Suggestion: Streamline Easter Mayhem Defense Instance (next year, not this year)

Captain Jack

Elite
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
3,733
Society
Endgame
Good afternoon,

The current Easter Mayhem Defense mode instance is a lot of fun. It's challenging, engaging, requires skill, coordination, equipment, and tactics. I love it!

The issue?

It starts off far too easy.

The first 30-50 minutes or so are basically a complete waste of time. Every mob drops dead before it reaches the marker and with a ranged weapon you don't even need to move.

Why is this a problem?

Because it places a significant time constraint on people who cannot commit to two full hours of dedicated time on the chair. Real life circumstances, certain physical disabilities, or simply bladder capacity all inhibit players from participating who otherwise could give it a serious go.

Recommended course of action:

Forego all the mob waves of the first 30 minutes and start the instance at the same difficulty as if the first 30 minutes had already been done. This would require immediate hands on engagement and tactics from the beginning, and enable more people to participate in the instance.

Please note:

I am not saying this should be done this year (since players have already recorded scores), but rather a proposal to take onboard for next year.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Last year the best time was 1:37 or so if I remember right. They made the mobs even easier for some reason when it was already an issue last year I felt too. Not so engaging for the first hour or so. Then 30 minutes of fun.
Also not interesting to watch if players are streaming the first bit...
 
Agreed 100%. It was annoying to do a run, mess up, then have to wait 30mins to 'begin' again :D
 
I completely agree, the scaling is crazy and should be faster at first but less exponential near the end. Also the goal should not be 'time survived' which just leaves people popping stims at the end and running in circles for 30 minutes, it should be total creatures killed, which forces people to actually fight and kill at the end instead.
 
I completely agree, the scaling is crazy and should be faster at first but less exponential near the end. Also the goal should not be 'time survived' which just leaves people popping stims at the end and running in circles for 30 minutes, it should be total creatures killed, which forces people to actually fight and kill at the end instead.

Agreed, that would be great.

Side note, I should not be able to post on PCF with 32 minutes into the instance....
 
I don't know what category you're doing or what your setup is, but in Category 10 with my regular setup doing a casual eco hunt (by which I mean not bothering with enhancers, pills, high markup amps etc) I was stopping after wave 2 (20 mins) because I knew I wouldn't survive the next one.
 
with all the drama over the time i think they have to do something with defense maybe even remove it add something new
 
The reason is pretty damm easy, why they made it this way. As a lot of people have to do those waves longer, they have to kill more mobs which means more cash in da pocket for MA.

But i agree and hope they change it.
 
So you're saying the only people who should be allowed to participate are those with 500kped of gear and are willing to spend hundreds of peds on pills.

I know I can't get a score half that needed to get in top10 but I still enjoy the hunt.
 
So you're saying the only people who should be allowed to participate are those with 500kped of gear and are willing to spend hundreds of peds on pills.

I know I can't get a score half that needed to get in top10 but I still enjoy the hunt.

This is a separate issue - they also need to unlock practice instances for ALL categories to allow casual players to scale down to a lower category for a casual hunt.

But yes, the competitive mode should be geared toward those who have competitive setups.
 
This is a separate issue - they also need to unlock practice instances for ALL categories to allow casual players to scale down to a lower category for a casual hunt.

But yes, the competitive mode should be geared toward those who have competitive setups.
Well yes and yes and yes. But wallet size needs to matter a lot less in determining how competitive a setup is, and more-playful factors (intelligence?) need to matter more. But that's still not this thread's topic.
 
First MA puts me in a category I can't possibly win, now players want to kick me out of the event altogether.

Thanks guys.
 
Well yes and yes and yes. But wallet size needs to matter a lot less in determining how competitive a setup is, and more-playful factors (intelligence?) need to matter more. But that's still not this thread's topic.

There are several factors which need to be addressed to make your proposal a realistic solution.

#1: Currently the equipment tier system is extremely costly, and the only justification for such expenditure is the prize availability in these Mayhem events. Simply grinding will never recover the tier costs for 99% of items ingame.

#2: MindArk's current model of "leveling the playingfield" between high and low expenditure is in the random point distribution in the Annihilation mode. In my category, for example, one of the top 3 spots was taken by a person with a relatively nominal investment in equipment for the event, while my 395K setup was insufficient to put me in a top 3 spot.

The current prize pots for the top 3 positions justify significant expenditure to secure a winning spot. The next 7 places do not justify significant expenditure, and are also very possible to with with (L) gear.
Further, in Defense mode it is entirely possible to win 1st place with (L) gear as well, though it helps to have high end unL gear so that several attempts may be conducted at full capacity.

I would love to hear your proposal on how to make Annihilation more "intelligence" based rather than money or luck based.
 
First MA puts me in a category I can't possibly win, now players want to kick me out of the event altogether.

Thanks guys.

I think you misunderstand me. You stated:

...
I know I can't get a score half that needed to get in top10 but I still enjoy the hunt.

This statement indicates you are interested in being a casual (not competitive) participant in the event. My proposal in response to that was perfectly in line with your stated objective.
Casual participation should yield casual results. Competitive participation should yield competitive results. That is the point of a competition.
 
Well yes and yes and yes. But wallet size needs to matter a lot less in determining how competitive a setup is, and more-playful factors (intelligence?) need to matter more. But that's still not this thread's topic.

Hm what about we play chess?
 
Hm what about we play chess?

or even poker for that matter :laugh: there's a game with all 3 of funding, random luck, and strategy components running strong in it :smoke:
 
There are several factors which need to be addressed to make your proposal a realistic solution.

#1: Currently the equipment tier system is extremely costly, and the only justification for such expenditure is the prize availability in these Mayhem events. Simply grinding will never recover the tier costs for 99% of items ingame.

#2: MindArk's current model of "leveling the playingfield" between high and low expenditure is in the random point distribution in the Annihilation mode. In my category, for example, one of the top 3 spots was taken by a person with a relatively nominal investment in equipment for the event, while my 395K setup was insufficient to put me in a top 3 spot.

The current prize pots for the top 3 positions justify significant expenditure to secure a winning spot. The next 7 places do not justify significant expenditure, and are also very possible to with with (L) gear.
Further, in Defense mode it is entirely possible to win 1st place with (L) gear as well, though it helps to have high end unL gear so that several attempts may be conducted at full capacity.

I would love to hear your proposal on how to make Annihilation more "intelligence" based rather than money or luck based.

Good answer. I don't have a proposal. Luck's a pain in the rear as a balancer but it's fun thinking an underfunded competitor has some sort of chance.
 
Back
Top