Jump to content

To stop hatchet runners, start requiring guns for shooting padlocks and glass cases for loot


Recommended Posts

Evilwayz

I do not see how this can remotely work. You can buy a gun and a few high pen rounds for under 30k. So you spend 30k...even if you fail 9/10 times and you get a graphics card, tetris or bitcoin your profit is still massive. 

10 x 30,000 = $300,000

Current Tetris/Bitcoin - $698,000

Current Graphics Card - $1,200,000

He could be successful 1/20 times and still make a profit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Bane5

    25

  • JerryLove

    23

  • skimer

    3

  • kthomasr

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I've seen a million roundabout solutions to this problem presented, but the core of the issue needs to be finally addressed. Simply put, if you want people to actually bring guns for a task, they have

Nice way to attempt to fix an issue that hasn't existed for like 2 years.   Hatchlings are not a thing any more,everyone brings at least a handgun, and no one can get anything worth selling

That sounds like "someone else's game". How is their game a problem for you?  Exit campers are a problem because they shoot me and I die and I lose a bunch of stuff.  I understand the argume

Bane5
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Evilwayz said:

I do not see how this can remotely work. You can buy a gun and a few high pen rounds for under 30k. So you spend 30k...even if you fail 9/10 times and you get a graphics card, tetris or bitcoin your profit is still massive. 

10 x 30,000 = $300,000

Current Tetris/Bitcoin - $698,000

Current Graphics Card - $1,200,000

He could be successful 1/20 times and still make a profit. 

No one has argued that low-gear runs should never be successful.

But in the process of making some gear required, you've greatly increased the overall  market demand for high quality ammo (even just a small  number of bullets per person across the majority of the rat playerbase is a big amount). Even if they always get those cheap guns back, that's insurance costs spent as a money sink. And since they have a gun, there is the potential for more pvp action and heightened tension.

Edited by Bane5
Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryLove
10 minutes ago, Bane5 said:

But in the process of making some gear required, you've greatly increased the overall  market demand for high quality ammo

Ammo becomes a form of keycard. 

Quote

(even just a small  number of bullets per person across the majority of the rat playerbase is a big amount).

I hope you are not juxtaposing rats and loot rushers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Evilwayz
24 minutes ago, Bane5 said:

No one has argued that low-gear runs should never be successful.

But in the process of making some gear required, you've greatly increased the overall  market demand for high quality ammo (even just a small  number of bullets per person across the majority of the rat playerbase is a big amount). Even if they always get those cheap guns back, that's insurance costs spent as a money sink. And since they have a gun, there is the potential for more pvp action and heightened tension.

This is just a bad solution in my opinion. There are other options more viable. 

Even scav guards for high loot areas is a much better idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bane5
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, JerryLove said:

Ammo becomes a form of keycard. 

I would love to see a future wipe where top-tier AP ammo costs are through the roof (demand greatly outpacing supply) and and harder to obtain (lvl-4 barters at best) such that typical chads are using mags topped with only 3 or so bullets rather than mag dumping 60+ AP rounds into a target all the time. I know a lot of people have expressed this sentiment that it would add a lot of variety to the game. Moreover, I see it as a necessary eventuality if BSG wants  to avoid having  to implement full wipes one day.

Edited by Bane5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bane5
20 hours ago, JerryLove said:

I've said before and will say again: what applied to PvE doesn't apply to PvP. Half of all players will be below average; and if you don't give them ways to progress in the game, you lose your playerbase. 

I doubt anyone is leaving or avoiding the game because "hatchet runners take all the good stuff"; but I promise you people are leaving because they are unable to achieve some level of success. 

At the same time, a lot of people are drawn to the game due to the adrenaline rush it gives because there is risk in the game. If the path of least resistant and meta optimization becomes dull, then there is also a risk of losing your audience's interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryLove
35 minutes ago, Bane5 said:

At the same time, a lot of people are drawn to the game due to the adrenaline rush it gives because there is risk in the game. If the path of least resistant and meta optimization becomes dull, then there is also a risk of losing your audience's interest.

Either position is a loss for your argument. 

  • If games appeal because they are easy: you lose the bottom players. 
  • If games appeal because they are hard: you lose the top players. 

And since there will always be bottom and top players in PvP (all positions are relative, unlike PvE), you will always lose players. You can't appeal to your presupposition without it biting you on the metaphorical ass. 

But that's not all: it gets worse from there. 

Because assured death is no more "risk" than assured victory; you actually lose *both* bottom and top players; one because there's no risk of failure and the other because there's no risk of victory. 

And while that number will not hit 100% for either group, the closer you get the more problematic it becomes. 

There are solutions to the corner that you've just painted yourself in; but you've already opposed those repeatedly on ideological grounds. 

The first Vikings to colonize Greenland brought with them cows. The cows ate the plant matter carpet that held on the topsoil, which then was blown away by the wind. The cows starved. The Vikings starved. The Inuit offered help, but the Vikings found the idea ideologically unpalatable. They all died and Greenland was recolonized a century later by others. 

There is some debate about this history (it's widely accepted, but not certain); but it's valuable as a parable. 

Edited by JerryLove
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bane5
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, JerryLove said:

Either position is a loss for your argument. 

  • If games appeal because they are easy: you lose the bottom players. 
  • If games appeal because they are hard: you lose the top players. 

And since there will always be bottom and top players in PvP (all positions are relative, unlike PvE), you will always lose players. You can't appeal to your presupposition without it biting you on the metaphorical ass. 

But that's not all: it gets worse from there. 

Because assured death is no more "risk" than assured victory; you actually lose *both* bottom and top players; one because there's no risk of failure and the other because there's no risk of victory. 

