Raid rewards Vs average kills
This is a two for one.
I think average number of kills should be made visible but only if it's the average it took to leave the base with the genmat. This solves any issue around those raiders that quickly realise it's way beyond their pay grade and quit .
Then secondly, the reward you get for completing it could be on a sliding scale, the most being awarded if it's done in less than the average number of deaths.
This would maybe need to be implemented on bases above a certain level with enough raids to make it accurate.
The idea is to give a good idea of difficulty. And make the reward system more based around beating quality, not quantity.
Comments
-
what kind of rewards are on this sliding scale?
how does the scale affect those rewards?
why only only average deaths and not also average time or %of defenses destroyed?
does this affect resources, rank, or both?
why should this be implemented over the current system or an alternative one that has static increases or decreases based on met metrics?
i agree that average stats shouldn't be affected negatively by people who quit, it skews the numbers.
0 -
what kind of rewards are on this sliding scale?
The parts, synthite etc. given for completing the level. At present all brutal bases give 100, this could be the minimum that would be given for anything classified as brutal with greater rewards depending on the average number of deaths.
how does the scale affect those rewards?
As above.
why only only average deaths and not also average time or %of defenses destroyed?
Good point, I hadn't considered any of those things. It could get very complicated but definitely worth exploring. And
does this affect resources, rank, or both?
I was only considering resources but no reason it couldn't give higher genmat rewards
why should this be implemented over the current system?
Purely because you get the same awards for beating a three skull brutal level as you do a five skull one.
0 -
thank you for replying.
in general i'm against modifying outposts in ways that isn't applied uniformly.
basing something off it's averages isn't a good strategy in my opinion because those averages will change over time.
i'd love to see a system where players are rewarded for using less hardware, or for running multiple outposts back to back without restocking their consumables. something that rewards everyone equally if they achive the same goal while still incentivizing more challenging playstyles.
i'm all for rewarding extra genmat for things like that, leveling up players faster for willingly attempting to do things in a more difficult manner. resources we need to be careful with. they had to up consumable prices twice just to balance the parts income in the past. they've been trying to tune synthite as well. we need to be aware of what changing resource rewards will do to the population of active maps, as well as how raiders will respond.
any time synthite goes up, so does the number of maps online. with more maps online we get less raids per map, meaning less resources per map for the builder. any time parts goes up, consumables flood the game and we see tons of hardware spam at the cost of thinking about placement leading to a more casual approach to raiding (and causal players tend to avoid higher difficulty outposts) there are also points of diminishing returns. you can have all 5 maps live, and still have more synthite, at that point it loses it's value. the same is true of hardware. when you have it in the thousands, it really seems more like a basekit feature than a consumable. it changes the feel of the game.
1 -
I end up having to grind for synthite. I have over 100k parts etc. It means I tend to avoid maps that don't give out synthite. It would be better if every map rewarded synthite as well as parts etc. Or to get parts from destroying traps and synthite for completing the level maybe?
0