MadMoeZel
MadMoeZel
About
- Username
- MadMoeZel
- Joined
- Visits
- 355
- Last Active
Comments
-
we've been asking for command center based map functions for months.
-
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.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3555986#Comment_3555986
I feel like you and I speak different languages sometimes. I really do. Maybe 4 isn't the right number. Maybe it is 8. Maybe it is 12 or 16 or 32. But there exists a number where the status quo will remain stable. Anything beyond that could be raids that go toward the system I've mentioned. In all reality, if there was a route or method that players could have to get more raids at brutal it would motivate more players to actually play brutal. Then the average number of raids at brutal would increase. This is a system that would only benefit you personally. Why would you oppose it?
"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.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3556363#Comment_3556363
What is wrong with you? If you don't have anything positive to contribute feel free to say nothing at all. Or you know, just be a decent person and say "Congratulations".
generally wishing someone good luck is considered a positive sentiment.
-
not really one for art based builds myself. so i'll pass. but good luck on getting replays.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3555140#Comment_3555140
Nothing is stopping them from leaving. That still counts as a raid. If your base isn't compelling enough for the raider to stick around then that is a builder issue. There isn't going to be an issue with not getting raiders. The system feeds itself. When you earn a raid credit, you have effectively been the raid credit for someone else. No one else is missing out on their raids either. That's why there is a minimum number of raids needed to complete before earning credits. If the math on that doesn't work out then the minimum number could be increased.
"Nothing is stopping them from leaving. That still counts as a raid. If your base isn't compelling enough for the raider to stick around then that is a builder issue."
blaming the builder? or the raider is a coward with no skill who is afraid of a challenge.
"There isn't going to be an issue with not getting raiders. The system feeds itself."
if there isn't an issue with not getting raiders then we don't need a system that adds more raids
"When you earn a raid credit, you have effectively been the raid credit for someone else."
no you haven't, you've been raiding like normal, regardless of if the map you raided had a credit or not.
"No one else is missing out on their raids either."
except the person who's map got bumped out of the way for your raid credit who now has less chance at getting his map a normal number of raids because it was taken away for yours.
"That's why there is a minimum number of raids needed to complete before earning credits. If the math on that doesn't work out then the minimum number could be increased."
no, this system just needs to not be implemented and something better needs to be thought of.
-
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.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
Maybe I'm not being clear on what a raid credit is. You spend it on an outpost and you get a raid on that outpost that doesn't count against your total raids. You raid more and you get more raiders on your outposts in return.
so what stops them from just quitting your outpost during that raid you used your credit on and wasting your credit?
additionally, what if people just don't raid that difficulty level?
-
@MythicMikeneto said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3553384#Comment_3553384
Sadly the 'ladder' idea was suggested in the past and the devs openly shot it down in a live AMA (iirc).
I am taking a wild guess that such a thing was comsidersd in early MYM development and was deemd too diffuclt or too exploitable.
I hope 'alternate objectives' become a thing. My wife lokes to joke about the objective always being on screen as 'collect the gen mat and escape'.
IMO it would be so cool to have other placable objectives (or even other win conditions) to add the the raiding experience. The optional/additional placeable ones could be not HRV constricted (like tombs) and while the main objective still remains the same, raiders would have more reaon to go off the beaten path.
Of course builders would take this opporotunity to murderlize raiders horribly and eventually raiders would just ignore them (like tombs), but it woild be fun while it lasted.
"Of course builders would take this opporotunity to murderlize raiders horribly and eventually raiders would just ignore them (like tombs), but it woild be fun while it lasted."
a placable objective that isn't optional is what the builders want. something that makes the outpost less linear and require more exploration. and yeah, we're suppose to murderlize raiders. they're supposed to not get murderlized while trying to get the objective. thats the game loop.