And while that number will not hit 100% for either group, the closer you get the more problematic it becomes. 

I don't agree with this dichotomy of dividing people into below average players who are losing games and above average players who are getting victories; and that failing to appease either would lead to dire consequences.

A better model would be population demographic categories.

  • At the bottom are infants (new players 1-9, people that die to scavs because their mouse sensitivity isn't right)
  • Then come students (people are getting better and have a grasp of the basic ropes, likely ratting around)
  • After that are high-performers-adults (people that have experienced and learned all the ins and outs of the meta and are using it to the best effect)
  • Then there are seniors (jaded veterans that only log in occasionally because they see the flaws of the current end-game, gameplay loop, or are simply bored with lack of variety)

A new game is like a developing country where the population curve is heavy at the bottom. A game that has been out for a while is a game is like a developed country where they have to care for an aging population (tons of salty-vets). People who are "below average in skill" naturally are people who are getting better at the game and will graduate to higher categories or at least make it to center of the normal distribution bell-curve. They expect to lose and anticipate that things will be better in the future with more experience and knowledge.

Edited by Bane5
Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryLove

I can tell you exactly how many people are "below average in skill"... 50%. 

EfT is PvA... which means there's a PvE and PvP game, both of which can be looked at seperatedly. 

Your description applies well to PvE. The opponents are in a static range. The NPC don't get better or worse from game to game; so if you get better you do better. 

This is not true in PvP games.... particularly unranked PvP games. As I've mentioned, the most you can do to get away from "always win" and "never win" is to flatten the skill-to-victory rate. Play a game like Snakes and Ladders, and everyone experiences the same win rate. Play blackjack and everyone over a minimum skill experiences the same skill rate (because they are the same effective skills (card counters not withstanding)).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bane5
Posted (edited)

Backing up just slightly as things have drifted into tangents on the philosophical design goals of the game:

On 3/8/2021 at 1:46 AM, JerryLove said:

I've said before and will say again: what applied to PvE doesn't apply to PvP. Half of all players will be below average; and if you don't give them ways to progress in the game, you lose your playerbase.

I'm not sure how you leaped to the conclusion that this change is suddenly going to make the the game impossible for below average players to progress (or overwhelmingly difficult).

All I wanted was for a few spots to require guns to break into. Higher-tier quest areas, the tech stores on interchange, the Idea computer room, the substation graphics card spawn, marked rooms, and some special high-value supply caches. Its not like there aren't still coats or bags on the map to grab or scavs to kill still for money making purposes. There's still tons of way to make money in the game.

The majority of brand new players 1-9 don't even know these places exist yet. Rats in my general experience, if they want to live with their gearsets, don't go here anyways. Even from your personal description of how you said you played interchange, you said you hang around the outside not wanting to go into the mall. Does this change even affect you significantly really?

I don't agree with what I assume is a hidden premise that hatchet loot rushing is a necessity for below average players to succeed. Raising the risk floor for loot rushing high-value items =/= raising the risk floor for all below-average players. When I was new to the game, and certainly below average at the game compared to all the chads roaming around, I didn't hatchet run, and I still succeeded.

Edited by Bane5
Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryLove
11 hours ago, Bane5 said:

Backing up just slightly as things have drifted into tangents on the philosophical design goals of the game:

I'm not sure how you leaped to the conclusion that this change is suddenly going to make the the game impossible for below average players to progress (or overwhelmingly difficult).

All I wanted was for a few spots to require guns to break into. Higher-tier quest areas, the tech stores on interchange, the Idea computer room, the substation graphics card spawn, marked rooms, and some special high-value supply caches. Its not like there aren't still coats or bags on the map to grab or scavs to kill still for money making purposes. There's still tons of way to make money in the game.

You moved the goalposts. Here's the original statement from which this thread of the conversation originates

"I used "locking" the container too loosely I think. You cant add items. Itd still be a place for keys and meds (Id argue that may have been BSGs main intention? idk)."

I've no opposition to making some areas harder to get into than they are now. I've advocated that more than once. 

The rest of your post is a response to this false/changed premise and so I'll skip.

Link to post
Share on other sites
McFlappyNuts

yeah hopefully they will fix that glitch that allows you to run around from zero to hero.

Maybe they will fix that one glitch where you can shoot and kill other PMCs. 

What I really hope they fix that glitch where you can have fun in this game doing what you want. You know of this glitch ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
flidmerchant

This would make sense say on interchange - the tech stores could have the most valuable loot in glass boxes and either they can be smashed, or maybe limited use keys for them or something. I'd like to see the concept of breaching gear being included - various types that take up a primary weapon slot and can open different doors or containers. This has dual purpose of forcing players to take some risk to loot certain spots, also weighing them down and taking time and noise to get the best loot too. Examples:

Sledgehammer - Cheap, heavy, noisy - can smash through weak doors and glass cases like you are suggesting, doors could take some time.

Oxy torch - Heavy, expensive, can cut through steel doors and locks

Angle grinder - Noisy, takes time, cheaper and lighter than the oxy torch

Lockpick - cheap and quiet, takes ages, requires skills to be effective

Plus maybe something like breaching rounds for shotguns - can blow door off hinges but obviously then you have to take a shotgun which isn't that bad IMHO, or shaped charges, like a single use key for any door but they would cost a bomb 😁

Edited by flidmerchant
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bane5
On 3/10/2021 at 8:58 PM, flidmerchant said:

Plus maybe something like breaching rounds for shotguns - can blow door off hinges but obviously then you have to take a shotgun which isn't that bad IMHO, 

Wouldn't even need a separate shotgun once underbarrel attachments make it into the game. Many AR's could perform double duty as primary weapons and door breachers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...