scaling on essentials need to be looked at

Unknown

I've been collecting data on scaling and one thing that stand out is that the lower the overall level of the node, the more pronounced the difference in scaling is. For example, if your hardest node is level 300 for a max roster, a 2* roster might be fighting level 200. But if your essentials are level 200, the 2* roster might be only fighting level 90s. I guess the idea here is that weaker players get a leg up on the easier nodes because they're worth less, except essential nodes are classified as a low difficulty node, at least compared to the 'hard' track, and yet are worth more points than any other nodes. There is no way you can possibly make up the difference when you're facing level 200s versus someone facing level 90s. The only way you can overtake those guys is if you were able to get the essentials down to 1 and then also do the hard nodes, because there's no way someone facing level 90s is going to not grind his essentials down to 1. Of course, if you've been trying to do that in The Hulk you would know that just getting the level 200 essentials down to 1 itself is hard let alone having anything left in the tank for the even harder nodes.

The irony is that the essential nodes are almost certainly meant to be a selling point for roster diversity, except having every character maxed isn't going to come close to make up the difference between fighting level 200 versus level 90 enemies. You're much better off using a 1/0/0 3* plus 2 2* level 150s against 3X90, then almost any level 290+any 2*240 versus 200s.

Although a comprehensive solution to scaling would be preferable, the simple short term solution is simply to treat essentials using the same scaling factor for rosters for the hardest nodes. All the data I've collected shows that the hardest node for everyone has the smallest difference in terms of levels when measured at a % difference in levels. This would normally make sense except that the hardest node in this game is not the node that's worth the most. It's the easiest non trivial nodes that are worth the most points and scaling gives a weak roster a huge, if not insurmountable, advantage there.

Bowgentle

And why do you think this isn't intentional?

PVE isn't meant to be fair for people with max level rosters.

New guys are encouraged to spend money on tokens to get the featured char, which gives them a huge advantage on (for them) essential nodes.
That's definitely intentional.

You've been griping and moaning about people with all-94 rosters having an easier time in PVE than you.
Yes, it sucks.
Yes, it's intentional.
Get over it.

Unknown

Bowgentle wrote:

And why do you think this isn't intentional?

PVE isn't meant to be fair for people with max level rosters.

New guys are encouraged to spend money on tokens to get the featured char, which gives them a huge advantage on (for them) essential nodes.
That's definitely intentional.

You've been griping and moaning about people with all-94 rosters having an easier time in PVE than you.
Yes, it sucks.
Yes, it's intentional.
Get over it.

It's a good thing D3 didn't use your plan to grab money or they'd be out of business by now, given every PvE event gives you the essential character you need in the next PvE event for a good placement so that your scheme of tricking people into buying token packs would immediately end after the first PvE event any weak player manages to do well in. Of course, if you even looked at the rosters putting up the craziest scores you'll also know that they've well if not fully covered 3*s sitting at low levels and that isn't because they're buying token packs by the truckloads.

The scaling is so overpowering that it completely eliminates any incentive to spend money because a player in the favorable scaling range will never fail to get the essential character for the next event where he can still bring his scaling advantage.

simonsez

Bowgentle wrote:

You've been griping and moaning about people with all-94 rosters having an easier time in PVE than you.
Yes, it sucks.
Yes, it's intentional.
Get over it.

I've been guilty of the same, and I would stop if they just come out and admit it, rather than insist they're just trying to balance play.

tanis3303

I've noticed an annoying trend with the new 2/3/4* essential set up. The 2* node is consistently scaled higher than the 3* node, with the 4* node being scaled the least of the bunch. I assume community scaling is the culprit, because more people have the 2*, so that node is being cleared more times. But, I mean...do we really need to make any other argument as to why community scaling should probably go the way of the dodo than this?? So, I'm to take a weaker (max possible level 150) 2* character in vs enemies scaled higher than my lvl 300+ Fury node? If that's working as intended, I'm not sure I want to live on this planet anymore...

