5* Soft-Capping: Worth It?

firethorne

Is it ok to use Line to coordinate PvP shield hops? - Yes, it is okay.

Is it ok to set easier defensive teams for other players (cupcakes, grills)? - Yes, it is okay. The real caveat here is, a well designed PvP should, by default, make you not want to do that. But, of course, this really isn't well designed PvP. You'll win far more matches than you'll lose when you're actually playing. Points are lost somewhat arbitrarily from an unspecified quantity of people attacking your AI, and you can easily have far more incoming attacks when you unshield than you can gain from a single match. It is an inherently broken system, a thinly veiled system to suck HP sales out of people. But, this is well-trod ground. If you'd like to go over my main treatise on that subject, you may find it here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51488

Is it ok to softcap, then post that PvP is broken because a players underleveled team is an easy target? - You can post whatever you want. But, I'd say of the things broken in PvP, someone performing worse because they're underdeveloped is one of the rare things that actually isn't. It is more of a case that PvE is broken, because it encourages this underdeveloped roster. Though, it isn't wrong of the player for making active moves about who they do or don't level because of it.

SummerGlau

i have some 5's at 270 and that's about it
i will soon have one 4 star champion (x-23 level 258 and counting)

Tilesmasher

SOFTCAP 4 LIFE!

Pants1000

I think it depends on the 5's, how many covers they have, and the rest of your roster.

I have quite a few 5's with 5-10 covers, and the only one leveled past 255 is OML. I don't have any regrets about leveling OML as high as I could. As long as he has yellow, he's worth leveling.

At this point the rest of my ISO is going to my 4's. I don't think of it as soft-capping, I just think it's the best use of my ISO.

ClydeFrog76

Fightmastermpq wrote:

broll wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Friends don't let friends softcap.

You say that a lot, but do you have a reason or you just like the tagline?

Softcapping is counter to the spirit and integrity of the game, and done to abuse scaling/MMR mechanics that only exist because the devs admittedly don't understand 5* play. If you softcap your 5*s you are bad and you should feel bad.

I've read some dross on here but I really think this takes the biscuit.

Kudos!

Crowl

huktonfonix wrote:

TL;DR - we can argue with each other about the right way to play the game, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the game designers to craft a game that properly rewards the style of play that they want and that is fun for the players. This game is littered with countless examples of failures to meet that responsibility, and instead coasts on its addictive nature (pokemon syndrome), popular license, and robust community.

More counter-intuitive stuff would be the colour of covers only being relevant for at most 8 out of 113 covers and how not taking your rewards when you receive them is the optimal approach to that part of the game.

Crowl

Pants1000 wrote:

At this point the rest of my ISO is going to my 4's. I don't think of it as soft-capping, I just think it's the best use of my ISO.

This is the crucial point for me, I simply do not have enough iso to level everyone, so my iso goes to the max-covered characters that I can champ before any goes near partially-covered characters of any tier.

huktonfonix

Crowl wrote:

huktonfonix wrote:

TL;DR - we can argue with each other about the right way to play the game, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the game designers to craft a game that properly rewards the style of play that they want and that is fun for the players. This game is littered with countless examples of failures to meet that responsibility, and instead coasts on its addictive nature (pokemon syndrome), popular license, and robust community.

More counter-intuitive stuff would be the colour of covers only being relevant for at most 8 out of 113 covers and how not taking your rewards when you receive them is the optimal approach to that part of the game.

I meant to mention not opening tokens but got sidetracked by all the other dumb stuff. Good one.

snlf25

I just got my first OML red so now I'm at 1/5/1 and my goal is to keep my 4* and 3* rosters relevant. I dont want to fall into the trap of only being able to use three to five characters so I've been softcapping at 285. What is a good level to bring my 5*s up to without locking out my 3*s? I have 18 4* champions right now and I've managed my scaling pretty well. Would level 300 be ok for the 4* and 5*s?

DaveR4470

I think there's a difference between the "old" softcapping -- which was deliberately underdeveloping an otherwise easily leveled character to game the system -- and the 5* "softcapping", which is really just "not leveling 5*s until you're ready". The former is something the devs did not like, probably because it unbalanced (theoretically) their attempts to match similarly-situated players with each other. The latter is something I don't think the devs would object to at all.