MYM was always marketed as throwing your body into situations so you could look around and get intel so you could do better next run. a subsection of the community believes the game is supposed to be some flawless deathless dungeon run where whatever build the player prefers should be able to destroy ANY outpost without changing it up. it was never advertised that way, it isn't built to reward that kind of play, and it shouldn't be.
running a brutal raid in 4 minutes with no deaths rewards 200 rank running a brutal in 3 minutes with 1 death gives 125 (these numbers only apply to gold+)
after 8 raids, both players have gained the same ammount of rank. that takes less than an hour to happen. meaning if you have only 1 hour to play, even if you aren't perfect, if you're faster. you climb higher.
the rewards are set up in a way to encourage high octane play. slow playstyles are valid, i don't enjoy them, but they're valid. but it isn't what MYM was DESIGNED for.
-
"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?
-
Replay viewer for your phone.
optional continuous feed, possibility of seeing raids live.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3554040#Comment_3554040
I feel like that actually did that in the last update. You can have like 20 guards in a dangerous outpost now. You couldn't do that before.
if this is the case, thats fantastic.
-
addition - i think the correct way to handle it isn't to lower the danger of the trap, but to raise the threshold of what "normal" and "dangerous" is so things don't tip into brutal so quickly.
-
guard shot triggers also, at least ravager.
-
block is irrelevant
seems they may have removed the feature of cascading destruction like that.
-
i assume this is the configuration you are describing
-
@RaNdOmKiLs666 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3552377#Comment_3552377
Yes but the danger system is clearly broken for the specified traps right now. It shouldn't be giving such an insane danger rating. It makes it near impossible to use these traps in normal and dangerous outposts since they massively increase the danger rating when they're not really that dangerous.
The plasma sentinel in particular is a joke after the 4 or 5 nerfs it has received. So it should not increase danger ratings this much.
i have lasers in some bases that fire around corners and down halls over 20 blocks long. in a 1x1 hall, with multiple lasers firing down there. they are sealed in an area that you can't go into until after you collect genmat. meaning if you fire ammo at them, you lose it. you don't think that warrants a high danger level?
plasma sentinels are one of my go-to traps to bait ammo, stall slow clear players, and as part of my speedbumps as an explosive floor to stop speed runners as well as around genmat to stop shield dome camping. you don't think that warrants a high danger level?
their dangers are quite accurate. i'm sorry if you haven't seen how truly devestating they can be when used properly but the difficulty calculations are based on when they are used properly. stop just stacking them blindly on top of things, set them in isolated areas with their field of view restricted so it doesn't overlap other traps, utilize angles and max distance to bring the danger down.
the reality is those 2 traps are extremely hard for new players to deal with. which is why they nuke the difficulty out of normal so fast.
-
@RaNdOmKiLs666 said:
I'd rather them not jump off ledges by themselves just for equipping bloodlust.
Maybe they could add a simple toggle switch that allows guards to jump down without needing a player patrol path. So basically it'd be something you can turn on or off for each guard with it being off by default.
you saying that made me think. sometimes i have ranged units on ledges with bloodlust so they're pre-prepped to fire. yes. i can see this being a problem now.
-
a healthier way to guage skill is to punish the unskilled who quit raids.
a skilled raider won't quit, they'll push through their challenge and win, even if they die.
an unskilled player will quit and find another outpost.
quitting will never be a sign of skill and should negatively affect climbing the master ladder.
make it so quitting has no effect on bronze silver and gold, but that it punishes master ranks.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
Obviously I want this for assassins but it is relevant for Warmongers too. Builders would have to be careful with base building and where and when to use the augment so their guards don't leap to their death. But overall it would be a good change imho.
the death fall is the issue i'd be concerned about. the ai pathing isn't phenomenal.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
I think the assassins are a great addition to the game. I would like it if they would jump off ledges when they aggro. I would also like it if they had some form of vertical mobility so you could set up some creative routes that take advantage of the no fall damage. But I love them even if they don't change anything. The noise part doesn't bother me too much. I rather like the psychological effect it has on raiders looking around for the source of noise. And like MadMoeZel mentioned, there are ways to mask noise.
