eLevels vs. Regular Levels (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance



Message

NDB -> eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/4/2018 19:42:59)

Currently, eLevels are broken down like this:

Rank 1-7 Legendary = Effective Level 40
Rank 8-19 Legendary = Effective Level 41
Rank 20-35 Legendary = Effective Level 42
Rank 36-55 Legendary = Effective Level 43
Rank 56-79 Legendary = Effective Level 44
Rank 80+ Legendary = Effective Level 45

This looks okay on paper, especially because the gaps increase as you go down due to diminishing returns from Legendary Ranks, but has anybody actually calculated, precisely, how much one regular Level enhances a character versus how much one eLevel enhances a character, on average? I think most people already have the sense that one eLevel does not quite provide you with the same benefits as a regular level... but to settle things once and for all, I went through the trouble of calculating the differences myself. A spreadsheet comparing the average benefits of a regular Level versus an eLevel can be found here: Level versus eLevel.

But for those that don't want to go through the trouble of reading through all the numbers, a quick run down is this:

One eLevel, on average (16 Legendary points, spreading evenly among the 8 PvP categories), provides: 6 Primary, 8 Sidearm, 8 Aux, 8 Robot, 4 Defense, 4 Resistance, 4 more points from Field Medic, and decreases the Energy cost of cores by 2.

For the same categories, one Level, on average, provides: 6.15 Primary (this actually improves skills like Massacre, etc., unlike the bonus from Ranks), 6.15 Sidearm, 6.67 Aux, 0 Robot, 3.10 Defense/Resistance, 6.67 more points from Field Medic, and decreases the Energy cost of cores by 0. This is not too far off from an eLevel already, BUT there are far, FAR more benefits after that:

To name a few, you get:
  • 5 more base Health, 4 more base Energy
  • 4 more stats to be distributed as you choose, and 2 more stat mods = 6 stats (which translates to better damage, better defenses, elevated luck factor %'s , and improved skills)
  • A Generator/Piston that does 6.15 more, 0.67 more minimum Crit damage, and gain Rage slightly faster (less points needed to fill the Rage meter)
  • Minor to moderate improvements to almost every Skill, including the energy manipulation Skills, plus 1 more Skill point.

    This is a MASSIVE holistic buff for your character.

    To top if off, with every eLevel, it increases the Underdog bonuses of the opponent which, on average, gives them 1.6 more stats and a whopping 10% more first strike chance per Level.

    Conclusion: To treat eLevels and being anywhere near the equivalent of a regular Level is, quite obviously, ridiculous.

    Therefore, the way that Ranks are broken into eLevels ought to be revised, perhaps such that there are as few as 2-3 eLevels instead of 5.

    --> However, because Ranks provide benefits in such small increments, unlike regular Levels, breaking them into eLevels at all is inherently unfair. Consider, for example, that a Rank 19 is treated as a Level 42 while a Rank 20 is treated a Level 43, despite the fact that there is only a single Rank between them. The Underdog bonuses that the Rank 19 receives greatly outweighs the minuscule benefit that one Legendary point benefits the Rank 20.

    So, where do we go from there???

    PS: Medical Mastery could definitely use a buff to +3 per point and Energy Efficiency desperately needs a makeover. It would be better if Energy Efficiency were buffed to 20 and affected Generator/Piston so that they return more Energy. Or, although it may sound like a long shot, it could stay the way it is but affect Skills as well as Skill Cores to make up for the fact that eLevels don't improve Skills at all.



    • Xendran -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/4/2018 21:10:07)

    Begs the question of what the purpose of legendary points is when they have to do all this work to negate their effects.



    NDB -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/4/2018 21:28:19)

    Because the player base is too small to have closer matchups.



    One Winged Angel1357 -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/4/2018 21:41:18)

    As I've said for far too long now underdog can only solve the issues of level differences or eLevel differences effectively. To have it address both has only caused the system to fail



    NDB -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/5/2018 11:00:43)

    ^Well, I suppose the purpose of this post was to clarify this to the community in an objective manner.

