Voilá!
A better system is born, a system which could even be used on corrupted players
Yeah, this might work, if the only other penalties remains as just gear decay and progression system stuff. I could maybe see a problem of avoiding gold all together by just trading through a mediary, but we don't know enough about the game to say for sure if that's possible.
@Mag7spy if you are not caught, you pay nothing! then the debt expires
You are missing the point I'm getting at, i go over it in another post above. Creative more incentive to defend as well as ways to make it so it's not as obvious where they go so they aren't easily camped.
Using debt for everything is boring and does not drive fun.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Voilá!
A better system is born, a system which could even be used on corrupted players
Yeah, this might work, if the only other penalties remains as just gear decay and progression system stuff. I could maybe see a problem of avoiding gold all together by just trading through a mediary, but we don't know enough about the game to say for sure if that's possible.
Voilá!
A better system is born, a system which could even be used on corrupted players
Yeah, this might work, if the only other penalties remains as just gear decay and progression system stuff. I could maybe see a problem of avoiding gold all together by just trading through a mediary, but we don't know enough about the game to say for sure if that's possible.
Just so you know, edited pings never ping people. You seem to like adding them post factum, but no one gets pinged with those.
For this to work, it would imply that the game's economy can determine the cost of repairs consistently.
I'm not saying you can't build a system that does that, even with what Intrepid seems to want, but I am saying that it is inconsistent and open to some relatively easy manipulations while adding some complexity to their 'World Economy Tracker' or heavily simplifying gear repair costs.
I've tried this one before. It's not really understandable to most players, so it tends to get a negative reaction.
Voilá!
A better system is born, a system which could even be used on corrupted players
Yeah, this might work, if the only other penalties remains as just gear decay and progression system stuff. I could maybe see a problem of avoiding gold all together by just trading through a mediary, but we don't know enough about the game to say for sure if that's possible.
Just so you know, edited pings never ping people. You seem to like adding them post factum, but no one gets pinged with those.
For this to work, it would imply that the game's economy can determine the cost of repairs consistently.
I'm not saying you can't build a system that does that, even with what Intrepid seems to want, but I am saying that it is inconsistent and open to some relatively easy manipulations while adding some complexity to their 'World Economy Tracker' or heavily simplifying gear repair costs.
I've tried this one before. It's not really understandable to most players, so it tends to get a negative reaction.
The debt could actually be called ramsom
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
For this to work, it would imply that the game's economy can determine the cost of repairs consistently.
I'm not saying you can't build a system that does that, even with what Intrepid seems to want, but I am saying that it is inconsistent and open to some relatively easy manipulations while adding some complexity to their 'World Economy Tracker' or heavily simplifying gear repair costs.
I've tried this one before. It's not really understandable to most players, so it tends to get a negative reaction.
I've considered that at first, but then read the suggestion as just "whatever caravan value was - that's the lost cost", no repair costs or anything of the sort. Shoulda mentioned that this probably wouldn't work for PKers, unless we purely calculate the loot costs (median within the node of the killing).
And considering that some mats from the caravan will just be deleted on destruction, the attackers would pay out more than they got. Though considering that I'd probably keep to the "BHs can only track high ranking caravan attackers".
For this to work, it would imply that the game's economy can determine the cost of repairs consistently.
I'm not saying you can't build a system that does that, even with what Intrepid seems to want, but I am saying that it is inconsistent and open to some relatively easy manipulations while adding some complexity to their 'World Economy Tracker' or heavily simplifying gear repair costs.
I've tried this one before. It's not really understandable to most players, so it tends to get a negative reaction.
I've considered that at first, but then read the suggestion as just "whatever caravan value was - that's the lost cost", no repair costs or anything of the sort. Shoulda mentioned that this probably wouldn't work for PKers, unless we purely calculate the loot costs (median within the node of the killing).
And considering that some mats from the caravan will just be deleted on destruction, the attackers would pay out more than they got. Though considering that I'd probably keep to the "BHs can only track high ranking caravan attackers".
I really don't like making posts that are just 'this doesn't work either' here, so forgive me for this one.
I really don't like making posts that are just 'this doesn't work either' here, so forgive me for this one.
They're always appreciated, because I'm not that good at deeper economic consequences, so if your experience and extrapolation of this system based on that experience says this wouldn't work, I'm not gonna really argue, cause I haven't thought deeply enough about this suggestion to even come up with an argument
The game is stuck in this paradox of having consequences or not, and risk x reward
How will the game ever have such things if the destruction or gear damage is not measured in any way?
I'm referring to something that does require a modified 'FFXI parallel', or rather, any game you've played that sounds similar.
Epic Damascus Blade requires 1 Damascus Ingot to repair.
Damascus Ingot is made of Damascus Ore + High level crafter + some other stuff.
Damascus Ore only drops from a boss that no one can guarantee a kill-rate for.
Damascus Ingots sell for 'whatever the guild monopolizing the boss decide to sell it for that week'.
What is the 'value' of 10% gear damage on your Epic Damascus Blade when you use it to defend a Caravan?
What if no one has sold a Damascus Ingot on the open market literally ever and it's only ever been traded?
That's the sort of thing I'm talking about, not intended to be an attack on your suggestion or system. It has an easy solution - 'Assign a value to Damascus Ingots anyway'. I don't like it, I think it's a terrible solution. But I feel like your suggestion is hard to get right without taking it.
