PVE/PVP Scaling, Dwarf Rosters, & Whining

John Wayne74

This post is simply to state, either level your roster or stop whining, as I am tired of seeing people say I can't get CP's or LT's or whatever with my fully covered level 100 roster and my million ISO I am hoarding.

So I have been playing for 452 days now. I started with solely playing PVE with a leveled roaster after learning about scaling. I held everyone to level 94 and played like many people do and thrived. I then decided that I wanted to actually get to use my characters in the way they were intended to be used so I leveled up.

During this transition PVE did become slightly more difficult but still within reason by far. I then moved into the beginnings of 4* land and again wanted to use them as they were intended to be used so I began leveling them. Before and during this transition I began to play and understand PVP as it is the most prevalent way to acquire 4*'s post their release. I soon realized that to make it in PVP, one would have to have a good and leveled roster if they ever wanted a consistent rankings placement. So I continued to level and roster as many 4*'s as possible. (And yes I whaled some as that is what I wanted to do, not because I needed to do so to progress down the road I was traveling)

I achieved a good standard in PVP. I also was able to maintain the ability to take top 2 in PVE at will if I wanted to. Point is this and I know this is going to make some of you angry. But if you choose to needlessly keep your roster dwarfed because you think it is the only way to get placement in PVE and then proceed to complain about how PVP isn't fair because of the inflated scores. Then maybe you should be playing another match 3 game, or just stick to PVE. The game was designed in a fashion to transition a character from a predetermined starting point to a maximum ending point. If you stop in the middle to make it easier on one side of the game, please don't whine because the other side is harder because of your levels.

I now have all 3*'s fully covered 27 of which @ 166. 17 4*'s between 168 & 270.
I have every character in the game (yes even bagman though I am not sure why) rostered including all 3 5*'s. To this day I still take top 2 in any new release 4* PVE that I want. So that being said if I can do it, so can you. I can attest that there are some seriously smart people that play this game. Many many of them better at it than I am. So this is not to come off as If I am saying that I am a genius of the game or something. If you want to play all aspects of the game as it was intended to be played you must level your roster. If you are not willing to do that then stop complaining about how hard certain aspects are for you to do.

Feel free to bash me if you disagree as this post is not about getting up votes as I really don't care about my forum vote standings.

And for the select few that do have a dwarfed roster and do not complain about it, this post was not intended for you. Keep on keeping on!

Pylgrim

Motion to sticky this. Soft-capping is an absurd way of playing the game.

Crowl

Pylgrim wrote:

Motion to sticky this. Soft-capping is an absurd way of playing the game.

A game actively penalising you for not doing so at certain stages is the most absurd thing about it though, it is crazy and counter-intuitive that rostering or levelling a character can be a negative thing, even having boosted characters acts against the benefit of the player if it is a poorly covered one.

Cymmina

Those of us who have "dwarf rosters" aren't the ones whining. It's the players who have high scaling due to having high-leveled rosters that are whining about how easy "dwarf rosters" have it in PvE because their scaling is a lot easier compared to the strength of their roster.

dr tinykittylove

The thing is, at certain points in the transition stages, it makes sense to apply an artificial cap. If your 3*s are all 3/4/1, 2/2/4, your best characters are IM40/Spidey, yeah, don't level up. If your IMHB is 1/4/4 and IW 5/5/3, stop right there (and pray to RNGesus to forgive your sins and save your roster).

It's also... efficient, if you're a casual player who logs in just long enough for daily deadpool and make the occasion run in pvp - that's what I do on my alt account.

Where things go wrong is when someone gets too comfortable in their safety zone and becomes afraid to poke their heads above this self-imposed barrier. There is no reason at all to keep your roster at 95, 100, 120* when you're already all covered on the 3*s.

* 140+ seems like a reasonable compromise.

Sure, covers are more important than levels, but levels will also add health and dmg, which mitigate the effects of luck even in pve. It balances out and expands your playing field. It makes you less of a target. If you want to develop your 4*s, why wouldn't you want to be able to hit 1k reliably in one run or within one or two shields instead of flopping around at 600-800 getting beaten down?

eaise

Cymmina wrote:

Those of us who have "dwarf rosters" aren't the ones whining. It's the players who have high scaling due to having high-leveled rosters that are whining about how easy "dwarf rosters" have it in PvE because their scaling is a lot easier compared to the strength of their roster.

No high level player I know complains about PvE scaling. Is it annoying? Yes. But high level players can easily beat out dwarf rosters. Anytime a 4* character is released all the players in the top 10 have maxed 3*s and several 4*s over level 200.
Most high level players avoid PvE unless it's a release because scaling is annoying. But when they want to they'll beat any dwarf roster.

This debate is going to be void soon anyway as the devs have stated a solution is on the way that makes ppl not want to dwarf their rosters

John Wayne74

Cymmina wrote:

Those of us who have "dwarf rosters" aren't the ones whining. It's the players who have high scaling due to having high-leveled rosters that are whining about how easy "dwarf rosters" have it in PvE because their scaling is a lot easier compared to the strength of their roster.