Unknown

It seems like the fairness of scaling is almost certainly just a function of the node's level for the highest roster. That is, it doesn't matter what event you're in, if the highest roster has a node at 200, it's likely to be around 90-110 for a 2*. If the highest roster has a node at 300, the 2* probably has it at 220-240. As the node's level gets higher, both the % and absolute difference becomes smaller, so you can even say that a strong roster has an advantage on the hardest nodes. However, this turns out to be irrelevent because the essentials are where the big points are and they typically fall in the level 200 range. The notable exception to this would be Simulator Basic and Prodigal Sun, both events where you can see essentials hitting 300s and they're both events where the weaker rosters have a harder time dominating.

It turns out we have been complaining about the wrong thing. The weak rosters do not have an easier time on the level 300+ guys that are wiping us out. They just get around that by feasting on the essentials that a strong player can beat but certainly not with the same kind of effectiveness.

Unknown

tanis3303 wrote:

I've noticed an annoying trend with the new 2/3/4* essential set up. The 2* node is consistently scaled higher than the 3* node, with the 4* node being scaled the least of the bunch. I assume community scaling is the culprit, because more people have the 2*, so that node is being cleared more times. But, I mean...do we really need to make any other argument as to why community scaling should probably go the way of the dodo than this?? So, I'm to take a weaker (max possible level 150) 2* character in vs enemies scaled higher than my lvl 300+ Fury node? If that's working as intended, I'm not sure I want to live on this planet anymore...

It's not only that, it's also the coverage of the characters. A lot of people have a maxed AWolv, but there's plenty of players who have a single cover Fury or < 3 covers, such that Fury is less powerful than their Wolverine. If you're bringing in 2 + a weak fury you're going to be wiping more often than 2 + a maxed AWolverine.

The players at the top get screwed on the 2* node, but clear the 3* and 4* node with ease.
Transitioners will in turn have a tough time with the 3* and 4* nodes, and struggle with but usually beat the 2* essential node, especially if they're tank nodes like Juggernaut + Ares.

Cymmina

Phantron wrote:

It turns out we have been complaining about the wrong thing. The weak rosters do not have an easier time on the level 300+ guys that are wiping us out. They just get around that by feasting on the essentials that a strong player can beat but certainly not with the same kind of effectiveness.

Nodes on the final Hulk sub for a level 94 roster (I typically place top 100/50 in PvE events):

• Nevada VI (hard): 246
• Wolverine (easy): 77
• Colossus (easy): 80
• Nick Fury (easy): 78

These levels are with 3 1/2 hours remaining, Nevada VI was "normal" a few hours ago and I think Wolverine was "trivial" last night when the sub was only a few hours old.

Depending on the event, I can usually clear the top nodes. It gets tougher towards the end when community scaling goes into high gear, so I stop bothering. They take too long and burn up too many health packs. Meanwhile, I can knock out those essentials in 5~6 minutes. Nick Fury's node is the toughest with the Ares/Juggs combo and all I have are 2 yellow covers.

Scaling sucks for everyone. Not being able to do those tougher nodes gives weaker rosters less point earning options. We can burn through the easy essentials quicker, but once you've ground it down to 1 point, speed stops mattering.

Unknown

Cymmina wrote:

Phantron wrote:

It turns out we have been complaining about the wrong thing. The weak rosters do not have an easier time on the level 300+ guys that are wiping us out. They just get around that by feasting on the essentials that a strong player can beat but certainly not with the same kind of effectiveness.

Nodes on the final Hulk sub for a level 94 roster (I typically place top 100/50 in PvE events):

• Nevada VI (hard): 246
• Wolverine (easy): 77
• Colossus (easy): 80
• Nick Fury (easy): 78

These levels are with 3 1/2 hours remaining, Nevada VI was "normal" a few hours ago and I think Wolverine was "trivial" last night when the sub was only a few hours old.

Depending on the event, I can usually clear the top nodes. It gets tougher towards the end when community scaling goes into high gear, so I stop bothering. They take too long and burn up too many health packs. Meanwhile, I can knock out those essentials in 5~6 minutes. Nick Fury's node is the toughest with the Ares/Juggs combo and all I have are 2 yellow covers.

Scaling sucks for everyone. Not being able to do those tougher nodes gives weaker rosters less point earning options. We can burn through the easy essentials quicker, but once you've ground it down to 1 point, speed stops mattering.