the main issue i suppose would be controling the ledge they jump off of. i assume they'd attempt to route the shortest path, but i dunno. i don't trust the AI in this game enough to want them to decide on their own where they jump from.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3552057#Comment_3552057
Okay, I've finished my whole proposal. You should go back and read the rest of it. I'll address the comments you've made though. Having a limited number of raids apply to your ranking per day is completely essential. This changes the mind set of the ranked raider. You aren't looking to blow through raids as quickly as possible anymore. In fact, that isn't the optimal way to rank up at all.
Instead the ranker will need to focus on finding the raids that are actually the most difficult and time consuming. That is a real test of skill. This will also promote builders to build menacing outposts more. Currently, it is really frustrating as a builder to build a proper outpost designed to grind up raiders since typically they will just abandon the outpost after a short period. Since you only get like 3 raids per brutal outpost per outpost rank, it is particularly punishing for builders. This will give those builders a target audience.
Having a limit also doesn't mean that the grinders don't have anything to grind. The top rankers are still going to be the people that keep going back trying to more difficult outposts worth more points and increasing their score. You aren't going to get the highest possible score per day in 15 minutes.
Having a limit also promotes a healthier play/life balance and is more inclusive to a wider group of players. It also keeps it more competitive throughout the season. If it turns out that 5 per day is too little and the playerbase wants it increased then they can always increase it to 7 or 10.
"You aren't going to get the highest possible score per day in 15 minutes."
You may not. but you can't say i won't.
I promote to master in 7 hours after reset.
4250 for silver 4 -> gold 1
5k gold 1 ->2
6k gold 2->3
7k gold 3->4
9k gold 4-> master
4,464 rank per hour or 22 raids per hour on brutal at flawless. giving us an average of under 3 minutes per run.
now, lets talk about your limiting factor.
as i said i was off for several days due to illness. in your proposed system, because i was sick , i can't rank for those days because i didn't play, and there is no way to recover that deficit. starting later, getting into master a day after someone else puts you at a disadvantage that can't be overcome unless they take a break. if they got there before you, they're probably better than you
only your top 5 scores PER DAY are counted. which means it's related to the RNG of what map you find. so unless you find the same maps (which could be on overdrive and fall inactive due to sucessful raids) you can't make the same number of points because it's not a standardized system.
"Since you only get like 3 raids per brutal outpost per outpost rank, it is particularly punishing for builders. This will give those builders a target audience."
this is a result of the fact there is no penalty for leaving. there is no negative stimuli to quitting hard outposts.
"Having a limit also promotes a healthier play/life balance and is more inclusive to a wider group of players."
Why do you think that the top ranking in the game is meant to be inclusive to a wide group of players?
Manga Cum Laude, Summa Cum Laude. the top of the top. it's not meant to include everyone. or even the majority.
"What about players that reach master first, wouldn't they have a huge advantage over everyone else in this system? True, that is why I would recommend having a delay period after rank reset before ranking goes live. Something like 30 days to get to master. So that most players who are interested in rank have the same starting line."
so you have to shut off rank, to make rank work? i get master in 7 hours, why should i be stopped? you seem to want to punish the people who are ahead, to make people who aren't keeping up feel good.
Why don't we just hand out participation medals?
why is it a hard conecpt to understand that rank is a competative feature and if you aren't willing to compete you don't deserve the rank?
-
seems they have fixed the problem.
-
@eyedeeoneohtee said:
Plating: Similar to what guards have, but adjusted for the raider. It takes up one of your hardware slots, and if you take a hit then it's automatically consumed and gives you a moment of invulnerability.
Pulse Disruptor: An energy weapon that leaves no projectile and automatically regenerates ammunition, but deals no permanent damage. Hitting a trap or guard only disables it for a few seconds.
