A More Robust Outpost Classification System
It would seem as if the community has landed divided on "impossible" outposts or giant killboxes. Many ideas have been brought forward, but ultimately it would appear that the stance is; the tools are in place to avoid these bases if desired and there is no good "fix" for this without devaluing the build system.
What if we were to buff out the classification system for raids. I haven't quite fully developed this idea yet so I'd love to hear more feedback from everyone so we can offer up a proposition that seems functional for the community as a whole, rather than catering to any one specific playstyle.
1.) Add a "Type" classification for outposts. For example, Killbox, Impossible, Maze, Artistic, Fun etc.. Something that can give a prospective raider a better idea of what an outpost is before selecting it. Perhaps builders could be given the option to assign a type classification to their outpost and then be verified by raiders. For instance, a builder could assign their outpost as Type:Killbox. Then, upon completing a raid, probably within the same screen or a screen following the accolades, allow the raider to verify if the type classification seems suitable for that base. If a certain threshold of "no" votes come in, the base could be deactivated until the classification type is altered (not simply changed and then switched back to the original class).
2.) Allow raiders to set preferences for outpost types. In doing so, you could flesh out the matchmaking system to provide outpost suggestions which are more desirable to any given raider. Doing so will prevent the number of "rage quits" on more difficult bases, allowing builders to continue building as they please without the worry of too many people leaving them empty handed for their efforts.
Let's hear some ideas for some outpost "TYPES" that could help make matchmaking a better fit for builders and raiders alike!
Comments
-
The game needs a tagging system for Outposts. The Builder can choose however many tags suit his Outpost. At the end of every raid, the Raider can also choose tags. The Raid Map will show both groups of tags. The devs would need to create (and publish) strict definitions of the tags and really incentivize honest and sincere usage. Just because an Outpost is a Single Room doesn't mean it's a Killbox, but without a strict definition you'd have some Raiders who die to it once marking it as such and making the tag meaningless.
I wouldn't let Raiders set preferences. Keep the current RNG system. Raiders can choose an Outpost from the map that best suits them, or they can try something different if it looks interesting enough or if they want a different type of challenge.
Fewer rage quits would happen if there were no Rank point deductions. Builders shouldn't have to build killboxes, and Raiders shouldn't have to avoid dying. Each difficulty rating should reward a consistent amount of Rank for stealing the GenMat no matter how many deaths. Players were actually willing to accept the challenge of completing a difficult base back in the beta when Rank wasn't a thing. Humans don't like being punished and while some may see a challenge many will exhibit negative behavior both in trying to avoid punishment and in terms of attitude and anger as a result of feeling punished.
As for possible tags: Maze, Hardcore/Killbox, Multi-path (for reaching the GenMat), Side Quests (for Tombs as separate/side paths), Vertical, Parkour, Dungeon, Arena, Explore, Themed, Artistic, Tutorial, Puzzle, Stealth, Speed Run, Single Room, Outdoors/Open. (Vertical and Parkour are possible on Multi-path Outposts.) If the Builder chooses certain tags (Maze, Multi-path, Puzzle) they should be given the option to suggest not spawning the HRV; maybe the Raider is forced to try without the HRV the first time, maybe they're always only given the option, I dunno, that's something for the devs to decide and I don't feel like overthinking it right now.
I'd suggest the devs make a fourth difficulty category. Brutal encompasses so much, it's kind of ridiculous. The devs also need to tweak the current difficulty ratings, because not only can a base be made Brutal by including nothing but Holocubes, but the ratings are literally broken right now with how an Outpost can be rated more difficult for adding a Decal and then the Builder can't get it back down.
2 -
I do not believe the "impossible" catagory should exist. "Obscenely hard" maybe, but not impossible.
but yes we need tags for what the builder intended the dungeon to be, as well as what people who played it felt it was.
0 -
Thank you for sharing your insightful proposal with the community. I'm excited to see that I had a similar idea earlier today, and I appreciate you taking the time to write about it. Your suggestions align well with our ongoing discussion, and I believe they provide additional depth to the concept of categorizing bases and rewarding both builders and raiders.
