Dolyem wrote: » Risk is the possibilities that can set you back. As many have said, it all boils down to time lost, but these things tend to also result in death/loss of resources as the risk.
Sathrago wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You guys need to not get bated on people saying risk vrs reward is time based. It is a surface level take and not really a strong one since at this point we may as well say any game is risk vrs reward because you play the game *sarcasm obviously* Risk is the level of conflict * the value of what you have on the line for it, which will give you the potential loss and negative outcome; or the positive outcome and gain. Time is universal and a inevitable investment into anything you are doing, time doesn't mean you are just inherently getting a potential negative element. The actual risk again is what you are carrying on you and the conflict you experience or could experience by continuing on. Now even if we look at the worse example with enhancing gear and say it takes awhile to get the materials and such for it. And you are risking your gear on blowing up and you feel it will take forever to get the gear up again. Even that you can't really say the risk is time unless they do a bad design. More than likely the risk and the reason it takes so long is the level of conflict to obtain these items do to sacristy. Awhile back in one of the pve threads i created a brief design that was more around risk and factoring time into that. But that was with time being part of the content and challenge. Long story short playing the game a lot and investing tons of time does not equal risk. I think you are going too general with your idea of time. There is a difference between playing a game for 1000 hours and playing a game for 1000 hours but 40% of that time was spent setting up to actually play the game or catching back up after failing. Time becomes apart of the risk factors when its a direct penalty to progression (exp loss/gear loss). A good example of this is why most players do not hit 100 in path of exile each league. Once the penalty to exp becomes so high in terms of time required to catch back up each time you die, most people hit a point where that risk of death is just not worth it and stop playing. Naa the issue is anyone here making a time arguing is being general which it literarily = people playing the game. The risk is the death and how that comes about, you talking about recovering from your death is a result of the risk but not risk itself. That could be 40% for some, 60% for some and 20% for others, that depends on how they play the game and how the choose to use their time. IE go out to high risk areas that are super far, or play it safe. The value of what each person obtains could be different as well based on what they are doing to feel its worth the risk. There is a difference in talking about risk and talking about you not liking the result of death in general in the game or travel time. But if that death is tied to high conflict / reward zones which means high risk. Then perhaps its better to avoid going their constantly for some types of people. Without doing to large a post for my point above that conflict zone is going to spread to other area potentially. Regrouping and getting back to your spot if a large war is going on will be a journey start to finish with content and pvp (potentially). Im currently playing poe (lvl 93) and I'm a casual in it cause game is too deep so i just go as far as i can go with my own build and not being copy paste and search online for everything + buy all the gear. PoE has to be the worse example for you to use here since there is no down time in reaching the content. So i don't know how you are comparing this to poe, which makes me think you are not a big fan of risk. The challenge in poe is your build + gear and how you can approach the challenges + surprises and overcome them. The more effective your build is the most easily you will level up. Though since the game is min maxed so hard when you are going from lvl 90-100 its difficult because you need a strong build for that if you are doing it on your own. It doesn't mean you can push on getting better gear and increasing your odds. Even when i play poe i don't feel like I'm losing time or look at time. I'm looking at the level of danger between maps and my xp bar as it isn't tied to time. If i ran t17 or juiced 16 and my build was op leveling would be easy. Hence where i bring it back and again say the view things take time is a general point on all games. Something taking time has nothing to do with risk, which the risk is the conflict. You are simply talking about the result of losing the conflict. Also people in conflict need the breathing room, you shouldnt be dying and then showing up in 1 min to attack them again. Which if that was the case is on the side of not wanting risk since you know yuo have nothing to lose and want to run it down every life. You are actively taking the risk out of the game when you play it safe like you described. Like I tried to explain, playing the game to 100 is different from playing the game to 100 and trying to craft your own build and seeing if you can do bosses or juiced maps. I could just sit there farming t16s with my build, but there's no risk there and its much slower. A risk is when i decide to go 10 rounds in ultimatum or do a pinnacle boss not sure if my dps or skill can overcome the mechanics. Death at 96 is literally 2 hours of your life expunged from the character. So when you put yourself in situations to gain more reward or exp at the risk of death, you are directly putting forth the chance that you are losing time invested in the character. In many cases its not even "more than normal" its just "normal" exp or reward that you are fighting for. This will absolutely be the case in ashes by the way. Funny enough Time is probably the most prominent of risks involved in ashes compared to most other mmos. exp loss on death is the purest form of it.