For me they are:

Nevada VI: 351
Nick Fury: 190
Colossus: 189
Wolverine: 188

I can't even get essentials down to 1 reliably, especially given now that one of them you have to use Wolverine who might as well be doing absolutely nothing. Even if there is somehow an advantage on Nevada VI (very doubtful), it doesn't matter because the essentials will decide the outcome already. Also, being able to do them fast and reliably means you can just do all 6 stacks in the final hour or so, instead of spread them out in a period of 4-5 hours because you can't even be sure you can do them 6 times without running out of health packs when they're 190 instead of 89.

Unknown

daibar wrote:

tanis3303 wrote:

I've noticed an annoying trend with the new 2/3/4* essential set up. The 2* node is consistently scaled higher than the 3* node, with the 4* node being scaled the least of the bunch. I assume community scaling is the culprit, because more people have the 2*, so that node is being cleared more times. But, I mean...do we really need to make any other argument as to why community scaling should probably go the way of the dodo than this?? So, I'm to take a weaker (max possible level 150) 2* character in vs enemies scaled higher than my lvl 300+ Fury node? If that's working as intended, I'm not sure I want to live on this planet anymore...

It's not only that, it's also the coverage of the characters. A lot of people have a maxed AWolv, but there's plenty of players who have a single cover Fury or < 3 covers, such that Fury is less powerful than their Wolverine. If you're bringing in 2 + a weak fury you're going to be wiping more often than 2 + a maxed AWolverine.

The players at the top get screwed on the 2* node, but clear the 3* and 4* node with ease.
Transitioners will in turn have a tough time with the 3* and 4* nodes, and struggle with but usually beat the 2* essential node, especially if they're tank nodes like Juggernaut + Ares.

As long as you have the required character at all there's not going to be any problem with the essentials if they're level 79 like one of the guy posted. I'll always take any 2 2* level 150s + any 1/0/0 hero against level 80s over any maxed 290+ any 2*240, and I don't always have the featured character at 290 either.

tanis3303

Phantron wrote:

For me they are:

Nevada VI: 351
Nick Fury: 190
Colossus: 189
Wolverine: 188

That's what mine look like too. You forgot to mention that Colossus and Wolverine nodes also contain an AI Supernova team up, a 3-4,000 AoE nuke that you have almost no chance of preventing.

Unknown

tanis3303 wrote:

Phantron wrote:

For me they are:

Nevada VI: 351
Nick Fury: 190
Colossus: 189
Wolverine: 188

That's what mine look like too. You forgot to mention that Colossus and Wolverine nodes also contain an AI Supernova team up, a 3-4,000 AoE nuke that you have almost no chance of preventing.

As long as the node isn't replaced with say 3 Yelenas the node composition doesn't matter as much because it is indeed true that everyone faces that same combination of enemies. Though even if all the nodes are just 3 Yelenas, you're still not going to beat someone fighting level 80 version of those guys just on the speed factor, as that guy can always afford to start grinding later than you and have a decisive timing advantage. Using my level (190) and the low roster given above (79), we'll assume all damage scales exactly linear to level, even TUs, and let's just say this fight always has an unavoidable Supernova for 4K. For me, on Wolverine node I'd use Wolverine (150), BP (240), Iron Fist (240) which has 7854/13892/10968 health. Measured as a % of their total health it's 51%/29%/36%

If the enemies are instead of level 79 and scaled back, then the same unavoidable Supernova would do 1672 damage and let's say they're using Wolverine (150), Moonstone (94), Magneto (94) (there are 2* boosted to 150 but I don't have any to check), even with this combination they have 7854/5586/4998 health and measured as a % of their health you get 21%/30%/33%. The damage taken is still significantly less even if you're using 2 regular level 94s, when you really should be using 2 level 150s.

tanis3303

Right, I'm agreeing with you that it's tinykitty, not defending the lvl 94 guys

The return of Sentry team-ups is troubling. World Rupture in its new form really isn't a big deal, but it can sting when the enemy team has Daken around. Supernova is just a low blow as far as I'm concerned. I'm hoping that the only reason we're seeing so much of it is because of this particular event. It's an all Dark Avengers event, all of the team up powers the AI is bringing are from one of the DA that you're not currently fighting, and since there are so few of them, Nova is bound to come around more often. We'll see if the trend of unavoidable Team Up AoE nukes continues in the Simulator PvE, and if so, I think tinfoil hats and pitchforks might be in order...

