Caravans - would like to see more depth (pvp flagging)

Hi All,

First post, one of those newcomers that is beyond excited for the game and just can't stop thinking about it, catching up on all the interviews etc.

I'm sure this topic has come up in various forms but I was hoping to educate myself quickly. It's possible some of these things are already planned but when I see talks on caravan PVP it seems very themeparky.

Is a caravan really just a declare your side consequenceless PVP from a flagging standpoint?

I would normally have assumed the following

1. If you attack a caravan from citizens of your own node it gives you some corruption
2. if you attack a caravan from citizens of another node it flags you as 'outlaw' or somesuch and bounty hunters from that node can go after you for some time BUT not corrupted to your own node
3. if attacking caravans from faction you are at war with, potential bonuses def no further corruption flaggin.

To just have it be a pvp match seems to go against the core of the game. I'd like to travel into rival nodes and raid their caravans then retreat to my own node. There is a lot of emergent gameplay potential there but the system has to support it.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Warth

Player caravans are completely unrelated to nodes. So is corruption.
You do personal caravans for personal profit, bringing nodes into this seems convoluted and nonsensical.

I could see something like that for Automated NPC Caravans that are meant to be Trade routes between nodes. However, we don't even know if you could attack the systemic caravans of your own nodes or allies in the first place and if so what consequences this would entail.

Zenrage1

Warth wrote: »

Player caravans are completely unrelated to nodes. So is corruption.
You do personal caravans for personal profit, bringing nodes into this seems convoluted and nonsensical.

I could see something like that for Automated NPC Caravans that are meant to be Trade routes between nodes. However, we don't even know if you could attack the systemic caravans of your own nodes or allies in the first place and if so what consequences this would entail.

How are they unrelated to nodes? You are the citizen of a node and have a warehouse there, that node is a vassal to a larger node (or even the largest node). We are building a simulation of a world here, there are dependencies between populations and their allegiances. You're also a member of a religion/guild etc.

Calling this nonsensical is a bit strange.

But let's go with your point for personal caravans (forgetting that it would be cool to have caravans sponsored by nodes, guild or religions making the whole thing even more interesting).

So you are a citizen of a node and the guards in that node see you as someone that needs to be protected, they will defend you but not a foreigner against attack. If another citizen attacks your caravan how should these NPCs react? This attacker is clearly an outlaw, why would they not be corrupted or flagged for a period of time attacking his fellow citizens. Furthermore where would he retreat to after the attack? It makes more sense for a group to raid caravans not belonging to their factions, the game systems should support that it's a much better fit for the rest of the design philosopy.

Likewise if there is an officially sanctioned conflict between two guilds, there should be no flagging if they attack each others caravans. This plays into feudal morality law fantasies, guards look the other way, society looks the other way. Just an example. It doesn't have to work the way I describe but the point is having caravan fights be basic PVP events without ties to the world and its intricacies is a missed opportunity - it SHOULD play into it.

Warth

Zenrage wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

Player caravans are completely unrelated to nodes. So is corruption.
You do personal caravans for personal profit, bringing nodes into this seems convoluted and nonsensical.

I could see something like that for Automated NPC Caravans that are meant to be Trade routes between nodes. However, we don't even know if you could attack the systemic caravans of your own nodes or allies in the first place and if so what consequences this would entail.

How are they unrelated to nodes? You are the citizen of a node and have a warehouse there, that node is a vassal to a larger node (or even the largest node). We are building a simulation of a world here, there are dependencies between populations and their allegiances. You're also a member of a religion/guild etc.

Calling this nonsensical is a bit strange.

But let's go with your point for personal caravans (forgetting that it would be cool to have caravans sponsored by nodes, guild or religions making the whole thing even more interesting).

So you are a citizen of a node and the guards in that node see you as someone that needs to be protected, they will defend you but not a foreigner against attack. If another citizen attacks your caravan how should these NPCs react? This attacker is clearly an outlaw, why would they not be corrupted or flagged for a period of time attacking his fellow citizens. Furthermore where would he retreat to after the attack? It makes more sense for a group to raid caravans not belonging to their factions, the game systems should support that it's a much better fit for the rest of the design philosopy.