@Azherae In EVE, the server takes a market average for every item in the game, this average is weighted on how many and how much were the buy and sell orders that were executed within a long time period. Because EVE's average is legit, it is very accurate how much is worth the destruction of each kill.
What we know about AoC is that there's gear damage on death and it will be necessary gold to repair that gear. That is the gold I am talking about, that plain gold... I am not even considering the value of the materials to repair the gear. I don't think AoC will have a sophisticated market system.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
@Mag7spy if you are not caught, you pay nothing! then the debt expires
You are missing the point I'm getting at, i go over it in another post above. Creative more incentive to defend as well as ways to make it so it's not as obvious where they go so they aren't easily camped.
Using debt for everything is boring and does not drive fun.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
Have a system in place that promotes defending of caravans for players so more people are more willingly to actively to take place in defending. While increasing the difficulty for attackers knowing they aren't just getting easy mats / golds.
And capping the loss so just because you fail to reach the point doesn't mean you lose all your mats. But consecutive failures from node to node would add up increasing the risk based on distance.
This keeps people hunting them but also defending as well while being fair to both parties and not being a giant loot pinata.
(This reduces the loss for players transporting compared to what their plan at the moment where you lose everything. As that kind of thing creates large deterrents to even considering using it while people will freely attack and defending might feel pointless. Though if you are trying to transport from large distances constant losses would equal the same result of you not being able to bring much. I feel this solves the issue while having the gameplay be a bit fairer, and ensuring it becomes a more frequent piece of constant to take part in than just once i awhile.)
@Azherae In EVE, the server takes a market average for every item in the game, this average is weighted on how many and how much were the buy and sell orders that were executed within a long time period. Because EVE's average is legit, it is very accurate how much is worth the destruction of each kill.
What we know about AoC is that there's gear damage on death and it will be necessary gold to repair that gear. That is the gold I am talking about, that plain gold... I am not even considering the value of the materials to repair the gear. I don't think AoC will have a sophisticated market system.
Ah, well if you are assuming that the game will not have a sophisticated Market system, then I don't really have a point, I was just basing it on stuff I've enjoyed.
If they go the 'basic averages' route and somehow make it work in a free trade Fantasy game without turning it into BDO, I think your suggestion's completely fine and I fully support it. A little less fun for me but if it suits the game, I'd still like to see it.
@Mag7spy if you are not caught, you pay nothing! then the debt expires
You are missing the point I'm getting at, i go over it in another post above. Creative more incentive to defend as well as ways to make it so it's not as obvious where they go so they aren't easily camped.
Using debt for everything is boring and does not drive fun.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
Have a system in place that promotes defending of caravans for players so more people are more willingly to actively to take place in defending. While increasing the difficulty for attackers knowing they aren't just getting easy mats / golds.
And capping the loss so just because you fail to reach the point doesn't mean you lose all your mats. But consecutive failures from node to node would add up increasing the risk based on distance.
This keeps people hunting them but also defending as well while being fair to both parties and not being a giant loot pinata.
(This reduces the loss for players transporting compared to what their plan at the moment where you lose everything. As that kind of thing creates large deterrents to even considering using it while people will freely attack and defending might feel pointless. Though if you are trying to transport from large distances constant losses would equal the same result of you not being able to bring much. I feel this solves the issue while having the gameplay be a bit fairer, and ensuring it becomes a more frequent piece of constant to take part in than just once i awhile.)
Hm... what you said is very abstract and superficial, but I am still interested in listening this in detail.
I agree that nowadays it feels pointless defending random caravans, I would rather let them die and try to ninja loot anything. If the caravan survives, the randoms passing by will get nothing if they defend the caravan. In other games I saved so many people and I almost never received anything in return, it is pretty rare people who are thankful and give tips.
If criminals had ramsons, then people would have at least the financial reason to defend caravans.
I don't think this capping the loss idea would go well, systems like that are very unnatural.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
@Azherae In EVE, the server takes a market average for every item in the game, this average is weighted on how many and how much were the buy and sell orders that were executed within a long time period. Because EVE's average is legit, it is very accurate how much is worth the destruction of each kill.
What we know about AoC is that there's gear damage on death and it will be necessary gold to repair that gear. That is the gold I am talking about, that plain gold... I am not even considering the value of the materials to repair the gear. I don't think AoC will have a sophisticated market system.
Ah, well if you are assuming that the game will not have a sophisticated Market system, then I don't really have a point, I was just basing it on stuff I've enjoyed.
If they go the 'basic averages' route and somehow make it work in a free trade Fantasy game without turning it into BDO, I think your suggestion's completely fine and I fully support it. A little less fun for me but if it suits the game, I'd still like to see it.
Yeah, I understand.
The thing is, EVE's economy was planned by real life economists through the years, each item is an asset just like assets in a real life stock market. In EVE, you can even invest in items and there's even player's investment funds and economic reports... I think AoC will get not even close to that.
To me, AoC ramsons/fines/warscore should be based on the gold that will be needed to repair the gear and everything else should be avoided.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
@Mag7spy if you are not caught, you pay nothing! then the debt expires
You are missing the point I'm getting at, i go over it in another post above. Creative more incentive to defend as well as ways to make it so it's not as obvious where they go so they aren't easily camped.
Using debt for everything is boring and does not drive fun.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
Have a system in place that promotes defending of caravans for players so more people are more willingly to actively to take place in defending. While increasing the difficulty for attackers knowing they aren't just getting easy mats / golds.
