Jump to content

Essay Response to Veritas Video


droscoe
 Share

Recommended Posts

In response to Veritas' video discussing the imbalanced relationship between gear investment and gear gains/losses. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, some assumptions : The goal is to have Survival Rate correlate with gear investment.

Both the acquisition, and loss, of gear hinges on one specific variable: Damage. And high-end damage is available to all.

That being said, I believe the problem lies with ammunition distribution and availability.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While elementary and incredibly obvious, it’d be wise to walk back from the problem to find the source.

  • Acquiring or losing high-end gear is the result of Death
  • Death is the result of taking too much Damage.
  • Damage is dealt by bullets.
  • Bullets with armor penetration counter high-end gear
  • AP rounds are available to all players
  • And so, transitively speaking, all players have equal opportunity to cause Death to players with high-end gear.

There are three variables that are important here, two of which are controllable, one is not.

  • Spotting someone first
  • Ammo Availability
  • Armor Damage Mitigation

Let’s consider these variables individually, starting from the bottom.

  1. There are expensive armors that mitigate damage. This is a reasonable design decision to reward players that wish to pay a premium to survive more. To improve one’s chances of surviving battles, it requires a larger investment in the more expensive armors. This, however, requires a counter, as all well-designed games should, which is of course, AP Rounds.
     
  2. AP Rounds are available to anyone that can afford them. Period.

    One interesting thing here that should be explored is the relationship between the cost of armor versus the cost of AP rounds that kills the players wearing that armor. Since AP rounds are accessible to all,  it’s far cheaper to buy the counter to armor than it is the buy the armor in the first place.
     
  3. If AP Rounds counter expensive armors, and everyone can purchase AP Rounds, then the last thing to matter in a quick-twitch fight is reaction time. Whoever is spotted first, and is fired upon first, dies first.

With regards to Labs, a mostly close-range to medium-range map, most skirmishes are relatively close. A pimped out M4 with a fancy stock, foregrip, high ergo and recoil reduction matters not when you’re 10 feet away. My MP5 with AP rounds will kill you if I see you first, and I don’t need to spend anything on increasing Ergo or reducing recoil.

AP Rounds have no barrier to entry and a seemingly low opportunity cost. While they may be expensive, relative to other rounds, they are the optimal choice for killing players that you’d profit from in the first place.

In Summary :

  • The cost to increase Survivability = High
  • The cost to counter Survivability = Very Low

My Suggestions :

  • Increase the price of AP rounds. This may be controversial. While it may reduce their usage, the core issue isn’t addressed. But this may be one thing to consider, in addition to the following.
     
  • Increase damage mitigation of armor. Without knowing any hard stats, this idea may not hold up. Perhaps armor simply needs a buff. We’re effectively dealing with ‘mirror-matches’, with regards to damage output between low-end gear and high-end gear players. If we buff the mechanism that controls damage mitigation, then the person with low-end gear (but high-end ammunition) will finally be at a disadvantage. Another 1 or 2 seconds of survival time is all it takes for a player to dispatch a player, and so those 1-2 seconds should be allocated exclusively to those with high-end gear through an armor buff.
     
  • Have gear requirements for the ‘end-game’ maps. This may seem like an ‘artificial’ way of facilitating a level playing field, but I think in combination with other tweaks, this would be both a necessary and beneficial change.
     
  • Have gear requirements to use certain ammunition. When entering a raid, limit ammunition types based on the player’s selection of gear they’re wearing, or weapons they’re taking in. It can be a points system, or based on the cost of your gear. Or limit ammunition based on how much a weapon is modded (which increases its value/price)
     
  • Have AP Rounds tied to your player level. For example, being level 25 is required to purchase any AP round at all, from the marketplace or trader. The game would filter the items that you see based on your level. Anything you find in-raid is yours to use and keep, but the purchase of AP Rounds should be tied to your level. Or...since there is a tiered list of ammunition, with the Armor Penetration values increasing up the list, each tier of ammunition could be “unlocked” for use, based on player’s level.
     
  • Have AP Rounds tied exclusively to specific Trader level. This may sting the most, as it would effectively remove AP rounds from the marketplace for everyone.

I believe the aforementioned suggestions would promote, or require, real player investment if they intend on engaging with end-game content.

Conclusion :

In a loot-based, progression-based game, the power-level of a player must scale with their player-level. In MMOs, you see this problem dealt with in many different ways. If players of varying levels play together, some MMOs scale their stats to match each other, while others might prohibit you from grouping with a low level player in the first place.

