[PVE] scaling [Merged Thread]

Options
13567…19

Comments

  • TheWerebison
    TheWerebison Posts: 431 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    Vhailorx wrote:
    TheWerebison wrote:
    jffdougan wrote:
    Link about it being a test?

    Ugh, hang on a second. Finding a red post is the proverbial needle in a haystack. icon_razz.gif

    Got it. And I paraphrased horribly, I have no excuse. icon_e_sad.gif

    viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43910&start=20

    Bottom of the page, from David Moore.

    "The difficulty scaling is intended. We will look at how everyone does and adjust accordingly."

    So they're still willing to adjust it, if they feel it is necessary. KIND of like a test, but obviously my brain took several uncalled for creative liberties.

    That statement referred to civil war. Not the gauntlet. There was no announcement that new scaling would be in place for the gauntlet.

    This is ridiculous. My global domination first node starts at 370 (symbiotes). My highest character is a 280 imhb. This seems about 50-70 levels too high.

    The second sub is even worse, starting at 320 when it should be around 220.

    Don't know why they are raiding the time investment necessary to play pve.

    Yeah, just started reading the thread that says specifically it's about Gauntlet scaling. Holy ****. I'm glad I haven't started it yet. Which is a shame, because I usually look forward to Gauntlet...
  • Frigs
    Frigs Posts: 35
    Options
    simple fact of the matter is that the risk is just not worth the reward. I didnt even get to the first split of the first sub before I was drained of health packs and looking at a battle that was going to completely deplete my team of HP. Then I had the luxury of scrolling through the event nodes to see that I had some work cut out for me just to unlock the second sub where the only cover I'm interested in (blue beast) is located. I'm a newer player, playing for around 2 months so my roster isnt stacked with gods or anything. To drain all of my health packs every 3 matches just simply isnt worth it only to progress 5% through the first of 3 subs.

    I agree with everyone complaining about the game is supposed to be fun and not work. I also understand that the dev team wants to make money and very apparently feels the way to do that is by providing a miserable and frustrating experience to its players. The rewards given for the nodes is a legitimate gripe as well, at best you get a standard recruit token, so unless you get lucky your basically getting 100 iso after you sell your worthless 1* spiderman reward. The 3 health packs you have to use after battle just isnt worth that, but it would be if the recruit token reward for all nodes was a heroic. Not to mention the fact that you are a lone wolf in all of this and there are no alliance rewards. None of what this gauntlet challenge offers motivates me to want to keep playing this game, so I suppose I'll dabble in PvP for a week and hope that when this PvE challenge is over the development teams at least makes an attempt at providing an enjoyable experience while playing this game, or at least allow me to play it more than 3 matches before I'm out of health packs when I'm only 30% through the first of 3 subs. Its kind of a kick in the balls if you ask me.
  • xdogg
    xdogg Posts: 334 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    If this is working as intended I'll be sitting this one out and if the game continues like this I'll be moving on for good
  • Frustrated1
    Frustrated1 Posts: 68 Match Maker
    Options
    You keep forgetting the point of playing this game:

    "You're supposed to lose."
  • DTStump
    DTStump Posts: 273 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    Wow. I actually thought I was going to do better than last time because I thought my progress was gonna have an effect on the level of difficulty. How naive.
  • Frigs
    Frigs Posts: 35
    Options
    Frustrated1 wrote:
    You keep forgetting the point of playing this game:

    "You're supposed to lose."

