That death can decide something, like obtaining a unique item.
Unless death is tied to some form of time penalty, this is not true. If you lose the item because you respawned a distance away, then that lost item is due to travel time.
Or if the death count matters.
In the same way an MMORPG wouldn't ever be built to the hypothetical I laid out for Mag, no MMORPG would ever be built to where this was the case.
I mean, the hypothetical I gave Mag was that of a game where there was no time penalty - it is technically possible to create, it would just suck as a game. Same where death count was what determined who gets a one off item rather than any other factor - and in order for your point here to be valid, death count would need to be the ONLY factor in determining who gets the item, and there would need to be no way to lower your death count.
If you enjoyed the time spent, then you gained fun.
See, if you prescribe to this perspective, you then have to assume that either people playing the game do not enjoy playing the game, or there is no penalty.
If you are the developer of this game and perscribe to this perspective, you would then need to ask yourself why people would play your game and not enjoy it - that is something you would need to fix. Thus, your assumption at some point needs to be that people are always enjoying your game as you fixed the previous issue, at which point you need to now function under the assumption that your game no longer has any risk vs reward.
I mean, as a perspective, what you are talking about here is inherently flawed, I'm just trying to illustrate how flawed it actually is, and how obvious the flaws are when you actually think about it.
In an mmorpg, even spending time with your guild mates is a reward.
Not in the context of a discussion on risk vs reward in terms of game design. In that case, it most definately is not.
Risk vs reward is a specific notion, it isn't a case of "all risks" and "all rewards" associated with the game. It is a case of taking specific pieces of content and assessing the reward the developers offer vs the risk the developers provide. Thus, spending time with guild mates is abolutely not a part of this discussion.
Plenty of pvp mmos are built for death counts to matter. In fact, if you gain experience from pvp to level pvp levels death count is the greatest risk as you want to grow in power faster than others. Thus, each death given to an opponent makes the opponent stronger and narrows the gap between each competitor. Therefore, death counts more than time here because time has no limitation but the death counts do. Hence, the risk is nothing to do with time but is to do with death.
Plenty of pvp mmos are built for death counts to matter. In fact, if you gain experience from pvp to level pvp levels death count is the greatest risk as you want to grow in power faster than others. Thus, each death given to an opponent makes the opponent stronger and narrows the gap between each competitor. Therefore, death counts more than time here because time has no limitation but the death counts do. Hence, the risk is nothing to do with time but is to do with death.
Death removes your invested time, which makes others have more of that invested time and be stronger than you because of that.
So risk of death is the risk of losing time. And it's a compounding issue, because you not only lose invested time, but you're then doubly behind the time value of others, because you need to spend time trying to catch up (if that is even possible).
This is why Noaani gave that example of penaltiless deaths, where the time doesn't matter because you simply immediately resurrect on the spot and time has no impact cause there's no loss of time.
But at that point there's absolutely no risk. Anywhere. You'd always be moving forward, so only those who have more irl time to play the game would be stronger (given that the skill of using said time is equal).
Plenty of pvp mmos are built for death counts to matter. In fact, if you gain experience from pvp to level pvp levels death count is the greatest risk as you want to grow in power faster than others. Thus, each death given to an opponent makes the opponent stronger and narrows the gap between each competitor. Therefore, death counts more than time here because time has no limitation but the death counts do. Hence, the risk is nothing to do with time but is to do with death.
I can't think of any where death count wasn't able to be worked around via spending more time.
Edit to add; I also can't see why a developer would want to add that. Making death count matter encourages players to not play.
I have been talking about MMORPG design for more than 20 years. Some of that has been with player, some of that has been with game developers (I tend to listen and ask questions more with developers, rather than actually discuss things).
I also spend time reading white papers on game design, but also on somewhat related topics. For example, I have just read a paper on why "fun" and "enjoyment" are technically not the same thing.
While people may disagree with me some times (though I am clear when I am talking about objective things - perhaps I should note more when I am speaking more subjectively), at the end of the day my positions are a result of decades of active learning.
Plenty of pvp mmos are built for death counts to matter. In fact, if you gain experience from pvp to level pvp levels death count is the greatest risk as you want to grow in power faster than others. Thus, each death given to an opponent makes the opponent stronger and narrows the gap between each competitor. Therefore, death counts more than time here because time has no limitation but the death counts do. Hence, the risk is nothing to do with time but is to do with death.
Death removes your invested time, which makes others have more of that invested time and be stronger than you because of that.
So risk of death is the risk of losing time. And it's a compounding issue, because you not only lose invested time, but you're then doubly behind the time value of others, because you need to spend time trying to catch up (if that is even possible).
This is why Noaani gave that example of penaltiless deaths, where the time doesn't matter because you simply immediately resurrect on the spot and time has no impact cause there's no loss of time.