    Either Underdog or Ranks need to go, but at this time, I think it should be Underdog. Low Rank people can complain but, in theory, one day they will be high Rank too, and all high Rank people were once low Rank. I don't understand why it's "okay" for a Rank 1 Level 40 to stomp a Level 35 but when a Rank 80+ Level 40 stomps a Rank 1 Level 40 (also "effectively" 5 levels lower), there should be such outcry. Seems like a double standard to me; just because two players both "look" like Level 40's, they should be treated equally via Underdog, but simultaneously there is a system implemented that treats them as much as 5 levels apart.

    Despite that I appreciate all the effort NW and the testers have been putting into the game recently, I have to roll my eyes at this statement from the September 21, 2018 Design Notes:

    quote:

    Underdog - The community seems divided on whether or not Underdog buffs are too strong and in need of nerfs or necessary to compete against Legendary opponents.


    The problem with this statement is that it completely ignores the fact that most of the time, Legendary players are fighting other Legendary players, not level 38's or 39's. Sure, a Level 38 fighting a Rank 80 might "need" Underdog to compete. But when a Rank 80 fights a Rank 70, why in the world is the Rank 70 getting a 10% higher chance to go first and 3 more stats? The only difference between the two is usually just 10 less energy to use Skill Cores from Energy Efficiency.

    To sum up, if you are going to treat Rank 80s like Level 45, make them as strong as a real Level 45 would be. If not, get rid of Underdog between Legendary players or nerf it hard. No more double standards. Lowering the number of eLevels is probably actually a bad idea because it will amplify the flaw with eLevels as described in my original post (e.g. if there were only two eLevels with Rank 35 as the cutoff, then a Rank 1 would be treated as the same as a Rank 35 and a Rank 36 would treated the same as a Rank 80 which is also not fair).



    One Winged Angel1357 -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/5/2018 13:35:43)

    When presented with the choice between the two I'd rather move legendary ranks to a pure PvE thing. The player pool isn't exactly great and while a lot of changes were made to help alleviate these things you still run into the issue where most of us are are crowded at the cap ready to stomp on any new blood we can find.

    Removing eLevels from the equation would, on paper, bring us all down back to level 40 where the difference becomes skill level. No more underdog messing with which level forty gets buffed and it can be fine tuned to make sure it's accurately boosting power for low leveled players to fight high leveled players.

    There is also the issue in saying low ranks get over it. Without having the data from NW to see where the level clumps are to predict player drop off you have to assume when you force a player to choose between grinding to suck less or putting the game down I would wager more put the game down. We had a similar issue way back in the day when the level cap was 32 and if you didn't pay real world money you used a primary 4-10 levels under the cap just to not use a sword. That had two hard walls to climb in getting from level 28 to 32 and again in your massive lack of stats. Both of these things lead people to quit and never look back. I can almost assure you from reading posts about people finishing the tutorial and starting their journey into ranks that more people quit the game instead of listening to the sage advice of the community and grinding NPC's to rank 20.

    But I get it most people would view losing ranks as a slap in the face and you know tough luck. People will always be putting the game so changes made need to be based on retaining new players which is not something the rank system supports



    .Lord Ginger. -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/5/2018 20:21:30)

    Nightwraith has said countless times that he will not take away ranks, so underdog should be the thing to go. Balancing underdog can't happen because then what's the point of ranks?

    Grinding comes with a struggle. If you're not dedicated to get good, then this isn't the game for you.

    Unless you count juggernaut, then it's fine, because this mode is mindless and you can join competitive factions this way and socialize.



    NDB -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/5/2018 23:01:10)

    @One Winged Angel1357
    I agree with .Lord Ginger. that doing anything drastic to Ranks would be detrimental to this game at this point, and it will simply never happen. Ranks are a fundamental aspect of the game in that they provide goals; you can’t have a functioning game without goals. And you can’t retain players, new or old, unless you have long term ones. Ranks, I reckon, are still the main reason why server numbers and leaderboards are up by a good 50% every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday during Power Weekend besides the obvious fact that people generally have more free time during these days. By changing Ranks to PvE only, it significantly diminishes their appeal as a goal, and this is coming from someone who plays Juggernaut about 98% of the time. Taking Ranks away or making them PvE only might make low Rank players happy temporarily but would seriously ruin the game as a whole, cause new players to quit when they reach Level 40, cause outrage among a significant number of old players, and cause high Rank players to quit right away. Also, as a low Rank player, getting beaten by a high Rank player in PvP is motivating in the long run in the sense that it makes you want to get to a higher Rank, even if it is discouraging to lose in that moment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    It’s just seriously horrible that in a far-more-than-non-negligible number of cases, being higher Rank actually hurts you due to Underdog that should lead us all to the consensus (I hope) that Ranks and Underdog can’t co-exist. But because I’m still not confident that the higher ups (*cough* NW *cough* Testers *cough cough*) are convinced yet, if they are reading this thread at all, let’s use a simple heuristic:

    Let’s say that Underdog tier 1, which provides 3 stats and 10% more chance to go first, increases his/her chance of winning against the higher Rank opponent by x%.

