Mule PKing

Mag7spy

wrms wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

wrms wrote: »

I think you make a good point. I imagine the idea of mules being less corruption to kill was that it was seen as less disruptive to a player than getting PKed, but from this perspective it could actually be more disruptive. I didn't really have a problem with this before, but now that I think about it, you are right, this doesn't seem very in line with the risk vs reward that Steven just said they won't compromise on.

I think player death is more disruptive because this could block you from reaching your destinations, people can literally deny content from you by making a roadblock, but if you don't die then it's fine you can keep going.

Player death would be more disruptive in terms of travel time, if you are just traveling from one place to another, but in terms of the amount of time and effort a player loses, a mule death could be much more disruptive. The time it takes to fill up a mules inventory is supposedly 10 times as long as filling your own inventory, so losing a mule could be up to 10 times as disruptive by that measurement.

There are a lot of good points here from both sides on the topic, but this idea is still bugging me in light of yesterdays live stream. Steven said very clearly that they would not compromise on risk vs reward, but as it stands, there is clearly a lower risk to killing a mule and (seemingly) a much higher reward, as compared to killing a player, and that bothers me.

I hope there are some missing details that explain this apparent contradiction, or that they will revisit the issue in testing, otherwise it's hard to believe they are as dedicated to risk vs reward as they claim to be.

The risk if you are gathering too much and not going back to town and the way you can gather too much if by holding it all on your mule. So if you want to stay out there 10x longer to gather that is the weakness you pen yourself up to.

Killing the mule makes you corrupted and does not auto loot the mule no if it is full can they carry everything. Effectively giving you time to flag on them and take what you deem is important and making them deal with the punishment.

I literarily don't understand the idea people are trying to bring up "I am carrying 10x more stuff so there should be a even bigger punishment for them to attack the mule" No you need to be conscious on what you are doing out there and when to go back. Also if you are getting your mule attacked, protect it and get away and back to town, or defend it if that is what you want to do.

wrms

That is an accurate description of the risk that gatherers take, yes. My issue is the risk that the pvpers take, which is lower for killing mules than for killing players, with a higher reward. Just because a single player can't carry everything doesn't make the reward lower, it will just become the meta for groups of pvpers to roam around killing mules and then having a bunch of people loot all the items.

It's not that hard to understand, it's lower risk and higher reward, which goes against their stated core principle of not compromising on risk vs reward.

Strevi

wrms wrote: »

That is an accurate description of the risk that gatherers take, yes. My issue is the risk that the pvpers take, which is lower for killing mules than for killing players, with a higher reward. Just because a single player can't carry everything doesn't make the reward lower, it will just become the meta for groups of pvpers to roam around killing mules and then having a bunch of people loot all the items.

It's not that hard to understand, it's lower risk and higher reward, which goes against their stated core principle of not compromising on risk vs reward.

Players will keep the more valuable resources in own inventory so mules will be lower risk but also lower reward. Unless the gatherer is greedy and gathers only valuable resources for long time without going to the node, a case which is unlikely because reaching a node is a matter of a few minutes.

wrms

I think you are missing my point entirely. My point is not "how can players min max this system" my point is, we were told very clearly that "risk vs reward will not be compromised". To put it very simply, less corruption for more loot, violates that philosophy. Any arguments about how to get around that issue by returning to town more often, or anything like that, are fundamentally not understanding why this is a problem.

I believe so strongly in this game because I believe in its vision. If risk vs reward is really a core philosophy, that must apply to pvpers as well as gatherers. So if pvpers can get a 10x payday for a 0.5x penalty, that philosophy is clearly not being respected.

I don't care if you prefer it this way. I don't care if the obvious solution is to run to a warehouse more often. We were told in no uncertain terms that risk vs reward was a core philosophy. If risk vs reward only applies to gatherers, and pvpers get a free handout by not having to abide by that philosophy, it will be bad for the game. If you can't see that, I think you are prioritizing your ability to get a few gank kills over the long term health of the game.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

The risk if you are gathering too much and not going back to town and the way you can gather too much if by holding it all on your mule. So if you want to stay out there 10x longer to gather that is the weakness you pen yourself up to.

If you're not using a mule to carry shit, why are they even in the game? And if you do use them to transfer stuff, like I already explained, you'll be punished for doing so instead of doing 10 runs with your character, because using a mule means less risk for the attacker but up to x10 risk for the carrier. How is that in any way fair or good?

