How do you define "Risk vs. Reward"?

In your own words: what do YOU think Risk vs Reward is? There seems to be a general consensus that "reward" should be commensurate with the "risk" of PvP happening in a given context but that seems a bit narrow considering there are downsides to failing at PvE encounters potentially. What would be a more all-encompassing conceptualization that fits the equation of Risk v Reward into it?

Personally I find the idea that Time + Resources (and hence the risk of losing them upon failing the given task) should equal reward. This opens broadens the definition to include things like PvE contexts which may or may not involve PvP as well.

What do you guys think or what are some other conceptualizations that wrap up Risk vs Reward as cleanly as possible?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

Time spent vs reward.

That spent time usually comes from dying over and over (either to pve or pvp). In Ashes you'll lose even more time per death, cause we have player loot and XP debt mechanics.

Sathrago

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Time spent vs reward.

That spent time usually comes from dying over and over (either to pve or pvp). In Ashes you'll lose even more time per death, cause we have player loot and XP debt mechanics.

this is actually the thing that drives me away more than losing every other form of progression. You can restock, rebuild, rearmor, relevel etc. But you will never get your time invested back.

The more you have of all these mechanics the harder it becomes for you to go back and do it again each time.

Azherae

I define fun in my designs and somewhat in life as time spent freely expressing one's identity in the context of a challenge or social situation.

Risk is any scenario in which your ability to achieve fun can be set back considerably, either to a previous state of advancement (relative to the fun specifically) or you can be prevented from being able to experience the same fun for a certain amount of time.

Reward is anything where your success at 'fun' leads to a progression in your ability to achieve similar fun.

I define it this way mostly because it helps to unite multiple types of gamer personality. People who go red and stay red can be viewed as Risking little if they get to continue to have their expressive fun. People who get ganked and lose stuff are also risking little if they get to continue to have their expressive fun.

I don't view time spent as a risk, for this reason, unless we are looking at the really old days of design where one needed to spend long periods not having fun, to advance your ability to occasionally have fun.

So tl;dr:
Risk is a potential setback to your ability to have more kinds of fun, and Rewards are when you gain more ways to have fun. Fun itself is relative.

Dimitraeos

So far it seems like the risk is time being lost as a result of failing to succeed at the given activity (a pvp fight, raid, dungeon, etc)

Even when we try and "calculate" (for lack of a better word) it on the basis of lost resources etc, it still comes down to time (because it takes time to get those invested resources in the first place)

How would this apply to so called "safe" forms of content and their potential rewards? Like for Instanced pve content? Obviously we still don't know the full scope of what this will entail but since we can assume there will be some form of instanced PvE, assuming it was hard enough and hence has the potential to lose lots of invested time, shouldn't the rewards in theory also be commensurate with that?

Songcaller

I see risk as challenging the odds. The reward comes when less are used to get the rewards. often in duos or trios for group content in other MMOs, contestation will prevent such a practice in AoC but still, the risk would be fighting outnumbered for the reward of victory.

Azherae

Dimitraeos wrote: »

So far it seems like the risk is time being lost as a result of failing to succeed at the given activity (a pvp fight, raid, dungeon, etc)

Even when we try and "calculate" (for lack of a better word) it on the basis of lost resources etc, it still comes down to time (because it takes time to get those invested resources in the first place)

How would this apply to so called "safe" forms of content and their potential rewards? Like for Instanced pve content? Obviously we still don't know the full scope of what this will entail but since we can assume there will be some form of instanced PvE, assuming it was hard enough and hence has the potential to lose lots of invested time, shouldn't the rewards in theory also be commensurate with that?

Basically, 'no', for me.

If the content is fun, and for PvE players that I know to actually like the PvE, the effort of trying and solving the encounter is the fun, then they don't need to be additionally rewarded, you rely solely on your balance and intended encounter difficulty.

For me, if you are enjoying the process of facing that encounter, you are not risking anything unless there was some resource other than time which was being consumed to eventually prevent you from being able to attempt that encounter.

