Outpost Building Feedback
I love building bases, but right now I feel rather demotivated. It takes me days to make a base, plus time for tweaks, but a base I work hard on is only viable for a maximum of 10 days due to the current Prestige system. Wilder still, by the time one of my outposts is "done" it usually has between 50 and 100 raiders visiting it. This represents a small portion of the playerbase, so it's not clear why bases need to be cycled out so quickly. It encourages builders to "grind" bases, but the types of people who want to invest in building bases are not grinders. I feel this current system leads to discouraged creativity and lowers the overall quality of outposts, as high-quality bases take more time than low-quality ones and have the same lifespan. Right now it feels like base-builder exist solely for the raiders, and the intrinsic enjoyment of being a builder is minimized due to the current game system. Here are a list of changes I feel would help me feel like it is worthwhile for me to build bases:
1) Bases last 3+ days per Prestige level.
2) Uncapped Prestige on bases.
3) Prestige no longer costs synthite.
4) If you fail to prestige, you can still reset to try again with a high synthite cost.
5) Leaderboard of highest Prestige bases.
6) Bases are always present on Social while in the normal queue.
7) Any base can be permanently set to a new status, "Retired", on Social.
8) Retired bases can no longer have changes made to them.
9) Retired bases get a Speedrun leaderboard.
10) Social raids should give rewards for the player and builder as per the normal game mode to encourage engagement.
This would create a fun and competitive system for builders to feel engaged in beyond the current 10-day lifespan. It would ensure more people see our bases before they go extinct. It would also create a natural conclusion to a base's life that adds something instead of feeling like the base is simply put in a closet.
Players are largely freaking out about the matchmaking and their raid counts on bases because we only get 1 day to attract customers before a base dies. Broadening the timeframe bases are active will reduce the stress and frustration of this process.
I absolutely love your ideas and understand your frustration regarding the current base-building system. It's disheartening to put so much time and effort into creating a base only to have it become obsolete after a short period. I'm thrilled to see that you're looking for ways to improve the system and make it more enjoyable for builders like yourself. Allow me to compliment your ideas and provide some additional concerns to take it into account:
1) Bases lasting 3+ days per Prestige level is a fantastic idea. It would provide builders with a greater sense of accomplishment and reward for their hard work. To address concerns about longevity, it would be important to strike a balance between extended lifespans and maintaining interest. What if a base lasting 3+ days per Prestige level becomes too long? Longer durations could potentially lead to boredom or a lack of freshness for both builders and raiders. How can the system strike a balance between longevity and maintaining interest?
2) I fully support the concept of uncapped Prestige on bases. It would allow builders to continuously improve and refine their creations without arbitrary limitations. Additionally, implementing a Prestige leaderboard that showcases the most prestigious bases could serve as a source of inspiration and friendly competition among builders. However, it would be necessary to address concerns about Prestige inflation, ensuring that high Prestige values truly reflect the quality and innovation of the bases. How can the system prevent Prestige inflation and ensure that high Prestige values are a true representation of the base's quality?
3) Removing the requirement of synthite for Prestige is a brilliant suggestion. This change would eliminate the resource barrier and ensure that the progression of bases is solely based on the creativity and effort invested by the builders.
4) Allowing players to reset and retry Prestige even after a failed attempt, albeit with a high synthite cost, is an excellent way to encourage continuous improvement and experimentation.
5) A leaderboard dedicated to showcasing the highest Prestige bases would be a great addition. It would not only highlight the impressive work of skilled builders but also provide inspiration for others to strive for greatness. Perhaps, incorporating rewards or recognition for the top builders on the leaderboard could further incentivize engagement and healthy competition. It would be important to ensure that the Prestige system accurately reflects the quality and ingenuity of the bases to maintain fairness and encourage a healthy competitive environment. How do you think such a system could ensure that the Prestige system accurately represents the quality and innovation of bases to maintain fairness and competitiveness among builders?
6) The idea of having bases always present on Social while in the normal queue is fantastic. It would grant more visibility to builders' creations and increase the chances of attracting visitors. However, concerns about favoritism and reduced variety should be addressed. Implementing a rotation system or grouping bases based on different themes or styles could help ensure a fair distribution of attention and promote exploration. How can the system address concerns about favoritism and maintain a diverse selection of bases for players to explore?
7) The concept of retiring bases is a brilliant way to preserve and honor exceptional creations. Once a base is retired, it becomes a permanent fixture on Social, allowing others to appreciate and study the remarkable designs. However, it raises questions about the criteria and process of retiring a base. How are bases retired? Is there a specific criteria or timescale that determines when a base is considered retired, such as being in the top 10 highest Prestige bases for over a month? Is the retirement process automatic, or does the builder have control over retiring their base?
8) Making retired bases immutable is a logical step to maintain their integrity and ensure they remain as a testament to the builder's skill and original creativity. However, would it raise concerns about potential frustrations or limitations that may arise from retiring a base? For instance, builders may discover aspects or elements in their retired build that they wish they could fix or update but are now unable to. If a base is retired, can builders discover aspects or elements in their retired build that they wish they could fix or update but are now unable to? How can the system address any potential frustrations or limitations that may arise from retiring a base?