Mag7spy wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You guys need to not get bated on people saying risk vrs reward is time based. It is a surface level take and not really a strong one since at this point we may as well say any game is risk vrs reward because you play the game *sarcasm obviously* Risk is the level of conflict * the value of what you have on the line for it, which will give you the potential loss and negative outcome; or the positive outcome and gain. Time is universal and a inevitable investment into anything you are doing, time doesn't mean you are just inherently getting a potential negative element. The actual risk again is what you are carrying on you and the conflict you experience or could experience by continuing on. Now even if we look at the worse example with enhancing gear and say it takes awhile to get the materials and such for it. And you are risking your gear on blowing up and you feel it will take forever to get the gear up again. Even that you can't really say the risk is time unless they do a bad design. More than likely the risk and the reason it takes so long is the level of conflict to obtain these items do to sacristy. Awhile back in one of the pve threads i created a brief design that was more around risk and factoring time into that. But that was with time being part of the content and challenge. Long story short playing the game a lot and investing tons of time does not equal risk. I think you are going too general with your idea of time. There is a difference between playing a game for 1000 hours and playing a game for 1000 hours but 40% of that time was spent setting up to actually play the game or catching back up after failing. Time becomes apart of the risk factors when its a direct penalty to progression (exp loss/gear loss). A good example of this is why most players do not hit 100 in path of exile each league. Once the penalty to exp becomes so high in terms of time required to catch back up each time you die, most people hit a point where that risk of death is just not worth it and stop playing. Naa the issue is anyone here making a time arguing is being general which it literarily = people playing the game. The risk is the death and how that comes about, you talking about recovering from your death is a result of the risk but not risk itself. That could be 40% for some, 60% for some and 20% for others, that depends on how they play the game and how the choose to use their time. IE go out to high risk areas that are super far, or play it safe. The value of what each person obtains could be different as well based on what they are doing to feel its worth the risk. There is a difference in talking about risk and talking about you not liking the result of death in general in the game or travel time. But if that death is tied to high conflict / reward zones which means high risk. Then perhaps its better to avoid going their constantly for some types of people. Without doing to large a post for my point above that conflict zone is going to spread to other area potentially. Regrouping and getting back to your spot if a large war is going on will be a journey start to finish with content and pvp (potentially). Im currently playing poe (lvl 93) and I'm a casual in it cause game is too deep so i just go as far as i can go with my own build and not being copy paste and search online for everything + buy all the gear. PoE has to be the worse example for you to use here since there is no down time in reaching the content. So i don't know how you are comparing this to poe, which makes me think you are not a big fan of risk. The challenge in poe is your build + gear and how you can approach the challenges + surprises and overcome them. The more effective your build is the most easily you will level up. Though since the game is min maxed so hard when you are going from lvl 90-100 its difficult because you need a strong build for that if you are doing it on your own. It doesn't mean you can push on getting better gear and increasing your odds. Even when i play poe i don't feel like I'm losing time or look at time. I'm looking at the level of danger between maps and my xp bar as it isn't tied to time. If i ran t17 or juiced 16 and my build was op leveling would be easy. Hence where i bring it back and again say the view things take time is a general point on all games. Something taking time has nothing to do with risk, which the risk is the conflict. You are simply talking about the result of losing the conflict. Also people in conflict need the breathing room, you shouldnt be dying and then showing up in 1 min to attack them again. Which if that was the case is on the side of not wanting risk since you know yuo have nothing to lose and want to run it down every life.
