SCL-Based enemy levels requires SCL-Based roster scaling

zodiac339

The SCL-Based enemy level tests have been a mixed bag of frustrations and laudations by the community at large. Quite a number of players have happily aimed downward at lower SCLs in order to make things far easier for themselves and just shugging over what they consider minor reward losses. The issue is that Placement rewards, like Progression rewards, are geared towards players meant to be in that SCL, and powerful invaders can move in and take those with little to no effort involved. This doesn't just mean players who want to have an easier time can do this, but also trolls who want to feel like bullies can do this. There needs to be a system in place to keep players from abusing the SCL level system.

The system can already scale enemies up or down based on roster and/or based on SCL. It can even scale down characters below their normal lowest level. In order to mitigate the issue of higher tier rosters overpowering players who are in the zone they are meant to be in. I propose that scaling be applied to a player's roster within a chosen SCL. Other people have proposed locking out tiers of characters, but that I can't agree on that as a good solution. Scaling heroes down to a cap within the SCL, however, would mean that all players in the SCL are facing the challange for the rewards that the designers intended. Tier 5 players may still appreciate such a change, as the typical complaint seems to be about how enemy health and power has a disproportinate increase at higher tiers. As I see it, that is compounded by Epic characters not being boosted in power (excepting specific events), a luxury that Legendary and lower players can rely on to mitigate scaling difficulty.

Naturally, there would also be complaints. Tier 5 players would feel like they are just being punished in a different way, but some kind of balance must be maintained. Players still wouldn't be able to move up into SCLs where where the enemy levels have a higher cap and be able to compete. Meanwhile, bigger players wouldn't be able to step down an crush everything with heroes 200 levels srtonger than anything they face, putting in laughably little effort for a minor drop in prizes.

I would be personally curious to try out moving down to SCL7 to see this in action; I'd like the experience of my 280+ heroes capped down, even if it's only a little, such that boosted heroes are standing side by side with their unboosted bretheren rather than on top of one another. And those players who have considered, or gone through with, selling high level Epics to escape from what the game becomes would be able to hang onto and enjoy those trophies rather than feel punished for having them.

Bowgentle

No it doesn't.

Roster-based scaling is an abomination that has to be killed with fire, and they're finally doing it.

SpringSoldier

@Bowgentle

I don't think you read the OP's post- he is making a good argument for the removal or rooster-based scaling coupled with locking characters that are too strong for a certain SCL, in order to give everyone at every level (almost) equal chances of getting placement rewards.

broll

Bowgentle said:

No it doesn't.

Roster-based scaling is an abomination that has to be killed with fire, and they're finally doing it.

Seconded.  There are several major problems with Roster-based scaling:
1.  The devs have proven they can't make it even across all levels of play.
2.  The devs have done nothing to instruct new players that leveling 5* players early hurts scaling (or to prevent that outcome).
3.  There is currently nothing in the game that let's people set a difficulty.  The fact of the matter is people enjoy games differently.  Some people want to play something that provides almost no challenge other people want to play something like Dark Souls where you're supposed to lose until you git gud.  Allowing people to chose to play easy mode or hard mode and get rewards equal to their effort is a very common game design this game has needed badly.  Especially when you consider right now some players have to play 3 hours a day on a mobile puzzle game just to keep up...

SCL based scaling needs to be coming a thing and I don't want to see any aspects of roster based scaling (or scaling down of rosters) included at all (I'd also like to see them remove the random RNG factor from it too).  Just make it static so people know what they are getting into.  

There will undoubtedly need to be some reward/structure changes, but those will be easier to do after a few weeks of metrics on where people are choosing to play at have been collected in the new system.

Also the jumps between levels need to be much wider.  Widening the gaps would reduce jumping down, the wider the gaps the fewer people would be willing to handicap their rewards for lower play.

MarkersMake

For clarity, the OP is saying that (for example) SCL7 would place a cap (or maybe a toque) on all characters on your roster at, say, level 300. The level of your opponents would still be determined solely by your chosen SCL. 

This would keep the high-level (450+) characters on high-end rosters from crushing lower SCL opponents into whatever you get when you apply crushing force to something that is already crushed into paste. 

Obviously, each SCL would have a higher cap, with the current maximum SCL (presumably) being "unlimited". 