9) Introducing a Speedrun leaderboard specifically for retired bases is a creative idea. It would cater to a different type of challenge for builders, focusing on creating bases optimized for speed and efficiency. However, it would be important to ensure a fair playing field and prevent potential exploits or imbalances in the speedrun leaderboard. How can the system ensure a fair and balanced Speedrun leaderboard for retired bases, considering the potential for future exploits or imbalances in new features added and not being able to make changes to deal with these new exploits since they are retired?
10) Granting rewards for both players and builders in Social raids is a fantastic way to foster engagement and incentivize participation. By rewarding both sides, it creates a symbiotic relationship where players benefit from raiding while builders feel acknowledged and appreciated for their efforts. However, determining appropriate rewards and maintaining fairness can be a challenge. How are rewards determined for social raids? Will the rewards be similar to those in the normal game mode, or will there be specific rewards tailored to the social raid experience? How can the system ensure fairness and balance in rewarding both players and builders to encourage engagement?
Your proposed changes would undoubtedly revolutionize the base-building experience and provide a more engaging and enjoyable system for builders. By expanding the lifespan of bases, introducing leaderboards, and incorporating new features like retired bases and Speedrun challenges, you've crafted a comprehensive set of ideas that address the current shortcomings. Great ideas!0
What if a base lasting 3+ days per Prestige level becomes too long?
It could be, but I do not think that is the case. I hit Master rank this week, and was rank 2800. So there are at least that many "hardcore" raiders out there grinding hard like I am. When my most recent base hit Prestige 10, it had a total of 50 raiders visit it. 50 out of how many thousands (who knows)? I think we're far and away from having this issue at this point.
How can the system prevent Prestige inflation and ensure that high Prestige values are a true representation of the base's quality?
I would need you to elaborate on the exact concern here - it's not clear to me right now.
How do you think such a system could ensure that the Prestige system accurately represents the quality and innovation of bases to maintain fairness and competitiveness among builders?
I think the current Prestige Point system is pretty reasonable - you get kills or accolades, so there are two different ways to express yourself as a raider if the base is good (lol). There could be other methods, too - do you have an idea there?
How can the system address concerns about favoritism and maintain a diverse selection of bases for players to explore?
My philosophy is that the game's systems should exist for the player's enjoyment, and not the other way around. In that spirit, I am in favor of giving players full control of base-searching through a series of filters. Tired of holocubes? Set Holocube Count = 0 and filter those bases out entirely.
That might sound like it would hurt the bases that are using holocubes, but I think the bigger picture is that happy raiders will raid more, and that is more valuable to the game's economy than giving equal representation to bases. Because there will be other people who want to avoid other kinds of things, or want to find particular kinds of things, in their searches. Mazes, for example, are very unpopular. If there was a filter for Harvey Path 1000, there could develop a community of people specifically looking for Mazes. That would make the builders and raiders happy, because they are finding each other now. It's kind of like a dating service in my mind. Would you really be happier on a dating site if the site insisted you had to go on dates with random people?
How are bases retired? Is there a specific criteria or timescale that determines when a base is considered retired, such as being in the top 10 highest Prestige bases for over a month? Is the retirement process automatic, or does the builder have control over retiring their base?
In my mind, the process is manually controlled by the player. Once you're ready for the base to move on to retirement, you hold a button, go through a confirmation screen, and now it's in retirement. There would then be a filter for Retirement = Yes so speedrunners can search these maps out.
How can the system ensure a fair and balanced Speedrun leaderboard for retired bases, considering the potential for future exploits or imbalances in new features added and not being able to make changes to deal with these new exploits since they are retired?
I'm not sure there is a way to deal with this. It's a fair concern, though!
How are rewards determined for social raids? Will the rewards be similar to those in the normal game mode, or will there be specific rewards tailored to the social raid experience? How can the system ensure fairness and balance in rewarding both players and builders to encourage engagement?
I think normal raid rewards are fine. There is a concern about "base farming" becoming an issue, where players search for farm bases and loot them repeatedly. That said, my personal philosophy is again that the economy should exist for the player, and not the player for the economy. The main incentive to raid should be fun, so if players want to avoid being challenged I don't think anything can be done about that. It's not possible to prevent "freebie" bases anyway.
Thank you so much for the lengthy reply. :)1
How can the system prevent Prestige inflation and ensure that high Prestige values are a true representation of the base's quality?
I kind of made up the word "Prestige inflation", but the idea behind it is when high Prestige values no longer accurately reflect the quality and innovation of bases. So someone may have really high prestige just because they keep changing their base design each time they prestige, but the end result of whatever they change it to may not accurate reflect the quality of the base. So we may have bases that are really high prestige level (for example: level 30 base, but its most recent redesign is not a real reflection of the prestige that it claims it obtained from just small revisions to the original design. Does that make better sense or did I make it worse?0
Does that make better sense or did I make it worse?
I think this will happen, but it will mostly be builders improving their bases. If, as a builder, my base is doing very well, I am not sure why I would strongly reorganize it to make it worse. I also do not think that's necessarily a problem. Prestige won't always reflect "high quality" - you could just have 100 Sentinel Cubes where a handful of players died a hundred times, for example. There will be a correlation, but it won't be a causal relationship, if that makes sense.0