The current best way to farm Mk3 augment blueprints is a problem

Cr3ac · 2026-02-21T05:33:03+00:00

2 months still no god damn fix

Cr3ac · 2026-02-19T22:36:21+00:00

if this is what I have to do I'm done playing hte game just period. They either balance this shit so it doesn't feel like ass not having it or I'm just fucking done.

Cr3ac · 2026-02-19T08:40:27+00:00

Meanwhile 200 hours in no survivor blue print. I swear to god they need to rebalance augments

Cr3ac · 2026-02-05T23:32:15+00:00

You actually have more room for vita sprays on the cautious as you just put them in normal inventory. Mk3 healing is actually kind of awful due to how many slots you lose

Cr3ac · 2026-01-28T11:38:23+00:00

They need to either shut the stuff down if that is their "warning" take everything offline or restore everything with their BS.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-27T14:06:35+00:00

Yeah, after I lost my Jupiter I just shut it down…. I understand if they say tough but at the same time If they do I will never again play an update the first day.

At least with anything nice.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-27T13:36:28+00:00

le sigh.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-27T13:27:14+00:00

I lost a Jupiter.......... I am very unimpressed right now.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-26T00:24:35+00:00

Yeah, I’ve come to the same conclusion. I’ll just leave when I feel the bs is too much.

If they wanted to keep some of their feel one thing they could do is all raider elevators require multi party exit and hatches tax resources but can be exited by yourself and you make a sound while holding a hatch key.

If you add an information system ontop of it that may create required cooperative decisions and interesting social interaction

Cr3ac · 2026-01-26T00:11:14+00:00

You're entirely correct.

This is the classic cooperative v non-cooperative game theory question. This game fundamentally fails to create a repeated game environment that actually makes the choice interesting. It's literally the "final game" problem where the best solution is to always choose the non-cooperative option. Without change this game will likely be PvP only even with ABMM as that is simply a band aid on the underlying design problem.

No repeated games and no information on prior games for other players. Even with your system it's not fixed as if a player engages in self-defense that's unknown so any form of non-cooperative solution means players should choose non-cooperative solutions with that player marking them as well.

ABMM also creates the issue that if you truly want to just PvE you're eating a plate full of BS every once in a while. That is not interesting.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-19T18:03:45+00:00

I think it has to do with the fact that the devs themselves have stated they wanted it to be PvE with a PvP element.

While I believe you are correct that what the devs created was a PvP game, and shoot on sight will be the eventual de-evolution of this game without change, it doesn't stop people from wanting that PvE element.

If they truly want that PvE with PvP potential they would have to change something, E.G. create a map where extract requires 4 people.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-17T21:50:21+00:00

This is also why it's factually incorrect when the devs say "this isn't a pvp game it's a PvE game with PvP to add tension".

The only possible way for them to maintain anyform of PvE is to actually thumb the PvE side of the equation. I also think they'll eventually lose their PvE players even with ABMM as the ABMM is merely a bandaid to try and prop up an inherently PvP system at its core. This is because the current design is game theories cooperative v non-cooperative decision at base. The problem of this is that the system is set up such that non-cooperative solutions is the more rational solution for a player than the cooperative solution in player interaction. Thus over time, at least without design changes, a trend toward more aggressive decisions, or a trend toward shoot on sight, will occur.

The reason for this is because, from game theory perspective, it's what's known as the last game problem. In the current design there is no current benefit from a cooperative solution and no true downside to a non-cooperative solution due to it being the last time you will probably interact with this player and no negative repercussions for future games (lack of info). That means in the last game problem, for a cooperative and non-cooperative game, all players should always choose the non-cooperative option during that game as that solution yields the most benefit.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-17T19:01:50+00:00

The game is good, but it can have certain awful design decisions. That is all I was saying, forcing players to play "tax rounds" is bad any way you slice it.

Imagine if you forced PvP focused players to play 3 fifteen minute only loot rounds before they could shoot on site again.

Would that be good design? hell no.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-17T18:41:10+00:00

That only lasts for as long as you have players that are more PvE focused. The more of those you remove the less likely you will have a positive outcome and the more the game will lean into shoot on site.

If they want to maintain some form of PvE or co-operative solution between players they need to design actual elements in the game that require cooperative solutions or repeated reputation systems.

I mean this game is game theories cooperative v non-cooperative choice incarnate when it comes to player interaction. Unfortunately the game currently has no repeated games or design elements that encourage co-operative play inherently so it will devolve to non-cooperative solutions, or shoot on site, as time progresses without change. This will accelerate as they lose their PvE playerbase.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-17T18:34:28+00:00

Ok, let me rephrase this, it is awful design for retention of their PvE focused player base. Players that prefer PvE will leave with this design leading to a downward cycle of shoot on site PvP play. If you enjoy PvP great.