Strevi wrote: »

Players will keep the more valuable resources in own inventory so mules will be lower risk but also lower reward. Unless the gatherer is greedy and gathers only valuable resources for long time without going to the node, a case which is unlikely because reaching a node is a matter of a few minutes.

Big quantities of resources are what's valuable. Say there's a node that needs a ton of wood for the siege, but it was recently overgathered by the sieging forces and those same people are now killing any and all caravans that go to that node.

If killing the mule gave proper corruption or, even better imo, made you kill the rider and then the mule - those mules would now be able to bring some wood to the node from the outside and sell it in the node (in the context that the node's citizens are at war with the attackers, so they can't bring the wood themselves). This would bring huge profits to gatherers and would be all about socialization and making proper connections.

But as it stands right now, those mules can be killed directly and any incoming resources will be pillaged, all at lower risk. And again, my main issue is that lowered risk. I just can't see a reasonable excuse to have it even lower than the base one.

Okeydoke wrote: »

Edit: And honestly, after typing this all out, donkeys seem like one of the safest things in the game. Probably should give less corruption for the very, very few people even willing to kill one.

If even lowered amounts of corruption are so fucking huge that becoming red is a death sentence for your character - I'd have a whole different issue with the game. Namely the fucking BH system which would now be completely and utterly pointless.

I'm beginning to agree more and more with Dygz sentiment of "this game is missing a lead designer". I hope that during testing we can properly learn about all of these systems and realize that we were just missing some info, but it sure as hell doesn't seem that way right now.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

Players will keep the more valuable resources in own inventory so mules will be lower risk but also lower reward. Unless the gatherer is greedy and gathers only valuable resources for long time without going to the node, a case which is unlikely because reaching a node is a matter of a few minutes.

Big quantities of resources are what's valuable. Say there's a node that needs a ton of wood for the siege, but it was recently overgathered by the sieging forces and those same people are now killing any and all caravans that go to that node.

If killing the mule gave proper corruption or, even better imo, made you kill the rider and then the mule - those mules would now be able to bring some wood to the node from the outside and sell it in the node (in the context that the node's citizens are at war with the attackers, so they can't bring the wood themselves). This would bring huge profits to gatherers and would be all about socialization and making proper connections.

But as it stands right now, those mules can be killed directly and any incoming resources will be pillaged, all at lower risk. And again, my main issue is that lowered risk. I just can't see a reasonable excuse to have it even lower than the base one.

I am curious if any bounty hunter will dare approaching the siege army to enforce common peace-time behavior against a solo smuggler and his donkey
There will definitely be many players roaming around from both sides.
But such special cases will highlight even more the difference between the caravans - if 100 players would rather chose to transport resources at the same time using mules rather than caravans, then something is wrong.
I mean there are 2 nodes at war, with citizens flagged against each-other.
Mules or caravans approaching the siege area with the intention of bringing resources should be treated as a green who tries to heal a purple.

I see on wiki that
Many services are shut down during the siege declaration period, and instead are replaced by preparation quests or services for the siege.[32]
That incentivizes even further the necessity of players to contribute to the defense of a city. It also elevates the need for that city to politically gain allies among other nodes so that they can protect the collective goods of the citizens.[35] – Steven Sharif

If those quests allow receiving resources, the game will decide if allows mules or not and possibly those will be flagged as well. Then it might not be worth going to the nearby nodes, not directly involved into the war and killing the gatherers to gain corruption.

Being war-time, gatherers might get extra protection anyway from bounty hunters.

I see people taking vacation because they cannot sleep, delivering goods at night
I wonder how many days the siege preparation lasts.

George_Black

What I take from this statement is this:
Steven very quickly answered that the corruption amount for PKing servitors will be less than the amount for a player, which is 100% the same as in L2 (and you should all take note of that for other references and comparissons).

We dont know if mules will drop loot upon death. If they do disagree that corruption should be halved. But only for item carrying mules. No other servitor.

Ludullu

George_Black wrote: »

We dont know if mules will drop loot upon death. If they do disagree that corruption should be halved. But only for item carrying mules. No other servitor.

