Outpost suggestions

JayZ

@mods - Please don't merge or move this thread. I put quite a bit of thought into it, so I don't want it to get buried on a less visible sub-forum, and it's not directly related to the Super Cycle.

@Shteevie - Per your suggestion last week, I gave Outposts a shot this weekend. I was actually pleasantly surprised and had a lot of fun. I played exploration missions when I had video unlocks, and spent the rest of my gas on Outposts, jumping from about 3000 influence to 4200 in two days.

Based on my experiences, the feedback I've seen on the forums, and your responses clarifying the dev teams' logic behind certain decisions, I compiled a list of feedback about the outposts that I hope you take into account before 2.2.

Warning: large block of text to follow. I tried to bold the most important points in each section.

Matchmaking
- Users should be able to choose their matches, and they should have information about walker levels and defender levels.
- Removing information doesn't do anything. TG rewards and survivor class (rare, epic, legendary) are great proxies, which allowed me to selectively choose my matches.
- You keep telling us that you want to give users more options to choose how they play (e.g., nerfing dodge/luck so that other traits/builds become more viable), right? Well, give users the option to choose their matches!
- In the middle of raiding, I wanted easier matches to reduce hospital time. Towards the end of a gaming session, I'd go for a tough matchup with high rewards so that I could let my survivors heal while I did other things. I don't understand why you would increase player choice in certain aspects of the game but not others.

Influence and rewards
- The influence system is still not great. I've gotten 10 influence against all level 19 legendary survivors and 24 influence from defeating level 17 rare survivors, which is dumb.
- Influence rewards should not be tied to the influence of the person you're raiding, it should be based on the difficulty of the matchup.
- Influence rewards should not only be based on defender levels, but also on gear levels. For example, I finally got to level 19 survivors, but they're all sporting level 19 gear. There's a huge difference between my level 19 survivors/level 19 gear and the level 19 defenders/level 22 gear. Influence should be scaled accordingly to compensate.
- Why not make influence calculations dynamic, based on the composition of your team and the defending team? I understand that it will be tougher to code, but if you really want to make Outposts attract people, this is really something that needs to be done.
- To tie this together with matchmaking: You had mentioned that the dev team removed zombie/defender levels to prevent people from skipping matches. Tying influence to matchup difficulty and providing users with information gives us the best of both words: it rewards people for taking on tougher matchups, but gives people the option of an easy raid if they want to avoid hospital time but still want to play.

Hospital time
- I'm sure you've seen the feedback on the forum about this weekend's event. I've crapped on the event in the past, but I actually really liked it this week with the Super Cycle.
- You had mentioned somewhere that there were going to be changes to the hospital with regard to PvP.
- I think you should make reduced healing times permanent for outpost-related damage. For someone with a high level hospital, that means that bruises require no hospital time, injuries take about ~10 minutes of hospital time, and heavy injuries result in longer stays at the hospital.
- My hospital stays were just long enough that I didn't get careless with my raids, but short enough that I could absorb some hits and still continue to raid.

Zombies
- I know some people were complaining about weak camps with low zombie numbers. It sucks to not have charge abilities, but it is what it is. I didn't find this to be a huge problem in my raids.
- The most annoying thing (and I mentioned this in another thread) is that gate-triggered zombies DO NOT attack enemy raiders. I cannot begin to describe how nonsensical and frustrating this is. Please for the love of god, make the game realistic, and have zombies and defenders attack each other like they do in challenge missions.
- Why is this important? Well, it adds a whole level of complexity, player choice, and fun to outposts, which is the intended goal, right? During my raids, I came up with several creative ways to lure the zombies to the enemy defenders and pit them against each other (until I realized that it didn't work).

Number of turns
- I've seen some complaints that 7 turns isn't enough. I think 7 turns is generally more than enough.
- I've only found it to be insufficient on that one rural fields map, which you guys have already stated that you're going to change in 2.2.

Shteevie

Thanks a ton for this post! I'm happy that you came out of this positively and that you felt that your time and efforts were rewarded.

You mentioned in a few places that you had heard that changes for some issues were already in the works, and all of those are true. Not all of them will be in 2.2, but several are already ready for the deployment of the patch. More info as we near the launch date.

As for the central 'choice' discussion, it's important to look at the ways that the players will react to these choice offerings. It's also important to examine these issues additionally from the eyes of a new player, or at least one new to Outpost, and to try and separate hindsight and nostalgia from changes that would otherwise be seen differently.

