Why doesnt scaling take number of covers into consideration?

Cymmina

The simplest solution would have been to not have 5* characters start out at such a high level. I don't know what the rationale behind this was, but it makes no sense and only serves to punish users who have rosters that aren't anywhere close to level 255. I mean seriously, the starting levels for every other rarity: 1, 15, 40, 70.

I didn't even *have* a character with enough covers that to reach level 255 when I got my first 5* cover. A month later, I finally have a max covered 4* but not enough ISO to level it.

TxMoose

Cymmina wrote:

1, 15, 40, 70.

next logical starting point was 150-180 range. anything in there would have been fine. I'm sure there are reasons but I don't know them and can't think of them.

kyrain

Eddiemon wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

Well before 5*'s, I've often wondered aloud here why scaling doesn't just discount the top "X" number of your characters and go from there. It probably would benefit soft-cappers to much - they could max a couple of 4*'s and just go from there.

Now I think scaling/MMR ignoring to top of your roster equal to the number of 5*'s in existence (currently four) would be great.

Low-levels: you get a couple of 5*'s? They are ignored, it looks at your next few (166+ or whatever your highest 4* is).

High-levels: you have 5*'s? Either your top four 270's are ignored (your scaling goes to the base 5*'s, 255) or your top 5*'s are ignored (your scaling goes to next max, 270+)

Side benefit: the 5* players are "only" scaled to all of their 270+++'s, you don't have to further "fix" the game to make characters continue to scale up past 395.

2. Let you 'vault' rostered characters. Any character you vault can't be used for any events that start while they are vaulted, but also gets completely ignored when calculating scaling/mmr for that event. So you can vault all your 5 stars and collect them away without them negatively affecting your or anyone else's playing experience. Vaulted characters would still appear in your roster and take up a roster slot, so you don't gain any advantage this way.

VAULT PLEASE

kyrain

Honestly, that's the best idea I've seen to face this. I'd vault my 5* Jean until I'm ready to transition into 4* territory, easily. I just don't want to let her go (though she's messing up my biz)

ErikPeter

I agree with the "Base your scaling on past performance" thing.

MMR should be based on your last two PvP scores and your previous and current Season PvP totals. If you can get to 10K in season PvP, you should be fighting other players who can do so. If you're more like me and every so often get to the 10-pack at 4000, we're probably decent competition, but then it factors in my PvP event high of 900 vs. yours of 670 and decides to find someone harder for me.

I also wish that you get to 1300 points in a PvP, you're now in "Epic Tier" for the next PvP.

Epic Tier is exactly like normal PvP, except that

a) Epic Tier players compete against each other for event points (individual matchups are still pulled from the global playerbase).

b) Starting at 650 points, add 1 CP to every progression reward and every 150 points above 1300.

If you don't make it to 1300 in that event, you fall back to regular tier.

This would go a long way in making progression rewards more valuable to lower-rank players. Experts (i.e. players who can get to 1300 in the first place) aren't going to purposefully 'duck' the 1300 to stay in normal, because they'd be missing out on 5-10 CP in the next event. And, if I had a chance to get a high placement (even fight for 1st?) by getting over 1000, I might try to do so more often, since I'm not just getting the 4* cover and then falling out of the top 100. (Not that I've done it more than once or twice in the past six months.)

simonsez

ErikPeter wrote:

I agree with the "Base your scaling on past performance" thing.

MMR should be based on your last two PvP scores and your previous and current Season PvP totals.

No... scores are in large part a function of effort. Players shouldn't be penalized for trying hard. Unless the idea is get them to stop trying.

JamesV

My worry with taking into account number of covers is that seems like a good way to punish those whose ISO flow can't keep up with their covers. There definitely needs to be more equilibrium in the system, but it needs to reflect the middle ground between soft cappers and those of us in the "please, sir, can I have some more ISO?" world. (I mean my covered IW ain't getting her last 100+ levels as long as Jean and CreepyIce, Carnage, Deadpool, X-23, etc all need levels).

