Should I wait to level past 94?

Unknown

Hi all, I've seen some talk and some opponents that don't level their past 94. I read somewhere that your top level affects PvE scaling, so at first glance it makes sense to keep everyone at 94. But right now i've got a couple 94's boosted to 150, which results in the boosted characters being the only viable options for a lot of the tougher nodes, and even they lose the match sometimes. I can take Storm, Wolverine, and Colossus into a battle and get stomped by Juggs when he's getting fed greens by a grenadier.

So, are the boosted levels counted in PvE scaling? I'm guessing they are. In which case, bringing Elektra to 111 (3/1/0) is not going to hurt anything, though it might at some point if they boost her. But do they ever boost characters?

She would be awfully useful against all these Daken matches... what should I do?

fmftint

GunnerMcGrath wrote:

Hi all, I've seen some talk and some opponents that don't level their past 94. I read somewhere that your top level affects PvE scaling, so at first glance it makes sense to keep everyone at 94. But right now i've got a couple 94's boosted to 150, which results in the boosted characters being the only viable options for a lot of the tougher nodes, and even they lose the match sometimes. I can take Storm, Wolverine, and Colossus into a battle and get stomped by Juggs when he's getting fed greens by a grenadier.

So, are the boosted levels counted in PvE scaling? I'm guessing they are. In which case, bringing Elektra to 111 (3/1/0) is not going to hurt anything, though it might at some point if they boost her. But do they ever boost characters?

She would be awfully useful against all these Daken matches... what should I do?

It use to be they didn't boost 4* characters. but with 2/3/4 essential and weekly boosting you will have 3 boosted 4*s every week/event

JamieMadrox

GunnerMcGrath wrote:

Hi all, I've seen some talk and some opponents that don't level their past 94. I read somewhere that your top level affects PvE scaling, so at first glance it makes sense to keep everyone at 94. But right now i've got a couple 94's boosted to 150, which results in the boosted characters being the only viable options for a lot of the tougher nodes, and even they lose the match sometimes. I can take Storm, Wolverine, and Colossus into a battle and get stomped by Juggs when he's getting fed greens by a grenadier.

Roster levels impact node levels minimally. Scaling is mostly how easily you defeat nodes. Everyone has problems with Juggs nodes because scaling makes them extremely difficult for everyone.

GunnerMcGrath wrote:

So, are the boosted levels counted in PvE scaling? I'm guessing they are. In which case, bringing Elektra to 111 (3/1/0) is not going to hurt anything, though it might at some point if they boost her. But do they ever boost characters?

Leveling any character that isn't fully covered on at least their best abilities is a bad idea. Your level 150 characters are just slightly less powerful than a level 166 character. So a level 111 character is about as useful as a character with the same covers. You're better off fully covering a character and THEN leveling it. Save your ISO; it doesn't expire.

And yes, characters are buffed all the time.

Vhailorx

A 3/1/0 Elektra won't be better than your 2*s, so I would bother to level her.

In general, 3*s become better than 2*s at 8-10 covers (and at least 4 covers in key powers) and from level 100 to 115. (obviously there is some variability, but that's a decent rule of thumb).

You can probably take a few 3* to 120 or 130 without damaging you pve scaling. But what you want to avoid is one or two 3*s at 150 and nothing else besides 2*s. In that situation, your scaling will key off your performance with the 150s and you 2*s will be even less viable on harder nodes. (note that it doesn't seem like levels have a large direct effect on scaling, but scaling does look at performance, and levels affect performance a lot, so you can get yourself in trouble if you level haphazardly.

Unknown

Jamie Madrox wrote:

Roster levels impact node levels minimally.

Important note: this is the opinion of Jamie Madroxtm and should be considered distinct from actually known facts about the game.

No one knows how scaling works. Not even Jamie Madrox. Probably not even the devs.

Malcrof

Vhailorx wrote:

You can probably take a few 3* to 120 or 130 without damaging you pve scaling. But what you want to avoid is one or two 3*s at 150 and nothing else besides 2*s. In that situation, your scaling will key off your performance with the 150s and you 2*s will be even less viable on harder nodes. (note that it doesn't seem like levels have a large direct effect on scaling, but scaling does look at performance, and levels affect performance a lot, so you can get yourself in trouble if you level haphazardly.

I can speak to this personally, i took 2 chars to 142 with everyone else at 94 or lower, it made for some really hard weeks and some brutal MMR.

Thankfully that is over now, but took a month or so to level things out. Transitioning is hard. If you have time:

http://www.d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3939

Wish i had found that thread sooner, would have saved me some headache.

OnesOwnGrief

Nope, level those characters. Dump ISO on all things that seem like a good bet!