Imagine a early 2* player with half-covered Thor, Daken, and OBW as their main team who somehow wound up with a 13-cover Falcap. If that player kept that Falcap at level 70, do you think the devs (or anyone) would object? I strongly doubt it. Having a level 270 4* support character with nothing but mid-covered 2*s as a roster would be.... bad. Arguably it would completely stagnate the player's progress until they sold the character, as their scaling would be screwed up dramatically.

I've read a lot of commentary from people saying they've ruined their scaling by rostering and leveling 5*s while still in the 4* transition. I don't think anyone would view it as exploitive or wrong to just not do that. I have all the 5*s rostered except for Thanos and Hawkeye (= 12 of them), and none of them are higher than level 161. And it's not because they're all one cover characters, either -- I have a 10-cover Phoenix and a 7-cover Surfer, each of whom could be brought up 100 levels or more. But I won't, probably not for a very long time. Because my scaling is just fine; it's appropriate to the rest of my roster, and I don't want to upset that apple cart. Am I gaming the system? No - the system does not mandate leveling your characters. If it did, we wouldn't have ISO pools -- they'd just be directly applied to the characters, and all we'd get to decide is which character got the ISO hose this week. It's just being cognizant of how high level characters impact your game experience, and not leveling until you can compete at the difficulty level that character building will bring you to.

My two cents.

Having said that -- with respect to the OP.... Mohio's advice on page 1 of the thread is dead on the money. If you want to do better in PvP, level up your 5s, but only the ones that will make a real impact with the cover spread that you currently have. And if you can, try and spread the love to keep your 5* gang roughly equivalent in level. If you play PvE, don't level any of them until you can level all of them. Optimally, you'd level your entire 5* stable in lockstep; i.e. you'd add a level to each 5* when ISO permitted instead of running one all the way up and then working on the next, etc. (Which works fine for 3*s, and okay for 4*, but which will destroy you with 5*s. Or at least make things very frustrating.) And just be smart about things. If you run a 4hor/IM40 team as your go-to PvE set, then maybe you want to level up Black Bolt (if you've got his covers) faster, as he synergizes well with that team. If you run a team with no countdown timers (and have no team with them that you could realistically use), then don't boost up your 0-0-5 Goblin to the 300s. You'll just screw up your matchmaking to obtain the "benefit" of a 300-level character that you have no use for. And so forth.

Edit: I (shamefully) had not read huktonfonix's big post (copied below) before posting this.... but that's also dead on point. The bigger issue is game design, and the flaws therein. Until that's fixed, there's no real solution to these issues that will be "fun".

carrion_pigeons

I have a few softcapped 4*s at 192: fully covered Ghost Rider and Nick Fury, and IW, Cyke, and Peggy at 10-11 covers. I detect no advantage to leveling these guys. They would not make my PvP experience easier (although having them on my roster at all, at those numbers of covers, seems to have significantly hurt my matchmaking anyway).

Anyone who says softcapping makes PvP harder is assuming that softcappers have actual good, covered characters to bring to PvP. That is frequently not the case.

broll

Fightmastermpq wrote:

astrp3 wrote:

But do the devs not like softcapping because they feel it is unfair to other players or because it's unfair that a player who gets covers for a 5* feels they can't use them? I would guess that a number of players who softcap don't like doing it either, but feel they have to in order to progress.

I just rostered my first 5*s this weekend because I am now at a point where I usually have three boosted 3*s so adding a 5* won't affect my scaling. Before that, I sold off about a dozen 5*s and didn't like the fact that I had to do so at all. When you pull a 5* from an LT and immediately say "Oh tinykitty, another 5*," it seems like something is rotten in the state of MPQ. I don't plan on using my 5*s until I get them adequately covered, but I'd still rather not have had to sell them off.

Then again, I don't like scaling period, no matter how it's done. I first encountered it in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and hated it. I've played lots of RPGs over the years (starting with Wizardry I - yes, I'm that old), and always enjoyed leveling up and building my characters almost as much as I enjoyed completing the story. With scaling, I felt there was no point in leveling them up at all. For RPGs, I preferred the old-school method, where leveling up characters meant you could either beat up on the easy sections of the game (though the rewards wouldn't be worth it) or proceed to the harder areas of the game that weren't open to you before.

Of course, MPQ is a competitive game, so removing scaling entirely would be more difficult. I think there are ways they could do it, but it's kind of a moot point since I don't think it's ever going to happen.

