Is this the only game where leveling up is actually bad?

Unknown

Can't call myself a gamer by any stretch, more of a puzzle battle lover. My favorite old school games were "Super Puzzle Fighter II - TURBO" on Sega Saturn and "Super Mario RPG: Legend of the 7 Stars" on SNES and this game blends those together nicely with Marvel characters. I mean, what's not to love?

A few months ago, when I was nearing max 2* land, I read these forums and found that people with 3* rosters were constantly complaining about people placing very high or winning brackets with very weak rosters. That's when I learned about scaling which lead me to ask the question: what's the point of leveling up your characters if your opponents with just level up with you while the rewards stay the same? I was sitting on a ton of ISO at the time but couldn't find a valid reason to actually level my guys up.

Eventually I decided to take some of my fully covered 3*s to 141 (per polarity's guide) thinking that it would help deter attackers in PvP and thus make it a bit easier to obtain more 3* covers. This logic seemed to make sense to me at the time cause I felt like there should be SOME benefit of having 3* characters at max level, right? This seemed to work OK for a while until they changed the new bracketing system. Now it quickly just becomes 141s beating up on each other and due to the A.I.'s strategy flaws it's pretty much easy to defeat ANY 141 teams if you're running a 141 team. This effectively nullifies the benefit of deterring attackers since all of the 141 rosters are not scared of each other and now we're all lumped together.

I read a lot on these forums (more than my post count would suggest) and there seems to be quite a few pretty reasonable complaints about the risk/reward issue that scaling and sharding have created where you have to fight long, drawn out battles against 3x141s just to get 20-30 pvp points and a measly 100 ISO. People that have spent a lot of time and money on the game are quitting by the droves because the gameplay experience has fallen off dramatically and every decision that the devs make is pretty obviously catering towards converting f2p players into paying customers while subsequently quietly giving the finger to veteran players. It also appears to be pretty evident that they aren't going to communicate with us on these topics because (and this is just my guess) the truth would reveal the fact that they care more about profits than they do people, and that's just not good business.

So I am back at square one, trying to find a reason why it makes sense to level any characters up at all? I wonder if there's a "sweet spot" that exists like keeping all your 3*s at 85 or lower to actually see some benefits of leveling up or if it's pointless.

***GAMEPLAY IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTION WARNING*** (DEVS PLEASE STOP READING)
How about having restricted entry events/missions, where you need characters over level X in order to attempt to complete the mission (and ideally that that mission's rewards would be better than you would be able to get in the normal missions). That's just ONE idea I came up with off the top of my head that would make sense. Incentivize us to WANT to have higher level characters, it can only be good for you as a business, no?

It's a shame because I know so many of us absolutely love so many things about this game, but this leveling conundrum rather baffling to me. Have you guys that have played other character leveling games like WoW ever seen anything like this before? Can anyone outline some of the benefits of leveling up to me that I may be missing? Or should i just start a new account without putting any money into it and stay in 1* sandbox lalaland?

That's it for now, rant issues for another day include:

-The recent ISO inflow drought...i mean "adjustment"
-The US dollar cost to buy ISO (seriously, $350.00 to max level ONE 3* character?! Does it come with 7 amazing bl0wj0bs?)
-Server crashes at hilariously inconvenient times (when they structure the events to be time of play specific to win)
-Season competition structure as it relates to burnout and alliance guilt
-Alliance chat box functionality. "I mean it's like, COME AWN" -Jimmy Valmer

Unknown

By all means keep your characters low. That makes you fodder for everyone who has levelled up their roster.

There are clear benefits to having a high level roster and the fact that the top players in most events have them should demonstrate that.

TheHueyFreeman

jozier wrote:

By all means keep your characters low. That makes you fodder for everyone who has levelled up their roster.

There are clear benefits to having a high level roster and the fact that the top players in most events have them should demonstrate that.

Agreed.

Also, there are several games where there are benifets to not leveling up (skyrim and some final fantasies come to mind)

HailMary

Duffman85 wrote:

A few months ago, when I was nearing max 2* land, I read these forums and found that people with 3* rosters were constantly complaining about people placing very high or winning brackets with very weak rosters. That's when I learned about scaling which lead me to ask the question: what's the point of leveling up your characters if your opponents with just level up with you while the rewards stay the same? I was sitting on a ton of ISO at the time but couldn't find a valid reason to actually level my guys up.