And capping the loss so just because you fail to reach the point doesn't mean you lose all your mats. But consecutive failures from node to node would add up increasing the risk based on distance.
This keeps people hunting them but also defending as well while being fair to both parties and not being a giant loot pinata.
(This reduces the loss for players transporting compared to what their plan at the moment where you lose everything. As that kind of thing creates large deterrents to even considering using it while people will freely attack and defending might feel pointless. Though if you are trying to transport from large distances constant losses would equal the same result of you not being able to bring much. I feel this solves the issue while having the gameplay be a bit fairer, and ensuring it becomes a more frequent piece of constant to take part in than just once i awhile.)
Hm... what you said is very abstract and superficial, but I am still interested in listening this in detail.
I agree that nowadays it feels pointless defending random caravans, I would rather let them die and try to ninja loot anything. If the caravan survives, the randoms passing by will get nothing if they defend the caravan. In other games I saved so many people and I almost never received anything in return, it is pretty rare people who are thankful and give tips.
If criminals had ramsons, then people would have at least the financial reason to defend caravans.
I don't think this capping the loss idea would go well, systems like that are very unnatural.
You are missing the design concept I'm getting across. Everything is capped, you only lose a portion of your drops on death, so it already exists on a player basis.
Else then item drop on death is also unnatural by that logic. So nothing changes at the end of the day.
Point of the system is to push for people to use the system without the risk not making sense. Trying to make people pay money based on the damage they do (which doesn't make sense as well based on their current system) is a design meant to limit content in a lazy way.
Effectively what you are saying is if you attack a place and die/fail you get debt without even realizing how much debt you will get for the attack. It is not a good idea, it does not promote active content it deters it.
They don't need to be overcomplicating having corruption and a criminal system because you feel attackers can attack freely without a cost. I typed my previous post for a reason an di felt like you skipped ever the entire concept.
@Mag7spy if you are not caught, you pay nothing! then the debt expires
You are missing the point I'm getting at, i go over it in another post above. Creative more incentive to defend as well as ways to make it so it's not as obvious where they go so they aren't easily camped.
Using debt for everything is boring and does not drive fun.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
Have a system in place that promotes defending of caravans for players so more people are more willingly to actively to take place in defending. While increasing the difficulty for attackers knowing they aren't just getting easy mats / golds.
And capping the loss so just because you fail to reach the point doesn't mean you lose all your mats. But consecutive failures from node to node would add up increasing the risk based on distance.
This keeps people hunting them but also defending as well while being fair to both parties and not being a giant loot pinata.
(This reduces the loss for players transporting compared to what their plan at the moment where you lose everything. As that kind of thing creates large deterrents to even considering using it while people will freely attack and defending might feel pointless. Though if you are trying to transport from large distances constant losses would equal the same result of you not being able to bring much. I feel this solves the issue while having the gameplay be a bit fairer, and ensuring it becomes a more frequent piece of constant to take part in than just once i awhile.)
Hm... what you said is very abstract and superficial, but I am still interested in listening this in detail.
I agree that nowadays it feels pointless defending random caravans, I would rather let them die and try to ninja loot anything. If the caravan survives, the randoms passing by will get nothing if they defend the caravan. In other games I saved so many people and I almost never received anything in return, it is pretty rare people who are thankful and give tips.
If criminals had ramsons, then people would have at least the financial reason to defend caravans.
I don't think this capping the loss idea would go well, systems like that are very unnatural.
You are missing the design concept I'm getting across. Everything is capped, you only lose a portion of your drops on death, so it already exists on a player basis.
Else then item drop on death is also unnatural by that logic. So nothing changes at the end of the day.
Point of the system is to push for people to use the system without the risk not making sense. Trying to make people pay money based on the damage they do (which doesn't make sense as well based on their current system) is a design meant to limit content in a lazy way.
Effectively what you are saying is if you attack a place and die/fail you get debt without even realizing how much debt you will get for the attack. It is not a good idea, it does not promote active content it deters it.
They don't need to be overcomplicating having corruption and a criminal system because you feel attackers can attack freely without a cost. I typed my previous post for a reason an di felt like you skipped ever the entire concept.
Now it is clear, we are in fact talking about two different things!
You are talking about balancing risk and reward. I am talking about making it fun while recognizing that nowadays risk and reward are unbalanced.
I am currently not considering balancing or risk-reward balance.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
@Mag7spy if you are not caught, you pay nothing! then the debt expires
You are missing the point I'm getting at, i go over it in another post above. Creative more incentive to defend as well as ways to make it so it's not as obvious where they go so they aren't easily camped.
Using debt for everything is boring and does not drive fun.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
Have a system in place that promotes defending of caravans for players so more people are more willingly to actively to take place in defending. While increasing the difficulty for attackers knowing they aren't just getting easy mats / golds.
And capping the loss so just because you fail to reach the point doesn't mean you lose all your mats. But consecutive failures from node to node would add up increasing the risk based on distance.
This keeps people hunting them but also defending as well while being fair to both parties and not being a giant loot pinata.
(This reduces the loss for players transporting compared to what their plan at the moment where you lose everything. As that kind of thing creates large deterrents to even considering using it while people will freely attack and defending might feel pointless. Though if you are trying to transport from large distances constant losses would equal the same result of you not being able to bring much. I feel this solves the issue while having the gameplay be a bit fairer, and ensuring it becomes a more frequent piece of constant to take part in than just once i awhile.)
