PVE/PVP Scaling, Dwarf Rosters, & Whining

Crowl

Pylgrim wrote:

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.

Where is the fantasy, add a 5* to a low 3* roster, that does almost nothing useful to your ability to clear the game, but as a consequence you get significantly more difficult gameplay, that is a clear penalising of the player as upgrades should never have such a negative effect on the player.

Pylgrim wrote:

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).

Nice strawman, nobody is asking for that, but its a nice lazy accusation to level at people.

The idea that it is a bad thing for people to not level any character they get as high as possible is also a rather counter-intuitive idea and shows they need to sort out how scaling is calculated.

Personally, I would do the following with regards to pve scaling to make it more representative of a person's roster:

Exclude 5* from the calculation until people have at least one level 166 character.
Increase the amount of characters used in any scaling calculations and take into account how many covers they have.
Boosted characters should be counted at their base level, if they are being called a boost then they should be making things at worst no more difficult.

Crowl

aesthetocyst wrote:

All nodes same level for everyone .... would you think it fair to be in a bracket with 4* players under these conditions? How granular would the brackets have to be to stem player outrage? Everyone with level 80s in this bracket, level 90s in that bracket, etc? Yikes, management nightmare.

Scaling is hardly a penalty. It's a necessity. And nothing to be afraid of.

This is not an either/or situation, scaling is both necessary and still a penalty under the current implementation, the increase can often be far in excess of any gain in roster strength.

Lemminkäinen

aesthetocyst wrote:

Lemminkäinen wrote:

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.

If you see anyone whining about the prevalence of lower-leveled rosters at the top of PVE leaderboards, that's some terribly misinformed whining.

Not about that - about how it isn't fair that they have to face 395 Ares and Juggs while the 94-soft cappers face lvl 130 ones (or whatever).

Crowl

aesthetocyst wrote:

Cool. I'll keep all mine at 165 and level my 5s, since under this scheme they are invisible to scaling. Awesome!

So my idea isn't perfect, but it is still a better one than we currently have where anyone in the 2-3* transition gets completely **** over by drawing a 5*

aesthetocyst wrote:

Because undercovered 166s / 270s are a problem? Or is the intent here to raise scaling on people with covered but shortcapped characters? How else would you "take into account how many covers they have"?

This was more of an alternative to simply excluding 5* from the calculation e.g. a 1 cover 5* should not count as 255, another alternative solution would be for them to start at a lower level such as 120 and then have the next 135 levels only cost 1 iso each.

aesthetocyst wrote:

Crowl wrote:

Boosted characters should be counted at their base level, if they are being called a boost then they should be making things at worst no more difficult.

Hmmm....so people with essentials get an even greater advantage! Sweet! I really like these solutions. Please, carry on.

Not a terrible thing that people rostering characters sees a benefit rather than a negative, don't forget that there are plenty of others that are boosted without being the essential three and it doesn't hurt the devs either since more people will be buying HP for their larger rosters.

PeterGibbons316

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.

If the game didn't get any harder as you progressed it would be boring as ****. They do a great job in PvE making the competition more about time spent playing a particular event, as well as roster diversity. While in PvP it's more about roster strength. It allows people at all stages of the game to play and still be competitive.

If you want to soft-cap for PvE then by all means go ahead, the game mechanics encourage that behavior to optimize your performace in PvE. But just don't complain about your inability to perform in other modes because you chose to handicap your roster for one specific game mode.

Malcrof

aesthetocyst wrote:

Lemminkäinen wrote:

Not about that - about how it isn't fair that they have to face 395 Ares and Juggs while the 94-soft cappers face lvl 130 ones (or whatever).

Link to posts?

just do a search for 395 Juggs

an excerpt from one talking about 3 amigos node..
You dont know what is fear until you face a 395 level Juggs+Venom

XandorXerxes

aesthetocyst wrote:

Crowl wrote:

Exclude 5* from the calculation until people have at least one level 166 character.

Cool. I'll keep all mine at 165 and level my 5s, since under this scheme they are invisible to scaling. Awesome!

Just extend the number of covers in the cover calculation. Taking the first 4 covers is the problem. If I have a level 50 roster and I get a 255 Surfer, my average just doubled. Take the average of the top 8-10 spots (or first cover page). 2* rosters that have the unfortunate luck to hit all three 5*s will still be affected most, but leveling up a character from 94 to 166 is no longer a huge penalty because it's overall effect is diluted.