When the cost of Survivability is higher than the counter to survivability, and that counter is accessible at any level, then by design it is more economically sensible to forego Survivability, and instead maximize Damage output.

By following this strategy, investment losses from Death decrease, but investment gains remain high. This inverse relationship is the root of your investment woes.

Bottom Line - The counter to Survivability must cost similarly to Survivability, and must be accessible in a way that scales with player risk and investment.

And so, the regulation of ammunition availability is imperative to a balanced game.

Edited by droscoe
  • Like 2
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum it up, you want ap ammo less common,leaving average Joe not able to use them regular, which will result in 24/7 players being even more advantaged and less vulnerable to casual players.

I don't like you ideas at all, I don't consider them as balance at all.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much to go by, but I will proceed as though 1) You have no issue with the supporting logic and 2) You simply don't like my suggested remedies.

We might have to part out the semantic differences in our terms. I might not have been as clear as I would have liked. Let's divide it in two parts.

  1. I do not want AP rounds less common across the board. I want them to scale with player investment. As a result, they will be less common for those less-invested players, but will be appropriated to properly invested ones.

    The disparity in money-loss between gear investment is due to the accessibility of high-end ammunition. In any loot and progression based game, you would expect a tiered path of access to the more powerful items. As it stands, there is no mechanism that divorces Damage from player level or investment, which is a common, even expected, feature of other games.
     
  2. I take it from your use of the terms "average joe" and "24/7 players" that you're expressing concern about unfairness between casual and hardcore players.

    Again, the purpose of my suggestions was to describe ways in which accessibility to high-end ammunition was governed by player investment. A player's in-game time is not the operative variable in those ideas. How fast they acquire access to high-end ammunition is a function of their in-game play time, but this is a normal and expected feature of any game for that matter.

A casual, level 40 player, has access to the same ammunition that a hardcore level 40 player would have. The frequency of your play-time wouldn't hard-limit your access, but would simply determine the rate of access. I would imagine that you're accustomed to this experience from other games in your life. 

While my suggestions are just ideas, I tried to base them on intuitive logic. A higher-level, more experienced, more invested player should have the advantage over a low-level, low-tier gear player. As I explained, the counter to high-end gear is accessible to not only all players, but it requires no additional investments to utilize. You're supposed to be disadvantaged against a geared player if you're not wearing anything. Since the most important, operative variable in any instance of Death is Damage, it must be distributed proportionally to players' investments.

This was all in context of Veritas's video showcasing an inverse relationship (-1 correlation coefficient) in survival rate and investment.

Now that I've clarified my position, would you share some of your thoughts and ideas?

Edited by droscoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add one more suggestion that may be more palatable to the community.

Group players for raids based on their level - By virtue of your player level, you can expect to be competing against those with relatively similar gear access. This seems to be a pretty simply and effective change.

However, this would not address gear investment, which would require this feature to be in addition to the aforementioned ideas.

Edited by droscoe
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@droscoe

I am going to have to disagree with your core positions in their entirety. To ensure accuracy, I will TLDR them below. If I am not accurate in my assessment, you can clarify:

   Basically, you are taking a cost/benefit analysis of good gear vs countermeasures to good gear. Your core concern is the availability of BP ammo, so you want to restrict the supply, make them more expensive, make it so they need pricey gear to be used, and are off limits to low-level players.

Now let me explain why I think this is an awful idea. Keep in mind, I am not the best shot, so I overcompensate by making large sums of money and over-gearing myself. My typical load-out is worth 1-2 mil. Heck, I am actually kind of a jerk about how much Tarkov money I have. When a streamer kills you, and they are going nuts over your gear, you know that you are geared AF.

What I like about Tarkov is that it is a game where you can really build a character and armory. This gear gives you an advantage: hands down, no contest. The better your gear, the better your advantage. With this being said, GOOD GEAR IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU WIN THE GAME. You cannot carelessly lord over poor players, or players who cannot commit the same amount of time just by outpricing them. Armor increases your chances of well.... getting second, third, or even fourth chances. It does not mean that when you come across a poor player, you win. Gear improves your odds, but does not ensure your numbers turn up with every roll.

