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
I'm not sure what it is you think you are getting at here.
When we are playing the game and deciding if a caravan is worth running, we will obviously factor in the specifics of the caravan we are thinking about running in our decision as to whether it is worth it or not. If it is a caravan for personal profit, for node progression or for crafting.
This is just an automatic part of the process once we get in game.
We are obviously not talking about that now - we are not talking about any of that now. We do not know what the value of running a carvan is at all, nor the cost, so we simply can't be talking about those details now.
However, what we do know is that the cost of running a caravan is a lot higher than the cost of attacking a caravan, and the cost of losing a caravan currently stands at more than 100% of the contents of said caravan. This is what we know, this is what we are discussing. We are not discussing the absolute value of said caravan.
It is worth noting, however, that if there is value to be had in a caravan specific for node progression, then there will be value in attacking a caravan specific for node progression. As such, this entire point you are trying to make here kind of balances it self out.
I mean, if something is worth putting in a caravan and moving, then that same thing is worth attacking and trying to take - the issue is that the attacking side always have the risk/reward benefit as we understand the system right now.
The claim about "social engagement" kind of makes me think you have nothing left to argue. Social engagement is not a systemic reward, it can't be.
I'll illustrate the point for you. Imagine the game has two encounters that are of equal difficulty. One is open world and one is instanced. Most would argue that the open world version should give better rewards - but there is no doubt at all that the open world encounter also offers more in regards to "social engagement". If we were to assume that this "social engagement" were to be considered a reward for the content, then that would mean the actual loot from the instanced encounter would be better than the equally difficult open world encounter.
Same can be said of PvP - open world PvP offers more "social engagement" than arena based PvP. Does this mean that arena based PvP should have higher material rewards due to offering less "social engagement"?
No, what it means is that social engagement is the point of the damn genre, and not a reward for any given piece of content. If we were to follow this logic through to the end, it would dictate that the most rewarding activity in a game be the activity with the least social engagement - basically anything that is done solo.
Since the notion of a rewarad stricture is to encourage what you want people to do, and MMO develoeprs want people engaging socially, social engagement isn't a reward, rather you reward people for engaging socially.
To suggest it is a reward for a given piece of content is asinine and in direct conflict with the basic notion of an MMORPG.
The cost of attacking a caravan is not something that can be measured in a numerical value: becoming KOS to a node, breaking treaties, screwing server progression, etc are all costs associated with banditry. The entire risk/reward system people are decrying in the caravan system stems from an individualist mindset. The concept of the node (or guild) being bigger than the individual is the secret sauce for Ashes. Intrepid should put the individual risk/rewards for individuals engaging in the caravan system within the node system controlled by mayors and other node executives.
This kind of reward structure is not something typically seen in recent MMOs and is extremely risky for Intrepid to do.
Caravan Bandits have half normal death penalties when they die. So that is less Risk than normal.
What other Risks do Attackers suffer for failing to disrupt the Caravan run?
I'm not saying there should be other Risks. I'm just saying there really are none besides the negative hit to Bandit/Highwayman progression.
As with the Open Seas....
When Steven says Risk v Reward he really just means there are no Rewards without a very high chance of PvP combat.
In Ashes, Risk is synonymous with PvP combat.
People can become KOS without any Banditry.
People could become KOS from always defending Caravans.
Breaking treaties and "screwing server progression" are not mechanics of the Bandit/Highwayman system, AFAIK.
Has nothing to dowith individualism.
People are just trying to make sense of the statement "There can be no Reward without significant Risk" that Steven associated with Caravan raids.
PvPers understand that, here, Risk is synonymous with PvP combat.
People who are not quite so PvP-focused think about the risks of losing their time investments on Gathering and transporting resources they have probably spent more than an hour on. Which can then be "stolen" (stolen time) in less than 15 minutes by other players. So, here, the risk for them is really the risk of stolen time - especially stolen PvE time. The PvPers already love PvP, so it's a win/win scenario for them.
For the players who are not PvP-enthusiasts, they've wasted time engaged in PvP - already a loss.