Unknown

Jamie Madrox is wrong (and OnesOwnGrief is being sarcastic). On my alt account, when I enter PvE's with its completely undeveloped roster, I'll usually see nodes that are lvl 20-30 that on my main are level 150-250+.

Granted, I typically don't have the roster diversity to unlock all nodes (or time to check) on my alt, but in general, roster strength has a big impact on nodes and the more you level the worse it gets, based on what I've seen.

The weakness in not leveling your characters is that some nodes are based on community scaling more than personal scaling, and will hit 300 no matter what your personal scaling is. So there's no definitive answer. But unless you're seeing really high level enemies whom you have no chance at beating unless you level, the answer will generally be to hold off until you have the ISO to level them decently, enough so that you have a better chance.

Unknown

Thanks for the replies. As soon as I posted and left for lunch I realized of course they buff characters, as I just had Invisible Woman buffed last week.

I am almost convinced not to level her for now, mainly because I don't use her a lot... but part of that has to do with her black power. It puts trap tiles out that only work when she is going to take damage. But since she was previously 90 she was rarely in front enough for that to be worth it. If I level her up further she is likely to be out front more often, making those traps better.

But yeah, I think without her red power at all yet, both of these are very situational powers at best and don't deal a ton of damage. I'll save the ISO for whenever I get some more covers (I have all my guys maxed and not opening up more slots for others).

Too bad my 10-pack netted me 8 covers I couldn't use, a black Hood I can't use, and that purple Elektra. So I guess I continue to stockpile that ISO...

Argon Flame

My roster I have left at lvl88. This includes two fully covered 3-stars and some almost fully covered ones.
My rational is that then I have a large pool of similarly powered characters that I can haul into battle without as much disparity between their abilities.

PvE: this works well as I don't get hit by massive scaling and I have A-teams, B-teams, C-teams etc.
PvP: Still get smashed by the big boys but when I have the featured character my teams can pack a surprising punch and i get a number of defensive wins. Tend to average 400+ which is in or near T100.

Overall it depends on how you like playing the game: crushing people with the same team(s) over and over or mixing and matching to get some variation going.

Happy hunting!

Arondite

theHappyDance wrote:

Jamie Madrox is wrong (and OnesOwnGrief is being sarcastic). On my alt account, when I enter PvE's with its completely undeveloped roster, I'll usually see nodes that are lvl 20-30 that on my main are level 150-250+.

.

Poor scientific evidence - previous performances could be (and most likely are, based on the sandboxed account testing) what is causing this to happen rather than the actual levels of the characters. Community scaling, too, could be a factor if you're checking the levels on the underdeveloped account first.

If you want to unseat previous, objective evidence, the testing needs to be scientific. That means everything BUT the variable needs to be a control. There should be no difference between the accounts other than character levels. IE, the ideal test for this situation would be

Create 2 accounts on the same day.
Cheat / Hack them infinite Hero Points.
Wait until the next PvE is about to begin without clearing any unnecessary prologue missions, PvE missions, PvP nodes, etc. (Essentially, do nothing until a brand new PvE rolls up).
Join on both accounts at approximately the same time (to try and join the same bracket with any luck).
Give 1 Account 25 (Level 1) Heroes.
Give The Second account 25 (Level 27) Heroes.
Use 2 Devices to check the node(s) simultaneously and compare levels.

It's also important to join a bracket before making the changes to the rosters in this ideal test scenario, since it's possible the difference in roster strength would automatically mean a different bracket (and therefore throw off one of the controls).

Unknown

The questions “What affects scaling” and “What is the meaning of life” are interchangeable it seems. Even the most hardened veterans don’t agree on what the contributing factors are. Personally, as a player who’s soft-capped his max covered 3* til the Iso cost reduction patch, levelling my roster past 94 makes pve harder. I could see it especially in Goon damage apparently. Maybe that’s because I pushed 25 characters to level 120 at once. I think it’s a mental effect as well because we’ve all been indoctrinated to believe that levelling roster is equivalent to harsher scaling.

Lee T

As far as I'm concerned roster depth is reason enough to keep my 3* in the vicinity of my 2*. You can't easily separate actual roster levels and roster efficiency as factors, so I prefer avoiding the problem altogether.

I wont consider leveling them above 104 (3* tile damage at 104 roughly equals a 2* tile damage at 94) until I have enough fully covered 3* to not need my 2* as much as I do now (ares, OBW, cStorm, MNMag, Daken, Wolverine, Thor, etc. are still my main workhorses). And even then I'll level them evenly to avoid "fracturing" my roster.

I prefer to tread lightly while progressing through this strange game of which the very rules are hidden to the players.

