Problem with low covers 5* in 2* or 3* roster

aa25

@Brigby

This topic is probably already under your radar. I just want to make a thread that collects opinion and maybe can serve as a warning for fellow gamers who just started the game.

Core problem: Strength of 5* characters at low level and/or low covers is not evaluated correctly.

When new players with 2* or early 3* rosters happen to get a 5* cover and roster it, it just ruins their roster. (I'm not being snarky or sarcastic here) Long time ago, a single cover 5* (lv255) was considered to be as strong as a fully covered and champed 4* (lv270) which we all know that it is not true. Some change has been made, however, I don't think the problem is solved. There are many threads that new players ask for helps or tips when they notice a sudden jump in the scaling/MMR when they roster a 5*.

The following is probably a very selfish request. Since you also have a roster that any 5* will be poisonous. Is it possible for you to talk to the devs to get a duplicated roster of yours and try to roster a 5* on that duped roster to see the change in the difficulty I mentioned about ?. (Please don't do this on your main roster, it will kill your roster.) And if possible, try that with different covers of different 5*s. Some cover can carried its weight a little, some is not. Right now is probably the best (or worst ?) time to check this since two out of three 5* in the latest won't carry its own weight (Dr. Oct and 5*Starlord).

Note that the problem is not only with a single 5* cover, it is also with low cover 5* too. Like some players who have 5 covers of one 5* character and level it up to lv300 or so which is still not anywhere near champed 4* in term of strength.

Brigby

Hi @aa25
Thanks for bringing this topic up! The developers are definitely aware of this concern, which is why we've previously run several events testing the change to difficulty levels.

The idea we're testing is to have enemy difficulty levels increase in pre-determined increments based on an event's Clearance Level, as opposed to character level in a player's roster. If this change was to be implemented, then players would no longer need to worry about recruiting a character that would cause them to "punch above their weight," so to speak.

We've already gone through 2 test events, as well as collected a large amount of feedback from the developer survey, so rest assured that this change is already well in the review and evaluation process.

aa25

@Brigby

Thanks for a lightning fast response.

What about PvP match making ? That is another area that hasn't been touched or mentioned for long time and those 5* are killing many new players.

Brigby

I'm not 100% sure if these changes with be applied to both PvE and PvP events, but I will make sure that the developers are aware that this change would also be appreciated in PvP matchmaking.

aa25

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

Bowgentle

Wait hang on.
No these changes would NOT be appreciated in PVP matchmaking.
That's a completely different discussion.

Milk Jugz

Bowgentle said:

Wait hang on.
No these changes would NOT be appreciated in PVP matchmaking.
That's a completely different discussion.

How could this affect you? This is about 2* and 3* rosters rostering their first, second, third 5* covers

Bowgentle

Milk Jugz said:

Bowgentle said:

Wait hang on.
No these changes would NOT be appreciated in PVP matchmaking.
That's a completely different discussion.

How could this affect you? This is about 2* and 3* rosters rostering their first, second, third 5* covers

Seeing Brigby talk about applying fixed enemy levels to PVE then suddenly connecting this to PVP gives me instant nightmares of softcappers ruling cl7 brackets in PVP because they only see like rosters up until a million Points.

Milk Jugz

Bowgentle said:

Milk Jugz said:

Bowgentle said:

Wait hang on.
No these changes would NOT be appreciated in PVP matchmaking.
That's a completely different discussion.

How could this affect you? This is about 2* and 3* rosters rostering their first, second, third 5* covers

Seeing Brigby talk about applying fixed enemy levels to PVE then suddenly connecting this to PVP gives me instant nightmares of softcappers ruling cl7 brackets in PVP because they only see like rosters up until a million Points.

Haha, very true, given the opportunity it seems they screw more things up with their "fixes" than they fix

Bowgentle

Milk Jugz said:

Bowgentle said:

Milk Jugz said:

Bowgentle said:

Wait hang on.
No these changes would NOT be appreciated in PVP matchmaking.
That's a completely different discussion.

How could this affect you? This is about 2* and 3* rosters rostering their first, second, third 5* covers

Seeing Brigby talk about applying fixed enemy levels to PVE then suddenly connecting this to PVP gives me instant nightmares of softcappers ruling cl7 brackets in PVP because they only see like rosters up until a million Points.