And then, if they are defeated, they have to reinvest time trying to Gather those Resources again. So, time and Resources stolen.
For the Attackers - it's more PvP fun for them regardless. No time stolen. And they might gain a lot of material profit.
Pretty much as Fantm said on the Yokai Theatre podcast Saturday - if he encounters a Caravan, he will most likely Attack rather than Defend... because it's win/win for the Attackers. Maybe they get a hit to their Bandit progeression if the don't succeed in the raid but they still had fun with the PvP in any case.
Well I would consider time and ... location? I'm not sure how to really explain location well without knowing the super exacts of how respawn points work, but at least grant me that there might be instances where you are on your way to another node (you want to go farm over there, shopping, questing, exploration, etc. ) and spot a caravan you can attack while in route. This might even make you decide not to attack that caravan because you risk being shot back down the road or off into the wild somewhere to a respawn point that is bad for you.
nobody is talking about that really.
if you lose, you lose. and lose a lot. great. welcome to pvx.
but if you CAN defend it, there should be serious game designed losses for the attacker, not just theoretical or reputational.
Ok you believe this. Give us suggestions and reasoning. Because im sorry but this doesn't convince me.
Sorry for the delayed response I've been sick with covid or something for a few days. from what I can tell, you will not be able to immediately become a green non-combatant the second someone destroys your caravan, especially if they are already attacking you. Wouldn't make much sense if you could.
The attackers don't lose anything like the defenders upon the loss. Not enough?
The game is being played by individuals. Ignoring the individualistic mindset is going to end up badly for Intrepid and Ashes.
This reminds me of a comment from @Azherae in another thread recently...
For those unaware, game theory is a branch of math that models decisions people may make in a given situation (as a dumbed down definition). Ashes seems to be completely ignoring it in its development (at least as far as I can see). This is bad.
Rather than designing the game around what actions people could possibly take, Intrepid seems to be largely designing the game under the assumption that people will take specific actions in the given circumstance - despite there being many potential other actions they could take. This is clearly a bad way to go about things - the game needs to be designed to take account of all possible actions players could take.
If the game is designed around the notion that everyone is of the same mindset, when someone comes along of a different mindset, they break the game.
Caravans need to be designed (and thus have risk/reward suited to) individual players, or guilds that act more independently of other in game structures. That is because these players and these guilds will exist.
Leaving a massively lucrative income stream with the major "cost" associated being something these people really don't care about is going to do nothing other than ensure these people very quickly become the richest on the server.
It doesn't matter if the defenders are the ones with the buy in. They have to be in order for this system to work. They are making a gamble. They put the coin in the game and hoping they have the luck and skill to complete the game. The game doesn't join you in the gamble, its there to make sure its an actual gamble instead of a pure pipeline of money doubling.
Back to caravans, there's even a chance they just aren't attacked at all. Why should there be an extra roadblock set on attackers? All this does is increase the chances that defenders are not attacked, and reduces the amount of players that would normally get into the attacking groups.
Not talking about the defenders. GREAT they have risk. There has to be for the system to work. And there should be. Hell, make it even more risk -- perfectly fine.
But now include some real game mechanics for risk for the attackers. We all saw the massive cobalt pay-off for the attackers. No risk.
If you attack a caravan you risk death, wasting time, progression loss, travel loss, and social consequences. When you defeat a caravan your immediate reward is progression and the choice to take easily turned in materials/stolen goods by breaking the crates open. OR you can RISK taking them all back in a caravan, the exact same way the first group did. Because you won, those rewards are yours now, and they immediately become a risk based on your decisions from then on.
Its a direct pipeline of reward into risk, You do not need there to be an absolute initial risk equivalent to the other party for it to be considered balanced.
I don't think the Respawn points are THAT far away.
There may be all kinds of reasons why someone might choose not to jump into a nearby Caravan battle when weighed against previously set game session goals.
That's not really a Risk. That's just sticking by plans or changing plans.
Also, I would not really need any other incentives to defend a Caravan if it's supporting my Node or Castle.