    Let's say every Rank that the higher Rank player has over the low Rank player increases his/her chance of winning against the lower Rank opponent by y%.

    Now, it's pretty clear that one tier of Underdog greatly outweighs the benefit of a single Rank. However, without a sophisticated simulation model, we will never figure out by what exactly what factor. But for the purpose of making a point, let's just say that x% is equal to, say, 5y% at the first bracket, 7y% at the second bracket, 9y% at the third bracket and so on to account for the diminishing returns for the usefulness of Ranks. That is, for the first bracket, the Underdog bonuses are equivalent to about 5 Ranks in terms of increasing your % chance of winning. If anything, this might be an underestimate (the Underdog is worth more), but we can roll with it for now.

    Using the current eLevel breakup, shown again below for convenience,

    Rank 1-7 Legendary = Effective Level 40
    Rank 8-19 Legendary = Effective Level 41
    Rank 20-35 Legendary = Effective Level 42
    Rank 36-55 Legendary = Effective Level 43
    Rank 56-79 Legendary = Effective Level 44
    Rank 80+ Legendary = Effective Level 45

    that means every single time the a lower Rank player with Underdog tier 1 fights a higher Rank player who is <5 Ranks higher for the first bracket, he/she is actually statistically advantaged despite being lower Rank. This would apply to when a Rank 4 fights a Rank 8, a Rank 5 fights a Rank 8, a Rank 6 fights a Rank 8, a Rank 7 fights a Rank 8, a Rank 5 fights a Rank 9, a Rank 6 fights a Rank 9, a Rank 6 fights a Rank 10, a Rank 7 fights a Rank 9, a Rank 7 fights a Rank 10, and a Rank 7 fights a Rank 11 (total of 10 cases). If you sum all of the cases for each of the five eLevel brackets, the total number of these "bad" cases is something like 10+14+16+20+24 = 84. Now let's calculate the total number of combinations in which a player receives Underdog tier 1 within the first 80 Ranks (because it gets too complicated when you include players above Rank 80): 7*12 + 12*16 + 16*20 + 20*24 +1 = 1077 cases. The rate of cases in which Underdog tier 1 benefits the lower Rank more than the higher Rank player is then 84/1077 = 7.8% of cases. Of course, these are all really rough estimates, but what this means based on these numbers is that no matter what Rank you are, in about 1 in 13 fights, you get screwed over by Underdog. Obviously, if you are just above the cutoff (like Rank 37), then your chance of getting screwed over is higher than if you were a different Rank and vice versa. I

    I can't speak for others, but this is definitely enough to piss me off considering the amount of work its takes to get Ranks. In fact, even if these estimates are all wrong and the true ratio is something like 1 in 100 battles, it would still piss me off because the whole point of Ranks is that they are purely supposed to BENEFIT you. In zero cases should it EVER hurt you but, unfortunately, even without a heuristic, we all know very well that it's happening.

    But let's not stop there. Let’s take a look at the fact that the last 10-40 Ranks provide next to no benefits for just about every build in the game. Even a 5 Focus build which can more or less utilize every category gets almost no advantage from the Energy Efficiency. For a Strength build, the benefit from Robot Damage, Energy Efficiency, Auxiliary Damage, and to an extent, Sidearm Damage and Medical Mastery, is extremely minimal. At this point I would say x% is somewhere in the range of being worth 55y% (one tier of Underdog is worth 55 Ranks). Going from Rank 35ish to 80 is about as suicidal as it gets for a Strength build because these Ranks increase your win rate in battle by an almost negligible amount while increasing the Underdog bonuses of the opponent by an 3 more tiers. This is egregious considering the amount of work it takes to gain 55 Ranks. Just think about it: if you are a Strength build fighting another player with and identical build (stat for stat, Skill for Skill, Skill Cores for Skill Cores, etc.), would you rather have 20 more Robot damage, 40 more Auxiliary damage, 10 less energy to use Skill Cores, 20 more heal (this is worth less than a Level on heal), and 40 more Sidearm Damage OR +2 Strength, +2 Dex, +2 Tech, and a 30% higher chance of going first?

