Missions 2.0: An Attempt To Have Missions Make Actual Sense

[(XBOX)TeenyRagtag]

2 minutes ago, Redthirst said:

Not really, at least if you leave the current reward mechanics. Currently, you get a reward every 5 minutes, and I don't think it's a good idea to let players just get rewards for doing nothing. So you need to think about a different reward system. One easy idea is that every 5 minutes you need to do one of those objectives that you were talking about, so players still have to engage enemies at least once in 5 minutes, and you can't just AFK for hours and get a bunch of free stuff.

My suggestion on one of the objective concepts was to use consoles as way of bringing back life support every five minutes

[lihimsidhe]

6 minutes ago, Redthirst said:

Not really, at least if you leave the current reward mechanics. Currently, you get a reward every 5 minutes, and I don't think it's a good idea to let players just get rewards for doing nothing. So you need to think about a different reward system. One easy idea is that every 5 minutes you need to do one of those objectives that you were talking about, so players still have to engage enemies at least once in 5 minutes, and you can't just AFK for hours and get a bunch of free stuff.

Good point and it is something I overlooked.  If players just found a corner of the map where they couldn't be reached and just got auto rewards every five minutes that is a design error.  As I was reading your response I was thinking, "Okay so rewards should only drop from the anti scaling objectives...", and then you said that.  Definitely adding this to the OP.  Thank you sir.

[oOSinox]

24 minutes ago, Redthirst said:

Not really, at least if you leave the current reward mechanics. Currently, you get a reward every 5 minutes, and I don't think it's a good idea to let players just get rewards for doing nothing. So you need to think about a different reward system. One easy idea is that every 5 minutes you need to do one of those objectives that you were talking about, so players still have to engage enemies at least once in 5 minutes, and you can't just AFK for hours and get a bunch of free stuff.

I really like this idea. Rewards should not be based off of time. Time is a obsolete reward factor. Rewards should be based on actions and the completion of objectives.

[oOSinox]

7 hours ago, lihimsidhe said:

With the amount of assets DE already has in game they can do a lot with palette swaps and implementing actual enemy tactics discussed about above.  So again I totally agree there.  As to why enemies don't use their own powerful weapons?  It's because of the butt hurt factor.  A lot of players will be butt hurt if their entire squad is taken out by some random grunt with a Tonkor.  "Man this game is bullS#&$."  "This isn't fair."  etc.  If I had to guess us wanting more challenging enemies are in the minority.  I get from public matches the players want less challenging enemies and for DE just to release more damaging weapons  so their eyes can gloss over at higher and higher numbers.   That's their right though.  If they are the majority then it reasons they might be the majority provider of DE's income and existence.

I guess I should clarify that my issue in that regard was more about 'Variety' than 'Challenge' I believe that the game (in some ways) can already be challenging as is. However, the obvious solution to the "butt-hurt factor" would be to reduce the base stats of these different weapons only for their AI. The weapons could have their own exclusive custom looks to signify their enemy type or 'squadron'??