I also believe that encounters 'need' these things especially in MMOs. They can take many forms, but overall, even if you want your players to have fun, if the encounter offers a Reward, then the players should be at risk of 'running out of something they use to do it', thereby Risking their ability to continue experiencing the fun of that activity/encounter.

EDIT: I think I see what you mean now, but I glossed over it because of my mindset.
Balancing for time is an economics thing or a hardcoded time gate thing, depending on the game, for MMOs.

Dimitraeos

Songcaller wrote: »

I see risk as challenging the odds. The reward comes when less are used to get the rewards. often in duos or trios for group content in other MMOs, contestation will prevent such a practice in AoC but still, the risk would be fighting outnumbered for the reward of victory.

Less players involved = more time spent doing task (because doing the thing will take longer) = more reward

I think that fits into the original post as well as what others have said as far as Time/Resources Invested = Reward

Noaani

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Time spent vs reward.

From an objective standpoint, this is the only correct answer.

This is simply because time is the only thing we players put in to an MMORPG other than the subscription that only grants access.

Even Azheraes notion above of risk being a setback of your ability to have fun is still a risk of time. That setback simply means you need to spend more time in order to have the fun you want from the game.

Songcaller

Time is not a risk. If time was a risk, the Phoenix Initiates would gain unfathomable rewards after KS and twenty years playing. One does hope for twenty or more years of playing.

Dimitraeos

Azherae wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

So far it seems like the risk is time being lost as a result of failing to succeed at the given activity (a pvp fight, raid, dungeon, etc)

Even when we try and "calculate" (for lack of a better word) it on the basis of lost resources etc, it still comes down to time (because it takes time to get those invested resources in the first place)

How would this apply to so called "safe" forms of content and their potential rewards? Like for Instanced pve content? Obviously we still don't know the full scope of what this will entail but since we can assume there will be some form of instanced PvE, assuming it was hard enough and hence has the potential to lose lots of invested time, shouldn't the rewards in theory also be commensurate with that?

Basically, 'no', for me.

If the content is fun, and for PvE players that I know to actually like the PvE, the effort of trying and solving the encounter is the fun, then they don't need to be additionally rewarded, you rely solely on your balance and intended encounter difficulty.

For me, if you are enjoying the process of facing that encounter, you are not risking anything unless there was some resource other than time which was being consumed to eventually prevent you from being able to attempt that encounter.

I also believe that encounters 'need' these things especially in MMOs. They can take many forms, but overall, even if you want your players to have fun, if the encounter offers a Reward, then the players should be at risk of 'running out of something they use to do it', thereby Risking their ability to continue experiencing the fun of that activity/encounter.

But Risk v Reward is a core design pillar of Intrepid's game so we actually need to quantify that objectively. I understand if something is fun but takes time then the perception of loss is relative as you're saying, but we still need to quantify that to decide how to determine rewards.

Dimitraeos

Noaani wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Time spent vs reward.

From an objective standpoint, this is the only correct answer.

This is simply because time is the only thing we players put in to an MMORPG other than the subscription that only grants access.

Even Azheraes notion above of risk being a setback of your ability to have fun is still a risk of time. That setback simply means you need to spend more time in order to have the fun you want from the game.

Bingo. This is what im trying to get at. If Risk v Reward is a *literal* design pillar, it has to be a rock solid, objective thing.

I think *time* is the ultimate measure of that. Everything else seems secondary and up to player choice to value that time in other ways (fun, challange, etc)

Azherae

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

I see risk as challenging the odds. The reward comes when less are used to get the rewards. often in duos or trios for group content in other MMOs, contestation will prevent such a practice in AoC but still, the risk would be fighting outnumbered for the reward of victory.

Less players involved = more time spent doing task (because doing the thing will take longer) = more reward

I think that fits into the original post as well as what others have said as far as Time/Resources Invested = Reward

The problem with this concept, not that it's overall wrong at all, but just a general problem, is that MMOs and MMO-likes now exist in which there is no real risk of 'opportunity cost'.

A specific set of MMO designers have 'lost the plot' and led us to a game type that some of us find boring or 'soulless' because they have figured out 'if we don't have any opportunity cost to work out then we have no disparity and therefore no pain-points, and we get less complaints from the less invested players'.