But at that point there's absolutely no risk. Anywhere. You'd always be moving forward, so only those who have more irl time to play the game would be stronger (given that the skill of using said time is equal).
Plenty of pvp mmos are built for death counts to matter. In fact, if you gain experience from pvp to level pvp levels death count is the greatest risk as you want to grow in power faster than others. Thus, each death given to an opponent makes the opponent stronger and narrows the gap between each competitor. Therefore, death counts more than time here because time has no limitation but the death counts do. Hence, the risk is nothing to do with time but is to do with death.
I can't think of any where death count wasn't able to be worked around via spending more time.
Edit to add; I also can't see why a developer would want to add that. Making death count matter encourages players to not play.
I could keep going in circles but the risk would be too much time spent.
Going in a 2 hour siege and losing, trying to defeat a raid boss and the opposite team gets the loot, pking some random dude and somebody kills you and you drop important gear. All these and a lot more are tied to a risk vs reward system (a very oldschool system btw) where if you win it really feels rewarding and if you lose you literally just lost time of your life, compared to other systems where everybody gets something just for participating.
I hear from many people that they don't really like this idea, especially those who never played a similar mmo before. As an old school lineage 2 player all I can say is that this system is one of the ways the people are emotionally connected to the game and is something that's gonna help them in the long run.
Plenty of pvp mmos are built for death counts to matter. In fact, if you gain experience from pvp to level pvp levels death count is the greatest risk as you want to grow in power faster than others. Thus, each death given to an opponent makes the opponent stronger and narrows the gap between each competitor. Therefore, death counts more than time here because time has no limitation but the death counts do. Hence, the risk is nothing to do with time but is to do with death.
Death removes your invested time, which makes others have more of that invested time and be stronger than you because of that.
So risk of death is the risk of losing time. And it's a compounding issue, because you not only lose invested time, but you're then doubly behind the time value of others, because you need to spend time trying to catch up (if that is even possible).
This is why Noaani gave that example of penaltiless deaths, where the time doesn't matter because you simply immediately resurrect on the spot and time has no impact cause there's no loss of time.
But at that point there's absolutely no risk. Anywhere. You'd always be moving forward, so only those who have more irl time to play the game would be stronger (given that the skill of using said time is equal).
Yes, this sort of thing is why OP would even want a definition. Because a PvP MMO player has a different definition than a MOBA player, different than an FG player, different than a logistics/strategy/PvE only player.
But Ashes is aiming to design a game that is functionally combining the incentive structures of all those things.
It is a game in which you can invest time into becoming a leader of a 'geographical area' through sociopolitical approaches, lose that geographical leadership via the outcome of a MOBA-like PvP event in which your strategy isn't good enough, try to maintain your position/regain your geopolitical status through leading your followers in logistics to make up for it, lose small skirmishes with those followers due to smaler scale PvP events because you didn't practice a certain combo timing enough, and find yourself unable to regain your position as leader again no matter how much you practice your combo, and no matter how many times you try to siege your geographical target because no one is willing to let you be leader anymore.
I still don't agree that time spent is the only risk due to the above complexity, because there does come a point, rarely though it comes, where investing more time cannot regain a status you have lost.
The 'issue' is that Steven's design also goes beyond merely 'winners' and 'losers'. It starts to touch on 'status' and 'capacity'. PvP incentives usually cause this because of the limits on human emotional fortitude, but at least some are 'Immune' to that, or can easily discard the negativity of failure in many ways while seeking a 'fair' or weaker target.
But Ashes contains 'Rewards' powerful enough to offset any 'Risk' calculations, for now. Which is my second problem with that tenet. The arrow of implementation currently 'points down'. Your Reward in many cases is 'having less Risk' as a generality, and that just compounds as you get closer to the top.
@Ace1234 it's just that I dont read people anymore in here, they have too many long posts, so I usually read the op and then I speak. This is because I don't want to enter in the circle jerk of arguments with the many people who do this on a daily basis here and they are also nitty picky about words
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
I still don't agree that time spent is the only risk due to the above complexity, because there does come a point, rarely though it comes, where investing more time cannot regain a status you have lost.
While I can see hypothetical situations where this could be the case, I can't point to any one existing game where it is.
Like, if we are talking single player games and the risk is actual loss and the end of the game, then all you actually risk is the time since the last save (or the time spent on that run of the game, as a worst case scenario).
For online/multiplayer games, developers are usualy very careful to not put players in a state where they stand to actually lose something they have no way of regaining. I have honestly never seen a game that does not follow this - even though it is obviously technically possible.
Damn... If it's the case it would mean that AOC is not better than a mobile game like Clash of Clan.
Risk versus Reward means to me, that you can improve the reward by increasing the level of risk of activities and you successfully carried out these activities, thanks to your skills (high PvP risk, fight a stronger opponent on paper, stronger mobs etc).
