Limiting rosters for PVE - why???

rbdragon

I know it's been going on for a while, but I really don't get it...why would I want to limit my character's abilities out of fear of scaling?

If I had the I'd max everyone I could...and if my scaling increased, I guess that means I'm doing better so they want to give me more of a challenge. Why is this a bad thing?

Why play a competitive game if you don't like competition? You keep your roster "neutered" so the matches are easier and you win better covers for characters you can't ever fully enjoy??? Why?

If you owned a Ferrari, would you ask for a 4 cylinder engine so it's less powerful?

Personally, I like the fact that my matches aren't gimmies always...in fact, those gimmies are a waste of time a lot of times...why do we need to beat teams with lvl34 characters to unlock subs?

I can score high in any PVE if I choose to put the effort in...it just takes time and effort...don't worry so much about scaling I say.....

*shrugs*....I dunno....I just don't get it....

Blahahah

I dont think the issue is the game scaling, its how it scales.

For beginners, scaling hurts a lot when you "luckily" get a 3 star cover mid 1* transition.

For more grizzled veterans, scaling punishes uneven leveling.

For the top players, scaling makes enemies hit like multiple trucks, necessitating that you kill them before a single attack is launched.


If they toned it back a bit, things would proabably be better

Linkster79

rbdragon wrote:

If you owned a Ferrari, would you ask for a 4 cylinder engine so it's less powerful?

As long as it ran fine firing on all four it would make it more fuel efficient.

The real question is why does there have to scaling at all? Why are the game mechanics punishing players for doing well? There is already versus for competition where a player can pit their wits and skills(?) against similar levelled rosters. If scaling were just a matter of having to deal with a higher health pool it wouldn't be an issue but as everyone's over scaled opponent Juggernaught proves it just becomes matches of attrition. Personally I love being Head-butted for over 4k damage while trying to deny 6ap, yes just 2 matches (/sarcasm).

For players who have very little interest in versus they have to find a way to game the system in order to be competitive in a game mode that shouldn't be competitive. If the developers really want story events to be competitive then please give us seasons for it too. If not then scrap leaderboards entirely!

Lemminkäinen

Linkster79 wrote:

The real question is why does there have to scaling at all? Why are the game mechanics punishing players for doing well?

Because the power difference between a maxed 4* roster and a mid-level 2* roster is so incredibly huge that most of the content wouldn't be meaningful. It would either be impossible for the latter guy or ridiculously trivial for the former. And if they tried to cater to both, there would be a minimal amount of proper content for anyone.

If scaling were just a matter of having to deal with a higher health pool it wouldn't be an issue but as everyone's over scaled opponent Juggernaught proves it just becomes matches of attrition. Personally I love being Head-butted for over 4k damage while trying to deny 6ap, yes just 2 matches (/sarcasm).

Juggs is a bit of a special case, though. A level 200 Daken or Bullseye or Moonstone are annoying, yes, but not silly like Juggs (and, to a slightly lesser extent Ares).

Eddiemon

rbdragon wrote:

I know it's been going on for a while, but I really don't get it...why would I want to limit my character's abilities out of fear of scaling?

Well you'd do it if you were a fool.

Plenty of testing has shown that scaling is more based upon your performance history than on roster composition. The issue is that as your roster gets better your performance improves, and vice versa. But people associate the improved scaling with their roster rather than their performance.

But yes it is the fear that keeps people focused on magic levels that must not be breached even as their opponents scale anyway. And then they won't level their characters up because they assume that the scaling will get even worse.

It's amusing and tragic at the same time.

puppychow

Why do I purposely limit my characters to level 181? Because I don't want to face 395 Jugs, Ares, Moonie.

Also, scaling takes a greater toll on heroic events, when a limited playable roster could easily render the event unplayable if you're missing a few playable characters.

I hoarded 300k iso right now, and I could bring any character to 270. I choose not to, in order to remain competitive for top 10 in pve events.

Der_Lex

I and many other players with level 250+ characters still score top 10 in pve events, so it's not like you absolutely have to leave your levels low to be competitive in PvE. The only people who see L300+ right out of the gate are those who have relied too much on infinite loops in the past.

The most important thing is to level your characters evenly. That way you're not reliant on one or two higher-leveled characters in PvE, which can leave you unable to proceed if you run out of health packs because your lower-level characters can't finish the nodes that have scaled based on your use of the high-level guys.