Likewise if there is an officially sanctioned conflict between two guilds, there should be no flagging if they attack each others caravans. This plays into feudal morality law fantasies, guards look the other way, society looks the other way. Just an example. It doesn't have to work the way I describe but the point is having caravan fights be basic PVP events without ties to the world and its intricacies is a missed opportunity - it SHOULD play into it.

Since you want to bring lore and logic into this:

Your personal gain does not affect the nodes in the least bit. Whether you own the goods or another citizen doesn't mean anything to the node. On the opposite, the robber might even be taxed once more for obtaining the goods. It's not the node's job to protect you. It's your job to protect the node, your home. It's your job to make it flourish and prosper. You are no basic citizen, that needs protection. That's the NPCs within the city. You were one of the chosen warriors that were sent through the Divine Gate to recapture and reconquer your former planet. Both against the corruption that has spread and the other factions of warriors that came through with you. Just because you have 5000 others residing in the same node as you, doesn't mean they are your friends nor does it mean they are your allies. They could be your sworn enemies for life. Inhabiting the same place of the planet doesn't suddenly make you become part of them.

You decide who you are, you decide who want to be allies with, you decide who deserves to get robbed or not. A system like this just reduces the amount of player agency within the game. The game telling you who you are, who your friends are and who should be your enemies is exactly what this isn't supposed to be.

If you don't want to rob the citizens of your node within their personal ventures, then you are free to do so. If you want to protect citizens of your node that's on you as well. This decision however, should come from you as a player, not from a system the devs implemented into the game. You see your node citizen as part of your faction, that's fine. That's no reason to push your world view onto others. If someone feels like the citizen of his nodes are just stranges to be robbed, then he should be free to do so. Incentive's player decision in this regard just reduces the player agency within the game. The whole design philosophy behind the game is proposing, that you decide yourself who your friends and foes are, not some arbitrary game system that decided that node citizens are off limits to you. When the players of the node do not like the robbing of caravans belonging to other players of the city, then they should band together and do something about it. Don't let the game make the decisions for them.

Also, it's not a basic pvp event, it will be a driving factor of the risk vs. reward relationship of regional trade. Your freehold is within the confines of your node, your primary market place is within the confines of the nodes. That's where you will be shipping most of your goods. That's where you will be spending most of your time. Citizens of your node also are the people that are most likely going to rob you. The aspect of Risk suddenly takes a deep dive when half the players you regularly encounter won't be able to properly rob you, as you are a citizen of their node (or even better alliance). Once the risk related to the transportation of goods gets diminished like that, you might as well just open up global warehouses.

Also, whether robbers are outlaws or not, that's to be defined by the law. As it stands currently, they are not meant to be considered "outlaws", but opportunistic reavers and highwayman that act within the limits of the law. Additionally, extra corruption is not applied for the murder of a node's citizen, why should there be additional corruption for robbing their caravan.

Jahlon

So while you are a citizen of your node, this does not stop you from flagging on people in the open world. The only four status that prevent you from flagging on someone are: Guild, Alliance, Party, Raid. Beyond that, you can flag on anyone you want.

Just because you and I are citizens of the same node, does not make us allies. It may make us allies, but you are going to have guilds that are at war with each other living in the same node.

You are trying to add a series of flags onto the caravan system

The Caravan system is one of the 7 meaningful PvP themes. There is no flagging on caravans because you can attack them without gaining corruption.

There are already two trees that go along with Caravans. One is the Brigand/Highwayman tree the other is the defender. You will excel at one tree or the other.

Trying to add the flagging system to the caravan theme is never going to work.

Zenrage1

Jahlon wrote: »

So while you are a citizen of your node, this does not stop you from flagging on people in the open world. The only four status that prevent you from flagging on someone are: Guild, Alliance, Party, Raid. Beyond that, you can flag on anyone you want.

Just because you and I are citizens of the same node, does not make us allies. It may make us allies, but you are going to have guilds that are at war with each other living in the same node.

You are trying to add a series of flags onto the caravan system

The Caravan system is one of the 7 meaningful PvP themes. There is no flagging on caravans because you can attack them without gaining corruption.