   This is something I like about Tarkov: gear matters, but even poor players are a threat. Hell, even with the best gear, you can still theoretically get one-tapped by a stray pistol round. It makes every round tense, and occasionally reminds you of when you become careless. On the other end, it makes it so that the game is an actual warzone, rather than a bunch of rich kids running around reking everything. You can go into a game with a mosin, and come out with my 2 mil loadout..... but chances are even I am going to kill you with that matchup. I have to say, I don't like your vision of the game, where you can waltz around in your fancypants gear and not have to worry about someone who has less money than you. It actually reminds me of a song I listened to once from a wacky group, the lyrics went something like

"Go and gloat through and through how you slew them two by two, but like the Zulus they faced you down with spear and bow n' arrow.
Then brag how bravely you faced one from behind your 16 pounder guns."

   
There are other problems I see with this. The first being that Tarkov is hard on new players. The last thing we need here is to make it so that new players are at an even greater disadvantage when starting the game. The second problem I also see is that there is a big problem with hackers in the game. Is it nearly as bad as the forums say? Probably not, but undoubtedly a lot of these hackers loot gear to sell illegally for real cash. If you make it so that gear, not skill and patience primarily determines who wins a fight, you WILL see an increase in people buying items on the black market, and WILL see an increase in hacking as a result. I don't want that to happen.

   All I can say is that if you find that your gear isnt saving you, maybe the solution is to step up your game. If you find at a high level, you cant afford to loose expensive gear.... well maybe you need to improve your money making skills. I am mid-level, and I find that I have so much money I actually give large amounts of it away. 

Edited by sleava
Added note, fixed typo.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sleavaI'm going to address your response starting at the top.

"Keep in mind, I am not the best shot, so I overcompensate by making large sums of money and over-gearing myself. My typical load-out is worth 1-2 mil."

The context of my post was directed solely at those who purposefully do not gear themselves. (hatchlings, low-tier gear players) but have access to equal levels of Damage output as geared players, such as yourself.

"The better your gear, the better your advantage. With this being said, GOOD GEAR IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU WIN THE GAME. You cannot carelessly lord over poor players, or players who cannot commit the same amount of time just by outpricing them. Armor increases your chances of well.... getting second, third, or even fourth chances. It does not mean that when you come across a poor player, you win. Gear improves your odds, but does not ensure your numbers turn up with every roll."

As Veritas alluded to, and I explained, that “advantage of better gear” that you mention actually doesn't scale proportionally in Tarkov. This is specifically the issue.

With regards to the rest of that paragraph, this was all addressed in the OP and my first response. Two of my suggestions alleviate the mismatch of players.

  • Group players based on their level.
  • Have gear requirements for end-game maps.

You’re right, it does not automatically mean a instant victory when you’re geared and you fight someone who isn’t. *cough*leg meta*. We’re talking about access to Damage, which has tiered access in most any game you and I play. Call of Duty, and other shooters, alleviate the discrepancy between players’ power-level by doing what I suggested: Grouping players based on level.

You mentioned ‘poor’ players. Let's not be coy, or dance around it. Let's not to pretend to stick up for poor PMCs. We're talking about the meta of hatchling runners and low-tier kits being objectively better than investing in gear. This is called a dominant strategy. 

All my suggestions are a-la-carte, but a couple of them would require another to function properly. But my point still stands: The counter to high-end gear is more cost effective than investing in high-end gear in the first place. This dominant strategy does require some attention. Notice I also do not suggest nerfing AP rounds.

We must not misconstrue ‘poor’ players with the dominant strategy. Tarkov has been around long enough that it’s clear that hatchling runs or low-tier runs are more cost effective than literally any other strategy. Dominant strategies are due precisely to a game imbalance.

“ I have to say, I don't like your vision of the game, where you can waltz around in your fancypants gear and not have to worry about someone who has less money than you.”

Two things:
- This isn’t my vision of the game. Chill. I’m just talking here, we’re discussing the issue at hand and I’m thinking (writing) out loud.
- It doesn’t seem that you watched the video. There is a strong, negative correlation with gear investment and survival rate. In addition, you have the investment cost. No one is implying that players should be able to “lord” over anyone. I’m calling to attention the opportunity cost of investing in gear versus carrying out the dominant strategy of purposefully not investing in gear, but exclusively investing in Damage output by having equal access to end-game ammunition. This specific situation does the opposite of what you’d expect in any game you play.

“The last thing we need here is to make it so that new players are at an even greater disadvantage when starting the game.”

