devtrackers.gg
Tarkov is a game intended to be balanced around risk versus reward. An example of this that directly relates to the core concept of this post is the example where group play directly gives combat benefits, but forces any loot that could be gained to be split among group members. By this mechanic, a benefit is balanced by an indirect penalty. An example of this related to insurance would be that low-quality gear is unlikely to be looted, making it more likely to be returned by insurance, making worse gear indirectly better. Other examples of indirect penalties are higher movement penalties for heavier armor and longer use times on “catch-all” medical gear like the grizzly.
Group play combined with insurance violates the principle outlined above. By sheer volume of players and player limits, groups can occupy a majority of player slots in a game, protecting their fallen members gear from being looted, virtually guaranteeing group members will recover their gear via insurance outside “buddy-f*cking” situations. Factory is possibly the worst offender: a 3 man group likely only faces 1-3 solo players and scavs, and larger groups only make that worse. Further, even if a solo player encounters a group and kills multiple members, their gear is going to be looted rather than the group’s own gear, even if the solo player has much worse gear than the downed group members. This penalizes a person engaging a group, where it should be encouraged. More firefights and death are better than less. A solo player disengaging from a group still retains the benefit of avoiding a firefight where (s)he is at least 200% outgunned.
This is problem as better gear decreases chance to die, and larger squads counteracts the risk of taking better gear in. This leads to a spiraling situation that encourages use of weapons like the mosin, discourages solo play, and just generally damages the enjoyability of the game outside a highly structured max-gear max-player squad. To clarify: Running a max-gear max-player squad SHOULD have benefits, and it clearly DOES. Engaging said squad should be, for lack of a better term, subsidized to encourage conflict, gunfights, and use of at least decent gear even in solo play.
Changes to insurance mechanics could incentivise group members to recover each others gear over less valuable gear. Currently, ANY gear not looted and insured will be recovered. Instead, I propose a system that decreases that chance for larger groups to recover gear via insurance and further lowers the chance for situations where a group is a large fraction of the map’s PMC population. The formula I propose for chance of recovery is:
3(1/group size)(1-(Group size/map PMC population)).
[This, of course, could be tweaked as neccessary, but highlights the variables I consider important.]
The formula would be capped at 1, would still only apply to un-looted gear, and would roll individually for each whole item: a rifle with attached gear either comes back or doesn’t, a scope detached from a rifle gets two rolls: one for the scope, one for the remaining rifle-minus-scope. Some quick situations:
A 4 man group on a map with 8 PMCs on the map: 37.5% chance of recover.
A 2 man group on the same shoreline run with 8 PMCs: 100% chance to recover.
2 man group with 4 players: 75% chance to recover.
4 man group with 6 players: 25% chance to recover.
The above 3-man squad on factory with only 4 PMCs: 25%.
A solo player would still have 100% chance to recover unlooted gear, unless they are the only PMC on the map.
In conclusion, rule 1 THIS version of this post for low effort, mods. For everyone else, call your mom, sub to pewdiepie, and increase the ak100 series performance relative to the 47/74.
External link →