As for grilling/cupcakes etc. (I'm not up on the lingo as I have never used a Line room), one could argue (and I'm not saying I agree) it isn't in the spirit of the game to benefit from anything besides your own roster strength and skill, other than when the developers intended that you do so. Alliance events are designed specifically for alliances to cooperate but I'd guess that the devs never intended for people to do so for individual awards in PvP. But as you say, that's probably another thread.

If they didn't want alliances to work together in PvP then IMO they wouldn't have alliance rewards there.

And if they didn't want people to soft cap their would just be a max level button... We can all play this game...

El Satanno

I just wanted to repost this because it's the most clear-eyed and insightful post in this thread, and possibly ever on this forum. It's been amusing watching everyone pick fights with one another but huktonfonix has rather adroitly managed to cut through the **** and point out a rather expansive set of elementary flaws. Bravo, sir. I regret I have but one upvote to give you.

huktonfonix wrote:

Lots of community bickering on this, but honestly this all goes back to poor game design and should be addressed as such. A very successful game designer (Mark Rosewater, Magic the Gathering) has stated repeatedly that one of the tenets of good game design is to incentivize players to do things that lead to fun game play. If the best ways to succeed at the game involve strategies that are counter intuitive and unfun, players will learn and follow those strategies, but they'll resent the game and eventually quit.

There are examples of counter intuitive, unfun strategies being beneficial in most games, but they're extremely rare in a well-designed game. To carry the football analogies further, think of Brian Westbrook taking a knee on the one yard-line against Dallas instead of scoring, or teams playing their backup QB after clinching the conference. Most of the time it is obviously best to field your strongest team and score as many points as possible, and the times when teams have incentive not to do so tend to cause controversy if not outrage.

Now let's look at a few examples from MPQ:

- (Not) rostering stronger characters - early on in the game I had to sell several 5* characters, because I lucked into them before I had a single complete 3* character and rostering them made the game uplayable for me. Opening a 5* should be a huge boost to a new player and a real feel good moment, but in reality it wrecks the game for them.

- (Not) leveling your strongest characters - the topic of this post. I completed 3* Hulk long before any of my other 3* were finished and shortly after champing was introduced. With an extra cover from the Hulk pve event that I didn't want to waste, and against advice I received in-game and on this forum, I champed him. My shiny new 3* champion, rather than making the game easier for me, punished me severely for prematurely champing a sub-par 3* with my top tier characters weeks or months away. When I had several 4* characters at 13 covers I learned my lesson and didn't start with someone like Elektra, selling covers instead and waiting until I could champion top-tier characters like Cyclops before making that leap. Now I'm forced (?) to do the same with my 13 cover Natasha until I can luck into at least one more covered 5* to pair with her.

- PVP Shields (paying not to play) - A frequent topic of frustration on these forums. The post generally goes something like this: "I had an afternoon free and some spare health packs, and I really wanted reward X, so I decided to PVP for a few hours. I got to (100 points short of reward X), and then I played a match, and I came out down 150 points. So I played another, and came out down another 150 points. I played like that for 3 hours and ended up 200 points below where I started. I hate PVP." This is immediately followed, inevitably, by kindhearted explanations of float points and shield hopping, which is obviously the correct strategy as the game is designed. However, from a logic and fun standpoint, the idea that the best way to succeed in a game is to pay in-game (and possibly real) currency for shields so that you can no longer play for a few hours is ludicrous. There's a reason this comes up again and again, despite the sound advice dished out on these forums every time. Playing less in order to score higher makes no sense. I'm not interested in arguing the many (often very bad) proposed solutions to this, just pointing out that the base design is silly.

- PVE refresh timers (punished for playing more) - similar to the above, the optimal PVE strategy after 4 clears is to wait almost 24 hours before playing again. This has been debated and discussed endlessly, and there have been some attempts to mitigate (24 hour refresh versus 8) that are at best half measures and at worst a step in the wrong direction. Regardless of your feelings on this, it is counter intuitive and causes players to be locked into unfun strategies for playing if they want top placement.

TL;DR - we can argue with each other about the right way to play the game, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the game designers to craft a game that properly rewards the style of play that they want and that is fun for the players. This game is littered with countless examples of failures to meet that responsibility, and instead coasts on its addictive nature (pokemon syndrome), popular license, and robust community.

Astralgazer

People seem to attach different meaning to "soft-capping" and "the spirit of the game". What the heck do those terms mean anyway?

