Risk vs. Reward

[SeraphimKensai]

I've been thinking the following for the better part of the last year now:

 

Why not have taskforce, trial, arc completion, etc. rewards like merits, and increased incarnate salvage scale based on difficulty? That way if we run something that's +4*8 we're rewarded more than doing -1*1. It feels weird, at least to me, to do something on a higher difficulty that doesn't compensate for our additional effort/time.

 

It's like the idea of working overtime in the real world, I'd definitely prefer time and a half than straight pay.

 

The largest issue I could see would be people running on the lowest difficulty until the last mission, and then cranking it up. Due to that some form of code would have to be created to prevent abuse.

 

Assuming that something like this is possible, what thoughts do you all have regarding scaling rewards based on risk?

Edited December 15, 2020 by SeraphimKensai

[Greycat]

Do we really want to use those settings in this age of IOs to determine "risk," though? If anything, you'd be punishing people who can't run at those settings, while encouraging those who can to just farm them over and over.

 

There's also other issues such as team size to consider there.

 

Honestly I'd probably just leave it alone.

[SeraphimKensai]

53 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Do we really want to use those settings in this age of IOs to determine "risk," though? If anything, you'd be punishing people who can't run at those settings, while encouraging those who can to just farm them over and over.

 

There's also other issues such as team size to consider there.

 

Honestly I'd probably just leave it alone.

Maybe then a tf option to disable set bonuses for added reward?

[EmmySky]

I think the 'added reward' is already present in the form of xp, inf and drops.  I don't really see the need for more additional rewards but it is entirely possible I am not seeing the whole picture, or I am not seeing what you see as a problem.

[SeraphimKensai]

I'm getting to the fact that if:

 

Player 1 completes task A on +0/1

And Player 2 completes task A on +4/8

 

The reward at the completion of the task, is the same. The mobs on a +4/8 would drop more influence than on a +0/1, and that's rightfully so, but the issue lies at the hand of the completion reward.

 

As in several people I know's case (myself often lies in this pool as well), is that joining a team for a taskforce that the leader decides to run at say +4 as they want xp or influence. If you are already at max level and say have enough influence that you don't need more, you might be more willing to do the +4 if say the completion reward scales, say instead of 20 merits, maybe 30 or such. As if you have all the xp and influence you need, it's sometimes often able to run say the ITF 4 times on +0 in the time it takes a team to run it on +4. And I'm trying to justify why I should spend more of my finite time on a task that could be completed more efficiently.

 

Sorry if I'm not super concise in how I'm phrasing this.

[golstat2003]

3 hours ago, SeraphimKensai said:

Maybe then a tf option to disable set bonuses for added reward?

They could use the "master of" settings and just add rewards for them.

 

Add a disable all set bonuses feature to that.

[golstat2003]

2 hours ago, SeraphimKensai said:

I'm getting to the fact that if:

 

Player 1 completes task A on +0/1

And Player 2 completes task A on +4/8

 

The reward at the completion of the task, is the same. The mobs on a +4/8 would drop more influence than on a +0/1, and that's rightfully so, but the issue lies at the hand of the completion reward.

 

As in several people I know's case (myself often lies in this pool as well), is that joining a team for a taskforce that the leader decides to run at say +4 as they want xp or influence. If you are already at max level and say have enough influence that you don't need more, you might be more willing to do the +4 if say the completion reward scales, say instead of 20 merits, maybe 30 or such. As if you have all the xp and influence you need, it's sometimes often able to run say the ITF 4 times on +0 in the time it takes a team to run it on +4. And I'm trying to justify why I should spend more of my finite time on a task that could be completed more efficiently.

 

Sorry if I'm not super concise in how I'm phrasing this.

Ahhh that makes sense.

[Player2]

19 hours ago, SeraphimKensai said:

 

Player 1 completes task A on +0/1

And Player 2 completes task A on +4/8

 

I did?  Awesome.