You are correct as well and I apologize in two parts. One for omitting that perspective and two for having forgotten the politically correct term of "soft capping". Always referred to it as the former so that is what I put, but in hind sight would liked to have remembered the proper term. This post was geared toward a few that repeatedly complain about pvp being harder but your concerns are notable about the others that complain about pve being easier for a soft capped. I did however state that in all honsty that pve is just as easy for me now as it was soft capped. Even a level 395 battle can be won as fast if not faster once you have the roster strength than same you are fighting at whatever level it may be for your soft capped team.

Point is the game was designed to maximize the levels of the characters and by not doing so it is a personal choice that should not burden the forums if so doing causes you grief in other areas. The game was designed based on leveling not soft capping. That is the true point of the conversation.

dr tinykittylove

aesthetocyst wrote:

I have a day 70, 2* account and a day 500, 3*-4* account. I play the former only when I have time. After playing the 'real' one, playing the new one is painful.

That said, your perspective on low level difficulty is warped as well. Your noob roster has nowhere near enough covers to make a reasonable comparison!

Unknown

eaise wrote:

No high level player I know complains about PvE scaling.

…

I'm sorry, WHAT?!

DBC

eaise

Drummerboycroy wrote:

eaise wrote:

No high level player I know complains about PvE scaling.

…

I'm sorry, WHAT?!

DBC

Maybe slightly bad wording.
But it's true. High level players don't like fight super-overscaled enemies, but if they want too they can do better than any dwarf roster. So they may say "wow it's ridiculous how high level these nodes are" but they'll never say "I can't compete against dwarf rosters. They always rank higher than me"

scottee

Crowl wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Motion to sticky this. Soft-capping is an absurd way of playing the game.

A game actively penalising you for not doing so at certain stages is the most absurd thing about it though, it is crazy and counter-intuitive that rostering or levelling a character can be a negative thing, even having boosted characters acts against the benefit of the player if it is a poorly covered one.

It doesn't penalize you. It raises the level of the enemy in proportion to yours. The nodes are no harder to beat.

Pongie

eaise wrote:

Anytime a 4* character is released all the players in the top 10 have maxed 3*s and several 4*s over level 200.

I have no 4* over level 150 (most are sitting at 120 waiting for more covers and ISO) and I can still compete in PVE and do get top 10 on new releases. I only missed a few, and that was because I wasn't able to play (Jean). I did cap my roster to 120 towards the first half of the year, but that's because my 3* weren't fully covered. Once they were, I wasted no time pushing them to 166. PVP was definitely better and I started hitting 800 reliably and then 1k. PVE didn't really become harder, but more of a chore since the rewards were no longer useful. If it weren't for the introduction of legendary tokens, I reckon I would have probably skipped PVE entirely until a new release event comes along.

Heartburn

scottee wrote:

Crowl wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Motion to sticky this. Soft-capping is an absurd way of playing the game.

A game actively penalising you for not doing so at certain stages is the most absurd thing about it though, it is crazy and counter-intuitive that rostering or levelling a character can be a negative thing, even having boosted characters acts against the benefit of the player if it is a poorly covered one.

It doesn't penalize you. It raises the level of the enemy in proportion to yours. The nodes are no harder to beat.

Raising the level of the enemy seems like a penalty...

eaise

Heartburn wrote:

scottee wrote:

Crowl wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Motion to sticky this. Soft-capping is an absurd way of playing the game.

A game actively penalising you for not doing so at certain stages is the most absurd thing about it though, it is crazy and counter-intuitive that rostering or levelling a character can be a negative thing, even having boosted characters acts against the benefit of the player if it is a poorly covered one.

It doesn't penalize you. It raises the level of the enemy in proportion to yours. The nodes are no harder to beat.

Raising the level of the enemy seems like a penalty...

So Instead we should have PvE set at a certain level? Everybody fights level 100 enemies no matter if you only have level 10 characters or if you have level 450 5*s

Scaling is annoying. That's not a question. It's a statement. But it's somewhat necessary. I'm very interested to see what the devs have in store that encourages players to level their characters.

Maybe they'll pull back scaling some. So that once you reach a certain level nodes no longer scale. So for example a player with level 140 characters have the same enemies as a player with level 200 characters. This may not be the best way to change it, but it's the only idea I have currently. Anyone else want to speculate how they'll change scaling?

BlackBoltRocks

Oh no I soft-cap my roster at lv 111. I feel like such a bad person now I'll go level up my Quicksilver as punishment

Davan

I thought I would just chime in here as a new player. I'm at day 70 and I have 5 2*s at 95 with 3-4 hovering around 86ish. I have most of the 3*s rostered now. I'm missing a few like Khamala Khan, Captain Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, and Pyslocke.

I don't think PVE scales badly at all. Even when they scale up to 166 I can win. It just sucks up health packs a little faster. The problem I run into is when some characters are locked out. The Sentry PVE on its last node locks out wolverine a lot and sometimes Thor.

So the problem is these nodes are difficult for new players because of roster diversity. 99% of my 3* are not viable yet due to being undercovered. But it is manageable to a degree. I managed to kill Cap, Thor, Wolverine with Red Hulk, OBW, and Luke Cage with 3yellows and 2 red. Red Hulk has 5 covers but his green ap drain was key. I also used him against Gray Suit Bw to good effect. I was able to place 3rd in the X-23 event and get all 3 covers as well,. So I'm doing okay in PVE.