You’re supposed to be at a disadvantage as a new player if you’re talking about combating a high-level player with high-end gear. As implied by Veritas’ tests, and personal experience, the advantage doesn’t correlate to skill, as you suggest. Ammunition itself is the prime variable in the algorithm of Death in Tarkov. Currently, as a low-level player (but with access to high-end ammunition) you have the same Death-dealing potential as a high-level player. Name a single game that you play that allows that.

Let’s not pretend like players haphazardly engage high-end geared players with cheap rounds. We're all doing so with AP rounds. And we’re doing it on purpose because it’s the dominant strategy. It is more sensible to forego survivability, and to invest less in your kit, and focus on the high-end ammunition. 

Am I to think that, on your own accord and good graces, as a rich player, you’re simply sticking up for the poor PMC? Or are you, and others, afraid of having a dominant strategy nerfed?

“All I can say is that if you find that your gear isnt saving you, maybe the solution is to step up your game. If you find at a high level, you cant afford to loose expensive gear.... well maybe you need to improve your money making skills. I am mid-level, and I find that I have so much money I actually give large amounts of it away.”

I’m not saying any of this. Literally nothing of this is something I’m saying. I’m responding to Veritas’ video and considering my own personal experience. Again, we're just talking here, relax.

There is discernible imbalance in the game by (1) having equal Damage-output accessible to all player levels and investments (2) having a single dominant strategy. As a rich player who kits himself out, it is precisely your demographic who are experiencing the opportunity cost of investing in survivability. You say you do so because you're a bad shot, fair enough.

I'm simply calling to attention the imbalanced economics of Damage vs Survivability, and was doing so in context of Veritas' video. In any, or all, shooters you play, there is some mechanic governing damage-output among varying player levels.

Now that I've clarified my position even further, would you share some of your thoughts on the issue? How do you feel about the meta of hatchling runs and low-tier kit runs? Is it not a problem to you? If so, what are your ideas to fix?

Edited by droscoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OneTrueLizardo

Do you reject the logic behind identifying the problem?
Do you reject the idea that it is a problem?
Do you reject the suggestions?

You've got to give me something to work with besides emote reactions. Let's engage.

Edited by droscoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take a massive issue with your first assumption: Survival rate should correlate with gear investment.

 

Why should it?

 

Survival rate should correlate with good, disciplined gameplay habits, and your skill/knowledge of the game. Gear investment should be a tool to tweak the numbers in your favour a bit.

 

If you think its a problem that your fully geared PMC dies too often to hatchlings, maybe you should look at yourself before fixing it with "game balance".

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Survival rate can correlate with multiple things. Skills and knowledge is one variable that we'd expect it to correlate with. I haven't said anything particularly groundbreaking, or controversial for that matter by reiterating that SurvRate should correlate with gear investment. This is a basic feature, and the whole point, of adding higher tier gear in a game. ANY game for that matter.

You would expect, and observe, higher survival rate with higher-tier gear in any game. This is not a controversial statement. I'm simply pointing out that based on his numbers that we see the opposite (in addition to low-tier-gear meta).

What's up with all the grouchy people coming out of the woodwork? I'm not complaining about my own PMC. It's like I offended someone's relative or something. This was all in response and in the context of Veritas' video surrounding the meta of low-tier gear runs, or hatchling runs, and whether or not it was a healthy aspect for the longevity of this game that's in development.

Jeesh, it's like I'm playing League or something. If someone says the sky is blue, people come out with their pitchforks and grumpy attitudes to say how terrible that opinion is. Lighten up, we're just talking here, just brainstorming and discussing issues. I thought I wrote this as neutral and chill as possible, but the reactions have been oddly snarky.

Edited by droscoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People will call out a terrible suggestion when they see it. Its the internet. If people don't show their dissatisfaction, someone with influence in game design might actually read it and consider it worth implementing.

 

What you're suggesting would ruin part of the formula that makes this game truly great. You're talking about a meta? Limiting armour piercing damage to high level players only would enforce a meta more terrible than any of us can imagine. As the others have said, the speed-levelers lording it over the 95% of other people who have no access to good ammo for the majority of a wipe will not lead to a very satisfying game experience.

 

People would still hatchet run, in fact I would imagine it would be more common because people who are behind during the wipe know that they cannot get the ammo required to be competitive in a PVP encounter. So why even risk your gear? Just hatchet exclusively until you've done enough quests to catch up. Regardless, people currently hatchet run to loot, not to fight, so that main reason to do so wouldn't change either.

