CW scaling goes boom

Ctenko

_RiO_ wrote:

Ctenko wrote:

threatened to scorched earth the game, through bad publicity and word of mouth.

It's sad to admit, but that's not a strange reaction at all to the antics of this developer. Money is, after all, the great and only motivator for this company. So any direct threat to income will force them to take a matter seriously.

The same holds true for this particular screw-up. Consider how well a screw-up of this magnitude in a special movie tie-in event would sit with Marvel. And consider the potential effect an open letter to Marvel's community management might have. It's their IP and their movie that's getting the negative association, after all.

True. But I will say that until my Scaling went so far as to make it unplayable. (And I think it might only be me. Everyone else is reporting Normalish numbers around their Top three people. Which is how it should be.)

This was a pretty great event.

If my people were in the realm of 260. (For my 267 Scarlet witch and two untouched Duo cover 255 Five 's) I would be perfectly happy. But they're not. I'm sending a ticket.

RoboDuck

Node scaling is pretty far off at this point. Alliance beat IM round 8 yesterday. Working on Cap now. On round 5 Cap now & the nodes are significantly more difficult than the boss fight. How **** backwards is that.

Sidenote: I feel bad for the people who started team Cap. Winter Soldier having a node is craziness. Yeah my 1 cover WS is gonna beat level 250s. Ha!

mazerat

I actually don't mind the idea of higher rounds of Galactus/IM/Cap being nigh-unbeatable and everyone just has to chip away as much as they can before wiping--that's most lower-end roster players' experience anyway.

The issue with CW was the supporting character nodes being hugely buffed 24 hours in and then impossibly buffed 48 hours in. Now instead of instead of being able to contribute with the nodes and scratch damage, lower-end rosters can't effectively participate at all. Which means they can't get any personal progression. 'Cause, y'know, don't want 2 players getting their hands on a couple SWitch or BP covers at the same time as you're handing them three 4 and an LT from alliance progression

ClydeFrog76

Quick Fire wrote:

My alliance was only on round four when it happened

Same here. I'm in a *very* casual alliance of myself and 6 family members/mates, so we had little to no chance of getting even one HB cover, but then this happened and it meant we had zero chance.

atomzed

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

atomzed wrote:

I do think that this is scaled appropriately.

How can it possibly be scalled appropriately when I'm fighting two waves of level 300 mobs to have another crack at the level 200 Captain America?

Hmm, didn't know that the essential scale differently from the boss node.

Anyway, my point is that the whole event is overall done very well, including the level of difficulty. We can judge by the number of alliances to complete all rounds. In fact I heard that crewsaders, the elite alliance, actually clear both sides!

_RiO_

atomzed wrote:

Anyway, my point is that the whole event is overall done very well, including the level of difficulty.

The event itself; yes. The difficulty; no. The level of difficulty went south the moment scaling kicked in.

atomzed wrote:

We can judge by the number of alliances to complete all rounds.

If you limit your view to the top active alliances that played this event hard, starting on day one.
Casual alliances were screwed the moment scaling kicked in.

atomzed wrote:

In fact I heard that crewsaders, the elite alliance, actually clear both sides!

The event was explicitly designed to only have one of two paths be feasible to complete within the event's run time. The fact that alliances are still capable of finishing both means the event fails its basic core design.
(Also; call me a cynic, but the fact that alliances were attempting to double-dip could very well have been the trigger for the developer to enable the middle-finger scaling.)

Thevipper

And my alliance finished r6 of cap i understand why they did since some still managed both sides

theo199

D3 is really going non sense

mazerat

Alliances being able to finish both sides means there were too many points available--it has nothing to do with difficulty.

theo199

mazerat wrote:

Alliances being able to finish both sides means there were too many points available--it has nothing to do with difficulty.

Are you talking about the 0.001% of the players of this ... game?

Partyof5

So almost no progress for our alliance today due to the tinykitty scaling trick they pulled.

Focusing only on the whales is a sure way to doom a game like this for the long haul. I'm beginning to feel like this game is not meant for anyone new, casual, or not willing to devote their entire existence (and wallet) to it. As a 3* player after I feel like the game has already moved past me and is getting further out of reach every week. By the time I get a solid set of championed 3*s, they will be overwhelmed by maxed out 5* rosters.

Linkster79

Partyof5 wrote:

So almost no progress for our alliance today due to the tinykitty scaling trick they pulled.

Focusing only on the whales is a sure way to doom a game like this for the long haul. I'm beginning to feel like this game is not meant for anyone new, casual, or not willing to devote their entire existence (and wallet) to it. As a 3* player after I feel like the game has already moved past me and is getting further out of reach every week. By the time I get a solid set of championed 3*s, they will be overwhelmed by maxed out 5* rosters.

If you have a few championed 3*'s now they are already overwhelmed by max championed 4*'s and solid 5*'s. Also until you get your 3* characters to level 240(ish) they aren't as effective as they were before the champion feature. It's all good though as "it is working as intended", don't worry "as you're supposed to lose" and "this too shall pass".

tizian2015

atomzed wrote:

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

atomzed wrote:

I do think that this is scaled appropriately.