Sword user

Phantron, I think the solution to this is for healing to be increased by a percentage related to the ratio of current level to max level and rating.

Let's say the current heal rate for a 4* is 1hp/3seconds. Then a 4* at 270/270 would heal at a bonus of 100% that (1hp/1.5 seconds), a 4* at 135/270 would heal at a bonus of 50% of that (1hp/2seconds). 3*s would have a similar equation relative to cap, but maybe the max would be 50% and go down from there. Thus cover-maxed characters at less than their max level would be slower in healing than their cover-maxed characters fully leveled. This would be a significant help for the increased HP damaged (and recovery time) for higher leveled characters.

This doesn't necessarily address the fact that a 94 cap group of 3*/2* will have a deeper roster to pull from, but the heal pack requirements for the higher levels will be lower.

I think, tuned right, this would allow the 'deeper' grind later in the event, and at the same time offer a nice bonus for leveling characters as you receive covers.

Unknown

Unless healing is so fast that characters regen to full in under an hour it's not going to be enough to solve the problem. This doesn't even factor in that the vastly harder essentials for a max roster have a very high chance of downing a character. It's clear to me now that we have all been complaining about the wrong issue all along. When those level 300 guys wipe the floor with you, the weaker roster is not beating those nodes with ease. That guy is looking at a 220 and say, 'this encounter looks too hard, so I'll just grind essential 6 times instead' since his essentials are 90, while they're 190 for the max roster, so doing them 6 times isn't an option. Ever since the 2* required node went in this issue has been worse because that node is a de facto 2on3 for any strong roster as your 2* cannot possibly contribute directly against enemies that are intended for a max roster, while the weaker roster has no such issue. The 2* node alone is a noticeable wear on my strongest team because you absolutely need your best 2 guys going 2on3 while accumulating a ton of damage to pull the useless 2* through and by the time you're done, you just don't have anything left.

Unknown

tanis3303 wrote:

Phantron wrote:

For me they are:

Nevada VI: 351
Nick Fury: 190
Colossus: 189
Wolverine: 188

That's what mine look like too. You forgot to mention that Colossus and Wolverine nodes also contain an AI Supernova team up, a 3-4,000 AoE nuke that you have almost no chance of preventing.

I posted this in another thread, so forgive the repetition. There's a simple way to prevent Sopernova: put Sentry on your team to force the AI to use a different TU.

Sword user

It may not solve the problem, but I think it would be a good step. (and of course I think it was a good idea, I mean, it was my idea, lol) The only other step is to lower the scaling for the high end rosters, primarily for essentials.

Also, it seems that the enemies may have a soft cap, determined by party level, rather than being boosted by the levels in your roster. IE, if you have higher level characters and perform better, you get more scaling than someone with high level characters that does not perform as well.

Nooneelsesname

Phantron wrote:

Of course, if you even looked at the rosters putting up the craziest scores you'll also know that they've well if not fully covered 3*s sitting at low levels and that isn't because they're buying token packs by the truckloads.

I would be interested in the names, alliances and screen shots of final scores for these players you reference.

Because the current highest scorer out of all the Top 10 Alliances for Hulk has a 270 X Force, 215 4* Thor, 170 IMHB, 166 Sentry and 166 Hood.

Our current highest scorer has two and a half pages of 166s.

Seriously, who are you talking about?

Unknown

Nooneelsesname wrote:

Phantron wrote:

Of course, if you even looked at the rosters putting up the craziest scores you'll also know that they've well if not fully covered 3*s sitting at low levels and that isn't because they're buying token packs by the truckloads.

I would be interested in the names, alliances and screen shots of final scores for these players you reference.

Because the current highest scorer out of all the Top 10 Alliances for Hulk has a 270 X Force, 215 4* Thor, 170 IMHB, 166 Sentry and 166 Hood.

Our current highest scorer has two and a half pages of 166s.

Seriously, who are you talking about?

How about looking at the #2 scorer on your alliance (Madeofglasz) who has only level 94 guys?