    There is something called "diminishing returns", but in this case... "straight up useless" better describes those last stretch of Ranks for any build.

    Bottom line: Please remove Underdog for all Level 40 vs. Level 40 battles.



    Xendran -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/6/2018 4:20:41)

    quote:

    Grinding comes with a struggle. If you're not dedicated to get good, then this isn't the game for you.



    Having an objective advantage isn't getting good, increasing your skill level in the game is.



    NDB -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/6/2018 9:31:04)

    @Xendran
    You seem to forget that figuring out how to beat someone with an objective advantage is the ultimate test of skill level. Unless your grind is purely NPC and Juggernaut, being dedicated to get good, in part, means being dedicated to figure out how to win while you are a low Rank. That’s why a Level 40 player is, on average, more skilled then a level 30 player, and why a high Rank Level 40 player is, on average, more skilled than a low Rank one.

    Besides, what you are saying really should not be an excuse for removing Ranks, even if there were truth in it, because like we’ve been over multiple times already, that will never really happen for the reasons I stated in my previous post.



    Satafou -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/6/2018 12:24:46)

    @NDB Skill isn't based on beating someone with an objective advantage. It may be one of the many examples to display skill, however a game should not be based on beating people with objective advantages in the first place, hence why the varium advantage was removed. In all honesty legendary ranks should of never of been a thing, and the level cap should of just increased, with possibly just extra stats or additional stats but there being a more achievable cap.

    I know the comparison I am away to make is of two completely different games however it holds a valid point. In league of legends one's skill is determined by their rank e.g. Diamond V. However a silver V player could still potentially outplay and defeat a diamond V player, although unlikely. The difference in this is that if the silver player has achieved this feat, it is based solely on skill as the Diamond V player has no objective advantage, no additional stats. If you compare this to a rank 1 Epicduel player defeating a rank 60 player 2 arguments can be made: underdog gave the rank 1 player RNG luck or the lvl 60 player had too much stat advantages. Therefore it can be said that the more skillful player can't necessarily be shown through winning or losing the battle. Whereas in the league of legends scenario there is a clear distinction between the better or worse player even with the rank aspect removed through the outcome of the PVP.

    In all honesty I know it simply won't happen but legendary ranks should just be removed, yes it would suck for those of higher ranks due to feeling mugged off, but in terms of what is actually healthy for the PVP balance of the game, it should be done.




    NDB -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/6/2018 13:13:43)

    @Satafou
    Then why is it okay that we have levels? Why would increasing the Level cap be any sort of solution to making it so the game "is not about beating people with objective advantages". If anything, it would make it worse because, from what I've shown, Levels provide a much greater objective advantage than Ranks do. Why would a Level 30 fighting a Level 34 not have the exact same two arguments you stated applied to it as your example of a Rank 1 fighting a Rank 60? We can argue tha RNG favored the 30 or that objective advantages favored the 34. As far as I'm concerned, if Levels are okay, Ranks are too. However, continuing to increase the Level cap indefinitely seems like a much worse idea than Ranks to me. Even having 50 or 60 Levels would cause a whole lot more issues than Ranks do now in terms of balance and match making.

    I know you might want to respond to this, but I'd rather you not if you can help it. Of course, if you really want to, that's okay too. But it just doesn't seem beneficial at his point to debate about whether Ranks should have been introduced after it has already occurred because it has and there's no going back. That wasn't the main point of this thread and I'd hate for it to deviate in that direction. Instead, we should be discussing the best ways to solve issues without removing Ranks. Thanks for understanding.



    Cataleptic -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/6/2018 16:15:34)

    @NDB
    quote:

    Unless your grind is purely NPC and Juggernaut, being dedicated to get good, in part, means being dedicated to figure out how to win while you are a low Rank.

    I wouldn't call facing npcs all day trying to become good as much as it is lvling quickly. You stand a better chance at fighting actual players to become better than npcs who can't operate on their own.