Peregrine Suit: A lightweight suit designed for aerial mobility
-Extended Tether: Increases grappling hook range by 10/20/30%
-Turbo Motor: Increases grappling hook speed by 10/20/30%
-Soft Landing:
--Level 1: No slowdown after falling long distances
--Level 2/3: Movement speed increased by 10/20% for 5 seconds after falling long distances
"peregrine + turbo motor" - https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/374369/new-suit-idea-hawk#latest
"Extended tether & soft landing level 1"- https://forums.bhvr.com/Meet-Your-Maker/discussion/374368/new-suit-idea-arachne#latest
i like your pulse disruptor, i've been asking for a grenade version for a while.
plating needs a bit of adjustment i don't think that a single shot block should be a hardware slot. maybe a 1 time oopsies as base kit but to make it cost a hardware seems punishing to a lot of players.
notably, plating also doesn't protect guards from flire, lasers, or enviornemntal effects like splatter of plasma cloud.
-
sound masking is something every builder needs to learn. there are decorations that generate noise, they can put pistons behind sealed walls to generate a constant cacophony of sound as well as utlizing tomb sounds and other guards/traps to mask the assassin sounds.
as a standalone guard the assassin isn't anything impressive, but defenses aren't meant to stand alone.
i've seen them used quite well as body blockers against speed running. a single assassin was capable of blocking a path that normally required 2 warmongers. and it did so while camoflauged so i ran smack into it while evading other things. they also excell in wide open areas that are short because of their ability to rocket up and down ramps with their dash you can use this to create situations where they charge from out of line of sight, or they charge out of line of sight.
-
the main reason people avoid brutal is time investment.
if you want to maximize how often you're raided, make dangerous maps. Brutal is for rank climbing.
i make my brutals for the challenge players, the dark soulers among us.
it comes down to why do you build. if you build to get raids, you need to consider the players. i build to challenge people, so i don't care if people don't play them cause they're too long or hard.
-
@eyedeeoneohtee said:
What about just adding ladders to the game? Nothing fancy, just a low capacity "trap" that lets the harvester or the guards climb that section of wall?
simple and effective.
-
@lordpound42 said:
What if they just gave the harvester the ability to jump, and us the players the ability to set the path of the harvester just like we can with the guards?
setting the HRV path in patrol will lead to idling the HRV, looping in circles, or just running a path that takes 30 minutes to finish.
-
difficulty calculation includes proximity to HRV path, if it has a direct LOS, how many other traps and guards share it's LOS. spike traps rarely overlap with other traps target so they're low difficulty, a laser has a cone targeting range that is really long, a sentinel has a large sphere targeting radius. so they QUICKLY multiply danger when in rooms with other defenses.
the danger system isn't very transparent so it's easy to fall into not understanding.
-
"But once you hit master is where the problem starts. First of all, what does your ranking actually mean?"
your ranking is a measurement of how efficiently you clear outposts. a deathless brutal comes in at 200 points, a 1 death comes in at 125. if you take 4 minutes to run a deathless but 3 minutes to run a 1 death, after 8 outposts your rank is equal. and the more outposts you do, the more time starts to matter. so the top ranked players are those who clear outposts fast, and the very top are those who clear them fast and regularly don't die.
"I would argue that the ranking system doesn't actually rank skill. It is simply a measurement of how active a player is combined with how efficient they are at clearing outposts."
Efficency is the main statistic. because someone spending even 60 seconds longer per raid means that a 1 hour play session of 4 minute runs will lose out to a 30 minute play session of 3 minute runs even if they are running flawlessly.
activity time becomes less important the faster your runs are.