In my earlier thoughts, I proposed introducing three different tiers of base designs - "You Won't Survive," "Don't Get Lost," and "Explore." I believe this approach allows for a diverse range of base types that cater to different playstyles and skill levels. It's crucial not to penalize builders for creating seemingly impossible builds. Instead, I suggested that raiders should have the opportunity to test these bases themselves, and both builders and raiders should be rewarded based on their attempts. This fair and engaging solution motivates active engagement and testing.
I also thought about implementing an individual base rank system for raiders, considering factors like the number of deaths or completion time. This would add a competitive element to raiding and provide an incentive for raiders to improve their skills. Additionally, I suggested that builders should have the option to assign rewards for completing their bases. This would create specific goals for raiders to aim for and add a customizable aspect to the gameplay experience.
Moreover, I proposed allowing raiders to sort base builds by reward amounts and enabling them to wager on completing a base within specific conditions. These features would add depth to the matchmaking system and enhance the excitement and challenge of raiding. Additionally, I suggested that raiders should have the ability to give up without completing a base but still rate it. This way, they could acknowledge the builder's designs and receive a small reward based on the number of attempts or time spent, depending on the category, despite not finishing it.
To ensure fairness and transparency, I emphasized the importance of a rating system that allows raiders to flag bases as "Misinformation" if they believe the base builder intentionally misled them. Conversely, I suggested that raiders should be able to mark bases as "Good to Go," establishing a reputation for legitimate bases and encouraging honest categorization by builders.
I believe that my categorizations, "You Won't Survive," "Don't Get Lost," and "Explore," strongly correlate with the proposed types of outposts, while also addressing the need for more reward considerations. Let me explain the correlation and the importance of incentivizing players not to ignore or give up on certain designs.
In the "You Won't Survive" category, which aligns with the proposed "Impossible" type, the focus is on bases that offer extreme challenges. These bases feature deadly traps, powerful defenses, and formidable enemies. However, players might be inclined to ignore or give up on these bases if they seem insurmountable. To combat this, it's crucial to introduce reward considerations. By offering enticing rewards for successfully raiding these bases, we can incentivize players to take on these daunting challenges and push their limits. This ensures that builders feel motivated to create challenging designs, while raiders feel compelled to persevere through the difficulty.
The "Don't Get Lost" category corresponds to the proposed "Maze" type. These bases present intricate maze-like structures, requiring players to navigate through complex layouts, hidden passages, and clever puzzles. While these bases may not be impossible to conquer, they can be time-consuming and test players' patience. To prevent players from giving up or ignoring these bases due to frustration, it's important to introduce reward considerations. Offering rewards based on completion time or providing bonuses for successfully solving the maze aspects can motivate raiders to engage with these bases and persist until the end.
Lastly, the "Explore" category aligns with the proposed "Artistic" or "Fun" type. These bases prioritize creativity, innovative designs, and aesthetic appeal. However, players might be tempted to overlook or give up on these bases if they perceive them as less rewarding or time-consuming compared to other types. To address this, additional reward considerations are necessary. For example, granting bonuses based on the number of unique design elements discovered or providing extra resources for raiding these bases can incentivize players to appreciate the artistry and effort put into these bases while still reaping tangible rewards.
By incorporating reward considerations for each category, we can encourage players not to ignore or give up on bases solely because they are deadly, long, or creatively focused. These incentives motivate players to engage with a diverse range of base types, leading to a more satisfying and rewarding gameplay experience. Additionally, these considerations inspire builders to continue pushing their creative boundaries, knowing that their designs will be appreciated and rewarded by the raiding community.
Thank you for your contribution. Sorry for such a lengthy post.
0 -
0
-
Rather than tagging, I would like to be able to leave a comment on an outpost. One that can be seen before playing.
0 -
so all the raiders can come write racist slurs about your base?
0 -
lol is that would you would write on someone's outpost?
But even if it would happen at all:
- It would be exceedingly rare...
- Grow up, its just text from some keyboard warrior. Who cares...
- Report the person for being a dick...
There is no issue.
0