    @NDB
    quote:

    That’s why a Level 40 player is, on average, more skilled then a level 30 player, and why a high Rank Level 40 player is, on average, more skilled than a low Rank one.

    Would it also mean that a player with more wins than the other, although with a lower lvl/rank, is better than the one that is a higher lvl? I'm afraid not. Being lvl 40 has little to do with your skills these days. As you said, some players fight npcs to get better and in doing so they also lvl up easily that way.


    The game, in general, doesn't require that much skill to be good these days. The awful balances that is released on a daily bases can attest to that, really.



    One Winged Angel1357 -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/7/2018 9:07:54)

    @NBD please call me OWA it is easier for everyone. So outside of legendary bosses, the rank shops, and rank achievements what are the draws to ranking up? You yourself are making this post to point out that being a higher rank is disadvantageous so why would being at a disadvantage be the major drive for players? Also remember removing varium advantages was never going to happen until it did and unlike legendary ranks that drove EpicDuel's revenue stream which is one of the few numbers Artix Entertainment looks at for supporting a project.

    @Lord Ginger the grind is already there. Just to get up to playing with the cap players you need to get to level 38 which is 30,833 experience or 3246 battles at a 50% win rate, 2869 wins at a 75% win rate, and 2570 wins at a 100% win rate. Given that most of these fights will be against NPC's that only spawn after a waiting period it wouldn't be unfair to assume match times greater than 2 minutes so you are looking at 5140-6492 minutes or 85.6-108.2 hours or 3.56-4.5083 days. People criticized Assassin's Creed: Odyssey for taking 15 hours to pick up. Final Fantasy 13 was blasted for having a 30 hour tutorial. These guys have literally nothing on the slog EpicDuel puts you in to finally get rolling on that sweet turn based PvP end game action. Yes this discounts power hours and power weekends but hey if you want to only dump two full days into the game to reach the actual meat and bones just throw away an entire weekend, including sleep, and you'll almost be looking at Final Fantasy numbers for tutorial length

    In case I haven't been clear up to this point I think the level system in this game is very flawed. The cap is way too high and was only pushed that high by player demand to never finish leveling. The chase was leveling up. Ranks were introduced so that players could level up forever* and the devs would never have to touch the level cap again. And it worked. With ranks you rarely see players asking for a level cap increase. But if we are determined to not touch the issues of ranks then drastically reduce the EXP requirements. Underdog mode can't be as detrimental if people are blowing through levels and spending less time benefiting from the larger boosts of underdog. More people will enter the cap pool if it doesn't take them two days of NPC fights to get there. And for the existing players hey you benefit from more frequent level ups even if it means absolutely nothing because there is a cap on power gain.



    NDB -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/7/2018 10:07:08)

    @OWA
    quote:

    So outside of legendary bosses, the rank shops, and rank achievements what are the draws to ranking up? You yourself are making this post to point out that being a higher rank is disadvantageous so why would being at a disadvantage be the major drive for players?

    Because they were meant to be advantageous and 99% of players believe that they are because in most cases they still are, just not in all. The point of the original post was to examine the extent to which they can be disadvantageous and in what cases. Currently, these are things that most players do not think about or are even aware of when they are trying to rank up.

    How much grind is considered "a lot" will vary greatly from person to person. I'm not sure why you make it sound like leveling to 38 is necessarily the most horrible thing in the world, is no fun, and that the game isn't at all viable until you reach that level. I can assure you that at least for 1vs1, over 50% of battles will be against real players depending on what time of day you play, and it used to not be like that. Treating it as the equivalent of a tutorial seems pretty rough to me. It really was never meant to be one.

    quote:

    But if we are determined to not touch the issues of ranks then drastically reduce the EXP requirements.

    I think we are all pretty determined to touch the issues of Rank. That's what this whole thread was supposed to be about, although it's deviated quite a bit here and there. My suggestion has always been to remove Underdog between Level 40 players because that seems to be the most feasible and effective approach at this point. If you think reducing the Experience requirements is a good idea, great. Now we are actually getting some ideas on the board. Personally, I think both ideas can be implemented because they attack different parts of the issue. I do just want to point out, though, that they already have lowered the time it takes to level/rank multiple times already, first when they lowered the XP curve to get to Level 40, then when they added NPCs to battles to decrease wait time and make it easier to get wins, and now with the addition of Power Weekends which effectively make getting Experience easier by a good 50% (up to 200% if you only play on weekends).