    I'm a newer player who really enjoys this game (or at least did) and I keep seeing this "you're supposed to lose" quote being thrown around. I assume someone on the development team said this at some point? If I'm right and thats true then the dev team obviously does not understand why people play video games. I do NOT play a game where I am "suppose to lose"! I play a game so I can beat the task at hand, not get destroyed before I even get a chance to warm up. I play games that give me a reasonable chance of winning, not games that dont even give me a shot at winning. You can basically take that "you're suppose to lose" ideology and shove it directly up your you know what.
  • Frigs
    Frigs Posts: 35
    Options
    I mean they act like everyone being successful in the cw event was a bad thing. So players new and old got a few 4 and 5 star covers, its not like those covers would push anyone's roster to the point where they no longer needed to progress and they can now safely dominate the game with zero chance of spending any money on it anymore. It bothers me to think the developers couldn't see the success players were having with cw as a good thing and allowing everyone to think that maybe, just maybe this game is going to hook us up for this special event. Nope, instead they seen what was going on and immediately pulled the emergency brake, showing you just how much they actually want you to do good in this game. Not only that but then as if they were still pissy about that happening they follow up with the gauntlet, offering **** rewards for an insane difficulty level. Im sorry man but this is some serious **** if I've ever seen it.
  • Quebbster
    Quebbster Posts: 8,070 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Frigs wrote:
    Frustrated1 wrote:
    You keep forgetting the point of playing this game:

    "You're supposed to lose."

    I'm a newer player who really enjoys this game (or at least did) and I keep seeing this "you're supposed to lose" quote being thrown around. I assume someone on the development team said this at some point? If I'm right and thats true then the dev team obviously does not understand why people play video games. I do NOT play a game where I am "suppose to lose"! I play a game so I can beat the task at hand, not get destroyed before I even get a chance to warm up. I play games that give me a reasonable chance of winning, not games that dont even give me a shot at winning. You can basically take that "you're suppose to lose" ideology and shove it directly up your you know what.
    Short version: After the first run of Galactus people complained that it was too difficult. A producer explain that was intended and that we were supposed to lose because Galactus should be very hard to beat.
    Later runs have been significantly easier.
  • Ctenko
    Ctenko Posts: 218 Tile Toppler
    Options
    Frigs wrote:
    Frustrated1 wrote:
    You keep forgetting the point of playing this game:

    "You're supposed to lose."

    I'm a newer player who really enjoys this game (or at least did) and I keep seeing this "you're supposed to lose" quote being thrown around. I assume someone on the development team said this at some point? If I'm right and thats true then the dev team obviously does not understand why people play video games. I do NOT play a game where I am "suppose to lose"! I play a game so I can beat the task at hand, not get destroyed before I even get a chance to warm up. I play games that give me a reasonable chance of winning, not games that dont even give me a shot at winning. You can basically take that "you're suppose to lose" ideology and shove it directly up your you know what.


    It is in reference to the First Run on Galactus. It about broke the player base. I can't find the original post by the RedName, but I quoted him here, in my rant.

    viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33649

    This is... tough, but it is no where near as bad as BigG Run One.
  • OneLastGambit
    OneLastGambit Posts: 1,963 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Last time in gauntlet I was 3 nodes from completing it (was the prize iceman last time? Feels like it was) and figured that next time when my roster is more advanced (it is much much better than last time -was 2->3 transitioner last time) and what happens when I get here?

    At simulation 11 I was seeing lvl 312 enemies (just for edification my highest is oml at 300).

    That's midway through the first sub and my levels are HIGHER than my best character. By the time I get to last sub my levels will be 500+.

    So my roster is better than last time but I will end up doing worse this time?
    This is a big incentive to soft cap.
  • ragnarady
    ragnarady Posts: 70 Match Maker
    Options
    Frigs wrote:
    Frustrated1 wrote:
    You keep forgetting the point of playing this game:

    "You're supposed to lose."

    I'm a newer player who really enjoys this game (or at least did) and I keep seeing this "you're supposed to lose" quote being thrown around. I assume someone on the development team said this at some point?

    The first run of Galactus event was horrendous - you weren't able to do virtually anything to win in the boss fight. Yes, it was possible to inflict some damage to Galactus, but your current team certainly would be dead in the end. So, when righteous indignation came to forums seeking for some justice and devs response - it was all that we got: "You're supposed to lose" (because it's, well, Galactus, behold him, you can only delay inevitable, and so on).
  • CNash
    CNash Posts: 952 Critical Contributor
    Options
    I think they realised that that kind of reasoning (he's Galactus, all powerful etc.) was completely at odds with how they'd built the game. For example, they released the Silver Surfer around the same time as the Galactus event - while SS can be tough to beat (as a 5*), it's not impossible to do so with many teams who canonically would stand little to no chance against him. Nova (Richard Rider, the original) was barely able to scratch him.

