means that those players who do diversify are more likely to end up with 2 or even 3 buffed characters on their team.

So there it is. The great, non-existent, ISO conspiracy to "break the meta".

Realistically, yes, the designers could change the way scaling or bracketing works. But saving ISO actually wouldn't stop them from doing that. The best advantage you could have against future changes would be roster diverse enough to handle multiple challenges, thankfully that's more achieveable today than ever before.

snlf25

I love this change, the only possible downfall I can see is that there will be a lot more high level competition to face in PvP but with the changes they've already made to that the effect should be negligible. Don't raise your 4*s above 166 and you will be fine. The positives could fill a dump truck.

EDIT: Frankly, without this change the game was quickly becoming unplayable due to the rapid influx of new characters with no huge new source of iso to compensate. I can understand you being nervous though.

Eddiemon

TLCstormz wrote:

Other than getting scaled to death, if you push every one of your characters up too high?

I think the scaling myth has been disproved multiple times in multiple ways.

Yes roster level can affect your scaling by +-5 levels. No it doesn't cause 270+ enemies.

Apart from the testing actually run with D3's blessing there were also the PvE events run concurrently with Ultron which barely scaled at all due to lack of community activity.

But yes, keep your characters nice and low, D3 love the extra Health Pack revenue.

dr tinykittylove

Pylgrim wrote:

It is true. There is no gesture of good will, no new feature or improvement that is NOT concealing a noxious poison-covered knife that will ultimately deal more damage than any benefit it initially promised. The financial motivation is only a façade, Demiurge is actually staffed with anti-succubi that thirst for the psychological pain and frustration of humans. They did not create a fun game, they wrought an infernal device of bone, blood and bile that both enslaves and mortifies the hapless souls lured in by the hypnotising colourful orbs in display and the flashy mascots they power. I'd say that you do well being wary, but truth is that the black venom that seeps forth from your screen when you touch it to "play" the game is already running through your veins. There is no scape now, fool!

More seriously, it has been proved that roster level has minimum impact in scaling. Please stop believing/spreading that myth.

Didn't customer service already tell someone that scaling is set based on your top 3 characters in your roster? Otherwise it really makes no sense that the top 10 in my bracket for enemy of the state are by far largely composed of underlevelled rosters - one with fully covered 3*s at 85.

MarvelDestiny

I must be a complete moron. Scaling is a myth? What am I experiencing when I can only pull up enemy teams far above my weight class in PVP, regardless how much I skip? Or when I face node levels 150% to 200% (or more) above my max levels in PVE?

It seems to me that scaling (community & otherwise) is alive and well.

scottee

Most people think, "Yay! I can level up my heroes easier!"

And then they realize, other people can too.

Spoit

Pylgrim wrote:

It is true. There is no gesture of good will, no new feature or improvement that is NOT concealing a noxious poison-covered knife that will ultimately deal more damage than any benefit it initially promised. The financial motivation is only a façade, Demiurge is actually staffed with anti-succubi that thirst for the psychological pain and frustration of humans. They did not create a fun game, they wrought an infernal device of bone, blood and bile that both enslaves and mortifies the hapless souls lured in by the hypnotising colourful orbs in display and the flashy mascots they power. I'd say that you do well being wary, but truth is that the black venom that seeps forth from your screen when you touch it to "play" the game is already running through your veins. There is no scape now, fool!

More seriously, it has been proved that roster level has minimum impact in scaling. Please stop believing/spreading that myth.

It was proven that not playing a single fight has minimal impact on scaling.

MarvelDestiny

Spoit wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

More seriously, it has been proved that roster level has minimum impact in scaling. Please stop believing/spreading that myth.

It was proven that not playing a single fight has minimal impact on scaling.

Yeah, I remember when (I think it was Ice) showed us the effect a maxxed roster with zero fights has on scaling. For the moment let's assume this experiment is applicable in the wild, outside the test environment, and that it proves minimal scaling based on roster lvl. What, then, explains the nightmare scaling/mmr most of us experience? It surely can't be win-loss ratio. If this were true then tanking would still be effective and we were told categorically that tanking is no longer effective (check link here).

My experience since pouring iso into my roster after the update was an immediate increase in the difficulty of my foes. Yes, I want the difficulty of my fights to increase as my roster lvl increases. But I don't want the fun scaled out either (such as it has been recently). I'm willing to keep an open mind regarding the myth or reality of scaling based on roster strength. But since win-loss stats are not the reason, then what is?

SnowcaTT

It's a great change for anyone who had lots of low level characters. The vets with lots of high characters but several at level 60 will still get a benefit.

Anyone (*cough cough*) who had been even leveling and had most of their characters at say 127 and 140 just got pretty hosed though. At the point I left all my characters I couldn't compete well with the all 166 rosters, but I'd had tons of depth to out compete other transitioners. Except they all caught up to me in a day, and I got the big shaft. There are others that did a similar thing (Grumpsmurf was one I believe).

I agree with others, an across the board ISO drop for EVERY level rather than some levels would have been appropriate.

A refund of ISO spent compared to what "would" have been spent would have been appropriate.