It's an intriguing idea. 

broll

MarkersMake said:

For clarity, the OP is saying that (for example) SCL7 would place a cap (or maybe a toque) on all characters on your roster at, say, level 300. The level of your opponents would still be determined solely by your chosen SCL. 

This would keep the high-level (450+) characters on high-end rosters from crushing lower SCL opponents into whatever you get when you apply crushing force to something that is already crushed into paste. 

Obviously, each SCL would have a higher cap, with the current maximum SCL (presumably) being "unlimited". 

It's an intriguing idea. 

I understood the OPs point, but made my comments generally broad that and dynamic scaling is an open door for the devs to make thins uneven/bad.  

More targeted at the OPs suggestions: So we invest effort and sometimes real money into levels for characters just for the devs to then take the levels we got with those away/not let us use them?  Emphatically no!

MarkersMake

Well, it wouldn't be in any way dynamic scaling. It would be a flat level cap for each SCL. 

And nobody would be taking anything away from anyone. Choosing to enter a level-capped SCL would be entirely your choice. 

I also agree with you that the rewards should show greater separation between SCL tiers. That would motivate people to play up to their roster. 

But I do like the idea of effectively not allowing anti-tank weapons in an archery competition. 

Bowgentle

Why would I WANT to give everyone equal chances for placement?
That's the mistake PVE has been making for the past 3 years.

Strong rosters SHOULD crush weaker rosters, else why build a strong roster in the first place?

I've played like a maniac for the last 1322 days, So if you want to compete with me in PVE, put in the time and money.

zodiac339

broll said:

MarkersMake said:

For clarity, the OP is saying that (for example) SCL7 would place a cap (or maybe a toque) on all characters on your roster at, say, level 300. The level of your opponents would still be determined solely by your chosen SCL. 

This would keep the high-level (450+) characters on high-end rosters from crushing lower SCL opponents into whatever you get when you apply crushing force to something that is already crushed into paste. 

Obviously, each SCL would have a higher cap, with the current maximum SCL (presumably) being "unlimited". 

It's an intriguing idea. 

I understood the OPs point, but made my comments generally broad that and dynamic scaling is an open door for the devs to make thins uneven/bad.  

More targeted at the OPs suggestions: So we invest effort and sometimes real money into levels for characters just for the devs to then take the levels we got with those away/not let us use them?  Emphatically no!

Of course you can invest and use your power. You just can't use full power when dropping down to SCL6 from 8 and wiping the floor with everything. If you want to use your biggest and best at their full power, you have to fight in the SCL you belong in. Players with a max level 281 Champ, boosting to 379, wouldn't be able to go up to (prospective) SCL9 where enemies cap to a minimum of 450 and effectively compete with players who actually have level 370+ legendaries and/or 450 plus epics. They would have to keep in the place intended for them, 8, to face appropriate enemies. And if you expect them to stay in their place getting rewards they are supposed to get rather than move up and compete for things some people have said they don't deserve to compete for, they why would you expect a super roster to be able to move down and take things not meant for them. Likewise, that player with the champ boosted to 379 isn't supposed to be moving down to 7 or 6 at full power and easily take the things there from players meant to be there.

It could also be something for a bit of fun. Take your roster down to say SCL5 and make a team of Champed Magneto MN, red Cyclops, and Hulkbuster for a red cascade strategy, then try to figure out which one is actually strongest when they all get scaled down to about 150. With complaints from 5 tier players that they have a massive roster they can't use, they have the option to move down and actually use it without also having the ability to abuse it. Something needs to be implemented to maintain fairness in the community. From inception, that has been enemies that scale, but they don't scale properly to maintain an even experience: thus, SCL based enemy levels. That causes an even wider imbalance in experience: thus, SCL based roster level capping. You can use everything, but not full power everywhere.

acescracked

This is a Play to Win game.

Someone has built up a roster they should be able to crush whomever.

Crnch73

MarkersMake said:

But I do like the idea of effectively not allowing anti-tank weapons in an archery competition. 

I understand the sentiment here. But think of it this way... Maybe a bow and arrow costs a few hundred bucks. An anti-tank weapon can be millions. An archery contest pays out money relative to the weapons required, so maybe it pays out $1,000.

If someone brings a million dollar weapon to win a $1,000 prize, they're crazy. They'll win, but their return on investment is tiny. The only way to get this game to work is that they incentivize the anti-tank gun to enter the anti-tank level of play. So, make the highest SCL's pay out a bunch more, and the anti-tank guy will not show up to your archery competition.

