Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Technically yes and no. As an example, it would be moving in the world but as you enter its proximity, choosing to attack/defend or ignore would be your selections to enter or ignore the instance transition based on proximity trigger and selection. This would then have a copy of it in the world and the real ones being disputed in the instance. It would still seem off for immersive purposes. But if it was instanced like this, it would resemble a mobile instance versus open world dispute.
That would be my best guess at it if it were to be designed like that off the top of my head.
Open conquest would be preferred to me.
Agreed. I just don't see how it could work as an instance but maybe more testing on our part and getting in to see what they have come up with in practice will clear up a lot of misconceptions on our part.
At 1:05:30 they start a caravan run:
Mind this is still way pre-alpha 1 but it gives us an idea of intent.
I did just watch the karma bombing video, and it did reveal that if players who are not in the siege that enter the zone will be killed regardless of flagging, so not necessarily instanced and more of zoning rule sets which relatively keeps it having a more open world conquest feeling.
So I can say that the caravans more than likely wont be instanced from this perspective which is a good thing! The game would seem really odd if it did.
Yeah, the open conquest is best option for caravans I think.
I'm glad I watched that video to help clarify that!
(i'm fairly new
EDIT:
So i watched to further explain the theme flagging mechanic
it makes some interesting points by displaying the participants as non-combatants to outsiders which could in turn cause outsiders to become corrupted by interfering with the caravans attackers vs defenders.
It's interesting as it adds a layer or security to those participating in the caravan, but it also segregates from an open conquest feeling. I can see how it allows anyone to participate in the caravan as its being mobilized regardless of owner.
but, what if the caravan is stolen, then the attackers would become the new defenders as they stole it (do they still require to move the caravan in order to steal the resources inside? one would think so as the resources of weight mechanics). Which would imply that you would have to know who is the attacker and who is the defender each time the battle is lost and/or won in regards to possession).
with this being said, I understand the issues with battling over the caravan with ongoing rulesets for engagement versus an open conquest being flagged for pvp if you enter the are of conflict.
interesting..
You can't really steal the caravan. only destroy and loot it @Enigmatic Sage
oh, there is a lot of mixed information out there regarding the mechanics in this game, lol.
EDIT:
so im assuming you'd need to load it into a new caravan after if you choose to not destroy it?
So there are different caravans are for different purposes? but, once you destroy and loot it the quest caravan, you can load up your personal caravan and have 0 risk of being raided?
Mayoral Caravans are essentially quest caravans?
a quest caravan is one that is initiated for transfer from node to node that has the pvp mechanic.
the personal caravan is one that the players transform/mount in to? but the player caravans can not be looted? or can they?
the naval caravans (im assuming which are the boats in the pre-order packages) are the ones that will be able to transition from personal caravan from land to water and vice versa..
hmm
Say the defenders lose and outsiders do not interfere during the raid, how would they transfer all the materials? do they all take a little piece and split the loot amongst themselves?
then what would happen if they got rolled by a raid after? they'd suffer all those penalties and have a potential to lose items from their inventory based on the flagging systems mechanics..
but player caravans can not be looted(have not seen anywhere that states they can)
What would be the point of having all these mechanics and systems in place if they were not relatively universal amongst all caravan and transfer of materials? why even have the rulesets for caravan raiding on top of the flagging? why not have them able to be stolen and potentially reacquired when you could steal owner ship of the caravan?
either I am missing something, or this sounds more problematic than it needs to be.
Keep it simple and have it set its course and have the proximity flagging mechanic with and open conquest with player escorts for protection, allowing player caravans being able to be attacked and looted as well.
you dont need a caravan.
You get certificates that weigh close to nothing so you can loot it and carry it back to the point of origin to redeem it.
You can only redeem thrm at the point of origin though
player caravans can be looted. They might even be the primary target for looters as they might be worth much more
considering that the defenders of a nodesiege won't be eligible to loot the city afterwards I'd assume thst the same rule applies for caravans
oh!
ok. interesting. thank you for letting me know
so why make the rulesets for the quest caravans then, when they could just do the same mechanics as the player caravans (other than caravan pathing).
Wont more people just lean towards player caravans then and skip this mechanic for transporting materials?
I'm going to guess they were trying to find a way to make a quest out of the caravans purpose?
if there is not a serious incentive for the quest caravans via rewards and carrying capacity, then there would be little purpose to them. will the rewards outweigh the risk and time to make it worth players participation?
What do you mean by redeeming the certificates at point of origin? you'd have to go an where the enemy establishment is in theory after to claim the caravan contents?
Then potentially risk transporting the goods again by caravan but opposite roles on your own terms and time?
EDIT:
there's points of interesting outside of nodes as well according to the wiki
and I suppose the incentive is PvP seasonal rewards such as gear enhancements, achievement ranks, and currency.
that is interesting.. so people can focus more on that mechanic versus guild wars or arena if that's their thing.
personal caravans are for personal goods within the private economy.
Quest caravans are for tax deliveries, trade agreements, quests, the building of castle nodes...
Interesting, so they tied a pvp season rating in to that as well to create more incentive for achievement ranks, gear enhancements and currency which can all be obtained via guild vs guild and arena's.
By doing so they are creating more incentive for players to participate in the progression of their node's development for supplies, defence, currency(taxes), crafting etc.
I can understand more now in why they have the attack and defend option for said pvp flagged area of mayoral caravans (questing).
But, there is still an issue with players who choose to ignore and potentially throw the caravans pvp conflict, even if they risk becoming corrupted by specific flagging conditions to the non-combatant flagging of the participants.
Outsiders who choose to ignore could still directly affect the outcome of the disputed caravan. They will be flagged as combatant vs the participants who are non-combatant.
But, then why not just participate and claim your reward? the answer would truely be if they just wanted to troll the outcome of the caravan. An unforeseen turn of events which could potentially just be a more established guild or their alts from another node who just want to handicap both involved by throwing the results, and destroying the caravan.
A little corruption is not going to turn away a raid of 40 players who could easily turn the tide at the risk of items they dont care if they lose, lol
Very cool, I am understanding the design choices more now
This is a fun discussion so far.
EDIT:
you know what,
the risk of outsiders ruining the outcome of the disputed caravan with the flagging mechanic... that's just how open world pvp goes at times, it is what it is