Hm... what you said is very abstract and superficial, but I am still interested in listening this in detail.
I agree that nowadays it feels pointless defending random caravans, I would rather let them die and try to ninja loot anything. If the caravan survives, the randoms passing by will get nothing if they defend the caravan. In other games I saved so many people and I almost never received anything in return, it is pretty rare people who are thankful and give tips.
If criminals had ramsons, then people would have at least the financial reason to defend caravans.
I don't think this capping the loss idea would go well, systems like that are very unnatural.
You are missing the design concept I'm getting across. Everything is capped, you only lose a portion of your drops on death, so it already exists on a player basis.
Else then item drop on death is also unnatural by that logic. So nothing changes at the end of the day.
Point of the system is to push for people to use the system without the risk not making sense. Trying to make people pay money based on the damage they do (which doesn't make sense as well based on their current system) is a design meant to limit content in a lazy way.
Effectively what you are saying is if you attack a place and die/fail you get debt without even realizing how much debt you will get for the attack. It is not a good idea, it does not promote active content it deters it.
They don't need to be overcomplicating having corruption and a criminal system because you feel attackers can attack freely without a cost. I typed my previous post for a reason an di felt like you skipped ever the entire concept.
Now it is clear, we are in fact talking about two different things!
You are talking about balancing risk and reward. I am talking about making it fun while recognizing that nowadays risk and reward are unbalanced.
I am currently not considering balancing or risk-reward balance.
Adding debt does not increase fun factor or does it change the gameplay loop it suppresses it, meaning again less fun.
My suggestion ensures people have a reason to do it and there for adding to more fun since it will be more of a normal kind of content.
@Mag7spy if you are not caught, you pay nothing! then the debt expires
You are missing the point I'm getting at, i go over it in another post above. Creative more incentive to defend as well as ways to make it so it's not as obvious where they go so they aren't easily camped.
Using debt for everything is boring and does not drive fun.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
Have a system in place that promotes defending of caravans for players so more people are more willingly to actively to take place in defending. While increasing the difficulty for attackers knowing they aren't just getting easy mats / golds.
And capping the loss so just because you fail to reach the point doesn't mean you lose all your mats. But consecutive failures from node to node would add up increasing the risk based on distance.
This keeps people hunting them but also defending as well while being fair to both parties and not being a giant loot pinata.
(This reduces the loss for players transporting compared to what their plan at the moment where you lose everything. As that kind of thing creates large deterrents to even considering using it while people will freely attack and defending might feel pointless. Though if you are trying to transport from large distances constant losses would equal the same result of you not being able to bring much. I feel this solves the issue while having the gameplay be a bit fairer, and ensuring it becomes a more frequent piece of constant to take part in than just once i awhile.)
Hm... what you said is very abstract and superficial, but I am still interested in listening this in detail.
I agree that nowadays it feels pointless defending random caravans, I would rather let them die and try to ninja loot anything. If the caravan survives, the randoms passing by will get nothing if they defend the caravan. In other games I saved so many people and I almost never received anything in return, it is pretty rare people who are thankful and give tips.
If criminals had ramsons, then people would have at least the financial reason to defend caravans.
I don't think this capping the loss idea would go well, systems like that are very unnatural.
You are missing the design concept I'm getting across. Everything is capped, you only lose a portion of your drops on death, so it already exists on a player basis.
Else then item drop on death is also unnatural by that logic. So nothing changes at the end of the day.
Point of the system is to push for people to use the system without the risk not making sense. Trying to make people pay money based on the damage they do (which doesn't make sense as well based on their current system) is a design meant to limit content in a lazy way.
Effectively what you are saying is if you attack a place and die/fail you get debt without even realizing how much debt you will get for the attack. It is not a good idea, it does not promote active content it deters it.
They don't need to be overcomplicating having corruption and a criminal system because you feel attackers can attack freely without a cost. I typed my previous post for a reason an di felt like you skipped ever the entire concept.
Now it is clear, we are in fact talking about two different things!
You are talking about balancing risk and reward. I am talking about making it fun while recognizing that nowadays risk and reward are unbalanced.
I am currently not considering balancing or risk-reward balance.
Adding debt does not increase fun factor or does it change the gameplay loop it suppresses it, meaning again less fun.
My suggestion ensures people have a reason to do it and there for adding to more fun since it will be more of a normal kind of content.
Oh, it ensures a lot of fun, since bounty hunters will be able to kill bandits over and over until their debt is paid. That's what PvPers want, mow dow other people and the profit is the cherry on top of it. At the momment I am not thinking about the hauler at all.
Fun is when people smile
If caravans aren't loot piñatas, then people won't be smilling
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
@Mag7spy if you are not caught, you pay nothing! then the debt expires
You are missing the point I'm getting at, i go over it in another post above. Creative more incentive to defend as well as ways to make it so it's not as obvious where they go so they aren't easily camped.
Using debt for everything is boring and does not drive fun.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
Have a system in place that promotes defending of caravans for players so more people are more willingly to actively to take place in defending. While increasing the difficulty for attackers knowing they aren't just getting easy mats / golds.
And capping the loss so just because you fail to reach the point doesn't mean you lose all your mats. But consecutive failures from node to node would add up increasing the risk based on distance.
