Outpost statistics should be visible when selecting Outpost for a raid

RicSimane
RicSimane Member Posts: 42
edited April 2023 in Feedback

When selecting an Outpost for raiding all we can see now is the front view thumbnail, size and difficulty of the map (and if we bribe Prosarmogi then some info about security). What we actually need to know before raiding is:

  • Outpost prestige level
  • Number of raid attempts, kills and kill ratio
  • The Fun/Brutal/Ingenious/Artistic score of an outpost

Why is this important? For 2 reasons:

  1. It will let us identify cool outpost and avoid killboxes. If we see a Prestige 8 outpost with a 20 kill ratio, 200 raid attempts, 100 Brutal score and only 20 Fun score - it's a guaranteed killbox. Unless You want an impossible challenge - that's how you will find it. A fun and fair outpost will probably have the same number of Fun and Brutal/Ingenious score. If we prefer to search for cool designs we will select one with a good Artistic score. If we want to have easier challenge we can aim for lower Prestige levels and maybe help them level their outpost faster.
  2. It will reward Builders for doing a good work. Such Builders will probably get more raids and Raiders will have more fun. Everyone wins. A Fun outpost by all means should be promoted so that all players could see what are the good practices in this game.

Let everyone chose how we want to play this game and not rely on randomly hoping on finding a good Outpost to raid.

Comments

  • chezpizza
    chezpizza Member Posts: 120

    Agreed, especially the kill ratio.

    Just the kill ratio alone and the tier 3 info that Prosarmogi provides would definitely give better insight of the type of experience I'm probably have playing an outpost.

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 8,610
    edited April 2023

    I agree, but... why would a high kill ratio indicate a killbox when people tend to (or at least should) abandon the moment they spot the killbox?

    A good outpost should have a higher kill ratio, because players are sticking around longer and therefore have a higher chance of dying multiple times before ultimately completing it.

    A better indicator would be a 'successful raid ratio'. How many raiders escaped with the genmat? If the ratio is less than 0.5, it's probably a killbox.

  • magic1236
    magic1236 Member Posts: 106

    Because as annoying of a build style it is, it is a legit strategy. People shouldn’t abandon if they see a kill box, They can if they want.

    there is stubborn people like me that feel abandoning a raid is a bigger win for the builder then dying multiple times and getting their gmat.

    Economically and such ya maybe it’s a better win for them. Though for me, it’s not about the money it’s about sending a message. They won’t get the satisfaction me quitting on their base and not taking that gmat. There was an outpost I died like 53 times to before I beat it. I am finish an outpost and the only thing getting me out of it is outside forces or me escaping with the loot.

    but I get your point on trying to discourage the build style by abandoning it.

    I think the idea suggested in this this thread is smart. Let people be able to better assess or guess if a place is a kill box or not and then tackle it or avoid it, instead if going in then just suffering in it abandoning if it was an unwanted challenge.

  • chezpizza
    chezpizza Member Posts: 120

    Just the kill ratio stat would indicate anything just that lots of folks died but kill ratio, harvey path length, most used traps/guards info (which Prosarmogi provides a T3) can give you better insight of what expect.

    Now I'm not sure what the exact what numbers is the kill ratio calculating but I believe its kill per attempt. If the kill ratio is over 10 and the number of attempts is ... lets say under 100 then it is a difficult level. Now that does not translate to "there is a killbox here" specifically but as players become accustomed to the meta that deduce that there is a high probability that this player is using the killbox meta.

  • chezpizza
    chezpizza Member Posts: 120

    Ok. 2nd time writing this. No more editing this forum cause it just deletes the comment.

    From what I understand a kill ratio is determined by calculating kills per raid attempts. Players whose familiar with the game could deduce that an outpost with a high number KR is probably a hard base which is probably using the killbox meta.

  • RicSimane
    RicSimane Member Posts: 42

    Not just the kill ratio alone but combined with the rating especially Fun and Brital. I base it mostly on my own experience. I have 2 brutal outposts. One is a killbox I did in the beta will kill ratio 18. I'm not proud of it, but at least it's my own non-meta design. Second one is a complex design with kill ratio 13 full of small rooms and short corridors where there is never more than 600 points spent in one single place (except the last room) so a Raider never should feel overwhelmed with traps and guards.

    The killbox has scored around 60 Brutal and only 20 Fun. The second Outpost has around 50 Fun, 50 Brutal and 40 Ingenious. I can even show the screenshots later.