I would probably most often be defending because I like RPing the role of a Defender.
(If I were planning to participate in Ashes combat - which I'm not.)
Thats damn near no risk.
To exist in ashes is to risk. Saying that list of "risks" is "damn near no risk" just doesnt make sense. You will not be convinced. Thats fine, and also why I asked for your suggestions so we can talk about that instead.
You just said it's the same as walking around in the world. I agree. Fully.
The only risk is the same risk as there ever was. But now the reward can be massive... with damn near no in game mechanic risk.
You are correct.
you avoiding a suggestion makes me think you are just trying to earn points.
There is no good reason that I have seen to add an extra risk stapled onto attackers past what they already get.
Let's play a game.
I will toss an evenly weighted fair coin, and if it lands on heads, I give you a dollar. However, every time it lands on tails, you have to give me 5 dollars.
Is that balanced?
In a scheme where you are taking your rewards directly from other players, there does indeed need to be an equal risk on boths sides in order for there to be an equal reward potential.
Now, attacking a caravan in Ashes isn't going to give you an equal reward, but it will give you probably half of it. If I spend four days collecting glint to turn in to commodities to run in a caravan, then you should need to put up at least 2 days worth of effort specific to that one task in order to be able to attack that caravan.
If you want to lower that amount of effort, you lower the reward.
People can become KOS for any reason, but usually there is a reason in beyond red is dead in open world pvp games. Ashes is a game seeking to make relationships between players (and nodes) matter. It seems like you frankly don't understand how this works at all. Have you played any game where open world pvp is the modus operandi the last two decades?
Fantm better not attack any caravan whos members his guild or node has an alliance with. I have a feeling Fantm might find himself friendless, exiled, and eventually rerolling if he chooses to attack the wrong people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are saying rewards/risks need to be immediate for the player. I run a caravan, I get paid x amount. Whereas I'm saying the rewards for defenders are much more nuanced and less immediate. I run a caravan, mayor bob gives me a reward 5 days later because of my contribution helped create a building that does something beneficial to the node. I attack a caravan, 3 days later mayor bob puts me on KOS for all members of his node and its associated guilds. This risk/reward structure will be fine as long as the game allows these carrots and sticks to be given and communicates to players how and why they got them.
These two lines aren't related.
If I give a suggestion, you can still say that you don't see a good reason to add the risk of the suggestion.
Motivations of players don't all have to be the same, but a lack of risk beyond normal existence means a change in motivations. I'll hope Intrepid doesn't fall into the oft-seen trap of expecting players to engage with a system positively consistently, under this condition.
I would tell you why you are wrong, but I have no idea where you came up with the idea that I was saying rewards need to be immediate.
The problem with what you are calling rewards are not things a game system can be built on. You say that 5 days after running a caravan, maybe the mayor gives you a reward. But then maybe the mayor also doesn't do that. Then what?
Since mayors don't have access to public funds for this kind of thing, it would have to come out of their own pocket - as such, no one would think any less of a mayor if they didn't pay this reward (assuming it was not something that was offered).
As to the notion of players being made KoS to a node - this isn't an RTS where players are controlled by mayors or guild leaders. Most players will do what they want to do in the game, not what someone else tells them they should do.
Even if the heat does get too much, you just move on to another part of the game world. I mean, the kind of character that is attacking caravans constantly is not a character that would be tied to any one node, or any one continent.
This is why all of these "social" risks are simply non-factors. They may matter to you, but they don't matter to everyone.
I mean, if me and my guild decided to play Ashes, and we made an alt guild for taking caravans, what *possible* social reprocussions could there be if we are happy to just move on to another node if things get too hot?
The answer is; there are none.
Your AA example made me think you think rewards need to be immediate and tangibly communicated.
Then thats a bad mayor, which is the intended design for the node system. Nothing has been said about node based currency or node based reward structure, only that you will want to be a part of a node for character progression.
Node location giving access to specific dungeons makes KoS an extremely negative repercussion. Good luck farming in a place where this is the case. Moving to a different part of the world won't solve this problem as the dungeon (and loot) only has one location.
