The current reward setup seems better than older versions, but it still looks pretty harsh when placement changes a lot for tiny damage gaps. Some players feel the jump between ranks is too steep, while others think the system mainly rewards finishing position and not small damage differences. Do you see it as fair, or does it still push weird behavior?
Does the Last Stand reward setup still feel lopsided to you?
Asked by
Velvet Lantern
Answers
I get why it feels off. If the rewards hinge mostly on place, then a tiny score difference can decide a big payout swing, and that is what bothers people. It makes the middle ranks especially brutal, because being a little behind can cost way more than the actual performance gap suggests.
At the same time, I can see why the system leans on rank. These event formats usually want a clean ladder, not a super fine-grained payout table where every few points changes the result. So the structure is understandable, but yeah, the spacing between some ranks looks way too sharp.
Reply to this answer
Honestly, if they want placements to matter, the reward steps should still be smoother. Right now it reads like a cliff in the middle and a tiny slope at the top. That kind of shape always ends up encouraging safe play, because once people feel the next rank is out of reach, they stop pushing.
A better setup would mix placement with performance more directly. Something like a base reward for rank plus a smaller damage or contribution bonus would keep the ladder feel without making one small gap weirdly huge.
Slate Harbor:
Yeah, that would also make the lower end less pointless. If the gap from mid-table to bottom is too punishing, people just mentally check out.
Reply to this answer
I think the complaint is fair, but it depends on what the mode is trying to reward. If the goal is to make people fight for the top spots, then a steep drop can be intentional. If the goal is to reflect actual performance, then the current numbers are pretty rough.
What stands out to me is the incentive problem. When a system gives the same result for a lot of mediocre outcomes, and then slaps a huge penalty on being slightly worse than the next person, it can create lazy play. That part probably needs smoothing more than a total rewrite.
Pine Lantern:
That is the tradeoff in a nutshell. The structure is simple, but simple does not always mean well tuned.
Amber Quill:
And the closer ranks should probably be where the rewards get calibrated most carefully, because that is where players care the most.
Reply to this answer
I would not call it broken, just blunt. The system clearly wants to sort people fast, but it does not do a great job of recognizing small differences in output. So you end up with situations where a tiny damage gap changes the reward way more than it should.
If nothing else, it would be less frustrating if the reward curve felt more even. Right now it can look like the game is saying, one person barely edged you out, so here is a much smaller payout, and that message feels harsher than the actual performance gap.
Fallow Reed:
Yeah, that is probably the best way to put it. It is not totally irrational, just too steep for what it is measuring.
Reply to this answer
Add your answer
Answers are reviewed before publication.
Copper Kite:
The weird part is that it can reward barely doing enough just as much as trying harder, depending on where you land. That is the bit that makes it feel gamey instead of skill-based.