Time is just one variable among many (for instance : optimizing time by taking more risks to improve the reward). The ultimate risk is the death and you will lose time in consequence, but there are plenty of other risks other than death that can allow you a better reward.
At the core, its Balance vs Counterbalance. which doesnt answer the initial; question at all.
However, as an old UO player and an Eve Online player...
With UO, You could wear bigger armor, to mitigate the risk of loss, but if you lost then you lose more. however, with that being said, take said equipment into a dungeon, you need more to be able to finish it, but if you die, you lost everything on your person with a few minor exceptions.
Eve Online is the same, High risk vs High reward, You can fly "blingy" to have a better chance, but checks and balances comes into play a lot. but if you win, and they flew blingy too, to compete with you, they die, and they drop equipment/gear and you can take some of it that wasnt destroyed. so "shinier" fights always reaped more rewards. This is a playstyle I enjoyed thoroughly, but its so niche its hard to make a game survive with full loot mechanics like that. So i don't want to see this entirely in Ashes, but some risk with PVP reward is something I want for sure.
I also have an interest in corrupted play. But alot of people want to demonize it and use it as a penalty box. Sure, there will be penalties with PK'ing, but the game needs to have that outlet.
I've been active on these forums for about four years now, although I've been aware of this game for maybe five-ish. "This game won't be for everyone" if often throw out at new posters, or people expressing a view which can be at odds with the one of the target forum audience. But you know what? I still don't know if it will be a game for me, and it's in good part because this pillar of "risk vs. reward" doesn't resonate with me.
My definitions
Risks: the obstacles and difficulties that, if not overcome, lead to negative outcomes
Reward: positive outcomes, a desired result
Balancing risk vs. reward doesn't always make sense to me. It's often possible to get a great positive outcome while overcoming little risks, or beating impossible odds yet gaining little in return. There is a disconnect. It's not fixed. Sometime you can fiddle with the risks. Sometime the reward lose its lustre. And I think this wiggle room is essential, trying to fix the ratio of risk for reward, it would make it too predictable (maybe not in details but in scope) and it would diminish the magic of the unknown. Maybe it's only because I am, to a certain point, numb to both. I dunno /shrug.
What I care about is enjoying the time I spend in a game. Spend, not invest. It's fun vs. tedious/boring. Chasing rewards usually falls into the tedious platter of the scale. Strangely, part of the risks is often in its fun side. Short term goals, the now.
However time is one of the things that you can risk. If a gatherer gets ganked and loses materials, the attacker just cost them the time it takes to gather those material.
There are other things besides time you can risk though. A mayor sets tax rate to high? They risk their position when it comes to re-election. Taking a flying mount to a siege, would risk the mount itself.
However time is one of the things that you can risk. If a gatherer gets ganked and loses materials, the attacker just cost them the time it takes to gather those material.
There are other things besides time you can risk though. A mayor sets tax rate to high? They risk their position when it comes to re-election. Taking a flying mount to a siege, would risk the mount itself.
Depending on your outlook we can go beyond this too, in both the main games I play you can also 'risk' access to content.
Even though this might not be lost permanently, in the case of Elite Dangerous where there is an active simulation, it sometimes might as well be. If content type A is only available when Faction A controls System A, even if there is lots of 'similar' content, there really may be nothing like it in any place that anyone knows about.
All it takes to 'permanently' lose access to that content you enjoy because your Faction controls Star System A, is for another stronger group to take a vested interest in 'Faction B controlling that star system'.
Which, in turn, might happen because of political outcomes, shifts in power, or just the Devs putting a Community Goal too close to your space. Not even intentionally. They put a minor war nearby, suddenly mercenaries are everywhere, and somehow this results in the control changing.
Unlike FFXI where it probably only takes a month or two to 'regain' access to content that is lost like this, for Elite it can easily be pretty permanent. This is a result of high dynamism.
Nor am I talking about just 'the way you get to experience content' exactly. Some high level materials become extremely rare because they only appear in Star System Type A controlled by Faction Type A under rare Simulation Status A. Now, the 'bubble' is big enough that you can probably find them somewhere else, so I guess one could say you're still 'only losing time', but that's just layer one.
The GameWorld changes, players adapt, but the dynamics of the simulation mean that some things, 'nitpicky precise' as they are, just go away, and stay 'gone' until the world dynamically changes again, if it ever does, and some historical stuff is now so far 'gone' as to be basically impossible.
I'd say there are mini events that took 5 years for the stars to align, quite literally, for them to appear, and the alternate event they 'replaced' can't be regained without probably another 4 years of practically uncontested activity.
As long as Ashes is aiming even near this, I'd expect the same.
A mayor sets tax rate to high? They risk their position when it comes to re-election. Taking a flying mount to a siege, would risk the mount itself.
That is still a time risk though.
In this case, it is the time it would take to become mayor again.