Sathrago wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You guys need to not get bated on people saying risk vrs reward is time based. It is a surface level take and not really a strong one since at this point we may as well say any game is risk vrs reward because you play the game *sarcasm obviously* Risk is the level of conflict * the value of what you have on the line for it, which will give you the potential loss and negative outcome; or the positive outcome and gain. Time is universal and a inevitable investment into anything you are doing, time doesn't mean you are just inherently getting a potential negative element. The actual risk again is what you are carrying on you and the conflict you experience or could experience by continuing on. Now even if we look at the worse example with enhancing gear and say it takes awhile to get the materials and such for it. And you are risking your gear on blowing up and you feel it will take forever to get the gear up again. Even that you can't really say the risk is time unless they do a bad design. More than likely the risk and the reason it takes so long is the level of conflict to obtain these items do to sacristy. Awhile back in one of the pve threads i created a brief design that was more around risk and factoring time into that. But that was with time being part of the content and challenge. Long story short playing the game a lot and investing tons of time does not equal risk. I think you are going too general with your idea of time. There is a difference between playing a game for 1000 hours and playing a game for 1000 hours but 40% of that time was spent setting up to actually play the game or catching back up after failing. Time becomes apart of the risk factors when its a direct penalty to progression (exp loss/gear loss). A good example of this is why most players do not hit 100 in path of exile each league. Once the penalty to exp becomes so high in terms of time required to catch back up each time you die, most people hit a point where that risk of death is just not worth it and stop playing.
Mag7spy wrote: » You guys need to not get bated on people saying risk vrs reward is time based. It is a surface level take and not really a strong one since at this point we may as well say any game is risk vrs reward because you play the game *sarcasm obviously* Risk is the level of conflict * the value of what you have on the line for it, which will give you the potential loss and negative outcome; or the positive outcome and gain. Time is universal and a inevitable investment into anything you are doing, time doesn't mean you are just inherently getting a potential negative element. The actual risk again is what you are carrying on you and the conflict you experience or could experience by continuing on. Now even if we look at the worse example with enhancing gear and say it takes awhile to get the materials and such for it. And you are risking your gear on blowing up and you feel it will take forever to get the gear up again. Even that you can't really say the risk is time unless they do a bad design. More than likely the risk and the reason it takes so long is the level of conflict to obtain these items do to sacristy. Awhile back in one of the pve threads i created a brief design that was more around risk and factoring time into that. But that was with time being part of the content and challenge. Long story short playing the game a lot and investing tons of time does not equal risk.
Mag7spy wrote: » Which then you be saying they shouldnt have xp loss in the game. Though this is going to be minimal as i expect xp loss to only be around corruption which will be very minimal in the game.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Which then you be saying they shouldnt have xp loss in the game. Though this is going to be minimal as i expect xp loss to only be around corruption which will be very minimal in the game. So are you yourself arguing for minimal XP loss here? Or do you believe that pve will be so damn easy that people will never die to mobs?
Time spent is absoutely not a risk... the game is made for fun, if you are spending time you are consuming fun. Time being a risk is nonsense, sorry.
Ace1234 wrote: » When its all said and done you care about losing resources and other tangible things because of the time it took you to acquire them.
Ace1234 wrote: » And yes the game is supposed to be fun, but the risk of a potential time sink can add to the fun for some players, but with that comes.....
Ace1234 wrote: » a potential time sink where you may not be doing what you want to be doing at a given moment due to the consequences reaped. Its the dichotomy of the good and the bad that makes the good better. It may be frustrating to work off xp dept or walk to the nearest harbor cuz you ship got blown up (which is a time sink taking you from your preferred gameplay), but that's the point, its supposed to be frustrating for the types of players that enjoy the extra risk factor because it makes it more rewarding when you put someone else in that position instead of yourself, and it makes the situation more tense when you think you might end up as the loser.
Resources is not the only thing that could be lost, there are other types of losses: losing access to certain areas losing the ability of doing certain things losing the character itself, even if it's for a day only having your access to certain types of content inacessible Losing the time you spent to acquire something is not important, only miners think that way. If you played and joined a party, and had your gaming session and acquired one item then you played the game. It is consumed, what matters is consuming the game. Time is only "lost" if the person lives on a day by day grind, which is horrible, everyone gets burned by doing that someday. The grind itself is the loss, having an item as prize in the end or not. People have to stop being so oriented to farming, that's why I quit WoW, I realized it is a game built for farming only, even the PvP is based on the gear you farmed.