Haha, very true, given the opportunity it seems they screw more things up with their "fixes" than they fix

Exactly

Khanwulf

PVP, and the matchmaking nightmare that falls out of its implementation, is a whole other bundle of terrible incentives, content gates and unremitting horror. (It's possible I'm biased, but of course don't think so.)

The one benefit that can come from SCL-based scaling is to firmly bury softcapping and the (negative) impact of a few outsized heroes on overall PvE performance. To accomplish this the devs will need to carefully consider the rewards structures however, as these forums and surveys have pointed out.

--Khanwulf

Brigby

Hi Everyone,

I brought up the topic of PvP and event difficulty scaling, and rest assured, they said that any evaluations to PvP would be addressed separately from PvE.

Vhailorx

Milk Jugz said:

Bowgentle said:

Wait hang on.
No these changes would NOT be appreciated in PVP matchmaking.
That's a completely different discussion.

How could this affect you? This is about 2* and 3* rosters rostering their first, second, third 5* covers

I think Bow is talking about the idea of tying opponent levels to shield clearance level in PVP is what Bow finds problematic. 

Where scaling/mmr is based entirely upon roster, then leveling one's roster may turn out to be a detriment where the system is not properly calibrated (this created tons of problems, including both the "2* roster + 1-cover 5*" issue that OP identified, and the "5* rosters faced insanely over-leveled opponents and couldn't grind nearly as fast as soft-cappers" problem).  setting difficulty based on clearance level works well for PVE because it will let players feel stronger and get better rewards as they build their rosters without putting them at a competitive disadvantage relative to those players who soft-cap. 

But PVP is a whole different game, and replacing an MMR system with a clearance-level system would effectively be rebulding PVP from the ground up.  I don't think players or devs would have much fun with such a massive upheaval.  Better to tweak the existing MMR system first (and PLEASE replace stupid shield cooldowns with a much more sensible cap on the number of shields we can buy per event.  It would have the same ultimate effect upon scoring, but would be MUCH less of an inconvenience for your most dedicated players.)

smkspy

Really wish this was something devs took into account back when they first released 5 stars. All those surfer, goblin, oml, bssm covers I had to sell...ugh. it was only about 7 or 8 covers, but still.

Nepenthe

Brigby said:

Hi Everyone,

I brought up the topic of PvP and event difficulty scaling, and rest assured, they said that any evaluations to PvP would be addressed separately from PvE.

Thank goodness!  I was just about to post about how PvP would need its own test runs for the change, as it's a totally different beast.

@Brigby Any idea what sort of timeframe we're looking at before either the next PvE scaling test run or else SCL-based difficulty becoming the new normal?

Brigby

@Nepenthe
Unfortunately I don't have any definitive time-frame available, however I will be sure to ping the developers for an update either end of this week or beginning of next.

Update: Definitely pinging them beginning of next week, because I will be at the D23 convention end of this week.

Bowgentle

Brigby said:

Hi Everyone,

I brought up the topic of PvP and event difficulty scaling, and rest assured, they said that any evaluations to PvP would be addressed separately from PvE.

Excellent

Carry on.

ejmus

 That's ok @Brigby, we'd love to get an undefinite time-frame for anything you know of.

MaskedMan

Actually I didn't care for the changes in PVE.  The leveling was too drastic between 7 and 8, so that neither level was actually fun to play at.

Beer40

For the longest time I had a 1/1/0 285 OML with a (mostly championed) 3* roster with no one above level 180 and 0 4* champions. 

I didn't find the scaling to be unbearable at all in PVE. Sure, some fights were very tough, and I'd eat health packs occasionally, but everything was still manageable. It made me think of a video game where you find it too easy and bump up your difficulty level. 

That's just my experience though. I realize its different for everyone. 

I will say that maybe the answer is as simple as selling the cover. I know that's not an ideal scenario for hard to come by covers, but with RNG dictating much of our rosters anyway, plenty of other people have different issues with 5* covers. Why should this get more attention from the developers than the people who've played a long time and draw a 6th cover of the same color for a 5* and have no other option to sell because they pulled it from Classics and can't swap?

I know its apples and oranges...but I personally there are more pressing issues with 5* covers than this one. And those should be handled first.

Brigby

ejmus said:

 That's ok Brigby, we'd love to get an undefinite time-frame for anything you know of.

Soon™