ok ok.
So what do you think will influence the progression as bandit beside the skill?
A major factor will be the number player character allies.
Another factor is how well each Caravan is built.
Another factor may be how many NPC mercenary guards the Caravan brings along.
Another factor may be side-events that pop up. Like that Troll walking down the path.
It's not always going to be predictable parameters the attackers can plan for.
Players will still be able to estimate their success rate and will avoid attacking if the caravan seems well defended. Then they have no progress but also no regression on their highwayman system.
Ashes is a team-based game, so the risks and rewards need to be thought of in that context.
Yepp.
Also i think We all know what will be the Case. The more competent People/Guilds will spawn far more Caravans without great Risk of having them sacked by other Players.
The more incompetent Players/Guilds will find their Caravans way more often sacked and their Loots stolen by Others, than the more competent Players.
Attackers run risk of wasting their Time should they fail. Probably losing some Level-EXP in the Process. Or will that aspect also be disabled when it's Caravan-PvP ?
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Players will still be able to estimate their success rate and will avoid attacking if the caravan seems well defended. Then they have no progress but also no regression on their highwayman system.
People will assess based on currently observable parameters. Sure.
That is irrelevant to the claim "Eventually players will settle at a specific level which corresponds to their skill and will oscillate around that level."
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Attackers run risk of wasting their Time should they fail. Probably losing some Level-EXP in the Process. Or will that aspect also be disabled when it's Caravan-PvP ?
In Ashes, losing Adventurer Level XP is not a penalty.
There is an XP Debt death penalty, but that is turned off for Caravan PvP.
Also, failing to defeat a Caravan run does not inherently mean that any of the attackers died.
Dying during Caravan does result in gear degradation.
Players will still be able to estimate their success rate and will avoid attacking if the caravan seems well defended. Then they have no progress but also no regression on their highwayman system.
People will assess based on currently observable parameters. Sure.
That is irrelevant to the claim "Eventually players will settle at a specific level which corresponds to their skill and will oscillate around that level."
If for these players the progression is important, then they will be more careful when they assess and will avoid attacking when they are unsure.
Assessing the situation requires skill too, a different skill than moving the mouse and pressing buttons fast.
If participating in the caravan event is more important than the progression (e.g. to help the node) then actually this progression is not a risk but just a success vs failure rate indicator.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 20
I mean... that's like saying Ashes of Creation has no Risk v Reward because when I play it I will be ignoring all the Risks and Rewards (and progression) and just focusing on exploration.
The Risk of failing a Caravan attack is not progressing your Node to Metro or not being able to capture a Castle.
dude... you ok? your pretend neutrality is cracking. Find things that make you happy. go dancing. go play enshrouded. get into a forum focused on inequality. whatever you want.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
dude... you ok? your pretend neutrality is cracking. Find things that make you happy. go dancing. go play enshrouded. get into a forum focused on inequality. whatever you want.
Um. How is that post of mine you quoted not neutral?
You thinking what I wrote is not objective and neutral says something about your bias; not mine.
(Why in the world would I want to play Enshrouded??!!??)
0
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 20
I don`t see the risk being any greater or less than a guild in the process of taking down a raid boss being interrupted by another guild that wants the same bounty. Or a group of pvp`ers that want some sport!
Should the attacking members be of a stronger guild, perhaps they yield and do not follow-up in any way.
Or if they are equal, stronger and just caught off guard.. then perhaps the same result of caravan intervention
dude... you ok? your pretend neutrality is cracking. Find things that make you happy. go dancing. go play enshrouded. get into a forum focused on inequality. whatever you want.
Um. How is that post of mine you quoted not neutral?
You thinking what I wrote is not objective and neutral says something about your bias; not mine.
(Why in the world would I want to play Enshrouded??!!??)
Sure. You could ask which definition of plenty I mean.
My answer would be "adequate" - enough for its particular purpose - which is primarily focused on PvP encounters that will significantly impact the progression of Nodes and the defenses of Castles.
To you - someone that is so risk averse that you refuse to properly play Ashes due to the ocean being PvP heavy - that probably is plenty of risk.
To an average PvP player, it is no risk.
In a discussion like this, "adequate risk" is subjective. Intrepid should be aiming at an amount of risk thst someone like you considers it abundant risk, not adequate.
I don`t see the risk being any greater or less than a guild in the process of taking down a raid boss being interrupted by another guild that wants the same bounty. Or a group of pvp`ers that want some sport!
Should the attacking members be of a stronger guild, perhaps they yield and do not follow-up in any way.
Or if they are equal, stronger and just caught off guard.. then perhaps the same result of caravan intervention
Actually, with what we know so far, there is less risk in attacking a caravan than there is in being attacked while killing a world boss.
While I expdct it to change, you currently only suffer gear degradation as a death penalty with a caravan, where as there are full death penalties associated with the world boss.
The other thing to keep in mind, the opposing side with a world boss is on an equal footing in terms of what they stand to lose, where as the other side with a caravan has invested much more.
The comparison to a world boss actually highlights the issue quite well.
To be honest I did not read the whole thread but I would like to say my to cents towards the argument regarding the definiton of what risk in MMO is.
I agree that basically all ingame activity/progress and therefore what you ultimately can risk or get rewarded by is transferable to time spent, because like it or not RL time is the main investment into the MMO game and what satisfaction we get from that time (mostly what progress we make in that time). (that being said that the efficiency of play determines the amount of risk you are taking at any given time).