This keeps people hunting them but also defending as well while being fair to both parties and not being a giant loot pinata.
(This reduces the loss for players transporting compared to what their plan at the moment where you lose everything. As that kind of thing creates large deterrents to even considering using it while people will freely attack and defending might feel pointless. Though if you are trying to transport from large distances constant losses would equal the same result of you not being able to bring much. I feel this solves the issue while having the gameplay be a bit fairer, and ensuring it becomes a more frequent piece of constant to take part in than just once i awhile.)
Hm... what you said is very abstract and superficial, but I am still interested in listening this in detail.
I agree that nowadays it feels pointless defending random caravans, I would rather let them die and try to ninja loot anything. If the caravan survives, the randoms passing by will get nothing if they defend the caravan. In other games I saved so many people and I almost never received anything in return, it is pretty rare people who are thankful and give tips.
If criminals had ramsons, then people would have at least the financial reason to defend caravans.
I don't think this capping the loss idea would go well, systems like that are very unnatural.
You are missing the design concept I'm getting across. Everything is capped, you only lose a portion of your drops on death, so it already exists on a player basis.
Else then item drop on death is also unnatural by that logic. So nothing changes at the end of the day.
Point of the system is to push for people to use the system without the risk not making sense. Trying to make people pay money based on the damage they do (which doesn't make sense as well based on their current system) is a design meant to limit content in a lazy way.
Effectively what you are saying is if you attack a place and die/fail you get debt without even realizing how much debt you will get for the attack. It is not a good idea, it does not promote active content it deters it.
They don't need to be overcomplicating having corruption and a criminal system because you feel attackers can attack freely without a cost. I typed my previous post for a reason an di felt like you skipped ever the entire concept.
Now it is clear, we are in fact talking about two different things!
You are talking about balancing risk and reward. I am talking about making it fun while recognizing that nowadays risk and reward are unbalanced.
I am currently not considering balancing or risk-reward balance.
Adding debt does not increase fun factor or does it change the gameplay loop it suppresses it, meaning again less fun.
My suggestion ensures people have a reason to do it and there for adding to more fun since it will be more of a normal kind of content.
Oh, it ensures a lot of fun, since bounty hunters will be able to kill bandits over and over until their debt is paid. That's what PvPers want, mow dow other people and the profit is the cherry on top of it. At the momment I am not thinking about the hauler at all.
Fun is when people smile
If caravans aren't loot piñatas, then people won't be smilling
Again you are trying to over convolute the system they already have corruption. You are also not adding fun to the system you are trying to create a third system that punishes you for doing that kind of content.
1. if your point is to punish people by introducing a third system you are adding nothing to the current caravan system. If nothing is added and there are only negatives you are not effective making the current system more fun.
2. By adding more negatives there will be less people inclined to do the type of content, meaning less activities to do and reduced fun
This goes back to my point with my design concept about keeping the fun within the system with intent and fairness.
As caravans are now on their paper you get a portion of the loot and everything else gets sunk, you don't get all the items on the caravan to begin with...
There isn't going to be more pvp suddenly if less people are doing it. You might boost BH pvp by a small margin, but reduce overall pvp since people might now view the debt as something being worth it. If anything you can simply have their system flag them for a longer period of time as a purple and not give debt. So it means you can be pvp'd for the next 5-10 minutes. If you survive the time it allows you to put your loot in the stash or go to a town. Meaning all the mats they took could effectively drop if they are killed.
@Mag7spy I disagree entirely on how you portray stuff, there are fundamental differences in our views
Here is the thing, I can easily visualize there will be 40 people waiting to kill a caravan with 1-4 players. I belive the raiding parties will completely destroy nearly all caravans. I think there will be almost no successful caravans.
Bandits havo no consequences, their only consequence is maybe dying and having to repair their gear. In general, I think, killing caravans will be no challenge, but it will be very profitable.
Why defend a caravan when the products aren't yours? There's no reason to do that, there is no incentive in defending what is not yours.
Plus, as a craftsman or gatherer, it would be advantageous to eliminate as many caravans as possible. This is because an excess of products in the market can cause prices to plummet. Personally, if I were in such professions, I would actively seek out and eliminate caravans in order to boost my business. I did exacty that in other games.
I believe in two things about AoC:
there will be almost no corrupted players
there will be almost no successful caravans
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Off a conversation I had on reddit, the question regarding caravans success rate came up.
If caravan success rates are low will they continue to be utilized long term?
I think if you set up the gathering speed to be relatively fast (ie resources are plentiful) but make the need to transport resources high (IE wood x for certain bows only exist in location a) then you can effectively make the pain of losing a caravan much lower.
For example, if 8 players spend 4 hours loading a caravan up just to lose it in transport that is going to really suck.
What percentage of resources are lost when a Caravan is destroyed??
@Mag7spy I disagree entirely on how you portray stuff, there are fundamental differences in our views
Here is the thing, I can easily visualize there will be 40 people waiting to kill a caravan with 1-4 players. I belive the raiding parties will completely destroy nearly all caravans. I think there will be almost no successful caravans.
Bandits havo no consequences, their only consequence is maybe dying and having to repair their gear. In general, I think, killing caravans will be no challenge, but it will be very profitable.
Why defend a caravan when the products aren't yours? There's no reason to do that, there is no incentive in defending what is not yours.