Half of your alliance's top 10 has nobody higher than level 166 (and usually not higher than about level 120) on their roster, and yet you're pretending you're not aware of this?

It's always possible to come out at the top with some heroic effort but a lot of people are finding out that it's not worth the effort to try so hard when the playing field is stacked.

Nooneelsesname

Phantron wrote:

Nooneelsesname wrote:

Phantron wrote:

Of course, if you even looked at the rosters putting up the craziest scores you'll also know that they've well if not fully covered 3*s sitting at low levels and that isn't because they're buying token packs by the truckloads.

I would be interested in the names, alliances and screen shots of final scores for these players you reference.

Because the current highest scorer out of all the Top 10 Alliances for Hulk has a 270 X Force, 215 4* Thor, 170 IMHB, 166 Sentry and 166 Hood.

Our current highest scorer has two and a half pages of 166s.

Seriously, who are you talking about?

How about looking at the #2 scorer on your alliance (Madeofglasz) who has only level 94 guys?

Half of your alliance's top 10 has nobody higher than level 166 (and usually not higher than about level 120) on their roster, and yet you're pretending you're not aware of this?

It's always possible to come out at the top with some heroic effort but a lot of people are finding out that it's not worth the effort to try so hard when the playing field is stacked.

So you're saying that half our Top 10 has multiple 166s. Got it.

Some of our members have low levels because they haven't been playing as long as others and ISO is really hard to come by.

It's possible to do well in PvE with a high level roster. It's possible to do well with a lower level roster. It's possible to do well with an evenly leveled roster. It's possible to do well with outliers.

The playing field is not stacked.

Edited to add: That first sentence I wrote was unnecessary. I misread your comment and went for a zinger, apologies. Rest of it's true, though. I'm unaware of anyone sitting on a giant pile of ISO thinking "Gosh, I'd love to level my characters but then I'd never win at PvE".

The people I can think of off the top of my head that put up "the craziest" scores like Human Torch, FierceKiwi, Malorick, Scoregasms, Jonny1punch, etc. do it with at least 166s and in some cases 200+. I'm sure there are others that belong in that group or better that I'm unaware of because they've moved on or I've been in different brackets. The closest match I can think of to your comments is our Davyx. He's currently got a 135 max (and rising) which is a far cry from the 2* rosters you mention in your first post.

I'm genuinely curious if there's anyone putting up super high (not just really good, competitive) scores with a low leveled roster. And not even in a recruiting sense. If they're happy where they are, awesome. But I think the premise of the many, many threads you've made on this subject is flawed.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

Nooneelsesname wrote:

Phantron wrote:

Of course, if you even looked at the rosters putting up the craziest scores you'll also know that they've well if not fully covered 3*s sitting at low levels and that isn't because they're buying token packs by the truckloads.

I would be interested in the names, alliances and screen shots of final scores for these players you reference.

Because the current highest scorer out of all the Top 10 Alliances for Hulk has a 270 X Force, 215 4* Thor, 170 IMHB, 166 Sentry and 166 Hood.

Our current highest scorer has two and a half pages of 166s.

Seriously, who are you talking about?

How about looking at the #2 scorer on your alliance (Madeofglasz) who has only level 94 guys?

Half of your alliance's top 10 has nobody higher than level 166 (and usually not higher than about level 120) on their roster, and yet you're pretending you're not aware of this?

It's always possible to come out at the top with some heroic effort but a lot of people are finding out that it's not worth the effort to try so hard when the playing field is stacked.

Hi. Thanks for the honorable mention.

You picked the exception, not the general trend, with your example. I pretty much have the most underleveled roster in my alliance. I don't benefit much from it, except that I get to use my brain in other places instead of deciding who to level higher than 94. I think that's why they made me a commander. Also, my roster pretty much means I absolutely can't climb high in PvP without blowing huge amounts of HP, so I don't have that much to do in game other than playing PvE well.

I am second right now because I picked an early slice. Usually I end up somewhere in the middle, so for the most part the people who don't underlevel their rosters in the alliance are doing just fine, if not better.

PS: Sorry for the accidental PM. I thought that was the quote button. This is my first post with the new forum system.