    So to suddenly decide "for this one match-up we're taking comics power levels into account" was jarring and not welcomed in the slightest.
  • _RiO_
    _RiO_ Posts: 1,047 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    CNash wrote:
    I think they realised that that kind of reasoning (he's Galactus, all powerful etc.) was completely at odds with how they'd built the game.

    The main reason they took action and made ammends lies with several prominent players within the player community that called to apply scorched earth to the game; blanket-covering all available media-outlets with negative reviews and essentially ruining the game's influx of new paying players which would abruptly and directly affect the developer's and publisher's income.
  • Ludaa
    Ludaa Posts: 542
    Options
    You know what? I've got a 420 OML and a roster that's up for this challenge, but the rewards aren't worth it. I made it to sim #30 (main track only) before running out of packs and "usable" heroes. Around there I realized each node (now at lvl424) was taking close to 10 minutes, cost 2 or 3 packs, and all I would win is 70 iso8.png

    10 minutes, and 2 or 3 packs =

    70 iso8.png

    70 iso8.png

    70 iso8.png

    70 iso8.png
  • optimus2861
    optimus2861 Posts: 1,232 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    So it's not just me. I got to Simulation-08. Muscle, ninja x 2, level 177. Seriously?! I beat it. I beat the next couple, but it already feels like, what the hell is the point of building a better roster? More importantly, WHY DOES GAUNTLET SCALE AT ALL?!

    The first couple times I played Gauntlet, I cleared the first sub with a 2*-only roster. What 3* I had were undercovered & underleveled. No problem, I thought, as my roster gets stronger I'll breeze through sub 1 and get deeper & deeper into it, and maybe someday be able to clear it completely.

    Well now I have 24 x 3* champion characters, and before I reach the end of the first sub of gauntlet, the enemies outlevel them. icon_rolleyes.gificon_evil.gif Why should I bother to play into sub 2 or even sub 3? I can guess how disgusting those matches will be.

    Frigging tightfisted Demiurge, can't ever let people just play things to have fun and get some easy rewards for very long before they have to tighten the screws on you again.
  • Frustrated1
    Frustrated1 Posts: 68 Match Maker
    Options
    Which is needed again. Not specifically for Civil War, but for Gauntlet scaling, scaling in general, stinginess in ISO availability, not communicating with the player base...they need to be forced to take a hard look at their game for a change.
  • mazerat
    mazerat Posts: 118
    Options
    optimus2861 wrote:
    So it's not just me. I got to Simulation-08. Muscle, ninja x 2, level 177. Seriously?! I beat it. I beat the next couple, but it already feels like, what the hell is the point of building a better roster? More importantly, WHY DOES GAUNTLET SCALE AT ALL?!

    That's a good question. I thought the point of Gauntlet was fixed levels to test how good your roster/skills were.
  • Druss
    Druss Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    "I' m actually enjoying the gauntlet scaling."

    There you go D3 - you can use this quote to "prove" that only a minority of the player base dislike fighting a battle for 20 mins to receive a critical boost or better yet: 70 iso.

    Now that I've done your public service for you can I please have a free 5* cover?
  • IFORANI
    IFORANI Posts: 91
    Options
    I like to think Scott Lang would describe their handling of this issue as them being a bunch of "****-Hats!"
  • TheWerebison
    TheWerebison Posts: 431 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    Druss wrote:
    "I' m actually enjoying the gauntlet scaling."

    There you go D3 - you can use this quote to "prove" that only a minority of the player base dislike fighting a battle for 20 mins to receive a critical boost or better yet: 70 iso.

    Now that I've done your public service for you can I please have a free 5* cover?

    Here you go, have a SS!

Categories