What is my motivation to level?

Unknown

As I level my characters, I just wind up with a higher MMR and I will fight harder opponents for the exact same rewards. It seems to me that leveling gains me nothing. Worse than that, the higher level I am, the higher level my opponents will be, and likely the players at that level will play more often making even harder to rank high. Leveling my guys might even be a bad thing.

As you progress the rewards should grow. If your enemies in a particular fight are higher level then you should get more iso8 for beating them. If you have high MMR and you are in a high bracket, you should get better prizes. Without these things I don't see the motivation to level.

I think my ideal strategy at this point would be to stop leveling my highest level guys and start bringing everyone up to their level. This would give me more options of characters to use, which would be handy whether my main team gets killed and I'm out of health packs or they are simply not allowed in a particular fight. Since there is no apparent benefit to increasing the level of my main team, this seems like the thing to do as it would give me more utility.

What am I missing? Where does this logic fail?

Unknown

The difficulty of your opponents could be the same with a lvl 50 roster or a lvl 141 roster.

It's all based off performance. Not rosters.

Dormammu

If you max out every single character (yes, even Bagman) Ed McMahon will come to your house and give you one of those giant checks.

Bacon Pants

Dormammu wrote:

If you max out every single character (yes, even Bagman) Ed McMahon will come to your house and give you one of those giant checks.

And then he'll punch you in the face for leveling Bagman.

Unknown

"The difficulty of your opponents could be the same with a lvl 50 roster or a lvl 141 roster.

It's all based off performance. Not rosters."

Oh, I see, I didn't realize this. So if I stopped leveling I would either still face higher and higher level opponents, or I would wind up losing a bunch of battles (and then presumably my opponents would plateau in difficulty). Won't this naturally happen at level 85 anyway? My best team is near 85, and I don't have any 3* guy with many covers at all. It's going to be quite a while before I can break that barrier.

Unknown

Hausdorff wrote:

What am I missing? Where does this logic fail?

ADD? Peer pressure? Everyone's doing it & you should, too
Your team level isn't the only factor for MMR. Just winning pvp matches raises your MMR, too. If you have a low level team & keep winning, you'll be facing high level teams soon & won't have a chance against them (or you'll be using a ton of boosts & burning through Iso to do it). Eventually, you'll level your team & get *** covers to the point that the difference won't be significant and you'll be able to compete against anyone.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

The difficulty of your opponents could be the same with a lvl 50 roster or a lvl 141 roster.

It's all based off performance. Not rosters.

I pretty sure it is base off both. My top lvl character was a lvl 85 patch. I was using a team of lv 64 BP 77 OBW and 85 Patch and was getting average match up with 3 lvl 85 characters. I got bored and lvl my patch to 100, as soon as i did this i was getting match with 3 lvl 100+ charracters on average.

I think it would be better to have an A team and focus on lvling them equally so no one really get ahead.

Unknown

Justdangit wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The difficulty of your opponents could be the same with a lvl 50 roster or a lvl 141 roster.

It's all based off performance. Not rosters.

I pretty sure it is base off both. My top lvl character was a lvl 85 patch. I was using a team of lv 64 BP 77 OBW and 85 Patch and was getting average match up with 3 lvl 85 characters. I got bored and lvl my patch to 100, as soon as i did this i was getting match with 3 lvl 100+ charracters on average.

I think it would be better to have an A team and focus on lvling them equally so no one really get ahead.

It's not based on both. It is a performance ranking. You started winning against those 3 lvl 85 characters which meant your MMR rating went up.

Unknown

I like pretty colours, and I get more covers with pretty colours when I level.

Unknown

I find that the guys who think levels don't matter are always the guys who don't have characters maxed.

After a certain point most of your PvP opponents are 141X3 already, and your lack of levels does matter. While winning isn't particularly hard, a lack of levels makes you far more likely to be attacked.

Moral

jozier wrote:

Justdangit wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

The difficulty of your opponents could be the same with a lvl 50 roster or a lvl 141 roster.

It's all based off performance. Not rosters.

I pretty sure it is base off both. My top lvl character was a lvl 85 patch. I was using a team of lv 64 BP 77 OBW and 85 Patch and was getting average match up with 3 lvl 85 characters. I got bored and lvl my patch to 100, as soon as i did this i was getting match with 3 lvl 100+ charracters on average.

I think it would be better to have an A team and focus on lvling them equally so no one really get ahead.

It's not based on both. It is a performance ranking. You started winning against those 3 lvl 85 characters which meant your MMR rating went up.

I can attest level matters not at all. In the past 60 days my top characters have gone from 85 to 105 with my decision to focus on diversity, not maximizing. I still find myself seeing players with 10+ max level 2* and 3* characters.

Edit: by 'still' I mean a LOT now, rarely then. I finally pushed Frank to 105 because I was seeing theladder and walkyourpath while running 85 Spidey, 85 Punisher and 94 Patch.