I think kiting walkers onto defenders is an interesting idea, but I have no idea how difficult it might be to implement. There is the basic question of why a player would choose to upgrade their defensive walkers if they knew that they would potentially be used against their defending survivors.

Calculating rewards based on the difficulty of the matchup is absolutely what we're aiming for, but that is quite hard when you see your opponent's info before you select your own team. Would you be OK with not knowing what the rewards would be until the match was completed? Would players game the rewards system, swapping survivors in and out of the attacking team and changing their gear looking for the breakpoint between 25 and 30 influence? This could take a long time, and would not be all that fun for many players.

I think that in general, your ideas align with our goals, and I'll definitely add them to the list of ideas that we'll consider the next time we dig deep into the outpost system. I really appreciate the well-presented and argued set of opinions and suggestions here, and thanks again for putting in the work to share your thoughts with us.

OneLessTitan

I think we know what changes will be coming to outposts in 2.2: all maps will have the TG crate moved out of range for a scout to get in one move. It's inevitable.

DLich

@OneLessTitan are you reading my mind? I thought the same thing!!!

SlickRick

Stop sharing strategy and loopholes on the forum...many figured this out months ago lol

OneLessTitan

Some of us like helping people out, even if it it's only short term before NG can use our helpfulness against us. Not all of us like to provide info that most anyone here can answer as a way of obviously humble bragging and trying to skip into female users DMs.

SlickRick

@OneLessTitan

Yeah I help tons of people...I just do it underground where it can't be used against us...also pretty funny how you know me so well for not actually knowing me at all

Willfully doing something and then complaining about it makes a ton of sense imo...good luck with that!!

JayZ

@Shteevie Thanks for the feedback. With regard to influence, I was envisioning a system that could calculate influence in the preview screen before a match begins. Now that you mentioned it, I do agree that it is difficult and probably not practical to also control for gear (in addition to survivor levels) and having dynamic influence rewards based on the team you put forward could potentially result in people spending unnecessary time trying to figure out how to optimize their lineups.

Perhaps the solution is to simply use a player's max survivor level vs. the levels/rarity of the defenders to determine influence. I think this is an easy fix that (A) properly aligns the incentives for raiding tougher outposts and (B) gives players the choice of an easy, low-reward raid vs. a tough, high-reward raid. It also solves the issues you discussed above.

@SlickRick and @OneLessTitan let's try to stay on-topic. I like both of you guys, and would rather have this thread as a productive discussion about ways to improve outposts rather than where it's headed.

DLich

OneLessTitan said:

I think we know what changes will be coming to outposts in 2.2: all maps will have the TG crate moved out of range for a scout to get in one move. It's inevitable.

I think i'd go back to not playing outposts again if this happens. This weekend some played to get to 3,000 influence to be able to purchase the 30 bundle tokens from the shop. Some played to try and achieve "top dog" status with the healing times reduced. Some played just to increase their TG's with the lowered gas costs. But people played for various reasons.

If they did that I would probably stop playing again, then go back to complaining about not being able to get TG's and tokens lol.

SlickRick

My bad @JayZ ...I don't say shit unless people come after me personally...especially talking out of their ass...but it's done and done so back to the topic at hand buddy

P.S. Good suggestions...I don't raid much generally but did some this past weekend....and you have some good ideas in there!!

Shteevie

OneLessTitan said:

I think we know what changes will be coming to outposts in 2.2: all maps will have the TG crate moved out of range for a scout to get in one move. It's inevitable.

-Appreciate the optimism and all; thanks a bunch. Actually, we've already changed many of the maps based on feedback from the event to make the crate easier to get to - in some cases, adding a second route so that the defender can't simply focus on one direction. Players should have options of whether they require the attacker to engage in order to get the TG [focusing on trying to gain influence on defense] or whether they are happy to let the TGs be raided so the survivors aren't threatened [focusing on preserving influence].

Maybe this description of our thinking will assuage your fears somewhat.

_NoName

You asked for suggestions and here comes mine ... xmas is just around the corner ... not sure if that is even doable but I would love to have a chance to watch my team defending my outpost after the fact (kinda replay).

I always wonder what happened after I check back my outpost and see the my influence has risen magically (or not :-). It might also be a good way to better place the defenders when seeing them in action.

EL34xyz

Shteevie said:

OneLessTitan said:

I think we know what changes will be coming to outposts in 2.2: all maps will have the TG crate moved out of range for a scout to get in one move. It's inevitable.