Is it soft capping when I decided that I wouldn't max level any 4* before I had deep enough championed 3* roster? And postponing leveling up 5* before I get my 4* championed?

Is it soft capping if I decide to postpone leveling up my Hawkguy even though he has 12 covers already, because all my ISO now goes to leveling up my 4*? Is it soft-capping if I decide that I will only level up my 4* to 188, and only level up a handful of favorites to the max?

There are oh so many scenarios where people decide they won't level up this character or that. But which one, or ones, are soft-capping?

People would do things that benefit them, this is only natural. When leveling up a character (be it 5*, 4* or others) gives a benefit, they will do it. If not, they will prioritize ISO for everything else. Especially if leveling up a character gives them a hard time instead of enjoyment.

The OP asked if not leveling up 5* is worth it, just give him the pros and cons of leveling up a 5* instead of arguing about terms that are vague at best.

Suddenreal

Just as the OP I mainly play PVE. I soft-cap my characters so they're all around the same level. Once they all reach that max level (except some "useless" characters who are actually not that far behind) I raise that level since, well, I still want to reach the max level. As far as 5 's go, I only level them if they have all colours filled in (which is only two of them right now) and then only until their level reaches the level of the boosted characters of the PVE event, so I can use them along the boosted three and four 's.

Evilgenius_9

I'm in the 'I don't level my 5*'s because iso goes to other things right now' camp. I have a dozen or so 4*'s champed and all 3*'s but 4. I have oml at like 285 and a few other with some iso put into them - but mostly waiting until my 3*'s are all champed and I have a bit stronger 4* roster. If that's softcapping, well whatever - it's what makes sense.

Kevin61

Fightmastermpq wrote:

broll wrote:

Fightmastermpq wrote:

Friends don't let friends softcap.

You say that a lot, but do you have a reason or you just like the tagline?

Softcapping is counter to the spirit and integrity of the game, and done to abuse scaling/MMR mechanics that only exist because the devs admittedly don't understand 5* play. If you softcap your 5*s you are bad and you should feel bad.

Really??? My first, instinctive response to this was a quite snarky comment. Rather, I will simply say, in agreement with a lot of other folks on the forum here, that people can play this game in whatever manner they please. If they feel that softcapping is to their advantage, I say more power to them. No one that plays should dictate to others how they should play.

stewbacca

I hate that people softcap. It's ridiculous for pve, how my team should be beaten constantly ( 7 5* champs) by people running softcapped teams. There is no way I can speed run through teams of 3 characters have 60k health each. That being said I blame the developers, and the only possible fix to make everyone actually strive to boost their rosters is to make scaling tie only to scl level. You cant compete with the big boys.. drop down until you can. In turn I think they should also lock out everything one or two scls lower so people with stacked teams can't drop down. The balance would become natural. And pve would become fun again, at least with everyone on a level playing field.

Markot

Can someone give me exact definition of soft capping?

If CS switches my 6th Dr. Strange blue cover to yellow, I will have my first fully covered 5* (on day 1146 of play). And I have currently 14 non-champed but max covered 4* characters waiting for ISO. As I prefere latest LTs (because of CS exchange possibility) and Dr. Strange will leave them shortly there is very small probability to get another Dr. Strange cover soon. But I get around 30 4* covers a week. So I choose to use ISO for champing 4* with covers waiting in my queue. Do you consider it as soft-capping of my Dr. Strange? Isn't it just logical behavior to not waste resources (= 4* covers) I get as rewards for playing the game?

Skrofa

My 0.02 for what it's worth.

Point: I am all for people with multiple champed 5* dominating certain events. They have put more time, effort and actual money into their accounts so they should reap the rewards.

Counterpoint: dominate in pvp. Where it's player vs player! NOT pve. There should be no player competition in pve, just difficulty level with better rewards.

I remember back in my early days playing diablo II. It was a struggle to get gear, level up, beat some levels. But when I got my armor sets I found that I quite enjoyed going back to early levels and justs beat the tinykitty out of them! Easy mode diablo boss? Bring it! I'll one shot you now!

Multiple 5* rosters SHOULD be able to get this feeling in pve if they so wished for a nice break in competitiveness. Maybe for a 3 day event that they couldn't be very bothered about the rewards given in their difficulty.

On topic though.
As the game stands... For pve there is no reason whatsover not only to level 5* but even to roster them at all!

Pvp? Completely different fruit