"The exact numbers are subject to debate but I would recommend something like the following. Take the average clear time and add 1 point for each 3 seconds (20 pts per minute). For each half skull in the difficulty rating add 10 points. This determines the total number of rank points that can be earned by clearing the outpost. This information is displayed in the command center so raiders will be able to make an informed decision. So a 5 skull rating, with an average clear time for 4minutes 21 seconds would be worth 187 points."
this style of outpost would have 2 people run the same outpost and get potentially different points with identical performance is other raids had adjusted average time or kill/death average between the two runs even if no changes have been made to the outpost between those two runs. i don't think that's a healthy place for the game to be. the same outpost should have the same rewards if the performance is comparably identical. (time spent, deaths, traps/guards killed, etc)
"Only the top 5 scores per 24 hours will effect the rank!"
as someone who can clear 5 outposts in under 15 minutes, i'm not a fan of this idea. i don't really fancy hitting my top 5 scores right out the gate and then getting absolutely no reward for any raid for the rest of the day.
with currency capped, limiting rank gain will lead to more stagnation. there needs to be a number that goes up to stimulate the dopamine.
-
i'm more focused on "it can be unfair"
and the fact that they corrected it.
and on the note of "fun for one go"
hopefully next they'll address the overpopulation of maps like this that are leaking into brutal where they don't belong.
-
map name please. preferably pictures of the setup.
-
pictures of setup please.
-
kill in the outpost fail when used as the only metric of difficulty. it doesn't account for changes in construction or if people quit due to time, difficulty, or patience. also trap combos affect diffculty heavily.
a iron claw with a acid cube below it is always going to be more lethal than a spike trap over the acid cube because the claw reels you in and the spike can't reach anywhere but over the acid that you'd normally try to avoid anyways.
what we need is a detailed readout of how each thing placed changes difficulty. not to simplify it down to a single metric.
-
@WraithReaper74 said:
speed runners want everything nerfed for them. This just adds another way of slowing them down to my arsenal. If they want it nerfed so bad, there's always lego games. 🤣
@MadMoeZel said:
or come around the corner shooting. i'm a speed runner too and pistons are my #1 death source. just means i need to pay more attention, listen better.
speed runner literally told him to listen and pay more attention? it's not speed runners wanting nerfs, it's this guy.
-
i hate mazes. even with pathfinder i'll still not play them. make a maze where the routes continually loop back on itself and traverses up and down itself so that the path when displayed via pathfinder the pathfinder perk also shows the path HRV will walk, not the "VALID PATH" displayed in build mode. meaning if his way in routes over 2nd wave blocks cause it's shorter, pathfinder will show that route. if that path becomes invalid when they touch genmat, pathfinder will auto-change to the new "valid path" meaning they can't use it to back track your maze exactly unless they remember it. forcing them forward through new routes.
it's also stupid hard to see with the ice tile under it. the light green is camouflaged well with the blue ice.
-
heres 5 more for you.
-
@WeaverReaver42 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3550831#Comment_3550831
So, I was imagining a sort of 'chaining' system to the drop off points. You could select a drop off point, and have it 'connect' to another point that it would have to reach before trying to finish its path to the genmat. This would allow you to essentially 'force' the genmat carriers to take a more roundabout route. Of course there would have to be limits to the chaining, you don't want an infinite (or at least annoyingly long) loop of the carrier going in a circle between the same drop off points. Raiders have to be able to find the genmat after all. That being said, a lot of your post (if I am misinterpreting, I am sorry, this is just how I understood it) seems to be about changing the design of base building to make the builders HAVE to be more creative. That isn't my intent. While having the option of more varied bases is nice, so too should they be allowed to have simpler bases. Base building is supposed to be up to the players, therefore what kind of base they make should be up to them.
i'm merely trying to point out worst case scenarios of it's implementation because MostEfficientTacticAvailable will involve that nonsense.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
Rank literally means nothing in this game. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. It's not like you can even see a ranking list somewhere. There are no rewards. It is just a number. That is not a valid reason to hold everyone else back. I seriously think you just want this game to remain a niche game with a small playerbase. The stuff I'm suggesting will improve the overall player experience and improve the games longevity. Let people play the game the way they want to play it. That is the strength of this game. They should lean into that and enable people. By the way, I'm applying that to you too. For that incredibly small number of people that actually care about their rank number, they should improve the way ranking works too. But that is an entirely separate topic.