-Appreciate the optimism and all; thanks a bunch. Actually, we've already changed many of the maps based on feedback from the event to make the crate easier to get to - in some cases, adding a second route so that the defender can't simply focus on one direction. Players should have options of whether they require the attacker to engage in order to get the TG [focusing on trying to gain influence on defense] or whether they are happy to let the TGs be raided so the survivors aren't threatened [focusing on preserving influence].
.

@Shteevie
That is good news
Moving the crate farther away is the last thing you guys need to do at this point
Thanks for that info

tallinie

@Shteevie Maybe raiding team should be locked before matchmaking. Meaning, no changes to raiding team members or their gear, once matchmaking has been conducted. You would just have two options: raid or flee. Another way is to calculate rewards according to final matchup, comparing raiding team to defender team. Outpost map and walker difficulty level could be used to tune rewards as well.

Shteevie

tallinie said:

@Shteevie Maybe raiding team should be locked before matchmaking.

-It would be the opposite of the flow that we use for other game modes, though, and would remove much of the strategy around having many viable raider survivors. People would always take the same 3 and not think about tactics to counter what they see in the other team.

I see where you are coming from , but I prefer the consistency and choices we have in place.

Shut_Up

@Shteevie I know the luck debate has been rehashed to death but was any thought given to using the charge attacks to alter how luck is stacked?

For me I don't mind seeing something done to change the balance of the outpost and hopefully a little more in favor of the attackers but I always worry when I see a change in one part of the game and what it will do to other parts. Everyone charges up before they open the gate so it's no secret there so I've always thought that a good way to change the way luck stacks with the dodge and bullet dodge would be letting charged attacks have a greater chance of hitting the target than non charged attacks. I wouldn't make it unstack everything but for example let's say taking everything into consideration a survivor has 60% bullet dodge but when hit by a charged attack the charged attack is only subject to 45% bullet dodge maybe even al the way down to 30% or half its original value.

Since raiders and walker don't have dodge and bullet dodge it would leave the other aspects of the game pretty much unchanged and only affect outposts.

Movado

The OP has made some nice thoughtful suggestions, but I take issue with him brushing aside the walker numbers problem with stating it just "it is what it is." NO. This is a problem that undermines the integrity of the Outpost upgrade system. Sure, I can remove my Tanks & Armored, but I'm stuck having 13 normal walkers on map, so I might as well place all special walkers. But others can deprive an opponent from charge abilities if they hadn't upgraded their walkers/pit. I have to imagine the game is not intended to dissuade players from upgrading/leveling something in game, nor to give inherent advantages for such conduct. Either let us remove all walkers from map, or, incentivize having walkers, please.

JayZ

@Movado That's a fair point. That's mostly only something that has not personally affected me (having two of my guys charged up is usually good enough for me), so I shouldn't have posted in a way that would generalize to other people. I was considering it only from the attacker's perspective, but not the perspective of someone who has invested a lot into their pit.

Shteevie

We have a planned solution for charge attack denial that unfortunately has to wait for 2.2.

And we'll be looking at the deploy points to see if moving them a little away from the start is warranted.

Monsuta

@Shut_Up
I think every charged attack should have guaranteed 100% success rate in the outpost.
This can give the attackers the advantage without remove the luck stacking, also letting the walkers spawn after opening the gate have more meaning because it's easier to charge up from walkers to use it against defenders in the limited turns also adding more strategies.

Shut_Up

Thanks Ant.

@Monsuta Part of me agrees with you that it would be nice that defenders couldn't dodge charge attacks at all. I think that would be more like it was when outposts were first released but NG wants them to be more competitive and part of me agrees with that too. Sounds kind of like they have something in mind to help increase the chance of charged attacks landing and hopefully they can find the 'right number' for lack of a better term.

I like that term Shteevie charge attack denial.

QB34

Ok I'm kinda new to this and can't seem to add what @Shteevie said but the paragraph from one response that started "calculating rewards based on difficulty" I actually think this is a pretty cool idea... Except the not knowing rewards until after the matchup.. Here's my twist on it... Defender level, rarity, and gear, walker level and map all add to the outpost overall pvp value or difficulty rating whatever you want to call it. The raiding team you have lined up level, rarity, and gear all add to the attacker pvp value and based on the difference rewards are determined. You see these rewards before choosing to enter the battle. A large reward you know it's going to be difficult. A small reward should signify the attacker has the upper hand. let's say I see an easy matchup. I could then modify my team using lower level survivors thereby increasing the difficulty of the raid and gaining higher rewards for success of said raid but also higher risk for failure.
It increases a players options for how they feel like playing at that particular moment. Do I want to just play as fast as possible with whatever matchup is presented? Or am I feeling frisky and want to take the time to create a difficult challenge at the same time optimizing the rewards for that matchup and dusting off an old survivor that I never use anymore?
That would be a pretty neat way to play in my opinion.

