Raid Credits

"Everyone knows that brutal outposts don't get near as many raids as other difficulties."

because the player base isn't rewarded properly for running brutal.

"Players like to build brutal outposts but no where near as many want to play them."

the difficulty system makes it hard to not be brutal, it's not so much we enjoy building them as much as it is that what i think is "dangerous" the game says is brutal.

"think there is a very simple solution to the problem. Raid credits"

what is a raid credit an what does it do?

"he way it would work is that after a set number of successful raids of a given difficulty the player earns a raid credit for each successful raid at that difficulty."

this is how raid credits are earned.

"The initial raids go toward the general raid pool."

this isn't related to credits

"Extra raids go toward the players that have expended raid credits."

this is how they're consumed and i think bumps them in priority. but what good is that when raiders still quit after 1-2 deaths with no punishments? what good are the credits?

"or balance reasons, raid credits would need to be capped so they can't be stockpiled and they would decay over time if not used within 24 hours."

or maybe you should redesign the credit system so it's balanced without having a limit on it because rewards given based off effort spent shouldn't have a limit to the ammount of effort you are allowed to spend if you want to put the time in.

If i want to spend 12 hours a day playing, why shouldn't i be allowed to do so and get the benefit of it?

all in all, not a fan of the raid credit idea, needs a lot more fleshing out.

there is no clear idea as to what the credit does, how it is consumed, how long it's supposed benefit applies, what happens if a player raids a base because of a credit and then quits? how is this any better than the current system?

Agreed 100%

"This is a system that would only benefit you personally. Why would you oppose it?"

because i care more about balance than benefit to myself.

the path to increasing raids in brutal it to reward people more for playing them. it has nothing to do with how often they are offered and everything to do with people just don't want to spend more than 10 minutes on a single map, i don't want to spend more than 3.

I raid brutal because it's the fastest way to increase my rank and because it gives me the most challenge.

if you want to see more brutal raids from a player like me, then you put more weight on rank, you add back the rank penalty for quitting, you increase the rank gain for deathless runs and for high speed runs.

if you want to increase raids from players who favor resources then you up the ammount that they get based on the difficulty of the raid they ran. have a base ammount that things give by default, and then give them a 10% increase per dificulty point for example. meaning the harder the outpost, the more loot it drops by default due to defense count and then it also has a higher bonus because of it's higher difficulty overall.

alternatively (and i'm not nessicarily for this) we could put a diminishing return on raids run in lower difficulties but not apply one to brutal. so after say 20 raids in a single day in normal you're getting 10% of the normal value of resources in every raid to encourage you to step up your game (i don't think this would go over well with anyone)

"I feel like you and I speak different languages sometimes. I really do."

the feeling is mutual. it comes from the way each of us envisions the game and it's players.

from our past interactions you tend to favor the raider's experience in the game. i once made a poll asking who could exploit and your position was only builders could exploit, even though we have the ability to collect ammuntion through solid objects, revive players through solid objects, dragging guards to map edge to fire from outside their walkable area even though they have a clear path, and back then we also had the swords breaking things they couldn't reach... you said all of that was "intended mechanics" but when there were no-pass doorways collecting ammo, and traps firing through acid all we heard was exploit. blame the builder, that is the mentality your posts have provided in the past.

when it comes to rank, you repeatedly call it meaningless. i value the competition, you seem not to. a master at rank 40,000 is not the same as a master at rank 4. and your blanket declarations that rank has no value are an insult to those of us who do value it.

yes, we speak different languages.

i don't want to see "MASTER" mean anyone with 15 hours of playtime. but people complain when i suggest subtracting rank for QUITTING A MAP. a true master wouldn't quit, they'd power through. if you can't do that, you don't deserve master. not you specifically, the royal 'you' the player who wants to climb the ladder.

so lets hand out participation trophies fine. lets make the rank penalty only apply to the master rank. you can get into master, but if you quit you're stuck at the bottom. Master might have it's meaning diluted, but nobody will argue that those minimal effort players aren't part of the top 100.

by your own logic if a builder can't keep a player in the map, they're a bad builder. i say if you can't even attract them to yours, that's a builder problem too.

thats your logic

personally i think raiders just don't want a challenge and as soon as they realize they accidentally picked one, they quit. because the reward doesn't meet the difficulty.