Would you be in favor of Hero level caps on different SCLs in PVE?

Options
RunningMan
RunningMan Posts: 28 Just Dropped In
edited August 2017 in MPQ General Discussion
Many people have noticed that with the recent changes to PVE where enemy levels are set to a fixed scaling that often times, they are beaten for placement by rosters that sit at a weight class far above their own, to the point of getting extremely frustrated.  Sure, releasing SCL9 and SCL10 may help, but there will always still be some who jump in to SCLs way lower than targeted simply because of faster clear times or the time/reward ratio is better.

What if there were Hero level caps on the different SCLs (pre-boost).  Like:
  SCL1-2   Cap:40
  SCL3-4   Cap:144
  SCL5-6   Cap:266
  SCL7-8   Cap:370
  SCL9-10 Cap:550

Heroes above the level for the chosen SCL would get auto-scaled down to the cap, and then boosts would get applied afterwards.

Would you be in favor of Hero level caps on different SCLs in PVE? 89 votes

Yes
35%
SpoitKolenceWonko33killercoolBlerghcarrion_pigeonsGrumpySmurf1002moss04smecherNick441234halirinzodiac339OrionKannanMrCroaker64DaSalwaywrethJohnnyBloodKGBrevskipRunningMan 32 votes
No
64%
jojeda654DormammuBeast1970ahunter5zulux21elvy75xKOBALTxamarreroslaxer723Ebolamonkey84DapperChewieacescrackedDartmaster01BrandmireTiggidad1amonddawgfmftintleeleeshineZootSaxTrilateralus 57 votes
«13

Comments

  • Blindman13
    Blindman13 Posts: 504 Critical Contributor
    Options
    No
    The thing deterring high level rosters from dropping down SCLs is the lesser rewards they earn by doing so.  
    I am building my 4*s now. I play SCL8 for the higher ISO and the better covers from progression. If a 5* roster wants to run through SCL 5 or 6 just to say they got a top 10 finish, let them have the lower rewards than if they had tried a higher level.
  • RunningMan
    RunningMan Posts: 28 Just Dropped In
    Options
    Yes
    What about for new release events where there really aren't any difference in rewards between SCL 6/7/8?  Covers are the most valuable parts of those events, and they all reward the same amount.  ISO/CP/HP are the afterthought in new release events.
  • Beer40
    Beer40 Posts: 826 Critical Contributor
    Options
    No
    No, for all the reasons stated above and also I don't think there's any way they could properly manage that code. Even if I thought your idea was good, which I don't, I think it would cause so many bugs it wouldn't even get considered.
  • Qubort
    Qubort Posts: 203 Tile Toppler
    Options
    No

    Why is there frustration in someone with a stronger roster placing higher? I'll sometimes drop to 6 in pvp if I want the 4star placement. It's easier to be number 1 than t10 in scl8. In your scenario, I wouldn't be able to play in 6 nor compete in 8. This would encourage people to softcap and never develop their rosters.

  • fmftint
    fmftint Posts: 3,653 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    No
    No. Just open SCL 9/10, adjust the entry numbers, let things fall in line naturally
  • carrion_pigeons
    carrion_pigeons Posts: 942 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Yes
    I'm up for things that segregate rosters more.  5* rosters should be competing against 5* rosters (with commensurate rewards), and 3* rosters should be competing against 3* rosters (with commensurate rewards).  This would help with that, especially now that SCLs affect difficulty.

    It really isn't about "better rosters ought to be able to do better".  That should be accounted for by improved rewards in appropriate SCLs.  It's about the fact that the metagame isn't well-tuned across tiers.  You just aren't going to have very good games when 2*s are playing against 3*s or 5*s are playing against 4*s, and it doesn't really matter which side (attacking or defending) is advantaged.  You try playing against Carol or Medusa while you're in the 3* tier: there's no good choices there.  The match is just inherently going to suck.  And equivalently, if you're running 5* Thanos against 4*s, your game is going to feel extremely boring.

    If they reformatted the SCLs to actually restrict what tiers people could play with, they could also change around which actual enemies show up in the nodes.  It would lead to more variety and people could change things up at will.  The idea has a lot of potential.

    It is a pretty half-baked one, though, and would need a lot of thought put into it for it to be anything but yet another half-baked idea the devs thought was good for the first ten minutes it's in the game before the complaints start rolling in.  
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    No
    I voted no because there will come a day when my dislike of the Dark Avengers grows strong enough that it will be worth it to me to bring champed, boosted 4*'s into SCL 1 to utterly crush all memory of them from existence.  
  • Rod5
    Rod5 Posts: 585 Critical Contributor
    Options
    ZootSax said:
    I voted no because there will come a day when my dislike of the Dark Avengers grows strong enough that it will be worth it to me to bring champed, boosted 4*'s into SCL 1 to utterly crush all memory of them from existence.  
    Lol. The trouble is you'll get T1 and the rewards will be multiple Moonstone covers...
  • ZootSax
    ZootSax Posts: 1,819 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    No
    Rod5 said:
    ZootSax said:
    I voted no because there will come a day when my dislike of the Dark Avengers grows strong enough that it will be worth it to me to bring champed, boosted 4*'s into SCL 1 to utterly crush all memory of them from existence.  
    Lol. The trouble is you'll get T1 and the rewards will be multiple Moonstone covers...