Either way, it's a matter of choice. If somebody doesn't want to play pvp at all, no reason to level all the way. But it's definitely not an 'either/or' thing, it's perfectly possible to do well in both game modes.

Unknown

puppychow wrote:

Why do I purposely limit my characters to level 181? Because I don't want to face 395 Jugs, Ares, Moonie.

Also, scaling takes a greater toll on heroic events, when a limited playable roster could easily render the event unplayable if you're missing a few playable characters.

I hoarded 300k iso right now, and I could bring any character to 270. I choose not to, in order to remain competitive for top 10 in pve events.

I have two handfuls of 166s and have never seen a node above 300 (maybe a bit like 310 at tops).

The ones seeing 395s are only/mostly the ones using 270s, not the ones using 166s.

This same dozen 166s make me hit 1k every single pvp and 1.3k when I feel the time and hp are worth it.

Unknown

Linkster79 wrote:

rbdragon wrote:

If you owned a Ferrari, would you ask for a 4 cylinder engine so it's less powerful?

As long as it ran fine firing on all four it would make it more fuel efficient.

simonsez

aesthetocyst wrote:

Linkster79 wrote:

The real question is why does there have to scaling at all? Why are the game mechanics punishing players for doing well?

An attempt to keep all players on the same field in PvE and try to keep it fair to all. That requires handicapping. Whether that's the wisest approach is debatable

It really isn't debatable. Given that some players choose to exploit a loophole and skate through PvE, tells you that this is NOT the best way to handicap. All they'd have to do to fix this is base starting levels on the number of covers you have, not the levels you've decided to pump into them.

Nightglider1

Linkster79 wrote:

rbdragon wrote:

If you owned a Ferrari, would you ask for a 4 cylinder engine so it's less powerful?

As long as it ran fine firing on all four it would make it more fuel efficient.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that almost anyone who can afford a Ferrari isn't terribly fussed about fuel efficiency.

dr tinykittylove

I have what looks like a pve roster. It is in fact a pvp roster.

Originally it was simply because I was having trouble covering characters as a transitioning casual player, and simply levelled characters as I got new covers, yay!

Then I joined a competitive alliance and started getting lots of covers, but no iso. I kept putting iso into characters as they were featured each pvp, since I absolutely hate running a 2-person team and want everyone to be able to do useful things. Result - sort of evenly levelled characters.

As my characters got fully covered, I saw how much iso was needed to level them.

I also noticed they were perfectly capable of taking on maxed out characters anyway.

Now it's kind of a point of pride (and stubbornness). I've finally raised all my 3*s to a level that works for me. I've accumulated 640k iso and can max out 2 4*s or a bunch of 3*s right away, but I don't really feel like I would get much utility out of it.

A little tempted to max out my 2*s that I couldn't afford to roster until very late in the game, though. Now that might be fun, being able to use Moonstone, Daken and Bullseye in pvp...

Addendum: I do often tell people to level up their rosters - 94/120 really is too low and you lose the flexibility of being able to engage in whichever mode of the game you please. Makes no sense complaining about being locked out of pvp rewards/progression if you don't even want to try doing it...

Eddiemon

ShionSinX wrote:

puppychow wrote:

The ones seeing 395s are only/mostly the ones using 270s, not the ones using 166s.

No, the ones seeing 395s have ground too hard and pushed their personal scaling too high.

I have 230+s and the only time I saw 395s was in Gauntlet. When I took 3 months off my scaling hit the floor even though my roster levels didn't change.

Malcrof

This is one of those things i am hoping the 5* characters will address. Unless they hoard legendary tokens, never to open them.. the ones who have stunted their rosters at a low level will end up with a single character starting at level 255. This should hopefully force them into leveling. Once leveled, a whole new world of MPQ will open to them.

I sat soft capped at 120 for a long time... once i decided to break that, and go for 166 for all 3 *s (getting there), PVP and even higher rankings in Story Mode started happening all by themselves.

The tiers exist for a reason, you can be just as successful at 166 as you can at lvl 94, and then again in the 200's.

