Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
People really don't understand the strong impact the corruption system is going have + the way the other systems work together like bag space for carry a certain amount.
People are not going to be pvped randomly nearly as much as you think. So this idea of using a caravan to avoid penalty makes no sense since you would just be inviting people to pk you that normally wouldn't care what you are doing or where you are going if they don't know you.
I'm not advocating for adding in regular death penalties for caravan attackers - I simply pointed out what we know of this to someone that was unaware.
Again, I personally think the best option is to add a fail safe of some description to a lost caravan.
As someone that has run a top guild on a PvP heavy server, if some random guild came along and asked me to go after one of the other top guilds, I'd laugh at them.
Almost without exception, top guilds have either a formal or informal arraignment around attacking each other. It may be that they are KoS to each other, it may be that they dont attack outside of specific guild activities, or any number of other arraignments.
If you came to me and offered to pay me to take on one of the other top guilds, I absolutely would take your money.
Also not sure I like the arguments that most people will be running caravans rather than attacking them because you make more running them yourself.
I still don't buy player to player reputation as a reward either, not a good one anyways.
Are we going to be able to determine who is running a caravan just by looking at them?
I'm not sure statements like everyone will be interacting with caravans in some are true because I do not plan to.
Freedom from death penalties in caravan pvp seems silly.
Yes, that is intended. I asked this question for the October monthly livestream, here is steven's answer (the timestamp should be 1:32:50):
Ahh yeah your question
And in reverse? zip.
Yeah, but Steven just conflates the word "risk" with "PvP".
To him, anything that has an element of PvP has significant risk.
And if you can’t defend it, you don’t deserve to keep it.
Welcome to actual PvX.
I mean, I would assume everyone that has played a PvP MMO has had their ass beat at some point. You would have to be barely playing a game like Archeage if you never lost. I mean, do YOU even PvX bro?
That's why I payed $375
The risk of losing your goods is what makes this game different from pve mmos.
If you add risks on attackers side, fewer of them will attack.
Then the game becomes more like those pve mmos.
Attackers who spend a significant time searching or waiting for a prey feel the risk when the prey escapes or when they themselves become prey while transporting the loot.
Don't judge the caravan game-play from the perspective of a player used to be protected by the corruption system.
Those words were always meant to pve players who feel discouraged by the lack of PvE servers.
The caravan system was described as a PvP mechanic many years ago and is not intended for PvE players freshly converted to "PvX".
PvP works differently.
@Fantmx I'm sorry, again, I don't get it... this makes no sense at all, why would you assume that risk vs reward should apply to literally every single aspect?
Should I be complaining that AoC is not a risk vs reward game because:
- there is no risk in Arenas, you get rewards so should be death penalties
- there is no risk being a bounty hunter, you get rewards and there's no death penalties if killed by red players
- there is no risk using your freehold for processing, you get rewards but no one can loot or destroy things
- theres no risk in a tavern, I get gold selling things and no one can come and take my shit
that quote is a general design philosophy, just like when you say FF14 is a PVE game, and Mortal Online 2 is a PVP game t doesn't mean it only has PVE or PVP theres both, but the overall design is mainly one thing
It's not rocket science, the reward in the caravan system is getting 10x profit, risk is losing your shit, thats a risk vs reward system, simple, and always works in every iteration we see across multiple MMOs.
Negative points on their Bandit/Highwayman progression path if they fail.
Doesn't seem like there should be other conequences for failing.
Just as there are no consequences for the Attackers who fail at a Node Siege or Carstle Siege.
It's just another opportunity for PvP.
It is a design pillar that existed long before the people asking for PvE servers did: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Design_pillars
The notion that it should not apply to literally every single aspect of the game is insane. You are completely ignoring what risk actually is in an MMORPG.
In an arena, if you lose a fight, you stand to go down the ladder rather than up. Since going up the ladder is the goal, this is literally the same as betting gold in the arena and losing. This absolutely is equal risk vs reward.
Being a bounty hunter is something we don't yet have enough information on to make any call about.