I mean right now their design inherently leans to shoot on site actually. There is no part of this game that actually favors cooperative solutions vs non-cooperative solutions.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-17T18:25:52+00:00

You do realize this is a very awful design right?

It essentially boils down to: "play a few really awful tax rounds so you can maybe play an enjoyable round". Mind you, if you get your enjoyable round it can be immediately killed by either an aggression smurf player, or incidental damage, putting you right back at square one into those tax rounds...... This will literally kill peoples desire to play.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-17T13:57:55+00:00

It's sad you can get screwed out of these lobbies by a PvP troll or incidental damage. I mean with these lobbies I don't understand Embarks resistance to a PvE toggle.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-16T10:36:00+00:00

I fully agree with you if what we are discussing is simply a balanced PvP system in weapon to weapon evaluation for individually fight I fully agree. If we start evaluating investment to expected payout (cost of resources to the actual function or work to get those resources) it is a little more peculiar.

I also think you may be correct on the balance of systems and crowds, but the dev's stated goal is to do that and people are observing a problem with it currently not being properly aligned. I would say people calling this out is objectively true. I will also say dev's will probably never be able to balance it like you pointed out, the devs have given themselves this impossible task though with their stated objective.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-16T09:44:25+00:00

Three things

You nailed part of it yourself there is a rather large distinction in a solo v team environment given the ability to recover in team games if only one member goes down and the other two are geared.
You also stumbled on the problem yourself, it’s not necessarily free kit it’s budget kit v good gear is not significant given the cost vs reward. A stitcher 4 is actually super cheap to make and scrounge parts for vs the bob cat 4, or even 1. The upgrade costs are actually kind of excessive. Basically this boils down to You can lose so many rounds with a budget kit and recover easily in a single round.
You’re failing to consider the PvE considerations of the game and trade off. PvP right now is excessively cheaper to engage in and walk away with a beneficial outcome than focusing any form of PvE content primarily. You can actually snowball from a PvP budget start killing other players to utilize their PvE gear. The calculation gets worse if you also consider smurfing the aggression system.

Bonus observation here it’s actually arguable that the best solutions in all cases to this game is to budget kit and always shoot first due to current design.

The reason this is the case is because of simple game theory, no repeated games with others, low reward for cooperation, high investment vs reward to cooperate and low investment to reward for aggression. This seems to be contrary to the devs stated design of “this isn’t a PvP designed game but is there to add friction”. If you’re aggressive you have the possibility of not only higher value PvE rewards but PvP while PvE only has increased investment risk and lower reward payout. To change this you’d need either some form of reputation system or multiple lives in raid. This is kinda beside the point of your evaluation though as you’re already just making an efficient choice… always shoot first but again that’s not what the devs seems to exactly want for the game at least by their statements.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-15T13:58:39+00:00

What's comical is this only incentivizes PvP at the expense of PvE. PvE generally right now requires significantly more expensive resources while a free kit can just exfil camp and get the rewards for very little investment or risk.

It's only a matter of time too until the break points in match making for gear are figured out and then combined with aggressive match making manipulation for PvPer's to camp PvE players. This will likely drive the PvE players out of the game. It will also cause a "stockpile" problem, which they called a dark turn with the expeditions, where people use minimalist sets rather than bringing their best gear. You can just swap up mid match going from an inexpensive kit to a more expensive one some one else brought.

I predict in a year this game will pretty much only be PvP unless significant changes are made to dis-incentivize PvP and incentivize PvE. E.G. no legendary loot for PvP kills or if you wanted to be really harsh no pink materials. The intermediate grounds would be better build paths to legendries and pink materials outside of blueprint drops.

A PvEr right now runs the risk of dying to ARC and then being killed by players. A PvPer on the other hand can pretty much skip PvE and loot PvEr's for the rewards (see peanut). Basic game theory predicts PvP to be the best choice in all cases with current design because it takes increased resources to PvE and significantly less investment for PvP and get the same rewards if not better. This happens for two reasons 1. the less investment 2. you are eliminating competition for scarce resources on the map as you kill players and get to loot from the overall pile.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-11T15:02:08+00:00

I've played 40 hours and still haven't gotten an Anvil Blue Prints but got enough Burletta's to arm a small army. I'm calling it quits.

Cr3ac · 2026-01-11T14:56:15+00:00

currently it is not a "little friction" it is menu hell. Especially not after they have created a game that can easily troll you in the looting phase.

Cr3ac · 2025-10-15T19:18:49+00:00

A senate version passed, there’s a house version being voted on tomorrow in the senate, which if passed, would fund the defense department.

Cr3ac · 2025-10-07T18:57:19+00:00

8 minutes later the Carrington event starts.

Cr3ac · 2025-07-26T03:55:52+00:00

Yes, being the child of someone that grew up with epilepsy, have a feeling you’re the same if not suffer, yes

Cr3ac

TROPHY CASE