While some gamers find time sinks "exhilarating", others find time sinks disgusting. Time sinks can be demotivating, particularly if they feel arbitrary or punitive and bring no meaningful gameplay at all. "You will get this loot if you grind this one thousand times, repeat repeat repeat."
Azherae wrote: » Dimitraeos wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. I actually fundamentally agree I think. Although I think the question about how fun taking that risk/time investment in the Risk v Reward equation would simply be up to the player at that point if its worth it. The devs can still roughly decide the reward structure for any piece of content or activity based on *Time* input in the Risk v Reward equation.For example: Player A loves fishing. Fishing in a river near town takes a low to moderate amount of time/resource investment and hence earns him a low to moderate reward (low quality or common fish, low chance of catching rares etc and hence less reward). The player KNOWS he can take a bigger risk elsewhere (invest in a boat, go out into the ocean and potentially get killed or lose income etc) but simply enjoys having his little loop near town and chill out. Player B kind of hates fishing and finds it boring but knows there are hardcore fishers out there making a KILLING fishing in risky areas or in the ocean. This player chooses to look for something else to do because despite the Risk v Reward being good for Ocean fishing, he just wouldnt find it fun. My point is Intrepid can, and has to, quantify these things otherwise there will be a depressing amount of dead content throughout the world. I think I should clarify that I don't agree with the "Risk vs Reward" tenet in the first place. I can agree with 'Progression vs Investment', but even considering the definition I mentioned I don't think MMOs, not even PvP MMOs, actually need the simple concept of 'Risk', particularly because it can't be defined. What I think they need is choice, challenge, dynamism, etc, and whenever true choice is involved it's possible to make the wrong one. But making the wrong choice isn't usually that big a deal, you learn it was wrong, you change your choice, then progress. Sometimes due to the dynamic part of the game you lose a specific chance to make that choice for a while, and have to make different ones. But as demonstrated by the two posters above, 'Risk' and 'Reward' outside of game economy is too subjective. One loves logistics more than the other (or at least likes having it in the game). We have the same sort of disagreement on things like PvE Bosses, 'daily Quests', 'login rewards', 'fast travel', 'Caravans', 'Corruption', 'gear loss via enchanting' all down the line. The devs just need to make their stand on whatever, and players decide if they are okay with that line. I recently heard 'no gear durability loss during Node Wars', so I'm waiting to find out if the 'Risk' of those was raised in some other area, the 'Reward' was lessened, or if it was just removed because 'it would be a pain point'. Who knows.
Dimitraeos wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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. I actually fundamentally agree I think. Although I think the question about how fun taking that risk/time investment in the Risk v Reward equation would simply be up to the player at that point if its worth it. The devs can still roughly decide the reward structure for any piece of content or activity based on *Time* input in the Risk v Reward equation.For example: Player A loves fishing. Fishing in a river near town takes a low to moderate amount of time/resource investment and hence earns him a low to moderate reward (low quality or common fish, low chance of catching rares etc and hence less reward). The player KNOWS he can take a bigger risk elsewhere (invest in a boat, go out into the ocean and potentially get killed or lose income etc) but simply enjoys having his little loop near town and chill out. Player B kind of hates fishing and finds it boring but knows there are hardcore fishers out there making a KILLING fishing in risky areas or in the ocean. This player chooses to look for something else to do because despite the Risk v Reward being good for Ocean fishing, he just wouldnt find it fun. My point is Intrepid can, and has to, quantify these things otherwise there will be a depressing amount of dead content throughout the world.
Azherae wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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?
Dygz wrote: » For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards. Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.