 

Please don't try to defend this any more, its obviously not what people here want out of Tarkov.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the last time I visit a game forums. Dramatic language, instant negativity, grouchy reactions, inability to communicate in an adult fashion. It's my fault, not yours. It was incredibly foolish of me to dip my toes in online game forums and talk about a complex, nuanced subject such as this.

Edited by droscoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understand people who's against the simple fact that if u play more u have more (skills, gear,...).

At this point of the game, high end gears exempt AP ammo are totally useless and the fact that for those people this is not a issue is terrifying.

Let's just put vendors with ap ammo, gun and no armor (who are useless) who cares !

Thanks for trying to open a discussion droscoe but looks like this game will still suffers from the plague that is the envious casual who play this game one hour per week and still want to have it all.

Welcome to the new era of video game where no effort at all is needed...

Sorry for the english not first language

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of these "Problems" are only Alpha or Beta state problems.

There are so many features yet to be implented that i think most of these suggestions are obsolete when they get implented.

(sorry for my english)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7.62 PS rounds.  Cheap, available at beginning PMC creation.  Available all throughout the map on scavs.  Can punch through a lvl 3 body armor and kill with 2-3 chest shots.  Can one-tap pretty much any helmet except killa and submarine-man helmet (unless you're lucky.)

/endthread

Edited by AdhesiveTeflon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AdhesiveTeflon It doesn't seem that you read the original post or watched the video. So...no, not even close to /endthread. You have no idea what we're talking about.

@DanExert The Altyn helmet. You end up with a scuba helmet window while wearing it. Pestily likes to call it Scuba Steve. lol

Edited by droscoe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2019 at 3:26 PM, smaaken said:

To sum it up, you want ap ammo less common,leaving average Joe not able to use them regular, which will result in 24/7 players being even more advantaged and less vulnerable to casual players.

I don't like you ideas at all, I don't consider them as balance at all.

What's wrong with this?  Why not reward dedicated players for playing and grinding more?  Tarkov is a hardcore game.  Even heavily geared players can die to headshots from subpar ammo or grenades.  

Yeah, players who play 24/7 and invest money into their kits and exp to traders and their operator skills should be more advantaged than the casual who just logs in every few days to play for fun with friends.  Why should the game reward the player who plays less?  Why the frack should casuals be rewarded for playing the game less than a hardcore player who plays everyday for 2-3 hours?

If you are in a raid and you see a guy running around in FAST and Gen IV, you should either run or be very careful when engaging him.  The dude probably dedicates a large amount of his time to the game, and he should be rewarded for it by being given the best gear available to him in the game.

Dedication and skill should be rewarded.  This is the difference even IRL between a grunt who is handed an old M16 and the Delta Force Operator who pretty much gets a blank check from the military to take whatever he needs whenever he needs it for the mission at hand.

Even from an RP perspective, why in the world would Prapor give an average joe he doesn't even know access to his best mil-spec stuff?  Why should Therapist sell you her high-in-demand and low-in-supply Grizzly or IFAK kits when you haven't done anything for her, she doesn't even know you, and doesn't know if you'll just run out there to die and lose it in the field to cultists or greedy scavs?

It's not perfect, but actively punishing 24/7s to reward casuals is probably the worst path to take.

  • Sad 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have written too long of an essay response for the context of this forum community. 

@operator-0

"It should all come down to performance stat's. If i am a soldier that trains everyday and i have been one for 8 years and you have only been a soldier for one therefore lacking experience, agility, speed,..etc. I should have dominant qualities that you DON'T have. What that mean's for the EFT veteran who loves to play 10 hours a day is that his character will be able to perform better than someone who doesn't have as much "experience" (XP and skills). this is what the "difference" should be between player's.....period. "

You are agreeing with me, or at least one of my suggestions and its core logic. It's clear that you're unaware of it, and I don't chalk it up to you being dim-witted or something. I assume the best in anyone I write to. I assume I wrote way too long of a post for anyone to absorb. I also realize you may have not read all of my subsequent responses to others.

