Mutual protection in Convoys

For those who don't know, a convoy is defined as "a group of ships or vehicles traveling together, typically accompanied by armed troops, warships, or other vehicles for protection." The reason I bring this up is fairly simple; nobody seems to talk about the concept of multiple caravans traveling together for mutual protection.

I can see some immediate benefits to caravans working together. They'd be capable of pooling resources to hire long-distance guards to protect the convoy, which guarantees large payouts for defenders without putting any extra pressure on the caravan masters themselves. I could even see agreements being made between guilds of traders and mercenary guilds for a protection pact sort of thing. The way this'd affect bandits is interesting as well, as it'd necessarily mean they have to focus on lone caravans or stragglers from a larger convoy that's fallen out of the protective blanket of the guards. The one exception is if you've got a large enough organization of bandits for hitting large convoys in a massive pile of violence, though part of me expects that to be more difficult to organize.

The especially fun part of this concept, to me, is how it incentivizes organization and planning, something that can be used against you in exactly the kind of subterfuge and espionage system the game is looking to encourage.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Songcaller

I think it will be organic already. I also think it will be timed individually. It is already possible to convoy or go solo. Sometimes the convoy will be better, sometimes solo will be better. Risk/reward for the win.

Noaani

The real question isn't about whether players will want to do this, it is about how much support the games systems will have for it.

When you approach a caravan in game, you are given the option to attack, defend or ignore. If there are multiple caravans, you presumably have the option for each caravan.

If you pick attack or defend, and someone else picks the other option, you are no longer subject to corruption for killing each other.

However, if there are two caravans together, if I opt to defend one and not the other, and you opt to attack the one that I ignore and ignore the one that I opt to attack, we are subject to corruption if we fight each other.

We do not even know if there is the option to be able to be listed as a defender of multiple caravans at once.

Now, there may be the option of joining multiple caravans in to a convoy, so players pick to attack or defend the entire convoy. However, there has been no mention of this at all from Intrepid as yet, and so is likely not something they have even considered.

Personally, rather than asking us what we think (players will do this if the game makes it worthwhile), I think it may be worth asking Intrepid if they have plans around joining caravans together, or if players are able to be listed as defenders (or attackers) of multiple caravans at the same time in order to make convoys viable.

Songcaller

I think you've overcomplicated the matter. In my mind, the options to attack, defend or ignore would scale to convoy level. I do not see the reason to link the concepts into convoy if you still only engage at a solo level.

Now, all that said, it is personal choice where you attack the convoy and how you attack the convoy. My input was not to limit options but to show that a convoy concept would be possible. Limitations would apply.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

I think you've overcomplicated the matter. In my mind, the options to attack, defend or ignore would scale to convoy level.

What convoy level?

As I said, at present, there is no such notion in the game. In order for convoys to be viable, Intrepid would need to implement a system where multiple caravans act as a single convoy.

It isn't the hardest thing in the world to do, it's just that so far there has been no mention at all of it. Intrepid may even have reasons for not wanting convoys at all - and as I said, asking them what their plans are around this is probably a better idea than asking players what we want to do in relation to a system we have no knowledge about at all.

We could talk about the potential of adding a convoy system, and how we would like to see it, but we can't really talk about what we would do in the game as it stands right now, because there is too much unknown around it just now.

Songcaller

Yes, I agree. I would love more feedback and conversation.

There is no convoy level, level had multiple meanings in terms of scalability. I merely meant you can create a system in an old engine and ramp up the function in the new engine. Then when all is tested and balanced, you can boost graphics to maximum stability at the top end.

The thread relates to two scale levels: solo and convoy. I know convoy does not exist in a solid form but if you think you will be able to see a guild convoy and only engage one set of defenders at a time I don't know what to tell you.

I'd rather not have all of these conceptual rails.

Cheers,
Neurath.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

The thread relates to two scale levels: solo and convoy. I know convoy does not exist in a solid form but if you think you will be able to see a guild convoy and only engage one set of defenders at a time I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think that will be the case. With what we know about the caravan system right now it could be - but that speaks to how little we know of the system, rather than speaking to how I would expect it to be rolled out.

However, what I don't know is if we will need to select attack, defend or ignore for each individual caravan, or if we select attack, defend or ignore for all caravans in a general location. Without a dedicated caravan system, these are the only two viable options.

The first of these is obviously not an ideal thing for people that are just out farming to have to deal with. Multiple popups like that always suck.

The second leaves the system wide open to leachers just running a caravan near someone else that is stronger than they are, that they know is going in the same direction they are going. Any would be attacker would need to attack both caravans in order to attack said leacher. This second system also doesn't account for when two caravans are near each other (accidently or on purpose) and a third party wants to only attack one but not the other.

While I agree with not being a big fan of rails in MMO's, some systems like this need to have the details sorted out.

Songcaller

Yes, I agree with your assessment. I would streamline the systems like I've tried with the targeting systems.

Peace,
Neurath.

Balanz

Somehow, I was under the impression that the effect of a caravan was distance or "zone" based. That is, multiple caravans with overlapping zones of permission might as well be one caravan.

If caravans are distinct events, then it might be the case that multiple caravans cannot originate from the same place at the same time.

What I am curious about is how the issue of risk versus reward is handled. If the defenders of the caravan risk the cargo, and if they win, keep the cargo, the incentive seems to advantage the attackers, who risk only their "life," but could reap the caravan they did not invest in.