How can it possibly be scalled appropriately when I'm fighting two waves of level 300 mobs to have another crack at the level 200 Captain America?

Hmm, didn't know that the essential scale differently from the boss node.

If you didn´t know, did you play the event?

atomzed wrote:

Anyway, my point is that the whole event is overall done very well, including the level of difficulty. We can judge by the number of alliances to complete all rounds. In fact I heard that crewsaders, the elite alliance, actually clear both sides!

If the crewsaders did it, it was right or far too easy, you are right (/sarcasm off). (Maybe they have to just lock out the other event if the alliance-commander decided for one side and not turn on a backbraking time-based (!) scaling to fix this issue) If the result of an alliance with champed 5*s is the comparison for a very well done difficulty, the rest of us is doomed...

atomzed

tizian2015 wrote:

atomzed wrote:

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

atomzed wrote:

I do think that this is scaled appropriately.

How can it possibly be scalled appropriately when I'm fighting two waves of level 300 mobs to have another crack at the level 200 Captain America?

Hmm, didn't know that the essential scale differently from the boss node.

If you didn´t know, did you play the event?

I played the event, and didn't notice any difference. After the scaling switch was turn on, I noticed the scaling climbing but it was similar to the boss node. Nothing out of the ordinary for me.

tizian2015 wrote:

If the crewsaders did it, it was right or far too easy, you are right (/sarcasm off). (Maybe they have to just lock out the other event if the alliance-commander decided for one side and not turn on a backbraking time-based (!) scaling to fix this issue) If the result of an alliance with champed 5*s is the comparison for a very well done difficulty, the rest of us is doomed...

You are taking my words out of context. My key point is that many alliances cleared it on the first iteration of PVE (first ever pve with 5* given)... And I was equally surprised that even when they touted it impossible to clear both sides, the top alliances was actually able to complete it. This is in sharp contrast to the Galactus one fiasco, which only 10 (IIRC) alliances complete all rounds. The key point is the number of alliances who completed round 8.

Look, I don't know why I am getting all the pitch fork and flame, but I am merely stating my experience with the event. It was ok for me. At the same time I never dismisss the experience of those with 3* rosters or 3*-4* rosters. I assume it must be difficult.

So turning the questions back to those who feel that that the scaling is out of whack, what is the appropriate outcome for you? Will you like the top 20% of mpq population to be able to clear round 8? or top 30%?

For me, I thought that the scaling is ok, because the completion percentage is around 0.02%. This is based on some rough calculations, assuming that 400 alliances (200 each for cap and IM) completed out of 20,000 alliances (based on the current total in season leaders board). this is the same rough percentages D3 is using for their pve and PvP rewards.

Can it be better? Sure it can be. But comparatively to their usual standards, this Is ok.

I think the problem is that the rewards are all the same for novice and veterans. That makes it very hard to give appropriate rewards to the different tier of players. I really hope that they introduce a league system. But until then, I will just accept it for what it is.

elusive

Partyof5 wrote:

So almost no progress for our alliance today due to the tinykitty scaling trick they pulled.

Focusing only on the whales is a sure way to doom a game like this for the long haul. I'm beginning to feel like this game is not meant for anyone new, casual, or not willing to devote their entire existence (and wallet) to it. As a 3* player after I feel like the game has already moved past me and is getting further out of reach every week. By the time I get a solid set of championed 3*s, they will be overwhelmed by maxed out 5* rosters.

I've been playing for over two years now (look at my join date here and add a few months to that) and stopped spending a lot after Nick Fury released and Season I ended, which is basically when we started to see a shift towards 4 stars. I looked at my Steam account records and I've spent just shy of $190 on this game, yet I don't have a single usable 4 star even after all of this time because I won't/can't spend hours upon hours grinding and won't open my wallet any further on what is essentially gambling at this point.

Someone replied to a post of mine earlier and said that I should be happy that I got even one Hulkbuster cover, as I'll look back on this in two years when I have a better roster, and be happy that newer players can't easily get the things I have. News flash: I've already been playing for two years, and I really don't give a flying **** what others have, nor do I derive any pleasure from having covers they don't. I play this to collect the heroes I like and let off a little steam, yet this game has become so difficult and such a grind/money sink that I don't really have fun with it any more.

I remember when getting a good 3 star team was the main goal, and back then, it wasn't that difficult to do so; now it's even easier thanks to DDQ. The leap to 4 stars, however, has always been extremely difficult, and they haven't made it any easier over the last two years, despite there being so many more available. They just keep raising the bar and making the hill steeper.

_RiO_

atomzed wrote:

Look, I don't know why I am getting all the pitch fork and flame, but I am merely stating my experience with the event. It was ok for me. At the same time I never dismisss the experience of those with 3* rosters or 3*-4* rosters. I assume it must be difficult.

So turning the questions back to those who feel that that the scaling is out of whack, what is the appropriate outcome for you? Will you like the top 20% of mpq population to be able to clear round 8? or top 30%?