Vhailorx

dathremar wrote:

The questions “What affects scaling” and “What is the meaning of life” are interchangeable it seems. Even the most hardened veterans don’t agree on what the contributing factors are. Personally, as a player who’s soft-capped his max covered 3* til the Iso cost reduction patch, levelling my roster past 94 makes pve harder. I could see it especially in Goon damage apparently. Maybe that’s because I pushed 25 characters to level 120 at once. I think it’s a mental effect as well because we’ve all been indoctrinated to believe that levelling roster is equivalent to harsher scaling.

Well, we don't know *nothing* about leveling. We do know that rosters that stay around level 94 can do very well in pve (many of the top pve alliances do this). We also know that these teams can't compete in PVP, especially new pvp with weekly boosts and longer matches. We also know that some people have leveled up their 3*s and 4*s and routinely face 395s, while others have similar levels, but only face 270s or 300s.

What we DON'T know for certain is how one can level their characters without ruining their scaling.

For myself, I was cautious about leveling. I waited until I two decent 3*s covered before taking anyone above 94. Even then, I only went to 120 or so. I then incrementally increased by 3* pool, leveling up new characters to 110-120 or so and leveling up my primary 3*s (patch, lazy cap and eventually doom and punished) to 140, then 150 and finally 160 (always leaving patch one or two levels ahead of everyone else so he could tank). I have a few covered 4*s that could go to 180 or higher (only 1 maxed), but I have kept them at 166 or lower. Using this general process I know have about 10 3*s with maxed covers at 153 or higher, and about 24 optimally covered 3*s.

I see difficult but reasonable scaling. I have finished mostly top 50 since February, with the occasional top 10 or top 150. Lone hulk in this recent hulk event started at 395, but that's the only 395s I typically see. In thick as thieves, the cMags/hood node started at 270. Very hard goon-only nodes start around 270 and end up around 320. Deadly nodes with 3 villain enemies start in the 220s.

Lee T

Vhailorx wrote:

Lone hulk in this recent hulk event started at 395, but that's the only 395s I typically see. In thick as thieves, the cMags/hood node started at 270. Very hard goon-only nodes start around 270 and end up around 320. Deadly nodes with 3 villain enemies start in the 220s.

None of my 3* are fully covered, some of them are above 10 covers and are at level 100. I have a hard time placing in t100 in PVP and end up t150 in PVE consistently, I have to fight to go through t100 and can reach t50. If I have enough time and the boost fall on the right characters.

I just crossed path with a 395 Hulk, my xMags/Hood were at 230 and I can pretty much copy paste your last sentence subtracting about 30/40 levels each time.

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

theHappyDance wrote:

Jamie Madrox is wrong (and OnesOwnGrief is being sarcastic). On my alt account, when I enter PvE's with its completely undeveloped roster, I'll usually see nodes that are lvl 20-30 that on my main are level 150-250+.

.

Poor scientific evidence - previous performances could be (and most likely are, based on the sandboxed account testing) what is causing this to happen rather than the actual levels of the characters. Community scaling, too, could be a factor if you're checking the levels on the underdeveloped account first.

If you want to unseat previous, objective evidence, the testing needs to be scientific. That means everything BUT the variable needs to be a control. There should be no difference between the accounts other than character levels. IE, the ideal test for this situation would be

Create 2 accounts on the same day.
Cheat / Hack them infinite Hero Points.
Wait until the next PvE is about to begin without clearing any unnecessary prologue missions, PvE missions, PvP nodes, etc. (Essentially, do nothing until a brand new PvE rolls up).
Join on both accounts at approximately the same time (to try and join the same bracket with any luck).
Give 1 Account 25 (Level 1) Heroes.
Give The Second account 25 (Level 27) Heroes.
Use 2 Devices to check the node(s) simultaneously and compare levels.

It's also important to join a bracket before making the changes to the rosters in this ideal test scenario, since it's possible the difference in roster strength would automatically mean a different bracket (and therefore throw off one of the controls).

Previous "objective" evidence on this topic is far from objective. Populating a roster with max heroes, who've never even played an event tells you as much as populating it with a new roster in similar circumstances.

Scaling is some kind of cross-product between roster levels, (possibly roster depth), performance and possibly placement, community scaling, and other factors we don't know.

What I do know is that on two alt accounts, levels were over 2x that of the first. One was a completely fresh account with only lvl 2-4 range. The other is a more established alt I've been using to (slowly) collect the lower levels for roster slot prices with character levels in the 15-40 range. Neither have been very active in PvE or PvP.

I have better things to do than spending 8 hrs a day for a week or more to conduct a thorough test of this, but if you or someone wants to find a cheat engine to more rigorously test this, more power to you/them.

