sinnerjfl wrote: NorthernPolarity wrote: sinnerjfl wrote: Do you not realize that while fighting lvl 230's is hard enough as it is, most of our rosters can only go to lvl 141? The AI might be dumb as bricks but when you add ONE HUNDRED levels to the enemy, it more than makes up for it. Knowing how well you guys implemented scaling before, this sure is gonna go well isnt it? Think you're missing the point of scaling. We've been beating level 230s with 141s: the idea is that they want to scale enemies to a point where it's actually challenging to the playerbase. Can you do that reliably without Spider-Man? Lvl 230 Daken without stunlock, every match will hit for like 1000 dmg after a few turns, how the hell do you beat that?
NorthernPolarity wrote: sinnerjfl wrote: Do you not realize that while fighting lvl 230's is hard enough as it is, most of our rosters can only go to lvl 141? The AI might be dumb as bricks but when you add ONE HUNDRED levels to the enemy, it more than makes up for it. Knowing how well you guys implemented scaling before, this sure is gonna go well isnt it? Think you're missing the point of scaling. We've been beating level 230s with 141s: the idea is that they want to scale enemies to a point where it's actually challenging to the playerbase.
sinnerjfl wrote: Do you not realize that while fighting lvl 230's is hard enough as it is, most of our rosters can only go to lvl 141? The AI might be dumb as bricks but when you add ONE HUNDRED levels to the enemy, it more than makes up for it. Knowing how well you guys implemented scaling before, this sure is gonna go well isnt it?
Knock3r wrote: The difficulty for a particular player should be based solely on his own performance, not someone else's.
IceIX wrote: Player 2 can fight 230s and win fairly easily. They may be healing in battle, they may be stunlocking, they may be that good. They're still beating the 230 encounters without issue. By raising the bar to 400, we've left room for Player 2 to grow while essentially pushing Player 1 into the same position Player 3 now enjoys.
Puritas wrote: IceIX wrote: Player 2 can fight 230s and win fairly easily. They may be healing in battle, they may be stunlocking, they may be that good. They're still beating the 230 encounters without issue. By raising the bar to 400, we've left room for Player 2 to grow while essentially pushing Player 1 into the same position Player 3 now enjoys. I'd like to raise the point that winning through healing/stunlocking vs 230s takes a solid 8-10 minutes instead of the 2-3 minutes each that players have when they haven't hit the scaling wall. Extra 5-8 minutes per fight in an event is hardly "without issue" in my book, considering that means an extra 4+ hours of my life gone to get the same result. Thankfully I discovered dropping the required two characters that made those fights "fairly easy" gave the game experience room to grow for me a week or so before I ragequit.
IceIX wrote: Increasing the maximum enemy level allows us to provide more challenges for the players that are higher in overall roster level and not create a roadblock where those players that are beating down 230s with ease are making scaling work harder for all the other players who aren't there yet.
locked wrote: Community scaling:
Knock3r wrote: IceIX wrote: Increasing the maximum enemy level allows us to provide more challenges for the players that are higher in overall roster level and not create a roadblock where those players that are beating down 230s with ease are making scaling work harder for all the other players who aren't there yet. GUYS, GUYS, GUYS... try to look on the brighter side of things. Two PvE events from now when the limit cap becomes lvl 640 because everyone's hitting the 400 wall, you'll look back at this moment and laugh.
NorthernPolarity wrote: Another random thought: scaling makes me actively NOT want to play the event. If I'm grinding nodes for rewards, then I'm increasing my MMR and scaling, which I obviously do not want. I can't simply pick up the game and grind the nodes randomly anymore: I need to minimize the amount of time spent playing the game if I want to keep nodes at a reasonable level, and ride rubberbanding to victory. A feature that decreases user engagement feels like a bad idea in general.