A "delevel" button so you could get a refund and re-spend would have been appropriate.

Only if continuing "OP make vets quit" is letting everyone catch up quickly appropriate.

GrumpySmurf1002

SnowcaTT wrote:

It's a great change for anyone who had lots of low level characters. The vets with lots of high characters but several at level 60 will still get a benefit.

Anyone (*cough cough*) who had been even leveling and had most of their characters at say 127 and 140 just got pretty hosed though. At the point I left all my characters I couldn't compete well with the all 166 rosters, but I'd had tons of depth to out compete other transitioners. Except they all caught up to me in a day, and I got the big shaft. There are others that did a similar thing (Grumpysmurf was one I believe).

Sort of. I had everyone at 94 while I was waiting for enough Iso to finish the transition, but I only brought up about 8-10 key characters at the time. I didn't go the route you and Ben Grimm did, with the everyone gets a turn methodology.

Characters like Colossus/SheHulk/Beast/Doc/Gamora + a few others I still had around 60-80 even once I started 166ing characters. Between them and all my level 70 4* characters that will benefit (not to mention the free level across the board), I still get plenty of benefit from the change.

Though if it makes you feel better, I leveled Kamala to 153 before the change, because I needed the P/G user. ~50k lost for lack of patience.

Unknown

Eddiemon wrote:

TLCstormz wrote:

Other than getting scaled to death, if you push every one of your characters up too high?

I think the scaling myth has been disproved multiple times in multiple ways.

Yes roster level can affect your scaling by +-5 levels. No it doesn't cause 270+ enemies.

Apart from the testing actually run with D3's blessing there were also the PvE events run concurrently with Ultron which barely scaled at all due to lack of community activity.

But yes, keep your characters nice and low, D3 love the extra Health Pack revenue.

Does having level 166 characters effect your scaling? No. Does playing with and winning with level 166 effect your scaling? You bet your donkey! It's a trick!!!

Sure level them up, but level them up evenly or face every enemy scaled to your "A" team. Mark my words or cry later!! LEVEL YOUR CHARACTERS EVENLY!!!!!

SnowcaTT

GrumpySmurf1002 wrote:

Sort of. I had everyone at 94 while I was waiting for enough Iso to finish the transition, but I only brought up about 8-10 key characters at the time. I didn't go the route you and Ben Grimm did, with the everyone gets a turn methodology.

Oh right, it was Ben Grimm, my brother from another mother - seems to play about the same way and have a very similar experience.

I look at my roster and laugh, the ISO change helped me raise SW to 114 quickly. But now I look at my three sub 127's, my sixteen 127's, my twelve 140's, and my seven higher than that...and laugh a little. Alliance-mate Wolfman raised fifteen or eighteen characters to level 120 the day the ISO change hit, and I this kind of patient/even leveling just takes the hit.

TheOncomingStorm

Earthcore wrote:

Gotta love this forum, complaining literally about anything.

It took 2 days to put a negative on 30% reduction of levels. This is a whole new level.

No wonder the devs stay the tinykitty away from this place.

There is a difference between negative and honest. There's good and bad with most things in life, no reason to think that would not apply to games. The truth (the whole truth) is the iso change has been long overdue. I would actually argue for 4*s, not 3*s, but there are so many 3*s now, it probably makes a lot of sense to do it for both. That's only part of the picture.

The whole truth is that people that spent so much longer developing their rosters have to watch newer players be given a huge shortcut to level 100. This change may make sense for the health of the game and newer players, but it comes at a cost. That cost is longer matches and more health packs for other players.

TL; DR: Great can level faster; Not great longer fights and more health packs.

Unknown

SnowCatt sums up my feelings on this perfectly -- the only characters I had below level 110 were Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. I get nominal benefit in moving a few from 110-120, but the vast majority of my ISO over the last year and a half of playing just got deflated in value more than Tom Brady's footballs.

Pylgrim

platypusavenger wrote:

SnowCatt sums up my feelings on this perfectly -- the only characters I had below level 110 were Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. I get nominal benefit in moving a few from 110-120, but the vast majority of my ISO over the last year and a half of playing just got deflated in value more than Tom Brady's footballs.

On the other hand, having your whole roster well levelled up gave you an edge over the rest of people during that year and a half. And from now on, you too will benefit from the change when levelling up new characters.

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

On the other hand, having your whole roster well levelled up gave you an edge over the rest of people during that year and a half. And from now on, you too will benefit from the change when levelling up new characters.

On the other other hand, I would now have been significantly better off maxing X-Force and riding him while he was OP. Or maxing 4thor and riding her while she was OP. Or maxing Sentry and riding him while he was OP. The opportunity cost of leveling Pylocke or pre-buff Beast to 110 is non-trivial.

I chose to level up a broad range of heroes and not follow the flavor of the month believing that Roster Diversity was the play-style that ultimately the devs would reward, and my long slow grind to get everyone usable has now been greatly devalued. If anything, this change is telling me to stop raising everyone evenly and only spike-level the FOTM (hello ProfX?) because that's what works.