When there's pressure from your 'suits' to keep numbers up, they can look at painpoints and go 'remove that, it's making people have less fun', but when the game eventually 'loses its soul' and dies, they can't point at anything in particular, and might even have enough whales to consider things to still be fine.

Dimitraeos

Azherae wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

I see risk as challenging the odds. The reward comes when less are used to get the rewards. often in duos or trios for group content in other MMOs, contestation will prevent such a practice in AoC but still, the risk would be fighting outnumbered for the reward of victory.

Less players involved = more time spent doing task (because doing the thing will take longer) = more reward

I think that fits into the original post as well as what others have said as far as Time/Resources Invested = Reward

The problem with this concept, not that it's overall wrong at all, but just a general problem, is that MMOs and MMO-likes now exist in which there is no real risk of 'opportunity cost'.

A specific set of MMO designers have 'lost the plot' and led us to a game type that some of us find boring or 'soulless' because they have figured out 'if we don't have any opportunity cost to work out then we have no disparity and therefore no pain-points, and we get less complaints from the less invested players'.

When there's pressure from your 'suits' to keep numbers up, they can look at painpoints and go 'remove that, it's making people have less fun', but when the game eventually 'loses its soul' and dies, they can't point at anything in particular, and might even have enough whales to consider things to still be fine.

I get it but, we still have to quantify the notion of Risk in = Reward out and I think Ashes will have a much MUCH larger scope of activities that players can choose from to find their gameplay loops and be happy within them.

Azherae

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

So far it seems like the risk is time being lost as a result of failing to succeed at the given activity (a pvp fight, raid, dungeon, etc)

Even when we try and "calculate" (for lack of a better word) it on the basis of lost resources etc, it still comes down to time (because it takes time to get those invested resources in the first place)

How would this apply to so called "safe" forms of content and their potential rewards? Like for Instanced pve content? Obviously we still don't know the full scope of what this will entail but since we can assume there will be some form of instanced PvE, assuming it was hard enough and hence has the potential to lose lots of invested time, shouldn't the rewards in theory also be commensurate with that?

Basically, 'no', for me.

If the content is fun, and for PvE players that I know to actually like the PvE, the effort of trying and solving the encounter is the fun, then they don't need to be additionally rewarded, you rely solely on your balance and intended encounter difficulty.

For me, if you are enjoying the process of facing that encounter, you are not risking anything unless there was some resource other than time which was being consumed to eventually prevent you from being able to attempt that encounter.

I also believe that encounters 'need' these things especially in MMOs. They can take many forms, but overall, even if you want your players to have fun, if the encounter offers a Reward, then the players should be at risk of 'running out of something they use to do it', thereby Risking their ability to continue experiencing the fun of that activity/encounter.

But Risk v Reward is a core design pillar of Intrepid's game so we actually need to quantify that objectively. I understand if something is fun but takes time then the perception of loss is relative as you're saying, but we still need to quantify that to decide how to determine rewards.

Sure we do, multiple people have been having heavy discussions about it for years now.

The problem is that those people don't agree because they don't all experience the same type of fun, so we get stuck. That's one of the hardest issues to face in game design and generally should be approached more from aiming at your target audience.

But if you mean within the game relative to other actions, it's basically game economy work. I'm mostly saying two things:

1. Making gameplay that isn't fun for most people but they still need to engage with to get rewards is a bad idea.
2. Risk/loss is only a thing experienced by a player who has no path to anything fun to do, according to whatever their personal mental structure is.

Noaani

Azherae wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

I see risk as challenging the odds. The reward comes when less are used to get the rewards. often in duos or trios for group content in other MMOs, contestation will prevent such a practice in AoC but still, the risk would be fighting outnumbered for the reward of victory.

Less players involved = more time spent doing task (because doing the thing will take longer) = more reward

I think that fits into the original post as well as what others have said as far as Time/Resources Invested = Reward

The problem with this concept, not that it's overall wrong at all, but just a general problem, is that MMOs and MMO-likes now exist in which there is no real risk of 'opportunity cost'.