The way I see it at the moment is that caravan originator risks past time (the time spent gathering the transfered resources) in the chance to multiply that time investment by selling it for mor gold elsewhere. That is basiclly and investment decision where the currency is his time.
The attacker invests his current time (by looking for suitable target) with the hope it will be more profitable than if he spent the same time gathering against NPCs. During this activity he also makes a decision to further risk the apparent sucess he has to multiply the reward by trasnfering the loot by his own caravan. Ie he invests his current time in the hope to make the more progress then the less risky endevour (ie regular gathering) and by less risky is that the progress made by regular gathering is more predictable ie the final result is less based on chance therefore less risky.
Therefore it is matter of balancing the time risk on both sides based on average times to find suitable target on the attacker side (basicly determined by the number of caravans in progress) and on average time to gather enough material to fill the caravan (which is the amount of time the caravan launcher risks)
The balancing of course needs to take into acount the further benefits for the attackers like:
Having fun in certain PVP (many will look for that)
Shuting down progress of other players (potential rivals)
We shall see what the alpha 2 data regarding this system will show Intrepid regarding balancing of this system. I am sure they will monitor this system especially very closely since the whole economy and therefore the whole game will depend on good balance of this particular system.
I think that making bandits marked for bounty hunting (while they have the goods) is a perfect solution. Let's face it, corruption isnt going to be widely popular unless they heavily change the current penalties. That means bounty hunter players won't really have much content so this also helps with that issue.
Comments
Players will still be able to estimate their success rate and will avoid attacking if the caravan seems well defended. Then they have no progress but also no regression on their highwayman system.
Yepp.
Also i think We all know what will be the Case. The more competent People/Guilds will spawn far more Caravans without great Risk of having them sacked by other Players.
The more incompetent Players/Guilds will find their Caravans way more often sacked and their Loots stolen by Others, than the more competent Players.
Attackers run risk of wasting their Time should they fail. Probably losing some Level-EXP in the Process. Or will that aspect also be disabled when it's Caravan-PvP ?
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
That is irrelevant to the claim "Eventually players will settle at a specific level which corresponds to their skill and will oscillate around that level."
There is an XP Debt death penalty, but that is turned off for Caravan PvP.
Also, failing to defeat a Caravan run does not inherently mean that any of the attackers died.
Dying during Caravan does result in gear degradation.
If for these players the progression is important, then they will be more careful when they assess and will avoid attacking when they are unsure.
Assessing the situation requires skill too, a different skill than moving the mouse and pressing buttons fast.
If participating in the caravan event is more important than the progression (e.g. to help the node) then actually this progression is not a risk but just a success vs failure rate indicator.
dude... you ok? your pretend neutrality is cracking. Find things that make you happy. go dancing. go play enshrouded. get into a forum focused on inequality. whatever you want.
You thinking what I wrote is not objective and neutral says something about your bias; not mine.
(Why in the world would I want to play Enshrouded??!!??)
Should the attacking members be of a stronger guild, perhaps they yield and do not follow-up in any way.
Or if they are equal, stronger and just caught off guard.. then perhaps the same result of caravan intervention
yeah. sorry. i will lay off. my bad.
To an average PvP player, it is no risk.
In a discussion like this, "adequate risk" is subjective. Intrepid should be aiming at an amount of risk thst someone like you considers it abundant risk, not adequate.
Actually, with what we know so far, there is less risk in attacking a caravan than there is in being attacked while killing a world boss.
While I expdct it to change, you currently only suffer gear degradation as a death penalty with a caravan, where as there are full death penalties associated with the world boss.
The other thing to keep in mind, the opposing side with a world boss is on an equal footing in terms of what they stand to lose, where as the other side with a caravan has invested much more.
The comparison to a world boss actually highlights the issue quite well.
I agree that basically all ingame activity/progress and therefore what you ultimately can risk or get rewarded by is transferable to time spent, because like it or not RL time is the main investment into the MMO game and what satisfaction we get from that time (mostly what progress we make in that time). (that being said that the efficiency of play determines the amount of risk you are taking at any given time).
The way I see it at the moment is that caravan originator risks past time (the time spent gathering the transfered resources) in the chance to multiply that time investment by selling it for mor gold elsewhere. That is basiclly and investment decision where the currency is his time.
The attacker invests his current time (by looking for suitable target) with the hope it will be more profitable than if he spent the same time gathering against NPCs. During this activity he also makes a decision to further risk the apparent sucess he has to multiply the reward by trasnfering the loot by his own caravan. Ie he invests his current time in the hope to make the more progress then the less risky endevour (ie regular gathering) and by less risky is that the progress made by regular gathering is more predictable ie the final result is less based on chance therefore less risky.
Therefore it is matter of balancing the time risk on both sides based on average times to find suitable target on the attacker side (basicly determined by the number of caravans in progress) and on average time to gather enough material to fill the caravan (which is the amount of time the caravan launcher risks)
The balancing of course needs to take into acount the further benefits for the attackers like:
Having fun in certain PVP (many will look for that)
Shuting down progress of other players (potential rivals)
We shall see what the alpha 2 data regarding this system will show Intrepid regarding balancing of this system. I am sure they will monitor this system especially very closely since the whole economy and therefore the whole game will depend on good balance of this particular system.