There are already two trees that go along with Caravans. One is the Brigand/Highwayman tree the other is the defender. You will excel at one tree or the other.

Trying to add the flagging system to the caravan theme is never going to work.

I like the trees that's cool. The rest I knew about, it doesn't actually contradict my point. It's also simply not true that flagging in some form can't enrich the caravan system. Seems odd to have such close minded it is what it is for a game that's not even in Alpha.

You're telling me it wouldn't be cool to have an incentive to raid caravans off node or to have to make decisions what caravans are worth raiding? Not only that but being a high level highwayman should have consequences in some form, why are caravans exempt from normal consequences like what we have in open world flagging? There should be some impact in being a brigand, not as much as a PKer but still.

I fully get that citizen doesn't by default mean we are allies but that just makes it more interesting. I pointed out guilds within a node as an example. It can definitely work. Would have expected counter points related to why it doesn't add to the game, but saying it can't work makes no sense.

Have seen some of your vids Jahlon, good stuff, thanks for the content much enjoy.

Zenrage1

Warth, that's a long writeup that may as well argue against any flagging system at all. Why have corruption then? It's a better point than 'its nonsensical' because you're appealing to the idea that us players drive the system completely. That would be fine except there are already systems in place for flaggin (corruption, war etc) so should we throw those out as well.

I'd be fine with that, but to have the systems in everything else but not caravan raids seems odd. Again, I could deal with a fully player driver morality system but I do like corruption bounty hunting etc that's all stuff already there.

Zenrage1

Warth wrote: »

Also, whether robbers are outlaws or not, that's to be defined by the law. As it stands currently, they are not meant to be considered "outlaws", but opportunistic reavers and highwayman that act within the limits of the law. Additionally, extra corruption is not applied for the murder of a node's citizen, why should there be additional corruption for robbing their caravan.

I didn't mean extra corruption I actually was thinking something less than a murder. Maybe just a tag for bounty hunters or lawmen.

Warth

Zenrage wrote: »

Warth, that's a long writeup that may as well argue against any flagging system at all. Why have corruption then? It's a better point than 'its nonsensical' because you're appealing to the idea that us players drive the system completely. That would be fine except there are already systems in place for flaggin (corruption, war etc) so should we throw those out as well.

I'd be fine with that, but to have the systems in everything else but not caravan raids seems odd. Again, I could deal with a fully player driver morality system but I do like corruption bounty hunting etc that's all stuff already there.

Corruption is primarily meant to reduce player choice yes. It's meant to prevent griefing and ganking without reason, which certainly is a choice you can make. However,

In a caravan scenario you consciously decide to take the risk of transporting your goods. In an open world scenario, you do not have a choice. You will have to go out in the open world, you will have to kill the monsters or gather. One is forced upon you, the other is optional risk you decide to take in order to gain larger profits. One needs to be "protected" more than the others, if you want to attract people that aren't as interested in the PVP environment.

There is a fine line between cohesive game design and accessibility. Corruption is one of the mechanics increasing accessibility through the cost of player agency. Which goes against the design principles, but has to be done. A dead game doesn't help anybody.

Similar features, that are meant to do the same, would include (no full loot pvp, 20% instanced dungeons, undestroyable nodes and freeholds outside of sieges...)

I don't necessarily dislike your idea and there might be room for it in social organisations, but the limiting the robbing capabilities of node citizen would negatively affect the risk v. reward structure of regional economies in a major way.

Zenrage1

Warth we are on the same page I think, It's hard to lay out an idea without making it seem like you want that specific rigid example.

I guess to boil it down I'd like there to be incentive to raid 'enemies' vs just whatever caravans are near you. You'll essentially have microcosms of highwaymen within each region. I guess we can still drive this within the community, like paying a tax to the maffia. Also it could be easier to plan a raid in areas where people don't know you might be there. I mean as people hire mercenaries to protect them brigands will move on to less protected travel paths.

What I wouldn't want is for caravans to just be a pvp activity people do almost like a BG in a thempark mmo. I hope there can be consequences, hopefully community driven.

Child Item