Median is more easily abused in this case (as you point out above), so I think mean is appropriate.

John Wayne74

I think a max level roster talking about a 395 juggs/venom would (at least on my end) be more about how crazy the damage is that headbutt or devour does. But to actually complain would not be the case. I personally like a challenge if it is even that. Take the Hunt for example. I came home and jumped in s1 9 hours after it opened. My max enemy team was level 298. No biggie cause I am running a fully carded team mostly max leveled. So level 298 moon Yelena venom vs boosted level 350 ice 340 JG 240 Johnny spelled instant victory for me. Actually I ran through all main nodes and all sub nodes without a single health pack using just that team except where essentials replaced Johnny.

That being said pve is I believe easier with max leveled characters than soft capped rosters. Hence my original post of "needless". Once you can level (evenly) you should "IF" you want to jump out of a pve only play style. Otherwise stay pve only and don't complain. That was the entire point of my original post.

Also as many have tried to point out, without belatedly stating it, is most t2 finishes of all pve placements are not soft capped rosters. They are usually held by fully leveled rosters as higher levels means longer health life which in turn lends to less health packs consumed per clear.

Would also like to debunk the myth which is soft capped is the best way to pve! After all my experiences I believe it is the exact opposite. Hopefully the above example will enlighten a few.

Kheiron

I've always been confused by the number of posts with incessant worrying about scaling. When I started playing I didn't know about scaling. I just leveled my characters to make them as strong as possible, so I could maximize their potential and usefulness. I never felt like it hindered me doing PvE events, when I actually cared a lot more about them. It sucks getting 300+ enemies, but it also sucked when i only had level 94 characters and faced 150+ enemies too. At the end of the day, I think the most important factor is always going to be whoever is willing to do the most grinding on each node, as others have stated.

Pylgrim

Crowl wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

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.

Where is the fantasy, add a 5* to a low 3* roster, that does almost nothing useful to your ability to clear the game, but as a consequence you get significantly more difficult gameplay, that is a clear penalising of the player as upgrades should never have such a negative effect on the player.

Uh.... the impact of 5* characters in an underdeveloped roster is not what this thread is about (permanent soft-capping). It is indeed bad and devs already stated that a solution for that is coming soon. Moving on.

Pylgrim wrote:

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).

Nice strawman, nobody is asking for that, but its a nice lazy accusation to level at people.

The idea that it is a bad thing for people to not level any character they get as high as possible is also a rather counter-intuitive idea and shows they need to sort out how scaling is calculated.

Personally, I would do the following with regards to pve scaling to make it more representative of a person's roster:

Exclude 5* from the calculation until people have at least one level 166 character.
Increase the amount of characters used in any scaling calculations and take into account how many covers they have.
Boosted characters should be counted at their base level, if they are being called a boost then they should be making things at worst no more difficult.

What strawman? The poster I was replying to literally said that enemies gaining levels was a penalty. Also, no, the penalisation for levelling up one character way highly above others is not counter-intuitive. This is a game with several dozens of characters and you are constantly encouraged to go wide, not tall, to use gaming concepts. Or what do you expect? To keep a roster of level 40 characters and 1-2 maxed to 166 and have an eternal field day of level 40ish enemies? You seem to be complaining about not being able to game the game.

HxiiiK

I'd just like to share my take on this. I do soft-cap my roster but due to my growing roster, it is now soft-capped at 180. My max covered XFW, IMHB (though 4/5/4), almost maxed JG, PX are all at 180. Reason being I am currently far too ISO starved to take them all to 255-270.

But! I'm getting there, and I am still facing the dreaded 395s, so soft-capping isn't exactly making PvE easier, nor PvP as I'm still facing maxed jeanbusters. No complaints from me though, the challenge is there, it's a puzzle game. I just wish my ISO bank account would fatten up faster.

tl;dr : concern is I want an even level all round the board, instead of a 270XFW and not enough ISO for everyone else

Pylgrim

HxiiiK wrote:

I'd just like to share my take on this. I do soft-cap my roster but due to my growing roster, it is now soft-capped at 180. My max covered XFW, IMHB (though 4/5/4), almost maxed JG, PX are all at 180. Reason being I am currently far too ISO starved to take them all to 255-270.