The only time you can say you risked something that wasn't time related is if you are unable to ever get that thing again. That in itself is something that is exceedingly rare in MMORPG's, as people tend to leave games when they face unrecoverable loss.
I think concern about time risks take away from what the developers can actually control- there will always be someone who can just play the game more than you. I work 8-6 and know I won't be able to sink as much time in to the game as other players- I will already be well behind in terms of time. Most players will be.
Time in the game is one thing the devs can't control, but material and XP loss is. I still want to feel that sense of dread close to death, and triumph when I succeed at something challenging.
"I think that it's interesting if the difficulty level you're faced with in this open world with many other players forces you to think critically..." great quote from the fighter dev update video. I really hope the game isn't afraid to put real consequences in for players that go beyond just "well, guess I have to do it again." Make me despair at my losses and rejoice at my victories!
Time is always lost (or spent). If players see it as a resource, time flows constantly for everybody.
It is just a figure of speech to say you lost time when you actually have to spend future time to do something again.
Risk implies chance. It is easier to estimate chance when you can observe the outcome of similar events, if they are repeatable.
Higher risk does not mean higher reward. Reward has a maximum fixed value and can even be 0.
Imagine a case where you have a decoy caravan and you successfully make your opponent think that is the true caravan. They hunt it, you defend it trying to get more time for the real caravan to reach the destination.
Those who hunt the decoy caravan have no reward but they think they have. They feel a risk in losing it.
It comes a moment when the real caravan reached destination safely.
The decoy caravan could stop but they chose to continue the journey. Attackers keep trying to destroy it, defenders keep moving from place to place with it.
Both sides perceive a risk yet there is no reward? What is the reward? What do you lose?
A mayor sets tax rate to high? They risk their position when it comes to re-election. Taking a flying mount to a siege, would risk the mount itself.
That is still a time risk though.
In this case, it is the time it would take to become mayor again.
The only time you can say you risked something that wasn't time related is if you are unable to ever get that thing again. That in itself is something that is exceedingly rare in MMORPG's, as people tend to leave games when they face unrecoverable loss.
You thought the debate was the High School diploma in Philosophy ? Wait I'll reopen my books about time and death of Kant, Sarte or Epicure.
I think it's kind of subjective. Like, different people have different amount of skills. So, for some people 1 quest will be perfectly balanced around risk and reward but not others since they take little to no risk or very high risk. But then again, it's kind of not subjective in the sense that the game is static or balanced/created. Every character (not player) has different strengths that make them have less risk in certain scenarios. And let's not forget the team behind the veil. The ones who been tasked to balance or make this a perceived balance.
Much love.
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Risk exists in other form too. PvP is just very important because that hurts PvE players the most.
Economic node mayors are elected via a blind-bid auction where the citizen bidding the most money wins.[13][89][90][3]
Tavern games if added, will have risk too.
There will be jumping puzzles. You can fall and die without anyone pushing you.
That is true. But...
90% of the time when Steven uses the term Risk v Reward - he starts talking about PvP.
And he very rarely associates Risk v Reward with activities that don't involve PvP.
Especially since Steven wants all activities to be intrinsically tied to PvP as much as posibble.
Because Ashes is PvX.
But you dislike adrenaline rush so no matter how the risk manifests itself, you will not like it. If is not PvP then you will call it bad balancing and you will blame Steven anyway.
Mmmn. No.
Instead it's that Steven seems to not acknowledge arenaline rush from anything that does not include PvP.
When he talks about Reward - he tends to state that nothing really has meaning without the adrenaline rush from PvP, specifically.
I don't play MMORPGs for the adrenaline rush, but my playstyle includes plenty of PvE risk.
My main in EQ2 leveled (mostly Solo) to 80 only wearing starting rags. Her GS came from Weapons and Jewelry. So, combat encounters with mobs her Level, or slightly above, were risky.
I frequently play the Carebear challenge of leveling to max with 0 Kills.
I sometimes play the Perma-Death Carebear challenge of leveling as far as possible: 0 Kills, 0 Deaths
I don't want other players to decide for me - when I must engage in PvP.
I have 0 interest in playing on servers with non-consensual PvP. That's not the same thing as dislking adrenaline rush. Adrenaline rush can be OK sometimes. But, sure, I typically will attempt to minimize adrenaline rush - even when I'm doing things that involve risk. I am a Casual Challenge player.
0
AikaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 13
For me Risk vs Reward is knowing that since a resource / objective is rare and needed by you, you know other people are interested in it too.
So when you go to attempt getting it, you know it might be contested and you introspect for yourself if it worth the effort and time of contesting it, and if you are strong enough for that in the time being.
Example, a very rare ore / miniboss spawned in an area and people around are notified, it is a bit delusional to believe you are entitled to that resource more than any other player, so conflict arising is natural. So you think for yourself, do I risk losing some gear durability attempting to get that resource, for all you know maybe no one is in the area at that time and you can grab it for yourself, or on the opposite maybe a small group is there and you have no chance to contest it solo.
