Dilemma with endless mission rewards

[Two_0ns]

When DE made the reward table for Disruption, they had the right idea; increase the rarity as a reward for endurance and performance. I find it as one of the best sources for high tier relics. My friends and I have been trying to farm for Axi T5 relics and the best place to get them is the disruption mission on Lua. Originally we tried to go for as long as we could, but later came to the conclusion that we're not getting rewarded for our prolonged endurance after round 4, and that's the issue with all the endless missions; there's no incentive to go past the 1st rotation. There's a small amount of people who go as long as they can in endless missions because they want a high score or because they genuinely think it's fun. The rest don't see that the effort is rewarding enough. My proposition is to increase the rewards obtained after each rotation by +1 and capping out at +5. This would encourage the majority players to strive for at least the 5th rotation.

[kapn655321]

Why would we work harder for slower rewards of the same quality? Sure, it can be fun to test mechanics to see their extent, but many options in game fall off pretty hard after the first rotation C, and will be a detriment by the second rotation A.. why push past that? This has always incentivized players to leave early.

However, to put a positive spin on it, players do not feel obligated to risk hours worth of rewards in order to feel like they have the best chance of success against RNG.

Two things I see as a problem here.. the rewards need to scale, and players need to not lose rewards. Our current method makes for players taught to be impatient and risk averse.

[Two_0ns]

28 minutes ago, kapn655321 said:

Why would we work harder for slower rewards of the same quality? Sure, it can be fun to test mechanics to see their extent, but many options in game fall off pretty hard after the first rotation C, and will be a detriment by the second rotation A.. why push past that? This has always incentivized players to leave early.

However, to put a positive spin on it, players do not feel obligated to risk hours worth of rewards in order to feel like they have the best chance of success against RNG.

Two things I see as a problem here.. the rewards need to scale, and players need to not lose rewards. Our current method makes for players taught to be impatient and risk averse.

I do agree, but how far is the reward scaling meant to go? Could someone who's in a defense mission on Mercury reach the same reward tier as Rotation A on Sedna? I did have an alternative suggestion of having the reward tables' % changes to slowly inverse over time; making to that a low % drop would eventually be a common drop, but my friends said that would be ridiculous to propose.

[kapn655321]

Just now, T.W.O. said:

I do agree, but how far is the reward scaling meant to go? Could someone who's in a defense mission on Mercury reach the same reward tier as Rotation A on Sedna? I did have an alternative suggestion of having the reward tables' % changes to slowly inverse over time; making to that a low % drop would eventually be a common drop, but my friends said that would be ridiculous to propose.

I would agree with your proposal.. Increase the drop table to where it's above 100% chance of a drop. Start having more chances to get 2 things per run. I see no problem there; you'd have ran the mission again faster and easier by not trying... so if you can do the same thing 2x easier.. why not get 2x more stuff from making it harder?

I think one issue is, as we incentivize longer games as being as good or better, we breed resentment between players for not staying. ...So if you see on wave 1, that a player has gear that won't go 60 waves, you may be just as inclined to leave at 20, else you'll be doing it alone soon enough. Seems to me, that happened enough that what we have is just what we have.. I'd be interested to hear thoughts that may address both aspects.

Sometime I'd also like to see for endless, is a way to hack a console and scale both difficulty and reward.. but I see problems there as well with players cannibalizing each other over loadouts and optimization..

So far, my thoughts keep coming back to how loss and risk works to begin with in game, as a whole... and players being able to enter into existing games beyond the traditional checkpoints.

[Two_0ns]

5 minutes ago, kapn655321 said:

I would agree with your proposal.. Increase the drop table to where it's above 100% chance of a drop. Start having more chances to get 2 things per run. I see no problem there; you'd have ran the mission again faster and easier by not trying... so if you can do the same thing 2x easier.. why not get 2x more stuff from making it harder?

I think one issue is, as we incentivize longer games as being as good or better, we breed resentment between players for not staying. ...So if you see on wave 1, that a player has gear that won't go 60 waves, you may be just as inclined to leave at 20, else you'll be doing it alone soon enough. Seems to me, that happened enough that what we have is just what we have.. I'd be interested to hear thoughts that may address both aspects.

Sometime I'd also like to see for endless, is a way to hack a console and scale both difficulty and reward.. but I see problems there as well with players cannibalizing each other over loadouts and optimization..

So far, my thoughts keep coming back to how loss and risk works to begin with in game, as a whole... and players being able to enter into existing games beyond the traditional checkpoints.

I understand that point of view, but that seems like an issue caused by being randomly pared with others. Why should someone stay longer than they want or can? That's why people ask for others who want to attempt the same challenge as they do. That brings up my desire for DE to implement a lobby system where you can chose if you host or join, if the host has any requirements, a section to place a description, and especially check the connection strength. Sorry, tangent.