Here's another idea.... With the current outpost setup you can somewhat gauge the difficulty based on the rewards however there's no certainty to it until you're actually in the match. I'm kinda growing to like this excitement of the unknown. Sometimes I find myself in a match where I'm quite overwhelmed. Add a "call in the calvary" option where you could spend 5 radios to add a 4th survivor. However this comes with risk... Should you call in the Calvary you lose your option to flee and must fight to the death and either be successful or all 4 raiders go to the hospital with a heavy injury. Thoughts????

wrinkled_bag

How does your second idea add value to the outpost you are attacking ?

DLich

null

nadecir

If it's in the game design that attackers should all be charged, then I suggest just giving the attackers the charge abilities at the beginning of the raid. Don't make the attackers earn it by just artificially adding walker bait.

It would also be better if the defender could select his own walker mix as defense. Maybe each defender is given a defense budget, with each walker type having its own value toward filling that defense budget. Imagine being able to configure your outpost defense with all fatties if you prefer, or a mix of armored and normal walkers. That would give the defender some creative defense possibilities, and would add variety and surprise to each attack. It would also require the attacker build a balanced attack team. This would make defending walkers meaningful. And it would mean that a walker defense might not the be same, even if you attack the same player twice.

As it stands now, each attacker knows the exact walker mix he is likely to face with a maximum defense. As it is now, the defensive walkers are just a boring nuisance to most attackers.

QB34

@wrinkled_bag
Honestly that's a good point and it doesn't add any value to the outpost you are attacking. It really just helps even the playing field when a level 16/17 attacker is swarmed by fatties and armored at the beginning of the raid and then finds level 19 defenders on the other side of the gate. Honestly I've had a few encounters where a 4th survivor wouldn't have made me successful but it would give a fighting chance.
i guess the value for the outpost would be that the attacker doesn't know it's true strength before attacking. Should it successfully defend a 4 survivor raid it gains double the influence but if it loses it only loses a portion of the normal amount? Maybe? Do you have any ideas along those lines to sweeten the deal for defenses?

QB34

I think it just adds another actually realistic use for radios to the game too

GrimGael

I have raided a little, and don't recall seeing the too few walkers tactic used with level 19 walkers. I've seen it with low level walkers, it wastes a turn when you open the gate and then everyone is charged by the incoming wave of plentiful low level walkers you otherwise get to ignore. Unless defenders have line-of-sight (then it's on, obviously)
I use it myself, because until you've fully upgraded, it's the only--I say again--only walker strategy availible to the defender. Why would I set out 12 5th level walkers for target practice on the way to the gate?
Doing this in no way stops the fully upgraded defense of other players starting off my raiding party toe-to-toe with tanks and armored. Which I will certainly do when it becomes an option, if it is not removed before I get there. It is clearly the superior option.
Any thoughts on this, @Shteevie ? It's ghosted everytime I bring it up, and I have several times.

Shut_Up

The charge attack denial refers to survivors dodging another survivor's special attack!

GrimGael

That was not my impression, based on my perception of the conversation flow.
But now I've edited the comment so it can be properly ghosted. Carry on.

Shteevie

@GrimGael
-I am deep in spreadsheets trying to cram stuff in to 2.2, so I may be too addle-brained to follow your statement.

Defensive walkers are there to add to the time pressure, charge up the attacker's charge abilities, allow for attackers to make mistakes or require high skill to avoid damage before the game drops, and give the defending player ways to customize their camps.

I have seen players with lots of high-level normal walkers, and also those with minimally-upgraded normals, but maxed out armored and tank walkers. It's not just the binary set of upgraded or not; there are more than 2 ways to tango.

We're planning to increase the minimum number of defensive walkers so that attackers will be able to get all or most of their charge attacks regardless of how many upgrades or placements are made. Therefore, the best strategy is to use all of your upgrades, which makes the most sense. It should never be the case that the player doesn't want to use something that they invested time and resources into upgrading.