Escape from Tarkov Ending Choice Readiness Scorecard

The least burdensome ending is the one whose current requirements fit the progress, time, and commitments you can verify now.

Define what “easiest” means for this reset

Turn a vague ranking question into a decision based on the player’s current constraints.

• Record the active mode and current version context.
• Write down the time or number of sessions you are willing to commit before resetting.
• Decide whether minimizing new prerequisites, uncertain steps, or disruption to current plans matters most.
• Treat remembered rankings and community preferences as leads to verify, not current requirements.

Build a verified candidate list

Compare only endings that can be confirmed under the player’s current conditions.

• List the endings currently visible or supported by detailed authoritative information.
• Record the displayed prerequisite state for each candidate.
• Separate completed requirements from remaining and unclear requirements.
• Remove a candidate from the active comparison when its availability cannot be confirmed.

Score readiness without invented mechanics

Use a conditional scorecard when the closed evidence does not support exact requirements or difficulty rankings.

• Mark existing progress as strong, partial, or absent for each candidate.
• Classify remaining commitments as understood, uncertain, or blocked.
• Compare the remaining work with the player’s available sessions.
• Prefer fewer unresolved dependencies when two candidates otherwise fit equally well.

Check the cost of changing direction

Prevent a near-reset player from beginning a demanding route only because of an unsupported reputation.

• Identify which current goals would be paused by each ending route.
• Note whether the route begins a new dependency chain or uses progress already made.
• Treat difficult-to-reverse commitments cautiously when a prerequisite remains unresolved.
• Keep the current plan intact until the replacement route has been verified.

Set a fallback and stop rule

Keep the decision useful when new in-game information changes the comparison.

• Name the next suitable candidate before committing to the preferred option.
• Switch to the fallback if a critical prerequisite is unavailable or cannot be confirmed.
• Pause the decision if every candidate contains an unresolved blocker.
• Rebuild the scorecard after a relevant official progression update or a change in displayed task state.

How this guide differs from existing progression guides

Resolve overlap with RaidBench’s quest-route and wipe-priority inventory.

• Use this page only to select among ending candidates before a reset.
• Use the wipe-progression guide to choose broader progression priorities.
• Use the quest-route guide after selecting a verified task sequence that needs route planning.
• Do not treat existing site excerpts as authority for current ending requirements.

Decision checklist

• Confirm the active mode and version context.
• Set the maximum time you will commit before resetting.
• List only ending candidates whose availability can be verified.
• Record completed progress for each candidate.
• Record every visible remaining prerequisite.
• Mark unclear requirements as unresolved.
• Compare each route with your existing commitments.
• Choose a fallback candidate and a stop rule.

Worked example

A player expects to reset soon and is comparing Candidate A with Candidate B. Current in-game information shows that Candidate A uses progress already completed, while Candidate B begins with several remaining requirements and one unclear dependency. The player marks A as ready, B as unresolved, and chooses A provisionally. If a current prerequisite blocks A, the player pauses and reassesses rather than assuming B will be quicker. This example illustrates the scorecard and does not assert any specific ending requirement.

Common mistakes

• Choosing from an old difficulty ranking without checking current requirements.
• Treating a popular community answer as factual proof of availability.
• Starting a new progression chain without comparing it with completed work.
• Counting an unclear prerequisite as easy or automatic.
• Committing without a fallback for an unexpected blocker.

Related guides