I'm not suggesting that our frequency of playing Tarkov should limit our AP ammo access. I'm suggesting that our progressive player level should. This is precisely what you're talking about. A player's experience, perks, and skills (as represented as a numerical character level) should be the measure by which one gains access to higher-end ammunition. A 'veteran' might become a 'veteran' faster due to them playing "10 hours a day", but that's not an imbalanced relationship. The imbalance comes from that low-level player having the same damage output as a high-level players, whether they're hardcore or casual players. Their frequency of play is not an issue.

A casual level 40 player who purposefully invests less in gear will do better, economically, than another casual player who invests more. Or hardcore player. Or level 5 player, or level 20. It doesn't matter. The conversation is about the meta of low-tier gear runs and the impact on Tarkov's longevity. Additionally, I called attention to the imbalance of low-level-player Damage output vs high-level-player Damage output.

I agree with you, "good decisions" help a player immensely in a shooter. But the decision-making was more or less a controlled variable in Veritas' video. He plays the same regardless of his gear. And with a sample-size of 75 runs, we can get a decent picture of any imbalance relationships between gear tiers and investment costs. I assuming you watched the entire thing?

I take issue with your use of the words "whining" and "rant". No one here is excited, ranting, or whining. This is just a conversation and thinking out loud.

I'm not sure how to connect your anecdotal story to my argument. I'm also confused why you shared pictures of your PMC and stash. Congratulations? It looks like my stash. For such a lengthy, spirited response, we have not addressed my supporting logic or any of my suggestions, either as a whole or individually.

I'm just trying to have a fun conversation here about the relationship between the costs of high-end survivability and the costs to counter survivability. Additionally, I wanted to spark a conversation about the clear and obvious meta of low-tier gear & hatchling runs. I didn't realize this would be a jab at casual players or hardcore players.

Edited by droscoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, droscoe said:

I'm just trying to have a fun conversation here about the relationship between the costs of high-end survivability and the costs to counter survivability. Additionally, I wanted to spark a conversation about the clear and obvious meta of low-tier gear & hatchling runs. I didn't realize this would be a jab at casual players or hardcore players.

The casual vs hardcore is unfortunately part of the issue though.  Lots of MMOs are now beginning to appeal to the casual market.  There is a youtube video I watched awhile back about this guy who talked about how MMOs are alleviating the grind to appeal to casuals which if I remember right he said was one of the problems leading to powercreep in the games.  Everyone wants to be the Kirito in their online game without actually working for it.  

For an example I am most familiar with, I'll use an example from fighting games. Street Fighter V was and still is rather notorious for dumbing down a lot of the mechanics in order to appeal to casuals, so much so that many of the long-time professional players who have kept the franchise alive actively spoke out against Capcom's decisions.  For example, Core-A Gaming who runs an encyclopedia youtube channel on fighting games talked about how you could parry a super move while playing a marimba beat on the fight stick regardless of the attack rhythm of the super move.  This was compared to an earlier iteration of the game back in the 90s where you literally had a 16 milisecond window to parry each move or die trying which was why when it was performed at a world tournament in the grand finals it became one of the most iconic moments in the history of fighting games.

But now?  I can just randomly mash the parry button and block the attack.  I can feel just like a pro player without actually having to put in the effort or time to understand the game.

It's a tough balancing act.  Make it too hardcore and you don't get enough casuals or new players interested to maintain development and put food on the table.  Make it too casual and you risk having nothing but trend-chasers playing your games for a short while before moving on to "bigger and better" things AKA newer games.  

EDIT:  I'm wondering if they should remove the flea market entirely and just have players selling stuff to the traders.  This would be in line with your "lock items behind PMC level" idea while allowing players to make a profit selling their loot or excess ammo to the traders.  Make every trader sell base stuff, but then also make them have their own mini-Fence market where they sell surplus items that are sold to them by the players.  This will prevent the current market meta that Veritas talked about where people are making money just flipping items from traders to lower leveled people.

Now, if you're a lower leveled player the only way you can get AP ammo is by killing high leveled players or finding them in raids.  On the NPC traders side, Fence would still be the general "sell poo to me" guy while someone like Prapor would offer you native Russian gear in addition to military-grade AP ammo that is sold to him by other players.

IDK if that would fix it but it would add a lot more to the roleplay aspect of the game by forcing players to have more interaction with the NPCs rather than just going to the flea market for everything.  On top of that, maybe you could have world events going on where supply and demand would fluctuate.  Maybe there was a big operation between the UN and Russian Federation forces which hikes up the cost of AP ammo and armor.  Or maybe there is a big turf war between scavs which results in the traders offering to buy certain guns/gear from you for a higher price.  Or maybe you can trade in dogtags for AP ammo if you are an underleveled player which gives lower leveled players access to the higher tier stuff with some disadvantages.