Eventually I decided to take some of my fully covered 3*s to 141 (per polarity's guide) thinking that it would help deter attackers in PvP and thus make it a bit easier to obtain more 3* covers. This logic seemed to make sense to me at the time cause I felt like there should be SOME benefit of having 3* characters at max level, right? This seemed to work OK for a while until they changed the new bracketing system. Now it quickly just becomes 141s beating up on each other and due to the A.I.'s strategy flaws it's pretty much easy to defeat ANY 141 teams if you're running a 141 team. This effectively nullifies the benefit of deterring attackers since all of the 141 rosters are not scared of each other and now we're all lumped together.

More recently, 2* players have been complaining about multi-141 players dominating the Top 10/25 of every high-level bracket -- and by high-level bracket, I mean "brackets that most L85 forumites are being bracketed into." Those "weaker people winning events" complaints were almost exclusively talking about PVE.

Duffman85 wrote:

It also appears to be pretty evident that they aren't going to communicate with us on these topics because (and this is just my guess) the truth would reveal the fact that they care more about profits than they do people, and that's just not good business.

Your timing needs work: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8706

Duffman85 wrote:

So I am back at square one, trying to find a reason why it makes sense to level any characters up at all?

Ceteris paribus, having 141s helps you win more than not having 141s.

Duffman85 wrote:

Can anyone outline some of the benefits of leveling up to me that I may be missing?

You win more.

Duffman85 wrote:

-The recent ISO inflow drought...i mean "adjustment"

Uhhh, what drought? People get way more Iso nowadays than they did a couple months ago.

Duffman85 wrote:

-The US dollar cost to buy ISO (seriously, $350.00 to max level ONE 3* character?! Does it come with 7 amazing bl0wj0bs?)

The underlying message is "Don't Iso-max 3*s with IRL bling-blang, unless you have an Amex black card. Earn it by playing the game." -- seems pretty clear to me.

Duffman85 wrote:

-Server crashes at hilariously inconvenient times (when they structure the events to be time of play specific to win)

I doubt that servers can ever crash at convenient times.

Duffman85 wrote:

-Season competition structure as it relates to burnout and alliance guilt

That's a matter of personal preference/drive. Adjust your expectations/goals, and you'll feel better. Many alliances have done so.

Duffman85 wrote:

-Alliance chat box functionality. "I mean it's like, COME AWN" -Jimmy Valmer

Yep, this could use some touch-up.

Unknown

Good points HM, just venting more than anything else. Didn't realize that L85s were seeing 141s that regularly. In that regard it's better to have them then to not have them. Point taken.

Yeah, def noticed Ice's question thread AFTER posting my complaint about their silence (D'oh!). Nice to finally get some answers to these things.

Katai

This is compounded with the fact that some characters are actually better when underleveled.

The fact of the matter is that some characters are better off being underleveled. For example, the Hood gains very little from going from level 100 to level 141. All his abilities are available, and do not scale with level. The only thing he gains is maybe 1000hp total. However, by keeping him at level 100, his yellow stays weaker than Patch Wolverine's yellow. This means that you can safely match yellow tiles without putting The Hood in harm's way. This trumps the 1000hp advantage from leveling him up.

Another example. Depending on your team composition, you may want to keep your characters at level 140 instead of 141. This way, you can hide them behind tanks in the same way. Wolverine continues to be a good sustain-tank. Keeping Thor a few levels weaker means that Wolverine can absorb more of the damage, which he will heal very quickly. It saves you from spending health-packs on Thor in the long run.

Compounded again for Classic Daken, who can be the sustain tank for blue/purple/black characters.

There is also no way to de-level a character. This means that if you level The Hood above 102, he becomes far weaker due to his yellow overtaking Patch Wolverine's yellow.

Unknown

Not bad, but not required.

Also, Oblivion is the worst offender that comes to mind.

Unknown

Katai wrote:

This is compounded with the fact that some characters are actually better when underleveled.

The fact of the matter is that some characters are better off being underleveled. For example, the Hood gains very little from going from level 100 to level 141. All his abilities are available, and do not scale with level. The only thing he gains is maybe 1000hp total. However, by keeping him at level 100, his yellow stays weaker than Patch Wolverine's yellow. This means that you can safely match yellow tiles without putting The Hood in harm's way. This trumps the 1000hp advantage from leveling him up.

Another example. Depending on your team composition, you may want to keep your characters at level 140 instead of 141. This way, you can hide them behind tanks in the same way. Wolverine continues to be a good sustain-tank. Keeping Thor a few levels weaker means that Wolverine can absorb more of the damage, which he will heal very quickly. It saves you from spending health-packs on Thor in the long run.