Then you either show up and contest it to use it / sell it later, or you go farm less contested resources and build wealth to straight up by that rare resource from the brave people that won the right to collect it. It's a win-win situation because you chose to pay for it to lower the risk, and the other person is rewarded for taking that risk.
Another aspect is for a caravan for example, let's say you're farming a zone and gathered up quite a bit of glint, so you choose to take the safe route of either selling it to the npc for straight up gold, or do you build a caravan for more moneys ? having picked the second option you understand the risk of your caravan being contested and should not be mad if it was destroyed as that was your choice since you had the opportunity to have a zero risk low return option.
TL;DR
Basically as long as players have the choice to partake in that risky activity, that is fine and a very good thing. If the only way to get gold was through caravan, then there is no risk vs reward anymore since you always have to take the big risk
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Though the mention of 'gear durability loss' definitely implies PvP, one also can't simply fixate on it.
In a game with economy and politics intertwined, you can be risking something just by doing it. If your faction and my faction have an agreement about who can log in a specific forest, and you decide to risk sneaking in to gather from that forest when you aren't supposed to, and you get caught by some newbie who would never even THINK to challenge you in PvP, you still cause a political response.
You Risked the political situation being upset for the Reward of getting materials.
Surely even you can agree that politics and change that results from it is at least not the same type of 'PvP', unless you are labeling any and all conflict of any kind as PvP (wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not assuming it).
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
AikaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean yeah haha that's the whole premise of the game :kekw: where else do you see risk vs reward ? possible in some aspects of crafting but the more controversial topic around it is pvp
Though the mention of 'gear durability loss' definitely implies PvP, one also can't simply fixate on it.
In a game with economy and politics intertwined, you can be risking something just by doing it. If your faction and my faction have an agreement about who can log in a specific forest, and you decide to risk sneaking in to gather from that forest when you aren't supposed to, and you get caught by some newbie who would never even THINK to challenge you in PvP, you still cause a political response.
You Risked the political situation being upset for the Reward of getting materials.
Surely even you can agree that politics and change that results from it is at least not the same type of 'PvP', unless you are labeling any and all conflict of any kind as PvP (wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not assuming it).
Why is it unfair ? also you made several idealistic assumptions that prolly aren't true.
1- I might be wrong but probably only 1 guild / alliance will be governing at least 1 node if not the node and vassaling those around it, so it's hard for me to imagine 2+ guilds sharing a forest for example
2- Idk if you played other pvp MMOs, but what you said might only hold true for static resources, for example a boss that usually spawns there or a forest like you said, and usually guilds / alliances have exceptions for particularly dynamically spawned rare resources unless the other group pays for it and/or for protection to farm it
3- You assumed only 2 factions would have a political agreement on that forest. What would stop me, a rogue group or solo player or a 3rd faction to contest it ? I wouldn't have any agreement and am free to contest it afaik
4- what if the wood I need is not in that forest ? And I need to go log in a forest I don't have a political agreement to log into ? It would be risky for me to do so still
I mean yeah haha that's the whole premise of the game :kekw: where else do you see risk vs reward ? possible in some aspects of crafting but the more controversial topic around it is pvp
Though the mention of 'gear durability loss' definitely implies PvP, one also can't simply fixate on it.
In a game with economy and politics intertwined, you can be risking something just by doing it. If your faction and my faction have an agreement about who can log in a specific forest, and you decide to risk sneaking in to gather from that forest when you aren't supposed to, and you get caught by some newbie who would never even THINK to challenge you in PvP, you still cause a political response.
You Risked the political situation being upset for the Reward of getting materials.
Surely even you can agree that politics and change that results from it is at least not the same type of 'PvP', unless you are labeling any and all conflict of any kind as PvP (wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not assuming it).
Why is it unfair ? also you made several idealistic assumptions that prolly aren't true.
1- I might be wrong but probably only 1 guild / alliance will be governing at least 1 node if not the node and vassaling those around it, so it's hard for me to imagine 2+ guilds sharing a forest for example
2- Idk if you played other pvp MMOs, but what you said might only hold true for static resources, for example a boss that usually spawns there or a forest like you said, and usually guilds / alliances have exceptions for particularly dynamically spawned rare resources unless the other group pays for it and/or for protection to farm it
3- You assumed only 2 factions would have a political agreement on that forest. What would stop me, a rogue group or solo player or a 3rd faction to contest it ? I wouldn't have any agreement and am free to contest it afaik
4- what if the wood I need is not in that forest ? And I need to go log in a forest I don't have a political agreement to log into ? It would be risky for me to do so still
I wasn't talking about you being unfair, I was addressing Dygz' 'interpretation' of your point.