I assume the goal is more of a complex system then just raw level or raw number of covers/level cap.

dr tinykittylove

JamesV wrote:

My worry with taking into account number of covers is that seems like a good way to punish those whose ISO flow can't keep up with their covers. There definitely needs to be more equilibrium in the system, but it needs to reflect the middle ground between soft cappers and those of us in the "please, sir, can I have some more ISO?" world. (I mean my covered IW ain't getting her last 100+ levels as long as Jean and CreepyIce, Carnage, Deadpool, X-23, etc all need levels).

I assume the goal is more of a complex system then just raw level or raw number of covers/level cap.

Due in part to luck and part playing like a lunatic, I have enough covered 4*s I would need something like 7 million iso to max and champ. I only have 2 champed right now and the next will take me 250k to champ. I have 40k.

I also have a 4/4/2 Phoenix and a 2/3/2 OML, both at level 255 and requiring d3 only knows how much iso to level up. If scaling/MMR is going to be based on covers... I have no idea what I'm going to do. Play ddq and seed teams for the next 10 years maybe.

Crowl

Eddiemon wrote:

1. Forget rosters, base all scaling decisions on past performance. If someone isn't placing high in PvP then lower their MMR. If they are then raise their MMR. Same for PvE, peopel who place well have their sclaing raised and people who don't have them reduced.

Your roster quality will determine to an extent how well you do, and if my MMR is low for my roster, who cares as long as I'm not beating people out for positions.

People might tank some events to lower their MMR to get an edge in other events, but by tanking events you are letting others get the rewards, so I don't think anyone is losing out here or being treated unfairly.

This approach would be fine in pvp where all events are equally valuable, but that isn't the case in pve at all, you could very easily have people tanking 3 events out of 4 and then getting a nice easy run on a new character release.

2. Let you 'vault' rostered characters. Any character you vault can't be used for any events that start while they are vaulted, but also gets completely ignored when calculating scaling/mmr for that event. So you can vault all your 5 stars and collect them away without them negatively affecting your or anyone else's playing experience. Vaulted characters would still appear in your roster and take up a roster slot, so you don't gain any advantage this way.

This seems like a fair approach that doesn't have obvious abuses and avoids the ludicrous situation now where people getting one of the best covers in the game end up being forced to sell it just to make their game playable again, d3 could even charge hp for additional vault slots beyond an initial one.

mikepro

Hers the issue I find with this new proposal of change based on rosters. I have many 3* who are between 140 and even lvl 40. The reason why they are still low level is because the lack of iso. I would probably need about 10 million iso to be able to get all my guys to their max level that they can get to. Except my 5* spiderman which I have 2 covers for. And I have only used him maybe 3 times during a pve node. Any of the iso I get lately has been sunk into my 3 4* I have that might be use able but are still under covered. 8-9 covers and max lvl is under 190. Can I hit 1k points sure does it cost me some more hp yup. Have I hit 1.3k yup cost me even more hp then I wanted to. I've even gotten higher then 1.3k I've maxed out at 1510 points but what I spent on sheilds then was astronomical. And I did not use any of my 4* or my lone 5* to get that. So scaling based on rosters is kinda ridiculous if you ask me. Base it on performance. I hate when I'm playing pvp and I climb and I gotta spend iso to skip a match because all I see is champ boosted cage plus 2 boosted 4* only cause I can climb to 1k. Guys who can hit max rewards and beyond should be in a league of their own in my eyes. Same with the seasons let them all fight for that top spot. My total for last season was just under 12k points while first place was almost 40k. And oops I get a whooping t250 finish. Great I get 50 hp 500 iso plus 1 cp while the guy who has a multi max roster+ gets 4 10 packs which would probably help out a guy like me with champ characters that are 3* or even 2*s maybe I'd get lucky and get the valuable 4* but I doubt it.


Please don't base scaling off rosters base the scaling issues off of progression rewards. If guys are hitting 1500+ for an entire season let them battle it out in their own season for say a 10 pack of legendary tokens. And let the rest of us non whalers fight for those 5 10 packs. Plus 25cp and the other rewards.

carrion_pigeons

Would it be such a terribly atrocious idea to just add some benefit to a higher MMR, so there wouldn't be so much incentive dodge it?

Like, add a passive multiplier to the amount of Iso you get for winning a match that depends on how high your MMR is (up to, say, triple value). Now all the 4* players starving for Iso are incentivized to *raise* their MMR instead of gimmicking it. Problem solved.