What if scaling was based purely on how many health points you finished your last node with?
Those with high levels chars, and those who stunlock and heal back to full health would scale higher and quicker than those who don’t have a healer, or who just manage to squeak out a win with 2 characters downed.
I think it would promote more variety in characters used as well, you’d probably stop seeing so much Spidey in these events if people knew that their next node would be that much harder if they finished full health.
Certainly it would stop situations like finding all characters Lvl 167 in the first node of the event when your highest character is a buffed Ares 125.
Then we’d just stop healing back at the end of the battle, and heal in the prologue. Get Ares to injure himself or Hulk to harm the whole team before finishing the enemy. Someone with a decent roster would be able to ensure a scaling lower than yours.
I’d go find the node with M Storm and poke her repeatedly with a stick after killing off her teammates. Or let one green rocket explode for 4800 damage and almost kill all my team.
No, whatever the issues with scaling it still beats the living heck out of mindless grinding. I love this game but if I need to play 10 hours a day to compete then I quit.
Because none of those dozen good ways were actually any rational person’s definition of ‘good’. They mainly involved a complete denial that grinding exists. Or claim that for no rational reason people won’t grind once there are no obstacles to grinding. Or tried to redefine grinding as something other than having to play 4+ hours per day. We’ve seen what happens when there is no scaling in the original Hulk releases and they were terrible. People lost half their Christmas breaks to the grinding monster.
Reports are mixed on that “terrible” from the forums I gather the folks who now sit with several 141s call it terrible and those in the second line or below liked it. A quite wider population. But that debate is really pointless, I’m happy to accept that grinding is not a good goal and if only the play time is the factor it will not be good. You can kill grinding quite simple: forget resets, and limit the point yield to less repeats. Say if only 2 repeats yield point and no resets it sets a sensible upper bound, right?
Nodes can be with static levels, but a variety of them, and bringing in different rules (buffs, locks) that create competitive difference.
Also the ties could be handled the “fair” way, granting all equal points the same (better) prizes, what would just eliminate problems bound to event timing. You could just really play what you like, when you like, how you like and get the same result for the same victories.
That’s just one approach. The idea about purely personal scaling also makes sense, where every win adds to levels of that node and to the local prizes too – the limits need some more work.
The suggestion group about scrapping position prizes also makes sense keeping to only progression.
IMO the position you state above that all suggestions were all that 1-dimensional is more than unfair.
Not hard to make nodes in a way it not be possible. Actually that is the part even their excel-sheet minded folks could get right.
Meanwhile from the Sim thread:
For the record: in this tournament I personally played barely and exploited all the “tech”, have 97/99 personal scaling and if just keep on playing have top10 combined in the pocket (likely #1) and position in subs only limited by the amount of non-roster guys (have at least one in both). I see why this “sit back and just win” style is impressive.
But I still think it is bad, it is ultimately unfair in countless ways and while it does provide the prizes, it definitely lacks any fun. Maybe the time measure is low, but to me this feels the nothing-but-grind right after the first round.
And I’d rather fight all the other nodes if just to see how it works – but must resist the temptation. If a game forces the strategy to not play it, it’s the antithesis of what it supposed to stand for.
That’s how the high command took my daddy^Wgame from me.
Scaling and rubberbanding are a necessary evil in this type of game. It’s just a matter of tuning the knobs enough to make it fun while still providing a challenge.
To be fair, “this type of game” should be clearly defined as “competitive PVE”. If there were no rank rewards in PVE, only progression, this would be a moot point. In such a scenario, rubberbanding would be gone, as would the community scaling, leaving only the personal scaling in place, which is a far more manageable beast.
I don’t have ‘several 141’s’. I call it terrible. Putting peopeo who disagree with you in some special group so you can dismiss their point of view doesn’t make your case any more valid.
Nodes can be with static levels, but a variety of them, and bringing in different rules (buffs, locks) that create competitive difference.
Also the ties could be handled the “fair” way, granting all equal points the same (better) prizes, what would just eliminate problems bound to event timing. You could just really play what you like, when you like, how you like and get the same result for the same victories.
So that would be original Hulk. Been there, ground that. Hated by many. This ‘good’ idea was already tried and disproved. It ruined a lot of people’s Christmasses.
That’s just one approach. The idea about purely personal scaling also makes sense, where every win adds to levels of that node and to the local prizes too – the limits need some more work.
How does this one make sense?
There are two ways it can go. Firstly I get more event points if I face higher scaled enemies, so you can kiss progression rewards and placement awards goodbye.
Or secondly, and this is I think more likely your angle, you can grind the same event points on easier opponents turning it into a grinding competition. Same as ‘good’ suggestion one.
The suggestion group about scrapping position prizes also makes sense keeping to only progression.
Yes, so now I don’t have to get more points than my opponents, I have to beat some static targets. Which means yet again grinding to get anything worthwhile because they only want .1% of participants to get a 4* and .5% to get 2 covers. So they need to set those static targets at the point where 99.5% of people will give up out of boredom because they removed the challenge of scaling.
IMO the position you state above that all suggestions were all that 1-dimensional is more than unfair.
No, they are all grinding. You just choose to avoid working out what you have to do to ‘win’ in each case by only offering a suggestion and never extrapolating to its logical solution. All your solutions to scaling are grinding in a different coat of paint.
Might it have been from the suggestion ‘let us clear each node twice in each sub before you start the scaling’? Thereby requiring everyone to complete every node an additional two times to what they have to do now to get the same result? I’m not sure how that doesn’t meet a definition of pointless grinding.
If it wasn’t that then I am unsure where you are getting the reference.
You seem just snip the points – in hulk there was reset every X hours and nodes gave points many times. There is a substantial difference grinding-wize if a node can give you points 20 times or 10 or 5 or 2. If you actually think it’s no difference elaborate.
Why on Earth would it require everyone to complete the node two extra times? For people who just want to complete the nodes once or twice, they can, and for people who want to compete for covers, they already have to get way more points than you would recieve for doing that, so absolutely nothing would change
Ok, for you it seem an important aspect, please provide some working definition or write around or give examples so we have common ground to discuss. It shows that different people have different meaning for this term that confuses the conversation.