Comments
I mean, the hypothetical I gave Mag was that of a game where there was no time penalty - it is technically possible to create, it would just suck as a game. Same where death count was what determined who gets a one off item rather than any other factor - and in order for your point here to be valid, death count would need to be the ONLY factor in determining who gets the item, and there would need to be no way to lower your death count. See, if you prescribe to this perspective, you then have to assume that either people playing the game do not enjoy playing the game, or there is no penalty.
If you are the developer of this game and perscribe to this perspective, you would then need to ask yourself why people would play your game and not enjoy it - that is something you would need to fix. Thus, your assumption at some point needs to be that people are always enjoying your game as you fixed the previous issue, at which point you need to now function under the assumption that your game no longer has any risk vs reward.
I mean, as a perspective, what you are talking about here is inherently flawed, I'm just trying to illustrate how flawed it actually is, and how obvious the flaws are when you actually think about it.
Not in the context of a discussion on risk vs reward in terms of game design. In that case, it most definately is not.
Risk vs reward is a specific notion, it isn't a case of "all risks" and "all rewards" associated with the game. It is a case of taking specific pieces of content and assessing the reward the developers offer vs the risk the developers provide. Thus, spending time with guild mates is abolutely not a part of this discussion.
So risk of death is the risk of losing time. And it's a compounding issue, because you not only lose invested time, but you're then doubly behind the time value of others, because you need to spend time trying to catch up (if that is even possible).
This is why Noaani gave that example of penaltiless deaths, where the time doesn't matter because you simply immediately resurrect on the spot and time has no impact cause there's no loss of time.
But at that point there's absolutely no risk. Anywhere. You'd always be moving forward, so only those who have more irl time to play the game would be stronger (given that the skill of using said time is equal).
I can't think of any where death count wasn't able to be worked around via spending more time.
Edit to add; I also can't see why a developer would want to add that. Making death count matter encourages players to not play.
I have been talking about MMORPG design for more than 20 years. Some of that has been with player, some of that has been with game developers (I tend to listen and ask questions more with developers, rather than actually discuss things).
I also spend time reading white papers on game design, but also on somewhat related topics. For example, I have just read a paper on why "fun" and "enjoyment" are technically not the same thing.
While people may disagree with me some times (though I am clear when I am talking about objective things - perhaps I should note more when I am speaking more subjectively), at the end of the day my positions are a result of decades of active learning.
I could keep going in circles but the risk would be too much time spent.
I hear from many people that they don't really like this idea, especially those who never played a similar mmo before. As an old school lineage 2 player all I can say is that this system is one of the ways the people are emotionally connected to the game and is something that's gonna help them in the long run.
Yes, this sort of thing is why OP would even want a definition. Because a PvP MMO player has a different definition than a MOBA player, different than an FG player, different than a logistics/strategy/PvE only player.
But Ashes is aiming to design a game that is functionally combining the incentive structures of all those things.
It is a game in which you can invest time into becoming a leader of a 'geographical area' through sociopolitical approaches, lose that geographical leadership via the outcome of a MOBA-like PvP event in which your strategy isn't good enough, try to maintain your position/regain your geopolitical status through leading your followers in logistics to make up for it, lose small skirmishes with those followers due to smaler scale PvP events because you didn't practice a certain combo timing enough, and find yourself unable to regain your position as leader again no matter how much you practice your combo, and no matter how many times you try to siege your geographical target because no one is willing to let you be leader anymore.
I still don't agree that time spent is the only risk due to the above complexity, because there does come a point, rarely though it comes, where investing more time cannot regain a status you have lost.
The 'issue' is that Steven's design also goes beyond merely 'winners' and 'losers'. It starts to touch on 'status' and 'capacity'. PvP incentives usually cause this because of the limits on human emotional fortitude, but at least some are 'Immune' to that, or can easily discard the negativity of failure in many ways while seeking a 'fair' or weaker target.
But Ashes contains 'Rewards' powerful enough to offset any 'Risk' calculations, for now. Which is my second problem with that tenet. The arrow of implementation currently 'points down'. Your Reward in many cases is 'having less Risk' as a generality, and that just compounds as you get closer to the top.
Like, if we are talking single player games and the risk is actual loss and the end of the game, then all you actually risk is the time since the last save (or the time spent on that run of the game, as a worst case scenario).
For online/multiplayer games, developers are usualy very careful to not put players in a state where they stand to actually lose something they have no way of regaining. I have honestly never seen a game that does not follow this - even though it is obviously technically possible.
Damn... If it's the case it would mean that AOC is not better than a mobile game like Clash of Clan.
Risk versus Reward means to me, that you can improve the reward by increasing the level of risk of activities and you successfully carried out these activities, thanks to your skills (high PvP risk, fight a stronger opponent on paper, stronger mobs etc).
Time is just one variable among many (for instance : optimizing time by taking more risks to improve the reward). The ultimate risk is the death and you will lose time in consequence, but there are plenty of other risks other than death that can allow you a better reward.
