TheShindig

Well, yeah, I would have preferred the ranks to be a skill rating too, but ok, fair point. How about if most players beat the outpost in less than 3 deaths? The devs can set the exact cutoffs however they want, as long as it does a better job of sorting the outposts than the current system, and that's setting the bar…

I'm working on something you might like for social. I need to finish prestige with it, but it should be ready sometime next week.

As a general vibe to target, I'd say anything bronze ranks are consistently beating in less than 3 deaths can go to the normal category. As a side note: I just found out some players die repeatedly on purpose in loot farm levels to break the traps multiple times. So that would need to be addressed by the devs in some other…

I wouldn't worry about the ranking system. Even before the update, if you play enough you'll make it to master. At first I thought it would be fun to have more of a chess style rating where you actually have to improve to make it go up, but this game doesn't have any of the math in place to do that effectively. The devs…

The actual function wouldn't use kill ratio directly. It would be much more appropriate to weigh kills asymptotically. For instance, 20 deaths already indicates the raider is struggling significantly. If they decide to stick around and die another 1000 times, there would be no reason to increase the weight of their run…

Monitoring and adjusting outposts is the fun part of building, so I hope you're doing that anyway. The current way the game works with its hard cutoffs encourages builders to push every outpost right up to the limit of its difficulty class. This is actually limiting creativity. Personally I would much rather see a game…

You actually can do this. Social outposts don't need to have a valid harvester path, which means you basically don't even need to have floors if you don't want them. I played one outpost that was basically all corrosive cubes, but some of them had hard skin so you would have something to grapple or jump off of.

This is a really good point. The ranking system is in an awkward place right now because it's trying to be a seasonal progression and a skill rating at the same time. In addition to the point you made, I think it's also a bummer that it encourages people to try to scum out rating points in whatever way is the easiest…

Once there's some sort of (probably hidden) underlying difficulty score in place, the devs could put the cutoffs at 1st and 3rd quartile or whatever they think makes most sense. The important thing is that we wouldn't have outposts 2 entire difficulty levels away from where they should be.

So, your first question is actually why I'm suggesting this. I think some new players raided a few outposts that were only given the "brutal" designation because they had a lot of traps, then they thought they were good, so when they played outposts that were actually brutal they felt that they had been cheated in some…

The weight of quitting vs dying would need to be approximated experimentally. Editing the outpost would not reset the difficulty rating. If you've made it easier or harder, the stats will sort that out soon enough. To address issues of taste, I would give quits lower weight if they were preceded by less deaths. To me this…