Plus, as a craftsman or gatherer, it would be advantageous to eliminate as many caravans as possible. This is because an excess of products in the market can cause prices to plummet. Personally, if I were in such professions, I would actively seek out and eliminate caravans in order to boost my business. I did exacty that in other games.
I believe in two things about AoC:
there will be almost no corrupted players
there will be almost no successful caravans
This is why i keep saying you don't read my post lol. I've addressed this issue multiple times already and you don't respond to it but respond to other points in my post.
@Mag7spy yes I did read multiple times all your messages, specially the first one, I guess you didn't care about bringing something to the table, except maybe implying about balancing the drop rate and implying that something should be done
If you think you know what could be good, you should tell us in details and why, people are really interested
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Those two things together combined with a few defenders could potentially let the wagon escape in many instances, the defenders will be left behind and fight to the death
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
@Mag7spy because you gave no suggestions at all and only implied that something should be done, then I will suggest someting as an example of how to suggest things:
Dynamic drop rates:
drop rates start with a 50/50 between loot drop vs sunk in the ground
if in 6 hours there's no wagon kills will change the the rates in +10/-10... so you will have a 60/40 in drop/sunk split, up to 100/0
every dead wagon will bring a -10/+10 rates... if theres enough killed wagons then drops will be 0/100 in drop/sunk rates
There it is!
If that route became a meat grinder for caravans, it will eventually drop 0% loot and 100% will be sunk, but if that route is extremely quiet then the drop rate will go up 100% eventually.
This should be like this because attackers may pretty much just have the intention to destroy others economically and this is fine!
People who just wants loot will have to scout, travel and go after routes where the loot drop is high.
yay or nay?
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
@Mag7spy because you gave no suggestions at all and only implied that something should be done, then I will suggest someting as an example of how to suggest things:
Dynamic drop rates:
drop rates start with a 50/50 between loot drop vs sunk in the ground
if in 6 hours there's no wagon kills will change the the rates in +10/-10... so you will have a 60/40 in drop/sunk split, up to 100/0
every dead wagon will bring a -10/+10 rates... if theres enough killed wagons then drops will be 0/100 in drop/sunk rates
There it is!
If that route became a meat grinder for caravans, it will eventually drop 0% loot and 100% will be sunk, but if that route is extremely quiet then the drop rate will go up 100% eventually.
This should be like this because attackers may pretty much just have the intention to destroy others economically and this is fine!
People who just wants loot will have to scout, travel and go after routes where the loot drop is high.
yay or nay?
This isn't a good idea you are overcomplicating the issue....Having a bunch of random systems not in the general loop for people to remember and work with on top of everything else isn't going to make it fun.
Effectively you are saying people attacking a place will have no idea what is on wagon, will get debt while gaining nothing for the kill. I'm unsure in what would you think that is even remotely fun. If they are away the loot drop chance is 0, effectively it is a safe zone where you ride for free.
They have systems in place where they can adjust loot lost and gained with the new building they added, which I'm sure can have interesting buffs and such. A much better route that is concise rather than adding more convoluted stuff that people need to try and keep track of.
Because you aren't understanding what I'm getting at doesn't mean i haven't already offered feedback. You literarily are just not listening lol. I will say it in the most simple form I can
1. Have a system around defending caravans offering strong incentives. Ensure that players can get there (teleport or not) easily and clearly knowing when and where they need to be. (teleport might be better so they can't be sniped as easily).
2. Reduction in the gain from players destroying the caravan with them needing to win multiple fights along the path of nodes to have a stronger impact on its loss. IE if they lose 5 node fights they might only have around 20% of their goods left.
I'm not going to get stuck on details of system since we don't know the systems or how things will work as everything is going to be tied together. That isn't the point of feedback I give unless something certain is shown i can give exact feedback on that certain thing. Though the feedback i do give based around design is more so about issues and potential ways to solve them in a general sense.
For the caravans to be worth the time to run and defend, basic resources need to be plentiful BUT localized and in demand all over the world. As such, ideally, part of the required materials and components for all professions must either have been gathered or processed in another node.
The reward of a successful caravan is not only to keep the cargo, but to bring it to a more desirable market.
Because you aren't understanding what I'm getting at doesn't mean i haven't already offered feedback. You literarily are just not listening lol. I will say it in the most simple form I can
1. Have a system around defending caravans offering strong incentives. Ensure that players can get there (teleport or not) easily and clearly knowing when and where they need to be. (teleport might be better so they can't be sniped as easily).
2. Reduction in the gain from players destroying the caravan with them needing to win multiple fights along the path of nodes to have a stronger impact on its loss. IE if they lose 5 node fights they might only have around 20% of their goods left.
Exactly what I thought and understood, but you assured so much that YOUR IDEA is so great that for a momment I thought you were hidding something amazing, which was not the case.
This teleporting idea is a big no, even with Steven, in 2022 he said this in one of the streams. Teleports are no fun at all. Reduction in gains is not fun. Now that I made sure you werent hidding anything, I can confidently say both ideas are not good
I gave two ideas, bounties (debt) and dynamic drop/sunk rates.
The debts (bounties), would be based on kills/destruction... so if attackers do that, they would have bounties accordingly... if they attack and the wagon is empty and they don't kill anyone, then they would have no bounties on them.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
For the caravans to be worth the time to run and defend, basic resources need to be plentiful BUT localized and in demand all over the world. As such, ideally, part of the required materials and components for all professions must either have been gathered or processed in another node.
