There’s no reason for these contracts to be separate, it just breeds irritation when your teammates kill the enemies the “wrong” way, and also encourages suboptimal selfish play where you engage enemies with a less than ideal weapon for the situation because you “need” those kills for your contract.
If you combined them to just be “scab kills” or “dreg kills” all of those problems go away. Now all kills count, you can use any weapon you are comfortable with and your teammates can no longer affect the speed of your progress through no fault of their own. Since this would effectively speed up the progress on all kill contracts you could increase the number of kills required to compensate.
I also think it would be a good idea to add more categories such as warlord kills, ogryn kills, groaner kills, poxwalker kills, or specific special kill tasks like dogs or mutants. This would complement the current scab/dreg/monster selection we have now.
Call me old fashioned but I like that it encourages people to step outside of their comfort circle and engage in the core mechanics of the game as a hybrid of melee and shooting.
Mostly, I must confess, that it might slowly teach some Veterans how to melee.
Yep 100% on your side on this… Personally I dont like the melee contracts, so I always go for the ranged kills… And like u said, if the squadmates are on a rampage runnin through the map hacking and slaying everything on their path its hart for one person getting the 1000 ranged kills fast (and of course vice versa, means if one goes for melee kills but ur random team is a squad of veteran sharpshooters eliminating everything on first sight) … Its just awful and frustrating… (and pls no “go find some friends on Discord” comments, because no, I don’t want to, I just hop in playing some matches with some random guys and that’s fine)… I mean changing the requirements to “just kill” instead of melee or ranged doesn’t harm anyone… One can go for kills with ranged or melee weapons, depending on what he prefers (or which class he uses, I mean going for a killing spree in melee with a sharpshooter can be odd)… So yeah changing this contracts to just “kill” would be a welcome improvement (imo)… And yeah, more categories for contracts are urgently needed!!!
If I’m a zealot with a 1000 ranged kill contract and I want to complete it as fast as possible because my spare time to play the game is limited. I have to make a point of not using my melee on that kind of target. Now you have a zealot who isn’t using his ult, isn’t leveraging any of his talents or other class abilities and is instead camping the backline with an autogun trying to shoot scabs dead before anyone else on the team can kill them first. It’s the opposite of teamwork and should not be encouraged.
If you want to teach people how to melee, especially with veteran who is not a melee focused class. It would be better to create a new contract like “You (and not the team) must personally kill 500 melee enemies”. This way veterans are encouraged to engage enemies in melee instead of gunning them down from a distance. And since every melee enemy counts for the contract you are no longer competing with your teammates for scab or dreg kills of the right type, you can just engage what comes naturally.
The entire contract system is garbage.
It is really frustrating to have to complete every contract and this every week.
I like to change the char I play… if I do, I loose the bonus. Solution? doing sedition? that’s really annoying and it lasts 15 minutes. And often you get the do 8 missions…
They just need to remove the system and allow us marks from the missions.
There is no reason to step outside your comfort zone, because its a teamwide achievement. You can keep doing your shooting even on ranged contracts and let the rest of your teammates do the melee killing.
I find melee contracts a bit more tedious, even when i am playing Zealot, because it feels like you are compete with your teammates. Meanwhile with ranged kills, its just a matter of slowing down a bit.
If you have limited time, why do you expect to get the rewards for a „hard“ weekly quest with high requirements for a high reward, that requires you to do something that you do not want to do?
Just change it to a different quest.
Nobody is forcing you to do this specific weekly task.
You are complaining about the existence of something that you can choose to do or not to do.
How about using your freedom to choose, and choose to do a different task instead of asking the devs to change the game to cater to you, so that you do not have to click a button to change your quest?
The entitlement is off the charts.
So you are against having melee and ranged kills on separate quests.
But at the same time, you want regular monsters and assassination bosses on separate quests, making monster kills 100% RNG and forcing you to play 2 specific missions (which are not always available) for the warlord kills?
I might try to dummy up a paint image of how I think this should work, but as a description…
I think you should just have 5-6 progress bars for melk. And you can reroll each bar if you like.
You then get rewards for each step. Eg kill 1000 with melee has steps at each 200 kills rewarding idk 120 melk credits at each step?
Then for the weekly bonus you just have to pass a total threshold for the week.
That would be the equivalent of rolling a hard version of each, but ofc you don’t have to complete each to their entirety.
*edit went off topic there.
On topic. Don’t think it’s a huge problem from my pov. I only reroll melee on my Psyker general ly. In my head each weeks tasks are 8 games worth so 125 per game isn’t a huge reach.
No I did not. Did you read anything I said in the OP? The problem isn’t that these contracts exist, the problem is how they separate kills by type. When you do that it doesn’t promote teamwork because different players will now be competing for different kinds of kills in opposition to each other. If you need 1000 melee kills as a zealot but match with nothing but veteran teammates will make it more difficult for you to complete your contract because they shoot everything before you can get into melee. Conversely if you are a skilled zealot who murders things left and right, simply by being a good teammate you are actually punishing anyone else on the team who needs ranged kills for their own contracts. It’s just bad game design.