Edited by Kokurokoki
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, droscoe said:

@AdhesiveTeflon It doesn't seem that you read the original post or watched the video. So...no, not even close to /endthread. You have no idea what we're talking about.

It was a retort to your ammo/armor issue.  Quite frankly I laugh when people complain about the ammo performance/cost/availability issue when 7.62PS is so readily available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of adding a ton of guns into this game if only a dozen of them are actually usefull?

Pistols? Trash

Smgs? Trash

Shotguns? Trash

There are like 25 guns in those categorys that are just made obsolete by armor so why even bother animating and implementing the guns when you need like 20 headshots to penetrate a lvl 3 helmet or body armor?

Hoping for armor plates in the next patch so that some more guns besides ar's , snipers and carbines see a fair share of use

Edited by Wampi6
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see the issue at all and I think is 100% pointless to even talk about right now.

The way we progress in Tarkov will dramatically change when more maps, the story and the possibility to actually escape Tarkov will be implemented.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an idea.

- Only be able to sell items found in the raid on the flee market.  Player brought in items only can be sold to traders.

- Have only very low gear with traders pistols, shotguns, basic smgs, basic armor, small bags, basic meds etc...

- Split traders into more levels. Instead of I, II, III, IV make it up to 10, and progression should be reflected on your level. Level 1-5 level I trader, 5-10 level II trader, 5-15 level III trader, 15-20 level IV trader, 20-25 level V and so on.  Level I to V should be all low level items V-VII medium and VII-X high end items. (Personally I would just have traders sell only low tier items but then all the items that are sold by traders should be spawning on maps or on AI's)

- Limit AP or high end rounds by having traders sell it only later in progression and only in very limited amount. 90rounds of AP every 2 hours. (just an example).

- Sniper rifles should be limited to in raid items or moved to high level items or very limited ammo for it, or damaged and reduced accuracy. (this might ruin a lot of people's play styles but I think more people will benefit from it)

- Scav run respawn should be increased to once every 20 - 30 mins.

- Blind flea market.  Instead of having JOHN SMITH selling 7x BP rounds for 100rubs, Jane Smith selling 150 x BP rounds for 110 rubs and have a whole list of names selling a certain item for a certain price. Should just be BP rounds approx. ~1000 for sale. average price from 10 hours ago 100 rubs. Then the Seller will make their listing for whatever price they want to list and the buyer will have to guess the price. So if I think 100 rubs is the average price and I need 100  BP rounds I will start with low balling and offer 100 BP rounds for 75 rubs. So I will be able to buy whatever the amount of BP rounds sold at 75 rubs and below. I might be able to score 30 rounds of BP. If nobody listed their rounds for 75 rubs or below I will start offering more. A person who listed their item first would have a priority of selling his item. (example I posted 10 BP rounds for 55 RUBs 5 hours ago, John Smith posted his 25 rounds for 65 RUBs 1 hour ago = when someone offers 75 RUBs for 15 BP rounds, my 10 rounds will sell for 55 RUBS first then John Smith's 5 rounds would sell next).  I think this will make sellers and buyers do a lot of guessing because they wouldn't know how many people or when they posted what for what price if flea market just showed a 24hr or 12hr average price per item. (average amount and price.). This was the market in the game of Pirates of the Burning Sea, long time ago.

- NO LABS UNTIL LEVEL 30. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, while I understand what you're saying @droscoe and understand veritas' frustrations, have you guys had a look at the road map (pretty sure there is one at least ) Traders are fillers, quests are fillers, the content is not what we actually paid for as all of this will change as progress is made.

The argument that new guys or low level guys shouldn't have access to the best stuff is exactly what is going to happen. Nikita has said multiple times in streams and such that this game is PvE with a hint or PvP and not the other way around, it's just what we have atm sadly.

Do you honestly think all those random "crap" items you see floating around are there for nothing? You don't think we'll get a crafting element in an MMO/survival game? 

Stop thinking about the NOW and think about the future and what the game is actually going to be. Throwing out suggestions on a game in development without knowledge of where that development is going is pointless. Sure they'll tweak thinks they feel need tweaking but the end goal remains the same for them. They know what they're building, we're just here to support them and test things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...