"Rank literally means nothing in this game. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. It's not like you can even see a ranking list somewhere."
it means nothing to you. on that same token, money means nothing. no major country backs their currency with physical assets anymore it's all based on "because i said so" power you're legally obligated to take your nation's currency most likely, i know the USA is. that's not value. that's authority.
You may not have a list of the top ranked players, but as i figure out who they are, and where they are ranked. i keep track. it may not be an official list, but we are keeping track and comparing with one another.
it's not "Just a number" it is a measurement. measurements are useful, seconds, minutes, hours, kill to death ratios, number of ammo left.
you may not value rank, others do. and just because you don't value it doesn't mean we want it to lose more value.
". For that incredibly small number of people that actually care about their rank number"
where are you getting your metric? i can assert more people who are actively playing care about rank than don't care. doesn't make it true. though i feel it probably is.
on the note of rank and competition. many games currently have E-spots, if rank is devalued repeatedly and never prioritized as a feature, then any E-sports activity and revenue from it is immediately discarded. there is plenty of room in the future for dedicated tournaments where players compete against massive insidious bases designed by paid team to make it as ruthless as possible and hold global rankings for a roster of maps. irl trophies and swag could be awarded, ad spaces, sponsorships.
Rank matters, just not as much as it should.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
I'd like to think there is a better unique mod out there for assassin. Plus things shouldn't be taken away from players. People have bases out there with grand sacrifice on cannonback. They shouldn't have to rebuild or change their base for such a dumb reason.
they already have forced build changes via patches with capacity and difficulty cost changes.
-
the entire batch again. eta on a fix? another month? 6 more?
-
new patch, old bug. almost 7 months have gone by and the most important information to me is still routinely not displayed.
-
@Spoghead said:
I always feel too old for that (43) haha
can't help with that.
-
volt lancer, arc barrier, flash barrier, phoenix pod. the "screw you i'm getting out in 1 loop" build
-
reccomend going onto twitch or other stream services and finding live streamers then asking in chat if they're interested in socials. you can get live feedback that way.
-
putting a map on social will leave it on social permentantly, as long as you don't re-enter the map it won't update and you'll have your overcap map. just information.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3550509#Comment_3550509
I would argue that is worthless. I could see the argument for a percentage of the reward, but 1% is too extreme. 25 to 50% seems more reasonable. That would still incentivize players to go to live maps, but doesn't make social raiding such a waste of time.
i'd argue that social shouldn't reward anything, but i wouldn't fight a war about giving people 1% of what live gets during casual play. but to be given near full resources when you don't lose consumables, i disagree with that.
-
@Dreamnomad said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/meet-your-maker/discussion/comment/3550484#Comment_3550484
So what? Let's just say that people do exactly what you mentioned and favorite builders that make easy bases. Who cares? It isn't hard to find easy bases to raid anyway. I think people are more likely to favorite builders that actually take their time to build really impressive outposts. Or alternatively, lets say you like really difficult and brutal bases and think the game is too easy. You can favorite builders that build really hard outposts so you are more likely to find the type of outposts you want to raid.
Players should be able to play the game the way they want to play the game. They should also be rewarded for their time. Expecting people to go do social raids to find the types of outposts they like isn't going to help the longevity of the game. If they make social raiding more worthwhile then that might be one thing. I would still argue that having a favorite builders list is beneficial to the game. It is certainly easier to click a "favorite" button then it is to write someone's name down and find them in social.
it affects rank. i care about that. so do a lot of the people at the top. if you don't care about rank, then yes this is great. but if you do care about rank, it's a devastating blow to true progression and fairness.
if you favorite all builders who do brutal EXP maps, your entire brutal roster is free wins with no deaths, easy rank climb. how is that fair to someone playing the game to be good? watching someone who literally can't die unless they intentionally do so because they picked a field of grass rocket past me in rank?