The reward of a successful caravan is not only to keep the cargo, but to bring it to a more desirable market.
I don't feel that alone is enough to defend it, there should be some sort of reputation system in place that will make players need to grind to get that and also get rewards for doing so that might feel very necessary.
I think the attackers will always out way anything else based on how many locations there are in the world that the people that want more things for a certain node.
Comments
Just so you know, edited pings never ping people. You seem to like adding them post factum, but no one gets pinged with those.
I'm all ears about what could be fun
I didn't know that, thanks for letting me know.
Yes, all other penalties would remain, also people would need someone ele handling gold for them... there's no counter for a gold handlin alt
For this to work, it would imply that the game's economy can determine the cost of repairs consistently.
I'm not saying you can't build a system that does that, even with what Intrepid seems to want, but I am saying that it is inconsistent and open to some relatively easy manipulations while adding some complexity to their 'World Economy Tracker' or heavily simplifying gear repair costs.
I've tried this one before. It's not really understandable to most players, so it tends to get a negative reaction.
The debt could actually be called ramsom
And considering that some mats from the caravan will just be deleted on destruction, the attackers would pay out more than they got. Though considering that I'd probably keep to the "BHs can only track high ranking caravan attackers".
I really don't like making posts that are just 'this doesn't work either' here, so forgive me for this one.
This doesn't work either.
How will the game ever have such things if the destruction or gear damage is not measured in any way?
I'm referring to something that does require a modified 'FFXI parallel', or rather, any game you've played that sounds similar.
Epic Damascus Blade requires 1 Damascus Ingot to repair.
Damascus Ingot is made of Damascus Ore + High level crafter + some other stuff.
Damascus Ore only drops from a boss that no one can guarantee a kill-rate for.
Damascus Ingots sell for 'whatever the guild monopolizing the boss decide to sell it for that week'.
What is the 'value' of 10% gear damage on your Epic Damascus Blade when you use it to defend a Caravan?
What if no one has sold a Damascus Ingot on the open market literally ever and it's only ever been traded?
That's the sort of thing I'm talking about, not intended to be an attack on your suggestion or system. It has an easy solution - 'Assign a value to Damascus Ingots anyway'. I don't like it, I think it's a terrible solution. But I feel like your suggestion is hard to get right without taking it.
What we know about AoC is that there's gear damage on death and it will be necessary gold to repair that gear. That is the gold I am talking about, that plain gold... I am not even considering the value of the materials to repair the gear. I don't think AoC will have a sophisticated market system.
Have a system in place that promotes defending of caravans for players so more people are more willingly to actively to take place in defending. While increasing the difficulty for attackers knowing they aren't just getting easy mats / golds.
And capping the loss so just because you fail to reach the point doesn't mean you lose all your mats. But consecutive failures from node to node would add up increasing the risk based on distance.
This keeps people hunting them but also defending as well while being fair to both parties and not being a giant loot pinata.
(This reduces the loss for players transporting compared to what their plan at the moment where you lose everything. As that kind of thing creates large deterrents to even considering using it while people will freely attack and defending might feel pointless. Though if you are trying to transport from large distances constant losses would equal the same result of you not being able to bring much. I feel this solves the issue while having the gameplay be a bit fairer, and ensuring it becomes a more frequent piece of constant to take part in than just once i awhile.)
Ah, well if you are assuming that the game will not have a sophisticated Market system, then I don't really have a point, I was just basing it on stuff I've enjoyed.
If they go the 'basic averages' route and somehow make it work in a free trade Fantasy game without turning it into BDO, I think your suggestion's completely fine and I fully support it. A little less fun for me but if it suits the game, I'd still like to see it.
Hm... what you said is very abstract and superficial, but I am still interested in listening this in detail.
I agree that nowadays it feels pointless defending random caravans, I would rather let them die and try to ninja loot anything. If the caravan survives, the randoms passing by will get nothing if they defend the caravan. In other games I saved so many people and I almost never received anything in return, it is pretty rare people who are thankful and give tips.
If criminals had ramsons, then people would have at least the financial reason to defend caravans.
I don't think this capping the loss idea would go well, systems like that are very unnatural.
Yeah, I understand.
The thing is, EVE's economy was planned by real life economists through the years, each item is an asset just like assets in a real life stock market. In EVE, you can even invest in items and there's even player's investment funds and economic reports... I think AoC will get not even close to that.
To me, AoC ramsons/fines/warscore should be based on the gold that will be needed to repair the gear and everything else should be avoided.
You are missing the design concept I'm getting across. Everything is capped, you only lose a portion of your drops on death, so it already exists on a player basis.
Else then item drop on death is also unnatural by that logic. So nothing changes at the end of the day.
Point of the system is to push for people to use the system without the risk not making sense. Trying to make people pay money based on the damage they do (which doesn't make sense as well based on their current system) is a design meant to limit content in a lazy way.
Effectively what you are saying is if you attack a place and die/fail you get debt without even realizing how much debt you will get for the attack. It is not a good idea, it does not promote active content it deters it.
They don't need to be overcomplicating having corruption and a criminal system because you feel attackers can attack freely without a cost. I typed my previous post for a reason an di felt like you skipped ever the entire concept.
Now it is clear, we are in fact talking about two different things!
