***** tier throws off the * tier system

lukewin

bump since I edited original post with new suggestion / for further conversations

Pylgrim

lukewin wrote:

I think removing the 5* classification, but keeping the characters might help return things back to normal. Not sure how the coding aspect would be, but maybe replacing 5* with a 0, might be a suggestion. If the scaling formula only took levels of characters with a * designation into account, then having OML/SS/Phoenix on your roster wouldn't matter, because they'd be invisible to the formula. I have no idea if anything I'm suggesting would be able to be implemented, but I'd rather make a suggestion that could help, so I can balance out the complaining I do about it.

Do you realise that this would allow people to, theoretically, have maxed 5*s and be bracketed along 1* people just because the rest of their roster is 1*? The system as it is works correctly, because 1* and 2* shouldn't be able to have access to the chance of earning 5*s. I think the main and only source of trouble is the Legendary Token in the last PVE progression reward, which is the only LT that can be earned by beginners. Simply replacing it with a 4* (as it should have been from the beginning, IMHO) will solve this problem.

lukewin

Pylgrim wrote:

Do you realise that this would allow people to, theoretically, have maxed 5*s and be bracketed along 1* people just because the rest of their roster is 1*? The system as it is works correctly, because 1* and 2* shouldn't be able to have access to the chance of earning 5*s. I think the main and only source of trouble is the Legendary Token in the last PVE progression reward, which is the only LT that can be earned by beginners. Simply replacing it with a 4* (as it should have been from the beginning, IMHO) will solve this problem.

I'm not sure I see a downside to maxed 5* players being bracketed along with 1* people. In PVE and PVP, doing well, will eventually get you promoted out of the baby brackets. I'd rather focus on realistically, than theoretically, because I play the game based on the results I can achieve, not theoretically achieve.

dr tinykittylove

Pylgrim wrote:

lukewin wrote:

I think removing the 5* classification, but keeping the characters might help return things back to normal. Not sure how the coding aspect would be, but maybe replacing 5* with a 0, might be a suggestion. If the scaling formula only took levels of characters with a * designation into account, then having OML/SS/Phoenix on your roster wouldn't matter, because they'd be invisible to the formula. I have no idea if anything I'm suggesting would be able to be implemented, but I'd rather make a suggestion that could help, so I can balance out the complaining I do about it.

Do you realise that this would allow people to, theoretically, have maxed 5*s and be bracketed along 1* people just because the rest of their roster is 1*? The system as it is works correctly, because 1* and 2* shouldn't be able to have access to the chance of earning 5*s. I think the main and only source of trouble is the Legendary Token in the last PVE progression reward, which is the only LT that can be earned by beginners. Simply replacing it with a 4* (as it should have been from the beginning, IMHO) will solve this problem.

There are a lot of problems with the 5* tier now, among which ability (or inability) to get them is one and power level is another. But I think the problem of someone whaling out a 5* and then selling everything except 1*s so they can take advantage of noob brackets is much smaller than the one where numerous low level transitional players are getting one and finding that the game becomes unplayable.

Maybe the 4* progression replacing the legendary might help, but on the other hand, it reduces the pool of available legendaries for everyone as well.

SnowcaTT

Even when I was starting to move into 3* land, I had always suggested what would work here (for now): just remove the top three characters from roster to take scaling into effect. Very few people evenly move their entire roster to deal with scaling - they move a select few characters up.

I always figured as I moved into 3* land that removing the three 127/140/166 characters that may have been highest at the time would have left me with much less of a scaling problem. The same thing occurs now in 4* land - many level a few 4*'s, but have lots more sitting under level 200.

You could simply have scaling ignore the top "X" characters, where X is the number of 5*'s that exist.

300/300/300/270/270/270 - you scale to 4*.
300/270/200 - you probably scale to 4* transition.
255/255/255/166/166 - you have the 5*'s, but you scale to 3* since you have nothing above 166 except 5*'s.
255/166/140 - you scale to 3* transition.

Honestly I'm not sure what the downside would be - other than those that intentionally level-cap would always be scaled to lower tiers.

Unknown

SnowcaTT wrote:

Honestly I'm not sure what the downside would be - other than those that intentionally level-cap would always be scaled to lower tiers.

I'm not even sure that's true, since those that soft-cap generally soft-cap _everyone_, and therefore ignoring their top3 would still leave the next 3 at the same power level, and be completely transparent.

I just rostered my 2nd 5*, and otherwise have a low-mid 3* roster capped at 106 for now (3 cover maxed 3*, no 4* to speak of). I'm completely screwed except for DDQ until they fix this. With only 1 5*, PvE got much harder but still playable, and PvP matched me with max3* teams but not yet max4*. Now it's 270's all the way and fagedaboudit PvE scaling.

My suggestion, which would also eliminate the ISO hoarding and encourage spending and leveling and actually _using_ the new toys one finds, is this:

Scale and match-make based on covers, not levels. That way there is obvious benefit to leveling someone when you get their covers (just a better character overall with no downside). Of course all covers aren't created equal, but then again neither are all levels in the current system.

You could of course still make a 5* cover 'worth' more than 4* covers, but it could more closely track the reality of the situation. As it stands now, I'd rather have a Lvl 70 ~9cover 4* than a lvl255 1-cover 5*, and yet I'm supremely penalized for having 2 essentially useless characters on my roster that are so rare and so future-powerful (if covered) that I can't sell them off if I take game progression seriously.

Pylgrim

SnowcaTT wrote:

Even when I was starting to move into 3* land, I had always suggested what would work here (for now): just remove the top three characters from roster to take scaling into effect. Very few people evenly move their entire roster to deal with scaling - they move a select few characters up.

I always figured as I moved into 3* land that removing the three 127/140/166 characters that may have been highest at the time would have left me with much less of a scaling problem. The same thing occurs now in 4* land - many level a few 4*'s, but have lots more sitting under level 200.

You could simply have scaling ignore the top "X" characters, where X is the number of 5*'s that exist.

300/300/300/270/270/270 - you scale to 4*.
300/270/200 - you probably scale to 4* transition.
255/255/255/166/166 - you have the 5*'s, but you scale to 3* since you have nothing above 166 except 5*'s.
255/166/140 - you scale to 3* transition.

Honestly I'm not sure what the downside would be - other than those that intentionally level-cap would always be scaled to lower tiers.

The downside is that people would game the system? Max Iron Fist, Cyclops and however many other top characters make "X" and keep the rest of your roster at level 40 or whatever and never again worry about losing a fight.