Personally, I don't give a flying [censored] about the top end rewards. For all I care you scale the hell out of the final rounds of the event to the point that every node given has a slight chance of not getting your maxed out set of 5-stars wiped by 3 moves of match damage. But the lower rounds and in particular the first deterministic cover reward should be reachable for all players that are playing at one tier below that cover's tier and that are committed enough to gather the required points.

That effort put in should be rewarded and that clearly wasn't the case here, as at the very moment scaling kicked into gear, anyone that didn't have leveled 4-stars at the ready was effectively shut down.

KGB

_RiO_ wrote:

atomzed wrote:

Look, I don't know why I am getting all the pitch fork and flame, but I am merely stating my experience with the event. It was ok for me. At the same time I never dismisss the experience of those with 3* rosters or 3*-4* rosters. I assume it must be difficult.

So turning the questions back to those who feel that that the scaling is out of whack, what is the appropriate outcome for you? Will you like the top 20% of mpq population to be able to clear round 8? or top 30%?

Personally, I don't give a flying [censored] about the top end rewards. For all I care you scale the hell out of the final rounds of the event to the point that every node given has a slight chance of not getting your maxed out set of 5-stars wiped by 3 moves of match damage. But the lower rounds and in particular the first deterministic cover reward should be reachable for all players that are playing at one tier below that cover's tier and that are committed enough to gather the required points.

That effort put in should be rewarded and that clearly wasn't the case here, as at the very moment scaling kicked into gear, anyone that didn't have leveled 4-stars at the ready was effectively shut down.

I agree 100%.

Increasing scaling based on time rather than rounds completed makes the event into a race where alliances/players who can play a lot on day 1 benefit enormously compared to players/alliances who can't (I missed most of day 1&2 because I was at work so by the time Saturday came along nodes were very difficult to complete even though it was still only round 3 for my alliance).

The Boss already scales up based on rounds completed. The nodes should work the exact same way.

KGB

JVReal

Timed scaling was ok to me. I was in one of our alliances that had some smaller rosters competing. They were able to contribute a whole lot more in the first 24 hours than they could the remaining time because of the scaling. This is where the Alliance part of the event happens. The stronger help out the weaker. The weaker rosters bang out what they can, as often as they can, and the bigger rosters help them out by hitting it as well. I'd say just a little over half of my particular group hit personal progression, while a couple of us almost doubled individual progression. It's part of working together. The frustration was much higher for the smaller roster for sure, but every bit they did was a huge help to the group as a whole, and they got the 5*, same as everyone else, because they did put in just as much work if not more because of the boosts, and wipes and health packs, etc.

Overall, it was well balanced when you remember that the goal was to finish ONE of them through round 8, and keeping the scaling minimally for the first 24 hours let the alliances with ALL members being smaller rosters get to the first 4* reward without too much trouble.

The final reward was a 5* card. It wasn't going to be level 40 essentials the whole way. I was taken aback, and instantly irritated on behalf of my alliance mates, but after reflection on the reasons why, after looking at how difficult it would have been to do it in any kind of 'balanced' way that didn't lead to abuse... this was a pretty good solution.

_RiO_

JVReal wrote:

Timed scaling was ok to me. I was in one of our alliances that had some smaller rosters competing. They were able to contribute a whole lot more in the first 24 hours than they could the remaining time because of the scaling. This is where the Alliance part of the event happens. The stronger help out the weaker.

And now explain how that will work for an alliance composed of 3* players only, of which most only started playing over the weekend because they have day-time jobs.
Right; IT DOESN'T.

Time-based scaling is asinine and needs to go; NOW.

mazerat

_RiO_ wrote:

Personally, I don't give a flying [censored] about the top end rewards. For all I care you scale the hell out of the final rounds of the event to the point that every node given has a slight chance of not getting your maxed out set of 5-stars wiped by 3 moves of match damage. But the lower rounds and in particular the first deterministic cover reward should be reachable for all players that are playing at one tier below that cover's tier and that are committed enough to gather the required points.

That effort put in should be rewarded and that clearly wasn't the case here, as at the very moment scaling kicked into gear, anyone that didn't have leveled 4-stars at the ready was effectively shut down.

The last Galactus was one of my first events. In that event, I could clear the nodes, hurt the boss a little before dying, and feel like I was contributing. That's all I wanted or expected out of CW. Instead, I started getting health-pack gated 24-hours in (was spending almost as many HP on nodes as the boss) and just hard-gated by the nodes 48-hours in. It was overly difficult for me to participate at all due to the 4- and 5-star enemies having much more health and doing much more damage than my 2- and 3-stars.

Also, everyone harping on rewards--do you realize that it was easier to get two 4-stars and an LT than the first 3-star reward (311,000/player to clear R6, 3-stars were at 393,500)? And all three 4-star covers were easier than the second 3-star. I can't speak to all 2-3 players but I think many of them were hoping to get a couple SWitch or Falcon covers to help with progression and instead they walked out with a bunch of under-covered 4-stars that won't be useful for months and months. That just seems silly to me.