The consequence is being soft-locked out of content.
Also, this entire thing of yours here only applies to caravans that mayors initiate - not to goods or commodity caravans.
Based on my above post that you quoted, I am unsure how you could think any of this would matter.
If I am on an alt stealling things from caravans and a node makes me KoS and that is an issue, if I then decide I want to run a dungeon nearby, I just run it on my main.
It's not like KoS status is account wide - and assuming Intrepid plan on keeping the notion of espionage alive, that is not something that will ever change.
The rewards were immediate in AA in that you knew how much you were getting from doing each trade pack. I take x pack to y location i get z reward. While it shifted based on supply and demand, it was a known quantity and thus the knowledge of the reward was immediate. Based on your original post, it seems like you are saying AA system worked well because the defender knew how much they were going to get AND that they didn't lose everything. The risk/rewards were immediately communicated.
Node funds yes, but they haven't mentioned anything about node specific reputation, perks, or currency. Things like market selling fees, crafting fees, access to vendors with religious or cosmetic rewards, etc can all be given to citizens by the mayor. Again, no one knows what the benefits of citizenship entail only that you will want it.
Your alt guild who attacks caravans will not be able to be seen with your main guild. Any node that harbors your alts will put themselves at risk to war. If you go the freehold route, make sure you do not get seen with anyone whos under your main tag. Make sure your crafted gear is not created by anyone even remotely associated with your main tag.
The subterfuge required of all these things is intended gameplay. While they are all doable, its not something thats gonna be the norm. Folks will make it their business to know who does what and for whom.
If that is the case, then yes, the rewards should be known to within a reasonable margin.
Any time you are making a decision in a game, you should have access to all information that could inform that decision. Why wouldn't this be the case? I'm fairly sure that if these things were options that a mayor could give to citizens, then they would have to give them to all citizens if they wanted to be re-elected. I mean, it's not hard - we have done it as a guild a few times before. With no character inspection, there is no need to be concerned with who makes your equipment. Not being seen with people in the main guild isn't required either
It will be common - or at least more common than you think. This is in no small part due to the fact that as we understand the game as a whole now, this is by far the easiest, fastest way to build wealth.
And also keep in mind, I am currently working on your assumption that a mayor making someone KoS for their node would actually have an impact on them - I don't think that would be the case at all as the notion of "red is dead" hasn't been a thing that I have seen for well over a decade at this point.
As an additional point that you should also have in mind, all of the above only applies to one caravan type, not to all caravans.
Edit to add; your point about how mayors could reward caravan defenders, and also your notion that they would be seen as shit mayors if they don't - this leaves the question of "what's the point?".
If defenders of caravans expect to get a reward, then why leave that up to the mayor instead of have the game itself take care of it?
What you are doing is reducing being mayor down to nothing but admin tasks.
Honestly, if the expectation from players is to get that reward, the game should just give them that reward.
I don't enjoy playing MMORPGs on the same servers as PvPers.
*meh*
Seems like you are the one who does not understand how relationships work in MMORPGs.
It's unlikely that Fantm would feel any motivation to attack Caravans that benefit the goals of his Node, Guild or Alliances. He may or may not feel motivated to participate in Caravans battles for other Guilds - even Guilds who are part of his Node's or Guild's Alliances.
There will be plenty of random Caravans around that will not be benefitting his (Node/Guild) progression interests.
But, even if he chose to sabotage the interests of his Node, Guild or Alliances... exiled would probably be expected and would likely be part of the fun.
No need to "re-roll" in a game with Alts. The characters he uses for sabotage don't have to be his main.
He difintely wouldn't be friendless since I happen to know that the people in his Guild would support his choice to have some saboteur characters.
I have a feeling, though, that Caravans would not be the primary method of sabotage for Fantm.
That being said... @Fantmx can answer all of that better than I can.
Based on the Alpha 1 experience - I would expect to have many Forum friends who are citizens of enemy and rival Nodes, Guilds and Alliances.
(If The Open Seas was not a deal-breaker for me.)