Arondite

theHappyDance wrote:

Arondite wrote:

theHappyDance wrote:

Jamie Madrox is wrong (and OnesOwnGrief is being sarcastic). On my alt account, when I enter PvE's with its completely undeveloped roster, I'll usually see nodes that are lvl 20-30 that on my main are level 150-250+.

.

Poor scientific evidence - previous performances could be (and most likely are, based on the sandboxed account testing) what is causing this to happen rather than the actual levels of the characters. Community scaling, too, could be a factor if you're checking the levels on the underdeveloped account first.

If you want to unseat previous, objective evidence, the testing needs to be scientific. That means everything BUT the variable needs to be a control. There should be no difference between the accounts other than character levels. IE, the ideal test for this situation would be

Create 2 accounts on the same day.
Cheat / Hack them infinite Hero Points.
Wait until the next PvE is about to begin without clearing any unnecessary prologue missions, PvE missions, PvP nodes, etc. (Essentially, do nothing until a brand new PvE rolls up).
Join on both accounts at approximately the same time (to try and join the same bracket with any luck).
Give 1 Account 25 (Level 1) Heroes.
Give The Second account 25 (Level 27) Heroes.
Use 2 Devices to check the node(s) simultaneously and compare levels.

It's also important to join a bracket before making the changes to the rosters in this ideal test scenario, since it's possible the difference in roster strength would automatically mean a different bracket (and therefore throw off one of the controls).

Previous "objective" evidence on this topic is far from objective. Populating a roster with max heroes, who've never even played an event tells you as much as populating it with a new roster in similar circumstances.

Scaling is some kind of cross-product between roster levels, (possibly roster depth), performance and possibly placement, community scaling, and other factors we don't know.

What I do know is that on two alt accounts, levels were over 2x that of the first. One was a completely fresh account with only lvl 2-4 range. The other is a more established alt I've been using to (slowly) collect the lower levels for roster slot prices with character levels in the 15-40 range. Neither have been very active in PvE or PvP.

I have better things to do than spending 8 hrs a day for a week or more to conduct a thorough test of this, but if you or someone wants to find a cheat engine to more rigorously test this, more power to you/them.

None of that changes what I've stated. We have ample reason to believe Jamie's findings to be true. You claim a different thing is the truth. For your claim to hold water, burden of proof rests with you.

The only way to find this proof isn't by saying "hey, I have a situation that's different than Jamie's test in every single way, yet I'm positive this one factor is the one that caused the new, variant result."

To prove the impact of levels, you have to show 2 accounts between which the only different potential factor(s) is the level of the characters.

Anything less and your information is just a neat story.

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

To prove the impact of levels, you have to show 2 accounts between which the only different potential factor(s) is the level of the characters.

Anything less and your information is just a neat story.

I just did that and you ignored it, but feel free to believe whatever you like.

Arondite

theHappyDance wrote:

Arondite wrote:

To prove the impact of levels, you have to show 2 accounts between which the only different potential factor(s) is the level of the characters.

Anything less and your information is just a neat story.

I just did that and you ignored it, but feel free to believe whatever you like.

No the **** you didn't lmfao. If 2 accounts that have been played on with different placements in different brackets with different scores and different numbers of wins all in PvE seem to be factored exactly the same to you, anything you say can't be taken with any degree of scientific credibility.

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

No the **** you didn't lmfao. If 2 accounts that have been played on with different placements in different brackets with different scores and different numbers of wins all in PvE seem to be factored exactly the same to you, anything you say can't be taken with any degree of scientific credibility.

You're right. I freely admit its not to the level of scientific credibility. It's simply reasonable observation based on my limited playtime on both accounts (neither of which has involved much / if any PvE or PvP).

If you want something more scientific, feel free to test it yourself instead of mouthing off. My experience is that claiming something is "unscientific" is what people do when they want to disagree with someone but don't want to actually be bothered to prove anything. To the best of my ability, I've presented what information on this I have available to me. If you want to spend a week or more doing thorough, truly scientific testing, at a variety of different character levels, roster strengths, placements, etc.. carefully documenting everything, I'll happily concede to your findings. I don't have time for that myself, but I'd be happy to see the results if somewhat wanted to perform actual rigorous testing.

Arondite

Jamie's example, in scientific terms

Here we have some Hydrogen (base, initial levels).

Now we shall introduce some Oxygen. (leveling up the roster).

As you can see, we now have H20

So Hydrogen + Oxygen will make water (Slightly increased enemy levels)!

Your example.

Here, we have some Hydrogen (base, initial levels) and some Carbon (past performances, different brackets causing different community scaling, etc)

Now we shall introduce some Oxygen. (leveling up the roster).

As you can see, we now have CH3CO2.

This means Hydrogen + Oxygen will always make Acetate (highly increased enemy scaling)