No, that’s your assumption. My suggestion was to add warlords as another contract type you can get, in addition to the existing one for monsters. That is what complement means.
As a zealot there are plenty of opportunities to lawbringer or flamer or agripinaa shotgun shooters. Like what about a game with 3 ogryn and me? Or 4 zealots? Or all the veterans are running autopistols. Sometimes flexing is necessary to proceed. I usually clear the kill xyz enemy type missions in like a handful of hi-int damnation runs.
All this “do your class precisely or else you’re bad” is pointless and inflexible thinking. The objective is to win. You have a gun, zealot, use it.
Yes the kills are separated by type and if you play only a single match, you might have teammates that do a lot of melee kills or a lot of ranged kills.
Just like you might have a match with a lot of dregs but few scabs, or the other way around. Or you might have a match with 2 bosses, or a match with none.
If you play multiple matches, this is absolutely no issue and balances out.
Yes. I did. This for example:
As others have already pointed out, the kills are counted party wide, so you do not have to change your playstyle at all and are not forced to do anything that you would not do anyway (although you are free to do so, if you want to finish the task a tiny bit faster).
These kill tasks are among the easiest to achieve and they do not require you to finish the mission, or to do anything at all really.
And again, if these tasks take too long for your taste, do not do them.
Do others instead.
You have the option to change the tasks (although the system is not optimal).
You are not forced to do any of the ranged/melee kill tasks.
And you are not forced to do “hard” tasks either. If they take too long for you, since you only have limited time to play, you should not try to do “hard” tasks, but try “medium” or “easy” instead.
Really wish it worked like this. Would solve basically all issues with the current system. Makes people play about the same amount of the game if not -more- since there’d be higher potential ceilings, but better balances the rewards based around what’s accomplished. Having the 1000 bonus simply be for dinging enough bits of progress would be a gamechanger, so many times I get stuck with one contract that takes way longer than the others to ding for one reason or another.
On the original thread topic, agree. Splitting them up is incredibly arbitrary and only serves to try to pad out a super limited and uninteresting contract pool. It will eventually somewhat balance out with enough games played but due to the randomized nature of the maps available and the enemies that spawn in, you can get some extremely annoying situations like barely seeing Scabs for several rounds and then when you finally do, you have a ranged-heavy comp when your contract is for melee, or vice versa. It’s not ABSURDLY common for this to happen but it’s hit me a couple of times and is definitely frustrating when it does.
I also agree with the whole thing about it promoting suboptimal play. It’s easy to find oneself getting annoyed at how slowly a contract is progressing so you start actively kneecapping how you take out specific types of enemies because your contract said so. It’s not “interesting” to cause a player to be incentivized to pseudo-grief their team, even if they’re still going for kills in a different way.
Also the idea of contracts for more enemy categories SOUNDS like a decent concept, but I will say that having stuff like Ogryn kills would incentivize pulling patrols which is definitely not great (even if people just do it anyways). Can’t really do Pox Hounds due to Hunting Grounds, etc. so it’s probably for the best that it’s limited to just Scabs/Dregs as it is now. For more contract categories I would say something like “run X maps with special conditions” would be a good start. Maybe not even directly mission related stuff like engaging with Hadron and crafting weapons. “Play 3 missions with different weapon loadouts” to spur people to mix up their playstyles more. There’s definitely more room for ideas there.
I dunno, heck you could even add in something akin to a guaranteed “Scripture-esque” spawn where Melk wants you to retrieve an item for him if the contract is active that takes up an inventory slot, but doesn’t give any other rewards. Certainly better than the annoying nature of “pick up 50 million books” when you’re not even sure if you’ll even see book-containing missions for your difficulty of choice while playing.
Yeah this is basically the core issue for me. You don’t have to do the contracts and you don’t have to play like a jackass to speedrun them, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that it encourages this behaviour at all, it’s just bad game design when you saddle your players with opposing selfish goals. If this is a coop game then the team should progress as a single unit and all progress should be additive, not exclusive.
While that is true people already pull patrols to kill scabs and dregs for their contracts anyway, so it wouldn’t change player behavious all that much. It’s part of a broader design issue where the game allows us to avoid fights but then encourages us to fight everything anyway because ambients and patrols will be aggroed by hordes even if you do nothing, and players are forced to search and fight through all corners of the map to find crafting mats and books.
“Did you read anything I said in the original post?”
“Yes I did”
Quotes an entirely different post as his example
Reading comprehension please? The post you keep harping on is not the Original Post, it is a reply to something Aufgebracht said that you are continuously taking out of context to paint me as an entitled complainer. What I am taking issue with is not the difficulty of the task, it’s how the task is structured into two mutually exclusive goals that encourage selfish play styles as opposed to cooperative teamwork.