Compounded again for Classic Daken, who can be the sustain tank for blue/purple/black characters.

There is also no way to de-level a character. This means that if you level The Hood above 102, he becomes far weaker due to his yellow overtaking Patch Wolverine's yellow.

Ya would be nice if they implemented a de-leveling or de-spec feature (I'm sure it would be at pennies on the dollar of initial investment) for these type of team composition strategy issues. Don't see why they wouldn't since we may eventually re-level them back up spending more ISO in the process.

HailMary

Duffman85 wrote:

Ya would be nice if they implemented a de-leveling or de-spec feature (I'm sure it would be at pennies on the dollar of initial investment) for these type of team composition strategy issues. Don't see why they wouldn't since we may eventually re-level them back up spending more ISO in the process.

One reason could be that Iso then ceases to be a precious commodity once you've gotten an absolute total of, say, 300K. You could just slingshot Iso back and forth between various characters, never maxing more than three, ever. I don't think such an issue is too big of a deal, though. It's more likely that such an issue affects a tiny fraction of the playerbase, and even though, only marginally (much like the 5/5/2 IM40 build issue), so it's, at best, on the back burner.

Also, I don't run Patch, but I run LT + Hood. I disagree about his HP difference being negligible between L100 and L141. Increasing his defensive survivability a further 3-4 turns can easily cause a 50-point score differential in one defensive fight: 25-point defensive loss vs. a 25-point defensive win. For example, it could mean the difference between getting no LT powers off while taking some big hits to the face, and leeching enough yellow/green to obliterate the opponent with Thunder Strike + CTS while completely shutting down their expensive powers.

HairyDave

HailMary wrote:

More recently, 2* players have been complaining about multi-141 players dominating the Top 10/25 of every high-level bracket -- and by high-level bracket, I mean "brackets that most L85 forumites are being bracketed into."

Which was more a result of season points than anything else. I can understand people pushing for new characters but it gets a little frustrating when the rewards are for 3*s many people have maxed already (Punisher, Cmags, Patch, etc) so you're only going to be burning them for ISO.

Thankfully, it seems to have died down a little for season two so us little fish have a chance at some tasty covers for now

(That or my previous performances have been so bad I've been rewarded with really easy brackets)

LordWill

Duff,

I understand what you are saying in your post. I get it. I felt the same way. And no you aren't crazy.

I come from a Ultima Online, EQ, , DAoC, WoW, etc background so I "get" it.

PVE and PVP are two different events with different rules.

Scaling doesn't have as much to do (maybe none at all) with roster strength as it does with winning. Now before you go down that rabbit hole, yes it doesn't make sense.

So in pve, the more you win then the harder it gets no matter what level you are. It's based on off you roster strength for sure and wins so no matter what it will scale accordingly.

Pvp is different so obviously the big fish trump the little fish.

I just wanted to say you aren't alone and I have asked the same question, then just decided I was gonna level up and be done with it and keep moving forward...

HailMary

HairyDave wrote:

Which was more a result of season points than anything else. I can understand people pushing for new characters but it gets a little frustrating when the rewards are for 3*s many people have maxed already (Punisher, Cmags, Patch, etc) so you're only going to be burning them for ISO.

Thankfully, it seems to have died down a little for season two so us little fish have a chance at some tasty covers for now

(That or my previous performances have been so bad I've been rewarded with really easy brackets)

Yeah, Season 1 competition really kicked things up about 8 notches. Even as a member of an alliance that never had "OMG, win, dammit!" goals, I shielded for PVPs that awarded Loki & Rags covers. Loki... & Rags. I'm never doing that again.

I think a lot of high-level players are thinking along similar lines, so yeah, we've seen death brackets settle down a bit. For example, as a completely anecdotal reference point, I accidentally got Top 5 in the most recent Fatal Attraction with 854 points. I was pretty much just screwing around completely unshielded, which was refreshing. I'm taking it easy for the Psy PVP, too, since I've got a 4/4/5 CMags, I don't really care about Season points, just want my alliance to get the alliance cover, and the solitary CMags blue I want for respec is coming in 3 days.

All that being said, I think the new longevity-based bracketing mechanic was a significant factor in death brackets -- Ice, in his Q&A, mentions that the skewing effect was a bit bigger than the devs intended, and they're actively tweaking it. Season 1 fervor can be blamed for general point creep, but the fact remains that some low/mid-level players were consistently placed into brackets where 800 could win #1, while some mid/high-level players were consistently placed into brackets where 1000 points might not get you Top 10.