low level PvE rosters and 4* DDQ - DON"T DO IT!

yogi_

Summary of my note to customer service (explains the background):

I keep a moderately levelled even roster, primarily for PvE, as I play very little PvP.

I recently put ISO for the first time into X-Force and IW for 4* DDQ, putting their levels FAR above the rest of my average.

My PvE scaling is a whole chunk up now (which given I’ve barely been playing, really shouldn’t be at all). I’ve never had a PvE where even the essentials are so challenging but this is a struggle now. I have "Easy" matches with characters 50-75% above the average level of my roster. This doesn't feel right and is far higher than I am used to at a starting round. Even my Essentials are more challenging and at a higher level and marked "Easy".

My roster is wiping out and taking far greater health losses than at any time before.

Is my initial scaling now permanently up to the next notch because I semi-levelled my only 2 4*s with any amount of covers?


Extract from customer service response (which was timely, so kudos there):

"Our apologies for any confusion. Community scaling for PvE events have been turned off, and now only affected by your roster and progression through the event. The difficulties for these events are determined by the strongest characters in your roster".


***
I was wrong to increase X-Force and IW levels to gain the two legendary DDQ tokens because now the main way I play the game is noticeably harder and the limited time I have for the game goes even way less.

I wish I had not done it.

I had been reading the forums and came to the conclusion that the way I played would impact far more but right now, that hardly matters.

Yes, yes, I should level up my roster, I know, but I just like playing the game in my own particular style but I've basically shot myself in the foot - my main mode of gameplay has just become much harder and there is nothing I can do about it. I like PvE but after your usual 1st, 2nd and sometimes 3rd teams are getting wiped out on "Easy"... I dunno.

My only real option now is to push all my 3* characters up (which incrementially will only make minor difference because there is so much to catch up on now) or play less.

So frustrating...

GurlBYE

I still can't see why the scaling isn't based on the average levels of top 6 highest leveled in roster. (6 for 2 teams, and for a better idea of roster because, it's not uncommon now to have a lot of out of tiers)

MyNameIsRed

Or why it couldn't work out scaling based on the percentage.

So if we consider a lvl 153 3* ( which as a percentage is 92% maxed) and a lvl 154 4* (which is 57% maxed) .

I get that a lvl 270 silver surfer comes out ridiculously low so there would need to be a ratio to remedy that, funnily enough - a scaling ratio or something.

So in the above situation, if 4*'s carried a 1.4 scaling factor, the lvl 154 4* would have an adjusted maxed percentage of
((154*1.4)/270) * 100 = 79.8%

So the lvl 153 3* would be considered a stronger character. And scaling based on that.

1*'s could even have a negative scaling to make it easier.

The maths dept could arrange things on a bell curve or standard deviation thing to work out what the best scaling rations could be. Then it could be as simple as working out the scaling of the top 2/3/5/whatever characters using the adjusted maxed percentage.

Unknown

The levels you face are based on your past performance (Gauntlet is the exception here since it's scaling is different and the initial level is set in part based on your roster strength). Win a lot and don't take much damage in the process, and the levels will increase. Win and barely scrape by, and the levels will stay the same, and possibly decrease. After each event there is a reduction in your scaling.

The Trivial-Deadly scale used to describe the levels is based on your roster strength. It is a descriptor only and compares the opponent levels to your roster strength (which we have seen a few times described as the average of your top 6 available characters for that node/event/etc).

Levels are determined first, then a descriptor is added.

So as an example, if you have opponent levels for a node that are level 70 and you have your highest leveled character at level 70, it might read "Easy" or "Normal". You then take and level up a bunch of your fully covered 4* characters to level 250. Now that node still displays opponents at level 70, but now reads "Trivial". This is why I'm currently seeing nodes of "Easy" at 160-170, "Average" at 220. That node might be "Deadly" to someone else.

If you start to use those big bruisers to beat the levels without taking much damage, yes the levels will increase. But if you still beat them with other level 70 characters, levels shouldn't move much.

GurlBYE

j12601 wrote:

The levels you face are based on your past performance (Gauntlet is the exception here since it's scaling is different and the initial level is set in part based on your roster strength). Win a lot and don't take much damage in the process, and the levels will increase. Win and barely scrape by, and the levels will stay the same, and possibly decrease. After each event there is a reduction in your scaling.

The Trivial-Deadly scale used to describe the levels is based on your roster strength. It is a descriptor only and compares the opponent levels to your roster strength (which we have seen a few times described as the average of your top 6 available characters for that node/event/etc).

Levels are determined first, then a descriptor is added.

So as an example, if you have opponent levels for a node that are level 70 and you have your highest leveled character at level 70, it might read "Easy" or "Normal". You then take and level up a bunch of your fully covered 4* characters to level 250. Now that node still displays opponents at level 70, but now reads "Trivial".

If you start to use those big bruisers to beat the levels without taking much damage, yes the levels will increase. But if you still beat them with other level 70 characters, levels shouldn't move much.

Thats still an odd way to do it, because those 'bruisers' more often then not are the only team thats viable for the person, later in their rosters life not so much.

Do boosted characters effect this?

Unknown

GurlBYE wrote:

j12601 wrote:

The levels you face are based on your past performance (Gauntlet is the exception here since it's scaling is different and the initial level is set in part based on your roster strength). Win a lot and don't take much damage in the process, and the levels will increase. Win and barely scrape by, and the levels will stay the same, and possibly decrease. After each event there is a reduction in your scaling.

The Trivial-Deadly scale used to describe the levels is based on your roster strength. It is a descriptor only and compares the opponent levels to your roster strength (which we have seen a few times described as the average of your top 6 available characters for that node/event/etc).