Making SCL-linked difficulty is a fantastic idea, now they need to tweak rewards and it will be basically perfect.

Jaedenkaal

The problem you are describing is a reward problem, not a roster strength problem.

zodiac339

Crnch73 said:

MarkersMake said:

But I do like the idea of effectively not allowing anti-tank weapons in an archery competition. 

I understand the sentiment here. But think of it this way... Maybe a bow and arrow costs a few hundred bucks. An anti-tank weapon can be millions. An archery contest pays out money relative to the weapons required, so maybe it pays out $1,000.

If someone brings a million dollar weapon to win a $1,000 prize, they're crazy. They'll win, but their return on investment is tiny. The only way to get this game to work is that they incentivize the anti-tank gun to enter the anti-tank level of play. So, make the highest SCL's pay out a bunch more, and the anti-tank guy will not show up to your archery competition.

Making SCL-linked difficulty is a fantastic idea, now they need to tweak rewards and it will be basically perfect.

Then think of it as bringing a ringer to the company softball game. The (semi)pro buddy of yours can get your side a win, but it's super dishonorable and often has rules against it. There's a place for pros. It's at the higher levels. If you go to minors and community leagues, expect a handicap.

broll

zodiac339 said:

Crnch73 said:

MarkersMake said:

But I do like the idea of effectively not allowing anti-tank weapons in an archery competition. 

I understand the sentiment here. But think of it this way... Maybe a bow and arrow costs a few hundred bucks. An anti-tank weapon can be millions. An archery contest pays out money relative to the weapons required, so maybe it pays out $1,000.

If someone brings a million dollar weapon to win a $1,000 prize, they're crazy. They'll win, but their return on investment is tiny. The only way to get this game to work is that they incentivize the anti-tank gun to enter the anti-tank level of play. So, make the highest SCL's pay out a bunch more, and the anti-tank guy will not show up to your archery competition.

Making SCL-linked difficulty is a fantastic idea, now they need to tweak rewards and it will be basically perfect.

Then think of it as bringing a ringer to the company softball game. The (semi)pro buddy of yours can get your side a win, but it's super dishonorable and often has rules against it. There's a place for pros. It's at the higher levels. If you go to minors and community leagues, expect a handicap.

But this 'bringing a ringer' idea isn't limited to them.  Most of us have 5* that are essentially useless and may never, ever, get used.  Now if we want we can have a 5* that's 50-100 levels above our top characters and not 13 covered and have it not make it unplayable.  Instead you've got a tank to stand behind and do some killer match damage.  Sure it wouldn't get your clear speeds up to a full 5* roster, but as noted ad nausium if they open 9 & 10 and/or fix the reward gaps that would be a non-issue.

zodiac339

broll said:

zodiac339 said:

Crnch73 said:

MarkersMake said:

But I do like the idea of effectively not allowing anti-tank weapons in an archery competition. 

I understand the sentiment here. But think of it this way... Maybe a bow and arrow costs a few hundred bucks. An anti-tank weapon can be millions. An archery contest pays out money relative to the weapons required, so maybe it pays out $1,000.

If someone brings a million dollar weapon to win a $1,000 prize, they're crazy. They'll win, but their return on investment is tiny. The only way to get this game to work is that they incentivize the anti-tank gun to enter the anti-tank level of play. So, make the highest SCL's pay out a bunch more, and the anti-tank guy will not show up to your archery competition.

Making SCL-linked difficulty is a fantastic idea, now they need to tweak rewards and it will be basically perfect.

Then think of it as bringing a ringer to the company softball game. The (semi)pro buddy of yours can get your side a win, but it's super dishonorable and often has rules against it. There's a place for pros. It's at the higher levels. If you go to minors and community leagues, expect a handicap.

But this 'bringing a ringer' idea isn't limited to them.  Most of us have 5* that are essentially useless and may never, ever, get used.  Now if we want we can have a 5* that's 50-100 levels above our top characters and not 13 covered and have it not make it unplayable.  Instead you've got a tank to stand behind and do some killer match damage.  Sure it wouldn't get your clear speeds up to a full 5* roster, but as noted ad nausium if they open 9 & 10 and/or fix the reward gaps that would be a non-issue.