I want to level but not be forced to if my roster isn't ready. When I get 4 or 5 serviceable 3*s i will be all for moving forward.

My biggest gripe is PVP. I bought hero points for roster slots but that is all I'm willing to do. I'm not in position to give up points for shields unless I can get enough points to break even. I would love to get placement rewards to speed my transition but unless I join late and get lucky with an empty bracket it's not happening. So I gave up on PVP.

I don't care that people can get big points. I don't even mind throwing down with 166s as I climb the ladder. I do care that most placement rewards are wasted on those that don't need them and thus delaying newer players transitions Change the reward structure and I'm okay with PVP. 2* players should be able to place for 3* covers and get the 800point 3* reward. 3* should be able to get the 4* star progression reward and if they transitioning get the legendary token and 4* placement covers if they work hard enough.

Anyway sorry for the long read. I'm not argueing with anyone just offering a new players perspective.

Pylgrim

Crowl wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Motion to sticky this. Soft-capping is an absurd way of playing the game.

A game actively penalising you for not doing so at certain stages is the most absurd thing about it though, it is crazy and counter-intuitive that rostering or levelling a character can be a negative thing, even having boosted characters acts against the benefit of the player if it is a poorly covered one.

The "penalising" you speak of is a fantasy. The game increases in difficulty along your roster, and yes, there may be points in the transition where, depending on the characters you have, it may feel a bit harder than it was before. The solution? To keep levelling them up and get better at identifying which characters are above the curve (i.e. can easily beat adversaries dozens or even hundreds of levels above theirs) and which one do not or are, in fact, under the curve. ALL games behave like this, there's never a super smooth progression curve until eventually being godlike among insects. Sometimes it will feel as though you are hitting above your level because you are yet to get the equipment or skill that will make it a cakewalk, and sometimes you are experiencing the cakewalk until you wander into the next level of difficulty.

Heartburn wrote:

scottee wrote:

Crowl wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Motion to sticky this. Soft-capping is an absurd way of playing the game.

A game actively penalising you for not doing so at certain stages is the most absurd thing about it though, it is crazy and counter-intuitive that rostering or levelling a character can be a negative thing, even having boosted characters acts against the benefit of the player if it is a poorly covered one.

It doesn't penalize you. It raises the level of the enemy in proportion to yours. The nodes are no harder to beat.

Raising the level of the enemy seems like a penalty...

I don't understand... so you want to keep beating level 2 1* enemies for the rest of the game?


Important clarification: Levelling one or two characters way too highly above the level of most of your other characters is indeed harmful for your progress and must be avoided. That's not the soft-capping we're discussing here (i.e. keeping all your characters at level 94 or whatever forever).

Daiches

DAE find it funny that this post happens as the exact same time as someone leveled his roster to 119?




Mod Edit: please do not single out specific players

Lemminkäinen

aesthetocyst wrote:

Cymmina wrote:

Those of us who have "dwarf rosters" aren't the ones whining. It's the players who have high scaling due to having high-leveled rosters that are whining about how easy "dwarf rosters" have it in PvE because their scaling is a lot easier compared to the strength of their roster.

I don't think we're reading the same forum.

High-leveled player saying to low-leveled player, "You think that's "scaling"? THIS is scaling!" is not whining, it's providing perspective.

Heh, I really think you might be on some different forum, then. I see a lot of whining by the high-level players about 395 Juggs and Ares and whatnot. Often coupled with whining about how players who soft-cap don't face those things and how it is profoundly unfair that 94-rosters get high placement in PvE. Seriously, I read that at least as much as the opposite.

Disclosure: I'm not currently at 166 - I'm levelling my peeps in a controlled fashion aiming for high levels but doing it on a wide front and somewhat carefully so my dudes are soft-capped at level 130 at the moment. Next month I'm thinking of moving to 140.

Cymmina

scottee wrote:

Crowl wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Motion to sticky this. Soft-capping is an absurd way of playing the game.

A game actively penalising you for not doing so at certain stages is the most absurd thing about it though, it is crazy and counter-intuitive that rostering or levelling a character can be a negative thing, even having boosted characters acts against the benefit of the player if it is a poorly covered one.

It doesn't penalize you. It raises the level of the enemy in proportion to yours. The nodes are no harder to beat.

That's not entirely true. Yes, all nodes go up in level as the strength of your roster increases, but the amount by which it goes up is not the same for all nodes. Several months ago, some of us compared the levels of different nodes, and the essential nodes for a 94 soft-capped roster were much lower (relatively speaking) than they were for a high-leveled roster. Due to how much easier those nodes were for the soft-capped roster, they could grind through them much faster than a high-leveled roster on the same nodes.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29869

GrumpySmurf1002

As someone who did it when I came through, I don't have any issue with not immediately leveling your first max covered 3*. One character is not going to really help you in either arena.

Sitting with 20 max covered 3* at level 94 however is counter productive to advancing any further than that.