However, as an old UO player and an Eve Online player...
With UO, You could wear bigger armor, to mitigate the risk of loss, but if you lost then you lose more. however, with that being said, take said equipment into a dungeon, you need more to be able to finish it, but if you die, you lost everything on your person with a few minor exceptions.
Eve Online is the same, High risk vs High reward, You can fly "blingy" to have a better chance, but checks and balances comes into play a lot. but if you win, and they flew blingy too, to compete with you, they die, and they drop equipment/gear and you can take some of it that wasnt destroyed. so "shinier" fights always reaped more rewards. This is a playstyle I enjoyed thoroughly, but its so niche its hard to make a game survive with full loot mechanics like that. So i don't want to see this entirely in Ashes, but some risk with PVP reward is something I want for sure.
I also have an interest in corrupted play. But alot of people want to demonize it and use it as a penalty box. Sure, there will be penalties with PK'ing, but the game needs to have that outlet.
My definitions
Risks: the obstacles and difficulties that, if not overcome, lead to negative outcomes
Reward: positive outcomes, a desired result
Balancing risk vs. reward doesn't always make sense to me. It's often possible to get a great positive outcome while overcoming little risks, or beating impossible odds yet gaining little in return. There is a disconnect. It's not fixed. Sometime you can fiddle with the risks. Sometime the reward lose its lustre. And I think this wiggle room is essential, trying to fix the ratio of risk for reward, it would make it too predictable (maybe not in details but in scope) and it would diminish the magic of the unknown. Maybe it's only because I am, to a certain point, numb to both. I dunno /shrug.
What I care about is enjoying the time I spend in a game. Spend, not invest. It's fun vs. tedious/boring. Chasing rewards usually falls into the tedious platter of the scale. Strangely, part of the risks is often in its fun side. Short term goals, the now.
However time is one of the things that you can risk. If a gatherer gets ganked and loses materials, the attacker just cost them the time it takes to gather those material.
There are other things besides time you can risk though. A mayor sets tax rate to high? They risk their position when it comes to re-election. Taking a flying mount to a siege, would risk the mount itself.
Depending on your outlook we can go beyond this too, in both the main games I play you can also 'risk' access to content.
All it takes to 'permanently' lose access to that content you enjoy because your Faction controls Star System A, is for another stronger group to take a vested interest in 'Faction B controlling that star system'.
Which, in turn, might happen because of political outcomes, shifts in power, or just the Devs putting a Community Goal too close to your space. Not even intentionally. They put a minor war nearby, suddenly mercenaries are everywhere, and somehow this results in the control changing.
Unlike FFXI where it probably only takes a month or two to 'regain' access to content that is lost like this, for Elite it can easily be pretty permanent. This is a result of high dynamism.
Nor am I talking about just 'the way you get to experience content' exactly. Some high level materials become extremely rare because they only appear in Star System Type A controlled by Faction Type A under rare Simulation Status A. Now, the 'bubble' is big enough that you can probably find them somewhere else, so I guess one could say you're still 'only losing time', but that's just layer one.
The GameWorld changes, players adapt, but the dynamics of the simulation mean that some things, 'nitpicky precise' as they are, just go away, and stay 'gone' until the world dynamically changes again, if it ever does, and some historical stuff is now so far 'gone' as to be basically impossible.
I'd say there are mini events that took 5 years for the stars to align, quite literally, for them to appear, and the alternate event they 'replaced' can't be regained without probably another 4 years of practically uncontested activity.
As long as Ashes is aiming even near this, I'd expect the same.
In this case, it is the time it would take to become mayor again.
The only time you can say you risked something that wasn't time related is if you are unable to ever get that thing again. That in itself is something that is exceedingly rare in MMORPG's, as people tend to leave games when they face unrecoverable loss.
Time in the game is one thing the devs can't control, but material and XP loss is. I still want to feel that sense of dread close to death, and triumph when I succeed at something challenging.
"I think that it's interesting if the difficulty level you're faced with in this open world with many other players forces you to think critically..." great quote from the fighter dev update video. I really hope the game isn't afraid to put real consequences in for players that go beyond just "well, guess I have to do it again." Make me despair at my losses and rejoice at my victories!
It is just a figure of speech to say you lost time when you actually have to spend future time to do something again.
Risk implies chance. It is easier to estimate chance when you can observe the outcome of similar events, if they are repeatable.
Higher risk does not mean higher reward. Reward has a maximum fixed value and can even be 0.
Imagine a case where you have a decoy caravan and you successfully make your opponent think that is the true caravan. They hunt it, you defend it trying to get more time for the real caravan to reach the destination.
Those who hunt the decoy caravan have no reward but they think they have. They feel a risk in losing it.
It comes a moment when the real caravan reached destination safely.
The decoy caravan could stop but they chose to continue the journey. Attackers keep trying to destroy it, defenders keep moving from place to place with it.