    To be honest there is no reason we should only have 3 statistics. I would love to have a "succesful raid ratio" and other ones as well. Anything that tells us more about the outpost both for Raiders and Builders.

  • chezpizza
    chezpizza Member Posts: 120

    You are assuming everyone's opinion of fun matches your own. Some folks love killboxes, I don't know why but some do.

    How would determine the successful raid ratio? SR = fails per attempts... thats basically the kill ratio or SR = failures vs attempts, this metric would be misleading I feel like lots of folks will try and beat the level even if they died 40+ times especiallyif that is the challengethey are looking for, I have.

  • chezpizza
    chezpizza Member Posts: 120
    edited April 2023

    I should add that you only allow 2 votes and I have encountered outpost that I wish I was able to vote all the options.

    I had given nightmare outposts, with kill boxes, non-brutal accolades because even though I died alot there outposts were super fun and well layout.

  • RicSimane
    RicSimane Member Posts: 42
    edited April 2023

    I'm not assuming anything. I just think that the ratings people give are indicative of what they think of the level they have just completed. If more people are giving Fun to an outpost it probably means more people find this type of outpost enjoyable. It doesn't mean other outpost are not fun it just mean that on average you have a better chance of having fun beating such outpost.

    I don't even mind killboxes. I find them challenging and I like finding a way to beat every one of them. What I really hate are long mazes with easy to avoid traps that only waste my time traversing though them xD

    I think people will only make more than 20 attempts in 2 situations. Either they are really desperate and want to prove to themselves that they can beat anything. Or an Outpost is designed in a way that makes them feel that they are slowly learning the outpost design and making progress with every next attempt.

    Yeah, I also don't see why we are allowed to choose only 2 out of 4 scores. Some outposts truly deserved all 4. Also some outposts really deserved some king of fifth "Awful" rating. Especially those that block access to forbidden tombs >.<

  • chezpizza
    chezpizza Member Posts: 120

    Well just like the thumbs not existing on certain social platforms we got use the no vote to give awful ratings.

    Wish they would give us 4 votes but instead having to put one of each we can put any number of votes under any accolade. Like if I thought your outpost was fun, I'll give you 2 fun votes and 1 brutal and 1 artistic or something.

  • hastarkis
    hastarkis Member, Alpha Surveyor Posts: 580

    Don't you think people will avoid new outposts with low prestige and low accolades then?

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 8,610
    edited April 2023

    This is a good point. Maybe the accolade statistics that are shown to prospective raiders could be presented as an average scaled according to prestige level or number of raids or something like that.

    E.g. if you've been raided 10 times and received 5 Fun accolades, that's a 50% Fun rating.

    Or just as a percentage composition. Like 20 Fun, 10 Brutal, 5 Ingenious and Artistic, that would be displayed as 50% Fun, 25% Brutal, 12.5% Ingenious/Artistic. With a number of raids visible.

  • hastarkis
    hastarkis Member, Alpha Surveyor Posts: 580

    New base still has nothing. New base with one unfortunate crashed raid has zero/negatives and dramatically lower chances to get new raids. New base with raider standing afk for 5 minutes just to leave without anything has same problem (I got those, I guess they got called for dinner during loading screen lol). And I can imagine people who do exactly that just for screwing someone's stats.

    I don't say we don't need new statistics but there are problems and exploits with this particular solution.

  • RicSimane
    RicSimane Member Posts: 42
    edited April 2023

    Hmmm true, new outposts would be at a slight disadvanatage. I kinda assumed that it's rather obvious that if an outpost has a low prestige level then you can't expect to see many accolades given.

    Maybe it could be shown only once an outpost reaches more than 10 accolades? Or only after it reaches Prestige 4? Maybe as Seraphor said this could be shown as a percantage chart but probably not exactly compared to number of raids because some people just don't give accolades.

    I just hope some devs read this and will discuss our ideas with the gameplay designers.

  • chezpizza
    chezpizza Member Posts: 120

    I just realized something that makes the outpost statistics kinda pointless.

    We are random given 15 outposts to choose from on the map. 5 for each difficulty and one for each advisor type; raider, traps, etc. We really don't have a choice.

    If I see a brutal guard type but the outpost stats suggest something I don't like then I'll have to check the ones that provide less resources or complete a different type altogether, then hope my rng is better the next cycle.