That's what I would refer to as a tier transition. When I was starting to Champ Legendaries, one of the first I had was Nick Fury. He tended to die rather than be useful, and much like the described 5*, I ended up not using him. Tier transitions are like that.

Also, such a 5* wouldn't put you into competition for static level SCL8 by itself. I think you can see that, but it's not completely clear.

StreetPreacher

We want the carrot, not the stick. Open up SCL 9 with rewards so satisfying that there'd be no reason for a day 1300 player to troll in the lower SCL's.

zodiac339

StreetPreacher said:

We want the carrot, not the stick. Open up SCL 9 with rewards so satisfying that there'd be no reason for a day 1300 player to troll in the lower SCL's.

Racing analogies? Your alliance commander is the stick. All rewards are carrots. Traditional scaling means that all carrots are at the same distance. Static levels mean that the tastier carrot is a little farther, so you, the simple minded horse, just goes for the closer one.

Another racing analogy is bringing a greyhound to a race meant for daschunds. It might be hilarious, but it would be aginst the race rules, regardless of how expensive it was to buy the greyhound or how much time you spent raising it. If you want to join a daschund race, your greyhound should temporarily be a daschund.

StreetPreacher

If the game minimizes your roster when you queue below your maximum allowed SCL (i.e. the stick, aka penalization), then what's the point of progress? The carrot scenario (i.e. encouragement) is where people with built up rosters would be fools to compete "down" when the rewards for competing at their max SCL are too good to pass up. I don't like the stick method because it is a slippery slope leading to nerfs.

zodiac339

StreetPreacher said:

If the game minimizes your roster when you queue below your maximum allowed SCL (i.e. the stick, aka penalization), then what's the point of progress? The carrot scenario (i.e. encouragement) is where people with built up rosters would be fools to compete "down" when the rewards for competing at their max SCL are too good to pass up. I don't like the stick method because it is a slippery slope leading to nerfs.

It doesn't work well as a literal analogy. The stick and carrot refer to how you motivate a horse: the stick (riding crop) is negative motivation, hitting the horse's flank to encourage speed. The carrot is positive reinforcement, dangling something the horse wants in front so that it will move forward to get it.
Reducing roster levels down to a cap appropriate to that SCL would be more of a tether, keeping an untamed horse in its yard to keep it from charging wildly into the pen that you're training colts in and potentially hurting the colts or trampling someone. Or a lead to guide them safely through it.
I know you want SCL9. I know you want a bigger carrot. But you're expecting way too much from the developers in thinking it will actually be a big enough carrot to motivate people to not keep aiming down to take the easier one. It's the quick and dirty path, and a lot of players are taking it instead of doing what they can handle.

MarkersMake

StreetPreacher said:

If the game minimizes your roster when you queue below your maximum allowed SCL (i.e. the stick, aka penalization), then what's the point of progress? 

I think that's overly dramatic. 

For example, let's say that SCL 7 is for rosters with characters between 200 and 300 (seems about right for mature 3* champs and newer 4* champs), with appropriate enemies (max level 320ish?) and there is a level 300 cap, as I proposed earlier. For a typical roster in that range, that's probably a 90 minute (+/- 20 minutes) clear to timers. 

 A 5* roster with 450+ 5*s, and 320+ 4* champs is going to utterly dominate that event. Like, 25 minute clears. But a level 300 cap will still leave that person with the best roster in that SCL. Unless you have Parkinson's, you will still win. 

But it won't take 25 minutes. It'll be between 45 and 60 minutes instead; fast enough that your roster still gives you a massive advantage, but long enough that you're going to have to put some actual effort into it. It's not just 20 minutes of "hey look at me, I'm so awesome", or trolling for lolz. It's not a huge disincentive, but it's probably enough to dissuade all but the most determined SCL slummers.

Does d3 need to make the reward differences between SCL tiers larger, to make competing at your level worthwhile? Absolutely. Carrots are great, but remember that carrots are rarely effective without any stick whatsoever - and this isn't a big stick. 

As for the argument that "I've spent years and lots of money on this game, so I should be able to crush whomever I want, whenever I want" - EDIT (removed unnecessary remark) - that's just an excuse to wade into the kiddie pool. Those players aren't trying to compete with you - you are going out of your way to compete with them. 

acescracked

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/60/605cbfa5ccdb40c9ad9ae8e9ce150395948840bb21c4e74dfa85950825f02e11.jpg