Both sides perceive a risk yet there is no reward? What is the reward? What do you lose?
By the way, if you accept determinism, you have no free will. Everything is predetermined by the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
You thought the debate was the High School diploma in Philosophy ? Wait I'll reopen my books about time and death of Kant, Sarte or Epicure.
But if risk vs reward is all about time as some of you say in this post, then we can tell the same about life and return in our courses of philosophy.
No we couldn't.
We are talking about the specific game design notion of "risk vs reward".
Much love.
90% of the time when Steven uses the term Risk v Reward - he starts talking about PvP.
And he very rarely associates Risk v Reward with activities that don't involve PvP.
Especially since Steven wants all activities to be intrinsically tied to PvP as much as posibble.
Because Ashes is PvX.
Mmmn. No.
Instead it's that Steven seems to not acknowledge arenaline rush from anything that does not include PvP.
When he talks about Reward - he tends to state that nothing really has meaning without the adrenaline rush from PvP, specifically.
I don't play MMORPGs for the adrenaline rush, but my playstyle includes plenty of PvE risk.
My main in EQ2 leveled (mostly Solo) to 80 only wearing starting rags. Her GS came from Weapons and Jewelry. So, combat encounters with mobs her Level, or slightly above, were risky.
I frequently play the Carebear challenge of leveling to max with 0 Kills.
I sometimes play the Perma-Death Carebear challenge of leveling as far as possible: 0 Kills, 0 Deaths
I don't want other players to decide for me - when I must engage in PvP.
I have 0 interest in playing on servers with non-consensual PvP. That's not the same thing as dislking adrenaline rush. Adrenaline rush can be OK sometimes. But, sure, I typically will attempt to minimize adrenaline rush - even when I'm doing things that involve risk. I am a Casual Challenge player.
So when you go to attempt getting it, you know it might be contested and you introspect for yourself if it worth the effort and time of contesting it, and if you are strong enough for that in the time being.
Example, a very rare ore / miniboss spawned in an area and people around are notified, it is a bit delusional to believe you are entitled to that resource more than any other player, so conflict arising is natural. So you think for yourself, do I risk losing some gear durability attempting to get that resource, for all you know maybe no one is in the area at that time and you can grab it for yourself, or on the opposite maybe a small group is there and you have no chance to contest it solo.
Then you either show up and contest it to use it / sell it later, or you go farm less contested resources and build wealth to straight up by that rare resource from the brave people that won the right to collect it. It's a win-win situation because you chose to pay for it to lower the risk, and the other person is rewarded for taking that risk.
Another aspect is for a caravan for example, let's say you're farming a zone and gathered up quite a bit of glint, so you choose to take the safe route of either selling it to the npc for straight up gold, or do you build a caravan for more moneys ? having picked the second option you understand the risk of your caravan being contested and should not be mad if it was destroyed as that was your choice since you had the opportunity to have a zero risk low return option.
TL;DR
Basically as long as players have the choice to partake in that risky activity, that is fine and a very good thing. If the only way to get gold was through caravan, then there is no risk vs reward anymore since you always have to take the big risk
Unfair at best, incorrect at worst.
Though the mention of 'gear durability loss' definitely implies PvP, one also can't simply fixate on it.
In a game with economy and politics intertwined, you can be risking something just by doing it. If your faction and my faction have an agreement about who can log in a specific forest, and you decide to risk sneaking in to gather from that forest when you aren't supposed to, and you get caught by some newbie who would never even THINK to challenge you in PvP, you still cause a political response.
You Risked the political situation being upset for the Reward of getting materials.
Surely even you can agree that politics and change that results from it is at least not the same type of 'PvP', unless you are labeling any and all conflict of any kind as PvP (wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not assuming it).
I mean yeah haha that's the whole premise of the game :kekw: where else do you see risk vs reward ? possible in some aspects of crafting but the more controversial topic around it is pvp
Why is it unfair ? also you made several idealistic assumptions that prolly aren't true.
1- I might be wrong but probably only 1 guild / alliance will be governing at least 1 node if not the node and vassaling those around it, so it's hard for me to imagine 2+ guilds sharing a forest for example
2- Idk if you played other pvp MMOs, but what you said might only hold true for static resources, for example a boss that usually spawns there or a forest like you said, and usually guilds / alliances have exceptions for particularly dynamically spawned rare resources unless the other group pays for it and/or for protection to farm it
3- You assumed only 2 factions would have a political agreement on that forest. What would stop me, a rogue group or solo player or a 3rd faction to contest it ? I wouldn't have any agreement and am free to contest it afaik
4- what if the wood I need is not in that forest ? And I need to go log in a forest I don't have a political agreement to log into ? It would be risky for me to do so still
I wasn't talking about you being unfair, I was addressing Dygz' 'interpretation' of your point.
But I guess that's what I get...
My bad for being unclear.