A specific set of MMO designers have 'lost the plot' and led us to a game type that some of us find boring or 'soulless' because they have figured out 'if we don't have any opportunity cost to work out then we have no disparity and therefore no pain-points, and we get less complaints from the less invested players'.

When there's pressure from your 'suits' to keep numbers up, they can look at painpoints and go 'remove that, it's making people have less fun', but when the game eventually 'loses its soul' and dies, they can't point at anything in particular, and might even have enough whales to consider things to still be fine.

While this is also all true, it leads to a key point that all 'suits' need to keep in mind.

Players (people in general) don't look at how good something is in isolation. They look at the difference between the highs and the lows. A good game by definition needs to have pain points in it, as it is these pain points that make success meaningful. Removing those pain points removes the meaning in being successful, which is what results in a soulless game.

Azherae

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

I see risk as challenging the odds. The reward comes when less are used to get the rewards. often in duos or trios for group content in other MMOs, contestation will prevent such a practice in AoC but still, the risk would be fighting outnumbered for the reward of victory.

Less players involved = more time spent doing task (because doing the thing will take longer) = more reward

I think that fits into the original post as well as what others have said as far as Time/Resources Invested = Reward

The problem with this concept, not that it's overall wrong at all, but just a general problem, is that MMOs and MMO-likes now exist in which there is no real risk of 'opportunity cost'.

A specific set of MMO designers have 'lost the plot' and led us to a game type that some of us find boring or 'soulless' because they have figured out 'if we don't have any opportunity cost to work out then we have no disparity and therefore no pain-points, and we get less complaints from the less invested players'.

When there's pressure from your 'suits' to keep numbers up, they can look at painpoints and go 'remove that, it's making people have less fun', but when the game eventually 'loses its soul' and dies, they can't point at anything in particular, and might even have enough whales to consider things to still be fine.

I get it but, we still have to quantify the notion of Risk in = Reward out and I think Ashes will have a much MUCH larger scope of activities that players can choose from to find their gameplay loops and be happy within them.

I think I'll disagree. I don't think that we have to quantify it, I don't even think quantifying it is strictly 'possible' without a really specific definition of your audience, which we don't have yet.

For me personally, this is the biggest current weakness of Ashes.

There is no 'risk in, reward out' calculation until you've narrowed down your audience to 'remove' all the people who enjoy doing a thing in your game that you didn't intend to be fun, OR you've changed your whole game because you realized that the audience you ended up with, doesn't find your original ideas fun.

What we have is debates though. Lots and lots of debates.

Songcaller

Risk, Time and Reward are all measurements. However, if time was to describe risk and then stated time vs reward, you would end up with a very shallow reward system. I did consider some examples but the examples didn't really go to time risk extremes. Risk is much more than time because there is a risk it can take time but also the possibility of no risk of time. The example here is theft. Risk is the probability that something bad will happen. Time is the certainty of a given measurement. The example here is natural death.

Otr

Risk implies a negative outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk

If you do not care about the consequences (getting the reward or losing something) then it is not a "risk" but a "probability".

Typically it should be a repeatable process to be able to put some numbers onto it.
You can observe risk also when you do PvE, as your success is not guaranteed.
Also when you try to reach the end of a jumping puzzle.

But even if you have a single attempt to try something, you can estimate chances if others tried the same thing.
Or if you tried similar content in other games.
Or if you know how things work, like how many numbers can be pulled out from a bag. You have only one attempt, there is a fixed amount of time spent yet you have risk or probability if you don't care.

Caww

"Heads I win - Tails you Lose" is all the risk v reward I can handle....

Otr

Sathrago wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Time spent vs reward.

That spent time usually comes from dying over and over (either to pve or pvp). In Ashes you'll lose even more time per death, cause we have player loot and XP debt mechanics.

this is actually the thing that drives me away more than losing every other form of progression. You can restock, rebuild, rearmor, relevel etc. But you will never get your time invested back.

The more you have of all these mechanics the harder it becomes for you to go back and do it again each time.

I feel younger each time I win

Child Item