George, I expect better from you

If a player's mule dies its corpse will contain the same percentage of lootable items as the player (based on their flagging status).[4][5]

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Mules

George_Black

Even though I dont know every detail, my use of common sense made me say "if they do drop loot, the corruprion gain shouldnt be half". Why arent you happy?

Ludullu

George_Black wrote: »

Even though I dont know every detail, my use of common sense made me say "if they do drop loot, the corruprion gain shouldnt be half". Why arent you happy?

I am happy, just expected you to check this small thing. Especially considering that the whole OP is talking about the mule dropping shit and people looting it.

George_Black

I rather critical thinking than parroting.

Ludullu

George_Black wrote: »

I rather critical thinking than parroting.

So reading a post, seeing that it's talking about mule dropping shit, not checking wiki to make sure if the OP is not bullshiting everyone - all of that is not critical thinking?

That's the thing that disappointed me.

George_Black

NiKr wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

I rather critical thinking than parroting.

So reading a post, seeing that it's talking about mule dropping shit, not checking wiki to make sure if the OP is not bullshiting everyone - all of that is not critical thinking?

That's the thing that disappointed me.

Nobody is perfect, but Im pretty close.

Okeydoke

If I was a donkey and I was killed by someone while my owner just sat there and watched, I'd wish corruption on the both you. I'd be quite miffed.

Szar

I don’t think that less corruption for killing mule is a problem because Corruption system is not a fast way to get a lot of mats. Red player is always taking risk of losing his gear. Especially in mid and high lvl when gear is many times more valuable that any amount of mats that can fit in your eq. So it will never be profitable to PK players/mules for mats.

In my opinion getting/losing some mats is only small addition to PK system from L2. And this addition doesn’t really change much. People will PK to contest bosses and best hunting grounds. Maybe to kill their sworn enemies. But no one will risk their gear to get some basic mats.

George_Black

Szar wrote: »

I don’t think that less corruption for killing mule is a problem because Corruption system is not a fast way to get a lot of mats. Red player is always taking risk of losing his gear. Especially in mid and high lvl when gear is many times more valuable that any amount of mats that can fit in your eq. So it will never be profitable to PK players/mules for mats.

In my opinion getting/losing some mats is only small addition to PK system from L2. And this addition doesn’t really change much. People will PK to contest bosses and best hunting grounds. Maybe to kill their sworn enemies. But no one will risk their gear to get some basic mats.

I kinda agree. But L2 didnt had mules with loot. So this new addition needs a new rule.
I would even said make it so that more corruption is gained for killing a mule.

Strevi

I wonder if you can CC a mule.
I'd say it should be possible.

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

I wonder if you can CC a mule.
I'd say it should be possible.

Can't CC unless he's purple/red. Or, well, at least I think it should just work the same as with players. Don't see a reason for it to work differently.

Strevi

.

NiKr wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I wonder if you can CC a mule.
I'd say it should be possible.

Can't CC unless he's purple/red. Or, well, at least I think it should just work the same as with players. Don't see a reason for it to work differently.

True. It would open griefing possibilities which I don't want.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

The risk if you are gathering too much and not going back to town and the way you can gather too much if by holding it all on your mule. So if you want to stay out there 10x longer to gather that is the weakness you pen yourself up to.

If you're not using a mule to carry shit, why are they even in the game? And if you do use them to transfer stuff, like I already explained, you'll be punished for doing so instead of doing 10 runs with your character, because using a mule means less risk for the attacker but up to x10 risk for the carrier. How is that in any way fair or good?

Strevi wrote: »

Players will keep the more valuable resources in own inventory so mules will be lower risk but also lower reward. Unless the gatherer is greedy and gathers only valuable resources for long time without going to the node, a case which is unlikely because reaching a node is a matter of a few minutes.

Big quantities of resources are what's valuable. Say there's a node that needs a ton of wood for the siege, but it was recently overgathered by the sieging forces and those same people are now killing any and all caravans that go to that node.

If killing the mule gave proper corruption or, even better imo, made you kill the rider and then the mule - those mules would now be able to bring some wood to the node from the outside and sell it in the node (in the context that the node's citizens are at war with the attackers, so they can't bring the wood themselves). This would bring huge profits to gatherers and would be all about socialization and making proper connections.

But as it stands right now, those mules can be killed directly and any incoming resources will be pillaged, all at lower risk. And again, my main issue is that lowered risk. I just can't see a reasonable excuse to have it even lower than the base one.