The only difference is.. once you get enough lvl 166's, 4* covers start to come faster as 1k in PVP is attainable easily.. while still maintaining T20 or better in Story Mode (as i am doing right now in Hulk and the PVP's)

Unknown

There is another reason to underlevel. When you have an evenly leveled roster you can freely mix 2* and 3*. And there are some 2* I'd like to use - OBW, MNMag, cStorm. Pretty much all of them to some extent. But now having a bunch of maxed 3* I can't that easily bring them in because enemies scaled accordingly and these 2* become too squishy and often can be one-shot with unlucky move. This huge gap that renders previous tier useless is in my opinion quite a bad thing. OBW is one of the best support characters out there but once you progress to 166 you have very limited use of it. I think the game would be better if tier max level difference would be mild and next tier would have an edge against previous tier. Not a trivial run down as it is now. And by the way it would make unnecessary some artificial constructs they have now like scaling or weekly buffs.

Malcrof

shurak wrote:

There is another reason to underlevel. When you have an evenly leveled roster you can freely mix 2* and 3*. And there are some 2* I'd like to use - OBW, MNMag, cStorm. Pretty much all of them to some extent. But now having a bunch of maxed 3* I can't that easily bring them in because enemies scaled accordingly and these 2* become too squishy and often can be one-shot with unlucky move. This huge gap that renders previous tier useless is in my opinion quite a bad thing. OBW is one of the best support characters out there but once you progress to 166 you have very limited use of it. I think the game would be better if tier max level difference would be mild and next tier would have an edge against previous tier. Not a trivial run down as it is now. And by the way it would make unnecessary some artificial constructs they have now like scaling or weekly buffs.

I agree, and also disagree. Even when un-boosted, i use OBW regularly in Story mode.. right alongside boosted level 290's.. 2* Storm, even unboosted, can be a life-saver in some very high level nodes... a 5 turn stun.. yes pls..

heck, just for kicks i put a level 40 2* Hawkeye in a node with SW and GSBW.. his speedshot tiles do massive damage, especially with 10 of them on the board.

It is all about picking the right people for the nodes you are working.

many of those 2*s are going to be with you, even after your 3* transition is done, and you are working on 4*s.. or even 5*s.

puppychow

dr tinykittylove wrote:

Addendum: I do often tell people to level up their rosters - 94/120 really is too low and you lose the flexibility of being able to engage in whichever mode of the game you please. Makes no sense complaining about being locked out of pvp rewards/progression if you don't even want to try doing it...

For 3*, the sweet spot is 120 because iso cost of leveling increases significantly beyond that level. For pvp, a 140 3* is buffed to 200, and that's good enough to handle most teams. Only if you're looking to hit 1.3k every event would you really need a few 270s.

For me, 1k minimum per pvp plus top 10 pve, with an occasional 1.3 is good enough.

puppychow

aesthetocyst wrote:

simonsez wrote:

It really isn't debatable. Given that some players choose to exploit a loophole and skate through PvE, tells you that this is NOT the best way to handicap. All they'd have to do to fix this is base starting levels on the number of covers you have, not the levels you've decided to pump into them.

Good to know I am not the only one to see roster gimping as an exploit.

But it's the dumbest attempt at an exploit ever.

The stupidity reaches critical mass when such a player then publicly complains about the "impossibility" of doing well in other game modes.

Hey, buddy, game offers a pretty obvious progression and you intentionally pulled off into a ditch. Not gonna get anywhere else that way!

LOL. To each his own. Personally, by keeping my roster level lower, I can still use my max 1/2* to grind nodes and save on heal packs.

How many heals are the 270 players buying per sub to get/keep a top 10 placement? I suspect the answer is a lot.

simonsez

puppychow wrote:

How many heals are the 270 players buying per sub to get/keep a top 10 placement? I suspect the answer is a lot.

In the current PvE, in the sub full of juggs, i had to dip into tacos once during the grind, and was lucky enough to get health packs on my first draw. Other than that, it hasn't been necessary. The downside to a developed roster isn't having to use health packs, it's that the grinds take much much longer, so you can't compete with **** who are also grinding hard.

Malcrof

Now, i am only T20, right now in hulk, not T10, but so far, bought 0 health packs, and still had time to go for 1k in the pvp and finish the ddq 4* node from yesterday. This is where the roster leveling helps.. if 2 or 3 go down, i have 20+ more level 140-166's waiting in the wings.

dr tinykittylove

Malcrof wrote:

Now, i am only T20, right now in hulk, not T10, but so far, bought 0 health packs, and still had time to go for 1k in the pvp and finish the ddq 4* node from yesterday. This is where the roster leveling helps.. if 2 or 3 go down, i have 20+ more level 140-166's waiting in the wings.

Can't agree more!

My favourite thing about my current roster is the fact I can choose to throw anything at the current pve or pvp and have a chance, whether they're buffed for the week or not.