At present, the only way to increase the difficulty of the Settlement Scan missions at Procedural Generated Settlements is by making the settlement hostile. So, though increasing the level of hostility of these settlements is one way to scale payout to difficulty (by having more skimmers, and/or shielded skimmers, and/or replacing the skimmers with Goliaths, and/or adding more defense turrets), there are a number of non-combat options for increasing the difficulty of the missions to scale with the payout......& persistent settlement missions can provide the inspiration.
1. Size of the Settlement. Based on my own experiences, no matter how high the pay-out/rank of these missions, these Procedural Generated Settlements are "One Size Fits All"-i.e. quite small. There is no reason I can see why these Proc. Gen. Settlements can't come in +, ++ or +++ sizes, just as the Persistent Settlements currently do. That way, ++ & +++ settlements can offer greater challenge by having the mission target be very well concealed within (& this could apply to many Surface Salvage mission types too). Larger Settlements could also justify having higher levels of security *if* its an obviously hostile mission type.
2. Sequential scanning of public terminals, in order to activate the mission target. In many of the scan missions I have done at Persistent Settlements, the target terminal has started off inactive, & I have had to scan several active, public terminals in order to activate my mission target-usually within a very limited time-frame (2 minutes between scans, or else you have to start again). I see no reason why high paid/high rank missions within Procedural Generated Settlements can't occasionally have the same requirement.
3. Placing the terminal in a hard to reach area. Again, sometimes I've had scan missions at persistent settlements that were in hard to reach places-either too high up a structure to get to directly, or behind a force-field of some kind. Again, I see no reason why similar impediments couldn't be applied to missions within Procedural Generated Settlements-depending on mission rank/payout.
4. Sabotage Missions. Currently we can only do scan missions at Procedural Generated Settlements.....but why not also the Sabotage missions we currently get at Persistent Settlements. All these missions would, by definition, be hostile in nature.....& so would justify a hostile retaliation, particularly at higher mission ranks.
5. Mission wrinkles before & after the main mission. High ranked missions are supposedly meant to have a higher chance of wrinkles occurring. Not seeing this myself, but more tightly linking mission wrinkles to high ranked Settlement Scan missions could increase the difficulty. This might be ships aiming to prevent you from reaching your destination.....or getting the scan data back to base. It might also trigger a "Don't Get Scanned" or "Don't Get Destroyed" wrinkle, that must be met to avoid mission failure. There could also be the reduced time or new destination wrinkles thrown in for good measure too. At the higher ranks, multiple wrinkles should not be out of the question.
6. Follow-ons. High Ranked Scan/Sabotage missions, particularly hostile ones, should almost always trigger a follow on mission. This could be a hostage rescue, assassination, salvage, data courier, another surface scan or a massacre mission.....though passenger missions could also be a possible follow on too.
7. Ease of finding/reaching a Settlement. If promised improvements to exploration are made in Q4, then another way to increase difficulty, without bringing combat in, might be to have the Settlement be much more difficult to find with conventional scanning technologies. Perhaps higher ranked missions might *require* a commander to narrow down the location in an SRV or SLF. Also, such Settlements might be weighted towards being in hard to reach locations-atop narrow plateaus or deep ravines, for example-thus further justifying the high rank of the mission.
Anyway, just a thought. I do hope that most of these improvements are considered for the Q1 Update.
1. Size of the Settlement. Based on my own experiences, no matter how high the pay-out/rank of these missions, these Procedural Generated Settlements are "One Size Fits All"-i.e. quite small. There is no reason I can see why these Proc. Gen. Settlements can't come in +, ++ or +++ sizes, just as the Persistent Settlements currently do. That way, ++ & +++ settlements can offer greater challenge by having the mission target be very well concealed within (& this could apply to many Surface Salvage mission types too). Larger Settlements could also justify having higher levels of security *if* its an obviously hostile mission type.
2. Sequential scanning of public terminals, in order to activate the mission target. In many of the scan missions I have done at Persistent Settlements, the target terminal has started off inactive, & I have had to scan several active, public terminals in order to activate my mission target-usually within a very limited time-frame (2 minutes between scans, or else you have to start again). I see no reason why high paid/high rank missions within Procedural Generated Settlements can't occasionally have the same requirement.
3. Placing the terminal in a hard to reach area. Again, sometimes I've had scan missions at persistent settlements that were in hard to reach places-either too high up a structure to get to directly, or behind a force-field of some kind. Again, I see no reason why similar impediments couldn't be applied to missions within Procedural Generated Settlements-depending on mission rank/payout.
4. Sabotage Missions. Currently we can only do scan missions at Procedural Generated Settlements.....but why not also the Sabotage missions we currently get at Persistent Settlements. All these missions would, by definition, be hostile in nature.....& so would justify a hostile retaliation, particularly at higher mission ranks.
5. Mission wrinkles before & after the main mission. High ranked missions are supposedly meant to have a higher chance of wrinkles occurring. Not seeing this myself, but more tightly linking mission wrinkles to high ranked Settlement Scan missions could increase the difficulty. This might be ships aiming to prevent you from reaching your destination.....or getting the scan data back to base. It might also trigger a "Don't Get Scanned" or "Don't Get Destroyed" wrinkle, that must be met to avoid mission failure. There could also be the reduced time or new destination wrinkles thrown in for good measure too. At the higher ranks, multiple wrinkles should not be out of the question.
6. Follow-ons. High Ranked Scan/Sabotage missions, particularly hostile ones, should almost always trigger a follow on mission. This could be a hostage rescue, assassination, salvage, data courier, another surface scan or a massacre mission.....though passenger missions could also be a possible follow on too.
7. Ease of finding/reaching a Settlement. If promised improvements to exploration are made in Q4, then another way to increase difficulty, without bringing combat in, might be to have the Settlement be much more difficult to find with conventional scanning technologies. Perhaps higher ranked missions might *require* a commander to narrow down the location in an SRV or SLF. Also, such Settlements might be weighted towards being in hard to reach locations-atop narrow plateaus or deep ravines, for example-thus further justifying the high rank of the mission.
Anyway, just a thought. I do hope that most of these improvements are considered for the Q1 Update.