Levels are determined first, then a descriptor is added.

So as an example, if you have opponent levels for a node that are level 70 and you have your highest leveled character at level 70, it might read "Easy" or "Normal". You then take and level up a bunch of your fully covered 4* characters to level 250. Now that node still displays opponents at level 70, but now reads "Trivial".

If you start to use those big bruisers to beat the levels without taking much damage, yes the levels will increase. But if you still beat them with other level 70 characters, levels shouldn't move much.

Thats still an odd way to do it, because those 'bruisers' more often then not are the only team thats viable for the person, later in their rosters life not so much.

Do boosted characters effect this?

This is one of those reasons that the game values diversity in a roster. If you have 3 strong characters and only use them, you're going to struggle. On a typical clear of PVE I'll use at least 10 characters, sometimes more. On a grind, or if time is really tight, I might use less characters and go for efficiency, knowing that my scaling will go up as a result. But since I have a fairly developed roster, I can usually afford to use other characters and not worry about them taking a ton of damage. In fact, I'll often use self or team-damaging characters (Carnage, Sentry) to insure my team takes damage to keep scaling in check. Aside from speed, there's no reason to use your big characters on weaker nodes. Use weaker characters there. They'll get a bit banged up, but you're not using them for anything else, and they won't need a health pack since they'll be fully healed by the time you want them again in 8 hours for another clear.

Not entirely sure about how boosted characters interact with that, I just know that taking damage is the key. If you have what the game is viewing as a flawless victory too often (not taking a high enough percentage of your health in damage), levels go up. Goon nodes are notorious for this, and often get to the point where you either win perfectly, or you lose if abilities go off. Not the best design, but that's what it is.

Mawtful

Just sell the 4*'s you boosted.

You're already limiting yourself by keeping your roster underlevelled. You'll get covers again eventually, and a 1 cover 4* is as good as a 13 cover one for essentials - even more so if you're trying to game your PvE levels down.

GMadMan040

With appreciation for a chosen play style method, I have leveled up my roster fairly evenly (weighted slightly towards top tier characters) and PVE has gotten substantially easier as a result. No matter what the situation, I can burn through nodes with 0-3 health packs per clear. The concerns about scaling are overstated unless someone does what the OP did and only level up one or two characters. If I were in that situation, I would spend some time leveling up other characters.

The game is designed to reward progression. Admittedly, at a certain point that progress slows to a crawl, but still things generally get easier across the board the stronger that you get, not more difficult.

The only time IMO that soft capping anything is a really good idea is in the transition phases, and then the soft cap is best at about 10 levels above the max level for the rarity level below it. (Example - during the 2-3 star transition, hold your 3* characters at level 104 until you have 5-6 top tier characters fully covered, then level them up all together).

Of course, the outrageous ISO limitations in the game create all sorts of difficult decisions.

(Side Rant) For the love of Galactus, can we please get some more ISO flow in the game? Why create a game that is designed to have as many leveled characters as possible then make it excruciatingly painful to do so? (End side rant)

Linkster79

https://d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26077&p=320536#p320536

The official line is that roster levels have absolute zero effect on scaling. Personally I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

Tannen

Pretty sure that the "official line" has always been that your characters average level only affects your base scaling, and by small amounts (eg 6 or so levels for maxed out characters) but after that how you win and by how much determines your personal scaling.

Your personal scaling does, however, roll over between events, so if you do exceptionally well in one event you're going to feel it moving forward.

I suspect that the reason that people feel that character levels have such a big influence on scaling is because pretty much no-one has base scaling. As soon as you do one event, your personal scaling kicks in. By the time that you realise that you need to check for things like levels, etc, you've already been pegged by personal scaling. If I was a betting man, I'd guess that it would also use prologue data, and if so, it would be literally impossible to see the base level scaling, as you can't skip the prologue missions.

Cheers.

OneLastGambit

GMadMan040 wrote:

With appreciation for a chosen play style method, I have leveled up my roster fairly evenly (weighted slightly towards top tier characters) and PVE has gotten substantially easier as a result. No matter what the situation, I can burn through nodes with 0-3 health packs per clear. The concerns about scaling are overstated unless someone does what the OP did and only level up one or two characters. If I were in that situation, I would spend some time leveling up other characters.

The game is designed to reward progression. Admittedly, at a certain point that progress slows to a crawl, but still things generally get easier across the board the stronger that you get, not more difficult.

The only time IMO that soft capping anything is a really good idea is in the transition phases, and then the soft cap is best at about 10 levels above the max level for the rarity level below it. (Example - during the 2-3 star transition, hold your 3* characters at level 104 until you have 5-6 top tier characters fully covered, then level them up all together).

Of course, the outrageous ISO limitations in the game create all sorts of difficult decisions.

(Side Rant) For the love of Galactus, can we please get some more ISO flow in the game? Why create a game that is designed to have as many leveled characters as possible then make it excruciatingly painful to do so? (End side rant)

This is exactly what I do, I don't have even one character that is levelled way above the rest, not only does it mean my whole team can participate in an event it also means my average roster level isn't skewed to ridiculous levels.

I know people get their favourites and like levelling them (me too) but resist it and you'll everything is easier. All my characters are between 79 and 89 and I never let them skew further than that.

Malcrof

Moved to Roster and Level Help

TxMoose

if you find this yogi, I'm curious what your roster looks like. what your core players are at and what you leveled xf and IW to. my plan was to take my first functional 4s to 200 or at max, 220. with me stockpiling tokens right now (up to 7), when the 2nd 5* hits and I pull, I'm hoping I'm close to having to decide where to take a couple of characters. thanks.