Okeydoke wrote: »

Edit: And honestly, after typing this all out, donkeys seem like one of the safest things in the game. Probably should give less corruption for the very, very few people even willing to kill one.

If even lowered amounts of corruption are so fucking huge that becoming red is a death sentence for your character - I'd have a whole different issue with the game. Namely the fucking BH system which would now be completely and utterly pointless.

I'm beginning to agree more and more with Dygz sentiment of "this game is missing a lead designer". I hope that during testing we can properly learn about all of these systems and realize that we were just missing some info, but it sure as hell doesn't seem that way right now.

I literarily would design the game the same way...There is no reason for corruption to be equal to that of killing a player on a mule design wise it doesn't make any sense. The game is risk and reward, the risk of corruption does not weight the same as a mule, or does the risk of corruption equal killing a single player as you lose far more than you gain if you die.

1. Just because you have a mule can gather more does not mean "risk" should be the same level as killing a player. Clearly you can view or think risk weighs heavier on the gatherer as gathering is a big deal in aoc, which means there should be some draw backs from desiring to over gather without any risk around.

2. Killing a mule gives you the exact same effect as killing a player and flags you as corrupted since you gain corruption there is no in-between. To me this is more of a pvp issue of having no leeway and you actually gaining the same harsh punishment (even more so compared to BDO and their karma).

3. You killing a mule adds immense risk for you as you are now flagged with a player around you where you are going to lose most your mats and xp debt if you die

I'm unsure why you think systems need to be fair it's about creating conflict, by default corrupt system is not fair for players since 0 buffer exist you are corrupted, or you aren't no free kills. Carrying x10 the resources is the exact same thing they are risking for a big gain, the moment you are trying to make everything even just cause it's not good for design if that is not the intention of the design.

Now a correct design idea would be if you kill the mule you gain the corruption, but any players not in your party / guild that loot the dead mule also gain corruption, flagging them all.

To finish the game is designed around gathering yes, it is meant to be more competitive clearly in direction. If you see someone gathering for long extended periods of time it adds more friction in you thinking they might have a lot of loot. That results in conflict between you and the other player (while keeping the other player green) and them having the choice to fight you freely without being flagged and their added perks and gains for killing you.

Corruption is meant to stop griefing mainly that of you dying to a player, on paper they are most likely trying to further push players having as strong a reason to kill players and target the mule instead (doesn't mean they will kill it or be able to). Effectively leaving the player green and another player turning red where it's much easier to kill them.

Ludullu

I was about to write a huge response, but then realized that we don't really know how exactly the pvp looting rights will work. Or at least I didn't manage to find any info on that on the wiki (mb I'm blind).

My whole issue with mules would be completely solved if only the PKer could loot the mule. Maybe that's the missing piece of info that resolves this and, potentially, other problems related to PKing.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

I was about to write a huge response, but then realized that we don't really know how exactly the pvp looting rights will work. Or at least I didn't manage to find any info on that on the wiki (mb I'm blind).

My whole issue with mules would be completely solved if only the PKer could loot the mule. Maybe that's the missing piece of info that resolves this and, potentially, other problems related to PKing.

I do agree only pkers / party members / guild members should be able to look a "pked" player.

But in my post I'm also fine if you look a pked player /mule you become corrupted, and it warns you before picking it up. I fully understand the "level 1 alt" to pick things up. Which mean they would be corrupted and be a easy kill.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

I do agree only pkers / party members / guild members should be able to look a "pked" player.

But in my post I'm also fine if you look a pked player /mule you become corrupted, and it warns you before picking it up. I fully understand the "level 1 alt" to pick things up. Which mean they would be corrupted and be a easy kill.

Nah, I'd only be fine with the system if only the PKer could loot their victim. Otherwise it's still the same issue I had previously. If only one person can loot a mule, that means that there's an upper limit to the reward and that limit stops at a single full inventory, which would be twice the amount of a killed player (again, in the context of "you drop 50% of your mats"), but it'd still be "fair" cause you not only get corruption but you also can't trade your mats away so you either gotta survive with a full inventory of stuff or you die on the spot to your friends (which I'm still against tbh) and they loot you.

This would also fit nicely with my suggestion for the BH system, but that's for a later discussion.