You are talking about balancing risk and reward. I am talking about making it fun while recognizing that nowadays risk and reward are unbalanced.
I am currently not considering balancing or risk-reward balance.
Adding debt does not increase fun factor or does it change the gameplay loop it suppresses it, meaning again less fun.
My suggestion ensures people have a reason to do it and there for adding to more fun since it will be more of a normal kind of content.
Oh, it ensures a lot of fun, since bounty hunters will be able to kill bandits over and over until their debt is paid. That's what PvPers want, mow dow other people and the profit is the cherry on top of it. At the momment I am not thinking about the hauler at all.
Fun is when people smile
If caravans aren't loot piñatas, then people won't be smilling
Again you are trying to over convolute the system they already have corruption. You are also not adding fun to the system you are trying to create a third system that punishes you for doing that kind of content.
1. if your point is to punish people by introducing a third system you are adding nothing to the current caravan system. If nothing is added and there are only negatives you are not effective making the current system more fun.
2. By adding more negatives there will be less people inclined to do the type of content, meaning less activities to do and reduced fun
This goes back to my point with my design concept about keeping the fun within the system with intent and fairness.
As caravans are now on their paper you get a portion of the loot and everything else gets sunk, you don't get all the items on the caravan to begin with...
There isn't going to be more pvp suddenly if less people are doing it. You might boost BH pvp by a small margin, but reduce overall pvp since people might now view the debt as something being worth it. If anything you can simply have their system flag them for a longer period of time as a purple and not give debt. So it means you can be pvp'd for the next 5-10 minutes. If you survive the time it allows you to put your loot in the stash or go to a town. Meaning all the mats they took could effectively drop if they are killed.
Here is the thing, I can easily visualize there will be 40 people waiting to kill a caravan with 1-4 players. I belive the raiding parties will completely destroy nearly all caravans. I think there will be almost no successful caravans.
Bandits havo no consequences, their only consequence is maybe dying and having to repair their gear. In general, I think, killing caravans will be no challenge, but it will be very profitable.
Why defend a caravan when the products aren't yours? There's no reason to do that, there is no incentive in defending what is not yours.
Plus, as a craftsman or gatherer, it would be advantageous to eliminate as many caravans as possible. This is because an excess of products in the market can cause prices to plummet. Personally, if I were in such professions, I would actively seek out and eliminate caravans in order to boost my business. I did exacty that in other games.
I believe in two things about AoC:
This is why i keep saying you don't read my post lol. I've addressed this issue multiple times already and you don't respond to it but respond to other points in my post.
If you think you know what could be good, you should tell us in details and why, people are really interested
Questions:
Those two things together combined with a few defenders could potentially let the wagon escape in many instances, the defenders will be left behind and fight to the death
Dynamic drop rates:
There it is!
If that route became a meat grinder for caravans, it will eventually drop 0% loot and 100% will be sunk, but if that route is extremely quiet then the drop rate will go up 100% eventually.
This should be like this because attackers may pretty much just have the intention to destroy others economically and this is fine!
People who just wants loot will have to scout, travel and go after routes where the loot drop is high.
yay or nay?
This isn't a good idea you are overcomplicating the issue....Having a bunch of random systems not in the general loop for people to remember and work with on top of everything else isn't going to make it fun.
Effectively you are saying people attacking a place will have no idea what is on wagon, will get debt while gaining nothing for the kill. I'm unsure in what would you think that is even remotely fun. If they are away the loot drop chance is 0, effectively it is a safe zone where you ride for free.
They have systems in place where they can adjust loot lost and gained with the new building they added, which I'm sure can have interesting buffs and such. A much better route that is concise rather than adding more convoluted stuff that people need to try and keep track of.
Because you aren't understanding what I'm getting at doesn't mean i haven't already offered feedback. You literarily are just not listening lol. I will say it in the most simple form I can
1. Have a system around defending caravans offering strong incentives. Ensure that players can get there (teleport or not) easily and clearly knowing when and where they need to be. (teleport might be better so they can't be sniped as easily).
2. Reduction in the gain from players destroying the caravan with them needing to win multiple fights along the path of nodes to have a stronger impact on its loss. IE if they lose 5 node fights they might only have around 20% of their goods left.
I'm not going to get stuck on details of system since we don't know the systems or how things will work as everything is going to be tied together. That isn't the point of feedback I give unless something certain is shown i can give exact feedback on that certain thing. Though the feedback i do give based around design is more so about issues and potential ways to solve them in a general sense.
The reward of a successful caravan is not only to keep the cargo, but to bring it to a more desirable market.
Exactly what I thought and understood, but you assured so much that YOUR IDEA is so great that for a momment I thought you were hidding something amazing, which was not the case.
This teleporting idea is a big no, even with Steven, in 2022 he said this in one of the streams. Teleports are no fun at all. Reduction in gains is not fun. Now that I made sure you werent hidding anything, I can confidently say both ideas are not good
I gave two ideas, bounties (debt) and dynamic drop/sunk rates.
The debts (bounties), would be based on kills/destruction... so if attackers do that, they would have bounties accordingly... if they attack and the wagon is empty and they don't kill anyone, then they would have no bounties on them.
I don't feel that alone is enough to defend it, there should be some sort of reputation system in place that will make players need to grind to get that and also get rewards for doing so that might feel very necessary.
I think the attackers will always out way anything else based on how many locations there are in the world that the people that want more things for a certain node.