Songcaller

Cargos will cultivate immense wealth if never halted. That is enough reward for the defenders.

Okeydoke

We hardly know anything about the caravan system. I definitely have questions.

Will the game enforce any kind of numerical balance between the defenders and attackers?

How many times can a caravan be attacked? Unlimited for the duration of the route? Or is there some kind of limit.

If the attackers lose, can the same attackers respawn, chase down the caravan and try again? Or is that not possible.

Noaani

Balanz wrote: »

If caravans are distinct events, then it might be the case that multiple caravans cannot originate from the same place at the same time.

While this may well be true, since players can initiate a caravan from a freehold (and perhaps from in node housing), this is hardly a limiting factor.

Songcaller

Okeydoke wrote: »

We hardly know anything about the caravan system. I definitely have questions.

Here's my concepts.

Will the game enforce any kind of numerical balance between the defenders and attackers?

If you go solo, you will be raided unless lucky.

If you go grouped, you will be raided when possible.

If you make enemies, players can block a trader with numerical force.

In an ideal combat system you can build raids by buffs, functions and damage types. You should think in terms of combat capabilities more than zergs.

Also, if we boost npc defence forces to 39 plus player you'd still get hammered.

How many times can a caravan be attacked? Unlimited for the duration of the route? Or is there some kind of limit.

It can attacked any time on route but you will have a buff granted by The Travel Deity which blocks attackers for 10 minutes aftrr successful defence. (Numbers to be tested).

If the attackers lose, can the same attackers respawn, chase down the caravan and try again? Or is that not possible.

Spawn locations are preset unless you build the raid for the right functions. My combat builds would offer utilities but of course, limitations will apply.

Much love,
Neurath.

Okeydoke

If there are limits to how many times a caravan can be attacked, what will stop a caravan group from using guildie's alts, or otherwise hiring/coming to an agreement with another group of players to attack and purposefully lose, thus using up the limited attack windows and shielding themselves from authentic attackers?

System kind of sounds like a nightmare to design lol

Halae

Okeydoke wrote: »

If there are limits to how many times a caravan can be attacked, what will stop a caravan group from using guildie's alts, or otherwise hiring/coming to an agreement with another group of players to attack and purposefully lose, thus using up the limited attack windows and shielding themselves from authentic attackers?

System kind of sounds like a nightmare to design lol

Well, I suppose that's the point of bringing it up relatively early on in development. Pointing out flaws lets the devs know they have things to handle, and the earlier we get them to handle it the better it should be integrated with the system.

Songcaller

1. Only a portion of goods are split.
2. Guilds can't attack guild mates unless through duels.
3. There are no limited attack windows. Preset spawn points are miles away.
4. Limitations to utilities will apply to caravan raids.
5. Naval combat will use a different approach because you can't resurrect a ship.
6. Anyone can join a caravan raid or naval raid.

Balanz

Neurath wrote: »

Cargos will cultivate immense wealth if never halted. That is enough reward for the defenders.

An unexpected caravan passes close by a character. If they choose to attack the caravan, they risk little. If they defend the caravan, they gain little.

Only if the gratitude or enmity of the sponsoring Guild or faction outweighs the immediate benefit of looting the caravan would it be more advantageous to defend the caravan.

The more potential attackers facing a caravan, the less the sponsor's gratitude or enmity matters to each potential attacker.

So as long as the number of potential attackers is sufficient, it will always be more advantageous to attack the caravan than to defend it.

Songcaller

At the end of the day I would inherit these systems from someone else. I do not want to change the base concepts, just provide the best concept implementations for the current concepts.

I might invoke God of War Buff to attackers: 30 minute timer to defeat caravans. Automatic death and dispatch to preset spawn upon failure. (Times to be tested).

Cheers,
Neurath.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

However, if there are two caravans together, if I opt to defend one and not the other, and you opt to attack the one that I ignore and ignore the one that I opt to attack, we are subject to corruption if we fight each other.

I'd assume that we don't need to press a button to attack another player within a pvp event (cause imo that'd be stupid and inconvenient as hell). So if you're attacking/defending/ignoring different caravans in a group (if the system does in fact work this way) then you'd just try to hit another player, but wouldn't be able to, so no corruption.

Balanz wrote: »

If they choose to attack the caravan, they risk little. If they defend the caravan, they gain little.

Only if the gratitude or enmity of the sponsoring Guild or faction outweighs the immediate benefit of looting the caravan would it be more advantageous to defend the caravan.

There's an in-system rewards for both attackers and defenders. And a kind of seasons system where you need to successfully defend or attack caravans if you want to get better rewards (at least that's how I understand it), so there'll be a bit more motivation to do either of those things.

Dygz

I think the dev design is, you choose either attack or defend. Those who do so are flagged Purple/Combatant.
If you cancel the pop-up, you remain Green/Non-Combatant.

I don't thinkk there will be opposing Caravans in the same location.
A Convoy would be all the same faction, so, you can't really attack one Caravan in the Convoy and defend a different one.
A Convoy would be similar to choosing sides in a Siege. You would either be attacking the Convoy or defending the Convoy. Or not participating.

Voxtrium

It is likely they will include convoys, its perfectly logical and I am sure I have read a statement from Steven indicating he had thought about grouping mechanics for caravans. @Halae , I myself have created a guild for this very purpose, it will most definitely happen assuming IS delivers their promise on quality systems within the game.

Child Item