    If that's the price of utterly annihilating those bums, so be it...if the 3* & 4* progression at higher SCL's aren't one's I'm too interested in ;)
  • Wumpushunter
    Wumpushunter Posts: 627 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Yes
    Yes as long as the cap is as you set them and not lower.  I have a feeling that if they did this they would set it at the scaling end.
  • zodiac339
    zodiac339 Posts: 1,948 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Yes
    I would suggest each SCL have its own cap rather than the same cap being applied to two SCLs. I had actually made a post in Suggestions about those caps. I think they were about 16% above the enemy caps? Interestingly, that put SCL6 at a hero cap of 255, right at the starting point for Epics. Boosts would not apply after the cap; heros could be boosted up to, but not exceed that cap. SCL8 would have no cap at first, but would have one of 385 once SCL9 was released.
    I disagree that coding would be a nightmare for this. It seems to me that a code saying "scale hero down to [set level]" would be easier than "average [top 5 heroes], multiply enemy level node 4 by [average * factor], multiply enemy node 5 by [average * factor], multiply enemy node 6 by [average * factor], etc.
    Naturally there are those who dislike the idea. They felt punished before for strengthening their rosters (and it tended to sound like they were due to poor balance in scaling), and feel like they would be punished for it again (they would not, this would maintain a balanced experience for those players playing within their intended SCL, while allowing full power to those playing at max level). They want to take less time playing, and playing with heroes only 30 instead of 130 levels above the enemy is slower (I have zero sympathy; you shouldn't expect to get through 36 mission clears in 20-30 minutes). They want to avoid their peers? (Again, zero sympathy if that's the plan.)
    I like the idea and would like to see it at least tested.
  • Borstock
    Borstock Posts: 2,546 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    No
    I voted no. I don't mind getting beaten out on a few rewards when the roster I'm losing to is legit stronger/better. Just motivates me to keep at it. Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.
  • zodiac339
    zodiac339 Posts: 1,948 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Yes
    Borstock said:
    Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.
    And that is the problem attitude. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting it. Nobody's stopping me from guaranteeing that people can't even compete at the level they're expected to be in." Reversal of injustice does not make one just. It makes one petty.
  • zulux21
    zulux21 Posts: 249 Tile Toppler
    Options
    No
    no, it's nice to be able to freely level characters that I like and play what ever PVE level that I feel like facing for the rewards I want.

    the solution should be one of the following 2 things instead. (or even both of them)

    A. remove placement in general and make all the rewards purely progression.
    B. Make SCL8's rewards quite a bit better to actually make the increase in difficulty and effort worth it.

    as the rewards currently are you are asking if someone wants to walk across the street for $100 vs run 5 miles for $110. Sure for some people running 5 miles isn't much harder than walking across the street, but in general people would rather just walk across the street :P

    it's always been a major problem for SCL8, that the increase in rewards are absolutely pathetic compared to SCL7.
  • zodiac339
    zodiac339 Posts: 1,948 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Yes
    Borstock said:
    zodiac339 said:
    Borstock said:
    Nothing stopping me from hitting below my weight class, either.
    And that is the problem attitude. "Nobody's stopping me from exploiting it. Nobody's stopping me from guaranteeing that people can't even compete at the level they're expected to be in." Reversal of injustice does not make one just. It makes one petty.
    There's nothing petty about it. If I make the choice to have an easier time in the game and willingly forfeit the better rewards, there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe I don't want to spend the time one event burning through health packs and grinding against high level opponents. Maybe I want the game to be a little easier for a few days. Maybe I want to play with unboosted portions of my roster. Everyone can choose to do it, which makes it fair, not petty. 

    And for the record, I've never done it. I always compete in the highest CL offered, which now has me competing against stronger rosters than my own regularly. 
    Ah, then you aren't a tier 5 player who had been suffering from inbalanced scaling. I too remain in SCL 8, which holds the same levels I was facing before (aside from 2* required Hey Demi! Please cap that so our 2-stars aren't a burden!) I try to resist the temptation to compete down. Top 100 on a release gets me all I actually need.
    The issue, you understand, isn't "having an easier time". It's "hitting below your weight class". Many players are simply unable to play up to the highest tier, so they have nowhere else to go and belong in SCL 7 or 6 (or lower, development depending) they deserve a place to develop with fair chance to compete with their peers while developing. They can no longer hit upwards with the old scaling and still compete with veterans, if they were. They must stay in the lower zone until ready to advance. Every cover they can manage to get helps that, and so placing is important for them to get there. With no actual leash of any kind (I truly doubt reward differences will ever be significant enough to change things), competition with their peers is taken away. Stronger rosters encroach where they don't belong and, with little effort, eliminate the chance to place. I could do it. I know I could. Even in 8, Grockmora with Medusa cuts through missions like the Scythe of Death. If I went to 7, facing enemies with far less health, I would be part of the problem. With capping, not denying a roster, but bringing what tou have in line with intended difficulty within the tier, I would still be murdering missions probably, but it would at least give the players who actually belong there a fighting chance.

Categories