Using a freehold for processing is a risk. There are costs involved in getting set up, in getting materials and then the opportunity cost of that being what your freehold is used for, preventing it being used for other things. Then there is the fact that being set up for processing puts you at the mercy of the caravan system both to recieve raw product, and to sell your processed materials.
Using a freehold as a tavern has risk associated with it. There is some of the same risk as in the above in getting a freehold set up for it, the opportunity cost of that being what your freehold is for, but then there is the added risk of there being a chance that no one shows up to your tavern.
Spending money and/or time on something in hopes of getting a return absolutely is a risk. PvP does not need to be involved for this to be the case - all that is needed is there being a chance at not achieving that return.
One of the ways it would possibly work out to add risk to caravan attackers is if the highwayman path took the form of a social organization. Sure, you can attempt to defeat caravans if you like, but doing so prevents you from being able to join the Scholar's Acadamy, or the Trader's Company or what ever else is added to the game. If having this progression parth is required to initiate an attack on a caravan (potentially even to participate in an attack on a caravan), then attackers have the opportunity cost of not being able to belong to any of the other social organizations in exchange for the ability to attack caravans.
This is a risk on the part of the attackers. They are sacrificing something in order to be able to attack said caravans, and there is a chance that this trade off may not end up being worth it for them.
Personally, I want to see this happen with Bounty Hunters as well - but again, we don't have enough information about them to make that call.
- As a bounty hunter, you can be freely attacked by corrupted players without incurring additional corruption should they be successful in killing you. (I think corruption stat dampening doesn't apply vs bounty hunters neither?)
This is not to say that all aspects of the game must have equal risk vs reward. I just honestly don't see why caravans don't simply follow the open seas' "everyone's a combatant" ruling instead. Perhaps they want higher participation in caravan PvP, which no death penalty would supposedly bring.
Why do you assume I think there should be risk in every aspect? Hey @Dygz how much do I love risk versus reward?
I am providing the most direct quote that Steven has made on the subject, which came from the caravan live stream and I'm reminding everyone that it is a design pillar. I am simply pointing out a contradiction.
We are talking about the design pillar of risk versus reward and how it applies to caravans. Bringing in other topics like freeholds, taverns, arenas, and other games is just a red herring fallacy.
I like you but you sure are quick to judgement at times and not always constructive about how you approach people.
Of course caravans are listed under the section of risky activities because the party which carries the valuable stuff might lose it. That is how any PvP with full loot works.
The only problem I see is that players in this game don't drop their gear when they die. That allows gear to become more valuable than the cargo.
Because you are focusing on one particular aspect of the system which is attackers, that implies that you want risk in every single aspect of that particular system, and I explained where I believe the risk is with the caravan system, risk is losing stuff and reward is delivering, as simple as that, and I provided examples of other games where this system worked using that same design,
The caravan system, is just one of many systems in AoC where there isn't risk in every aspect of it, I pointed that out, I don't think me saying that is a red herring fallacy.
No idea what do you mean with judgment and not being constructive on my approach, I'm simply disagreeing with the things you said which is normal in a discussion with two people that have different ideas, if you take offense for that I don't know what to tell you.. my intention here is just to discuss the system, I'm not trying to make anyone upset or to win a debate, I'll gladly "take an L" on a discussion in favor of keeping things cool
if the mercenaries take responsibility to transfer it and if it doesn't work, they will pay 70-80% of my damage, then I still say it's good. But that all costs belong to the merchant and the responsibility also belongs to.
The difference is in ashes you will need to take resources via caravan to build up nodes and engage in high-end crafting. While the individual reward is less than a game like AA, the reward here is node progression.
The reward structure is different in ashes, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being much more engaging from a player perspective. Intertwining the mayor and the peons of a node will increase social engagement between all participants of a node.
The notion that caravans may be needed for both character and node progression are already automatically factored in to the equation.
Can you show me where it's factored in and how exactly node progression is weighted in this equation? Your Archage example talks about rewards and the necessary scale to feel rewarding for individuals but doesn't say anything about social engagement or node development.