As for making others corrupt for looting. That kinda dilutes the flagging system and has potential methods of abuse. Mainly "I PK a friend, he lies on the ground as bait for any passerby. Someone sees him and loots him and becomes a Red. Friend 2 kills the Red".

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I do agree only pkers / party members / guild members should be able to look a "pked" player.

But in my post I'm also fine if you look a pked player /mule you become corrupted, and it warns you before picking it up. I fully understand the "level 1 alt" to pick things up. Which mean they would be corrupted and be a easy kill.

Nah, I'd only be fine with the system if only the PKer could loot their victim. Otherwise it's still the same issue I had previously. If only one person can loot a mule, that means that there's an upper limit to the reward and that limit stops at a single full inventory, which would be twice the amount of a killed player (again, in the context of "you drop 50% of your mats"), but it'd still be "fair" cause you not only get corruption but you also can't trade your mats away so you either gotta survive with a full inventory of stuff or you die on the spot to your friends (which I'm still against tbh) and they loot you.

This would also fit nicely with my suggestion for the BH system, but that's for a later discussion.

As for making others corrupt for looting. That kinda dilutes the flagging system and has potential methods of abuse. Mainly "I PK a friend, he lies on the ground as bait for any passerby. Someone sees him and loots him and becomes a Red. Friend 2 kills the Red".

I think that is on them for looting and going red, if they are taking bait they are taking bait. It be very clear they are about to loot and go red.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

I think that is on them for looting and going red, if they are taking bait they are taking bait. It be very clear they are about to loot and go red.

Ah, right, you suggested it being visible. I missed that. I'd still prefer corruption only being gained through murder, but there's still a chance that Intrepid will give it to partymates or whoever attacked the victim too, so we'll have to wait till testing to see what they decide to do.

Arya_Yeshe

Everybody will live on both sides of this, nobody brought up that:

pvpers will also bring their mules to carry all the carebear loot they steal and other pvpers will kill his mule too

Killing and being killed is not a one sided thing, trust me, pvpers will die over and over way more than any pve gatherer

Strevi

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Everybody will live on both sides of this, nobody brought up that:

pvpers will also bring their mules to carry all the carebear loot they steal and other pvpers will kill his mule too

Killing and being killed is not a one sided thing, trust me, pvpers will die over and over way more than any pve gatherer

Poor mules...
Except the corrupt mules. Those are evil. Not even the corruption stops them.

Spif

I'd assume that if you are red (or purple), that all of your pets would share that status. Combat pets definitely should.

Also, do we have any confirmation that mules will actually be able to carry 10x what a person can, because that doesn't seem likely from a game design perspective? I'm thinking it will be 2x. To back this up some googling: a soldiers loadout is about 100 lbs, and a mule can carry about 20% of it's body weight: 200 lbs

Ludullu

Spif wrote: »

I'd assume that if you are red (or purple), that all of your pets would share that status. Combat pets definitely should.

Also, do we have any confirmation that mules will actually be able to carry 10x what a person can, because that doesn't seem likely from a game design perspective? I'm thinking it will be 2x. To back this up some googling: a soldiers loadout is about 100 lbs, and a mule can carry about 20% of it's body weight: 200 lbs

Mules can carry roughly 10 times more than backpacks. Caravans can carry roughly 10 times more than mules.[14]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Mules

Players are flagged as combatants if they attack another (non-corrupted) player when carrying out a forced attack. If the attacked player fights back, they are also flagged as combatants, otherwise the attacked player will remain flagged as a non-combatant.[14][7]
This also applies to attacks made by combat pets, summons, or any other player-controlled entities.[4][15]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

Strevi

Spif wrote: »

I'd assume that if you are red (or purple), that all of your pets would share that status. Combat pets definitely should.

Also, do we have any confirmation that mules will actually be able to carry 10x what a person can, because that doesn't seem likely from a game design perspective? I'm thinking it will be 2x. To back this up some googling: a soldiers loadout is about 100 lbs, and a mule can carry about 20% of it's body weight: 200 lbs

So a soldier is more efficient than a mule?



This is from 2017

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Mules
Mules can carry roughly 10 times more than backpacks. Caravans can carry roughly 10 times more than mules.[14]

There was a thread about the sizes
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53503/caravan-system-does-not-work-well-with-crafting/p1
I am not sure if it ended well or not. Often we come to the conclusion that we need to see Alpha 2