    Xendran -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/7/2018 17:54:28)

    quote:

    Then why is it okay that we have levels?


    The way they exist now it's honestly not, and is one of the things that will prevent this game from competing with other 1v1 games.
    If levels didn't upgrade your raw power, but instead gave you access to equipment that allow different types of builds, that would be much more acceptable.

    Alternatively, if levels were taken down to an extremely small number, balance would be far better.
    If you had 4 levels of character power, you could have extreme jumps in power and gear between each for a feeling of great progression, and then fully segment players by these tiers rather than having a +/-5 level power gap because of there being 10x as many power tiers.

    This game acts like a PvE MMO with the features it has, but it's not. It's much more like hearthstone, but with a bunch of peripheral features added to facilitate the social aspect of the game.



    .Lord Ginger. -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/7/2018 18:23:11)

    We need to focus on things that could realistically happen and stay on topic. We are talking about ranks, and underdog once you’re at the cap of level 40 being removed.



    Xendran -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/7/2018 20:50:16)

    I'm not suggesting it for the game, i'm just showing an example of alternative systems that show some problems with the level/underdog/legendary system.



    Mother1 -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/8/2018 22:35:37)

    Underdog as it stands right now works well for Player vs Player issues when not dealing with legendary ranked matches. In this case it closes the advantage gap between the lower and higher level. However when it comes to legendary battles and to some normal players vs legendary ranks especially at the higher ranks it throw balance out of wack.

    A level 80 ranked player for example gets underdog against a level 100 ranked player. This shouldn't be happening when 9/10 the player who is higher ranked has only the NPC ranks equipped which give them no advantage in battle. The same can be said for getting underdog ranks for the unranked player for these 20 ranks. if anything these NPC ranks should not be counted towards underdog period.

    As for why a level cap wasn't increase IIRC the staff at the time didn't want to keep just increasing the cap only for those Hard core players who grind it in a few days to complain about it later. This was happening for the longest time and not to mention with levels also comes skill points which also become a balance issue especially in this horrid energy meta. Skill points minus certain moves increases energy costs of moves which in turn throws builds out of wack due to having to compensate other stat points to make said builds work effectively.

    The other reason ranks were added IIRC was because some players wanted a form of enhancements back despite how broken the originals to some extent were. I say some because while all could get them FTP players had to spend an arm and a leg to get them vs P2P who could get them instantly which was why the original enhancements were an issue. Had that issue been address back then (like the staff was originally doing with the gears near the end of delta) and FTP could get them as quickly as P2P they wouldn't have needed to be removed since that issue of balance wouldn't have been as big a problem if one at all. But alas it was never done and to supply the demand of those who wanted them back but on a lesser scale this was added as the incentive to make players go and get the ranks. Otherwise I doubt anyone would have even bothered.



    .Lord Ginger. -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (11/9/2018 8:20:03)

    ^ They uh... removed underdog that 80 gets from 100 a while ago...like before they quit the game a couple of years ago.



    sippingcider -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (5/11/2019 13:24:05)

    This does seem like a big issue. The last 30 ranks are useless (since they go into energy efficiency and NPC categories), so rank 70 should be = to rank 100. I have two ideas to present to help fix this:

    1.) UnderCat, like underdog, this gives you a bonus based on eLevel difference. Maybe something small, like +2 starting hp per eLevel difference. Underdog would no longer look at eLevel's, just at level difference. Underdogs would get along with undercats, so a level 37 against a rank 30 lvl 40 would get 3 underdogs and 30 undercats. If a player's rank is > 70, for the purpose of counting undercats their rank is 70.

    2.) Extend categories' capacity, so you can put more than 10 points into a single category. I don't know how they would fit this on the Legendary Mode screen, but balance wise it would keep ranks mattering longer.



    .Lord Ginger. -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (5/11/2019 16:11:16)

    This man really posted in a 6 month old forum post



    sippingcider -> RE: eLevels vs. Regular Levels (5/12/2019 15:12:43)

    Bah, 6 months is but the blink of an eye for a SunGuardian!



    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
    0.171875