But! I'm getting there, and I am still facing the dreaded 395s, so soft-capping isn't exactly making PvE easier, nor PvP as I'm still facing maxed jeanbusters. No complaints from me though, the challenge is there, it's a puzzle game. I just wish my ISO bank account would fatten up faster.

tl;dr : concern is I want an even level all round the board, instead of a 270XFW and not enough ISO for everyone else

No, no, this is the correct way of playing. What you are doing is not soft-capping but slowly advancing all your characters. The soft-capping we decry is when players level up characters only up to 94 (or similar) and stubbornly decide to not level them up any more, ever again, to keep PVE levels moderate. It's the equivalent of trying to keep oneself free from injury and disease by never, ever leaving a completely sanitised house. In theory it works... but you are missing on life in the meantime, self-doomed to a never changing, safe routine inside the same 4 walls forever.

ZootSax

Malcrof wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

Lemminkäinen wrote:

Not about that - about how it isn't fair that they have to face 395 Ares and Juggs while the 94-soft cappers face lvl 130 ones (or whatever).

Link to posts?

just do a search for 395 Juggs

an excerpt from one talking about 3 amigos node..
You dont know what is fear until you face a 395 level Juggs+Venom

It was much worse in the days of community scaling. The first time I ever faced a team of 395 opponents, my second and third highest characters were 1* Iron Man and 1* Black Widow, respectively. ...and even back then there were threads devoted to complaining about this very topic

smkspy

If you have a 5 star in a low level roster 120s example, you're forced to not soft cap and raised every as quickly as possible lol.

XandorXerxes

HxiiiK wrote:

I'd just like to share my take on this. I do soft-cap my roster but due to my growing roster, it is now soft-capped at 180. My max covered XFW, IMHB (though 4/5/4), almost maxed JG, PX are all at 180. Reason being I am currently far too ISO starved to take them all to 255-270.

But! I'm getting there, and I am still facing the dreaded 395s, so soft-capping isn't exactly making PvE easier, nor PvP as I'm still facing maxed jeanbusters. No complaints from me though, the challenge is there, it's a puzzle game. I just wish my ISO bank account would fatten up faster.

tl;dr : concern is I want an even level all round the board, instead of a 270XFW and not enough ISO for everyone else

So here's the thing - you've already hit the level cap. The problem is created when someone levels 1 guy far and away above the rest of his back, and it raises his average roster level which brings up his PvE levels. Your PvE levels can't go up. Raising your average roster level (even unevenly) does nothing to you. Even if you took 1 character to 250 immediately and left the others at 180, that's not a huge leap. Your average bumps up to 197.5 from 180 (assuming top 4). If you added 70 levels to your lead guy it's not a huge leap - but if you're a 2* player (capped at 94) and you add a 5*, your average is going to spike immediately.

If you took 2 4*s to 250, your average jumps to a whopping... 215. Those 35 levels might have mattered, if it actually changed your difficulty at all. Maybe you still have a few nodes that aren't maxed, those might get a bit harder. I bet your PvP gets a lot easier with a couple 250s as opposed to four 180s.

Unknown

I understand having scaling is necessary. Otherwise new players wouldn't even have a chance to get started. I have a pretty high level rosters with most 3*s maxed and some 4*s maxed, but it gets frustrating hearing people complain about getting "stuck" with a 5* because it will ruin their ability to take advantage of a necessary flaw in the game to score higher than people they should be losing to. If you have a level 94 roster because that is as far as you have gotten in the game, good for you. Keep going. It gets even more fun. If you have artificially kept your roster low to scam people who are further along in the game out of the top spots for prizes and then complain about something that interferes with that, just shut the hell up. You already have more advantages than you deserve.

Unknown

And by the way, adding a SS to your lineup will only change your scaling a little bit, but the positive outweighs the negative. Putting him on a team to tank and using his extremely high match damage will help you breeze through these low level matchups.

ThatOneGuyjp189512

darthpoo wrote:

And by the way, adding a SS to your lineup will only change your scaling a little bit, but the positive outweighs the negative. Putting him on a team to tank and using his extremely high match damage will help you breeze through these low level matchups.

but adding him to your roster will put you well past the point of seeing low level matches and you'll see at minimum buffed 166's but more likely you'll see maxed 4*'s cause of it.