About what you said regarding hacking a console during the mission. Are you suggesting that the players controls the scale of the missions difficulty, and reward, while in the mission? That is an interesting idea, but a squad of randoms would then fight over control of it, and if the host was only able to control it then that would lead to complete monopolization of the difficulty and desired rewards. Another problem with going with randoms.

The cannibalizing of each other's loadouts has been a problem for a while. Kitguns and Zaws were designed for players to make their own original weapon, with stats that make it unique, but you still see people copy what is considered meta. That's what happens someone finds an optimal build that has yet to be challenged. There have been many times where I wanted to give a weapon my own spin on its states, because of the limitations with its existing stats and enemy stats, I'm forced to try to emulate someone else's build in order to get good DPS.

[kapn655321]

5 minutes ago, T.W.O. said:

That brings up my desire for DE to implement a lobby system where you can chose if you host or join, if the host has any requirements, a section to place a description, and especially check the connection strength.

Completely agree that there needs to be a Vastly more robust matchmaking system. Trick there is not fracturing it into these hyper specific lobbies you find in other games.. Don't Starve Together for instance.. the more control a player has over the mission going just their way start to end, the more gatekeeping it encourages.
 

11 minutes ago, T.W.O. said:

a squad of randoms would then fight over control of it,

For this reason, players need to be able to keep their rewards and momentum, and take it elsewhere to another node should this arise. Say, a player is trying to scale it to the moon and back.. if others don't commit to that, both they and the others get prompts to enter a mission, subquest, etc., more suited to their desires. Darvo comes up, "Seems one of your team mates just kicked a hornet's nest.. you might want to clear out, huh? There's a shuttle from this facility heading some place that may interest you." ..and you choose where to go, keeping your present momentum, rewards, and objectives in mind. As for the player who ramped up the difficulty, they'll probably have to take it on alone.. which may backfire. Their avarice may land them in a detention facility, putting them off course.. so that's the risk you'd take for being a hotshot, and not keeping the party in mind. Doable, but only if you're up for the challenge.
 

17 minutes ago, T.W.O. said:

because of the limitations with its existing stats and enemy stats

Exactly right as far as I see it. Taking a stronger weapon isn't more challenging, and certainly isn't less.. taking a heartier loadout.. we're incentivized to overwhelm the game, and bawk at how simple it makes it. That whole dynamic is off.. partly from stats, partly from fear of losing.. which is odd, when so many people say the game is too easy and want more challenge.. for those same players to willingly take the most OP options.. shows something isn't working quite right.

[Two_0ns]

5 minutes ago, kapn655321 said:

For this reason, players need to be able to keep their rewards and momentum, and take it elsewhere to another node should this arise. Say, a player is trying to scale it to the moon and back.. if others don't commit to that, both they and the others get prompts to enter a mission, subquest, etc., more suited to their desires. Darvo comes up, "Seems one of your team mates just kicked a hornet's nest.. you might want to clear out, huh? There's a shuttle from this facility heading some place that may interest you." ..and you choose where to go, keeping your present momentum, rewards, and objectives in mind. As for the player who ramped up the difficulty, they'll probably have to take it on alone.. which may backfire. Their avarice may land them in a detention facility, putting them off course.. so that's the risk you'd take for being a hotshot, and not keeping the party in mind. Doable, but only if you're up for the challenge.

IDK if DE could do something like this. It makes sense that someone would be able to take their progress and go somewhere to continue it, but how would that work with if the mission they migrated to wasn't a different session of what they were doing? How could DE accurately give a player a mission that matches the difficulty they chose, and would it just be a different session of the mission or would it be something like going from defense to exterminate?

[kapn655321]

14 minutes ago, T.W.O. said:

IDK if DE could do something like this. It makes sense that someone would be able to take their progress and go somewhere to continue it, but how would that work with if the mission they migrated to wasn't a different session of what they were doing? How could DE accurately give a player a mission that matches the difficulty they chose, and would it just be a different session of the mission or would it be something like going from defense to exterminate?

Modifiers. Each player brings with them their own preconditions of difficulty as it is.. by the loadout they chose. Currently, there are right and wrong loadouts, and resentment towards this.

Rather than having truly right and wrong loadouts... all loadouts should be capable of competent stats if you work on them hard enough.. but each player has somehow incurred the wrath or the windfall of their own circumstances, and carry that with them.

Consider, if someone shows up with a crap ton of Eximus hunting them (as we do now to a lesser degree), the worst that happens is our missions get more interesting, and we take out our frustrations on the game through mechanics. ..rather than rage quitting a party, you hack a console and peace out, entering a new orbit that leads to the loot you're after, and losing none of the momentum. Maybe you help that player, and get a sweet piece of whatever they were chasing, totally unexpected. Maybe you weren't after Oxium or whatever, but there it is.. and, "everything went better than expected," eventually.

You would leap from things like defense to exterminate, sometimes in the same node, depending. If you were really on a mission infiltrating a facility, and things go wrong, you don't just teleport back home with a game over screen.. you have to salvage that mission as best you can, in spite of it's changing circumstances.

Edited April 16, 2020 by kapn655321