Mag7spy wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You guys need to not get bated on people saying risk vrs reward is time based. It is a surface level take and not really a strong one since at this point we may as well say any game is risk vrs reward because you play the game *sarcasm obviously* Risk is the level of conflict * the value of what you have on the line for it, which will give you the potential loss and negative outcome; or the positive outcome and gain. Time is universal and a inevitable investment into anything you are doing, time doesn't mean you are just inherently getting a potential negative element. The actual risk again is what you are carrying on you and the conflict you experience or could experience by continuing on. Now even if we look at the worse example with enhancing gear and say it takes awhile to get the materials and such for it. And you are risking your gear on blowing up and you feel it will take forever to get the gear up again. Even that you can't really say the risk is time unless they do a bad design. More than likely the risk and the reason it takes so long is the level of conflict to obtain these items do to sacristy. Awhile back in one of the pve threads i created a brief design that was more around risk and factoring time into that. But that was with time being part of the content and challenge. Long story short playing the game a lot and investing tons of time does not equal risk. I think you are going too general with your idea of time. There is a difference between playing a game for 1000 hours and playing a game for 1000 hours but 40% of that time was spent setting up to actually play the game or catching back up after failing. Time becomes apart of the risk factors when its a direct penalty to progression (exp loss/gear loss). A good example of this is why most players do not hit 100 in path of exile each league. Once the penalty to exp becomes so high in terms of time required to catch back up each time you die, most people hit a point where that risk of death is just not worth it and stop playing. Naa the issue is anyone here making a time arguing is being general which it literarily = people playing the game. The risk is the death and how that comes about, you talking about recovering from your death is a result of the risk but not risk itself.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You guys need to not get bated on people saying risk vrs reward is time based. It is a surface level take and not really a strong one since at this point we may as well say any game is risk vrs reward because you play the game *sarcasm obviously* Risk is the level of conflict * the value of what you have on the line for it, which will give you the potential loss and negative outcome; or the positive outcome and gain. Time is universal and a inevitable investment into anything you are doing, time doesn't mean you are just inherently getting a potential negative element. The actual risk again is what you are carrying on you and the conflict you experience or could experience by continuing on. Now even if we look at the worse example with enhancing gear and say it takes awhile to get the materials and such for it. And you are risking your gear on blowing up and you feel it will take forever to get the gear up again. Even that you can't really say the risk is time unless they do a bad design. More than likely the risk and the reason it takes so long is the level of conflict to obtain these items do to sacristy. Awhile back in one of the pve threads i created a brief design that was more around risk and factoring time into that. But that was with time being part of the content and challenge. Long story short playing the game a lot and investing tons of time does not equal risk. I think you are going too general with your idea of time. There is a difference between playing a game for 1000 hours and playing a game for 1000 hours but 40% of that time was spent setting up to actually play the game or catching back up after failing. Time becomes apart of the risk factors when its a direct penalty to progression (exp loss/gear loss). A good example of this is why most players do not hit 100 in path of exile each league. Once the penalty to exp becomes so high in terms of time required to catch back up each time you die, most people hit a point where that risk of death is just not worth it and stop playing. Naa the issue is anyone here making a time arguing is being general which it literarily = people playing the game. The risk is the death and how that comes about, you talking about recovering from your death is a result of the risk but not risk itself. You are objectively wrong here. Imagine you are playing a version of Ashes that is only slightly different to what we know, but this version of Ashes sees Steven working on your assumption that the risk is death, and not recovery from that death. So, you are in PvP with me, you kill me, and I just instantly respawn in that same spot. I died, so according to your definition of risk, I paid the price. Now, however, I am free to just continue to attack you. No item drops, no experience debt, nothing like that as these things are all just things that take time to regain. Even respawn locations aren't a thing as they exist to provide a time element for players to get back to where they were, if we are assuming time isn't the risk factor in MMORPG's, then there can be no notion of spending time getting back to where you were. If death is the risk, then once you have died, there is nothing more to do other than respawn in the same location. There can't even be a timer or countdown, as that is simply time. Talk to any developer of any genre of game other than pay to win and ask them to describe risk in computer games as easily as they can. Every single experienced game developer will say the same thing - the only risk is time. This is just an objective truth.
Otr wrote: » That death can decide something, like obtaining a unique item.
Noaani wrote: » Otr wrote: » 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.
Noaani wrote: » Even if there was a situation where you could lose out on that item, all you are risking is time. There is the time invested, and the time until that item is made available again. If you run for mayor and miss out, you lose the time you spent running for mayor. If tavern games have a gambling component associated with them, you risk the coin you bet and lose - which can then be regained via spending time earning coin. If you fail a jumping puzzle, you lose the time you had invested in to said puzzle up to that point, as well as the time needed to go from the respawn location to the start of the puzzle, and the time needed to cover cost or repairs, and to regain experience debt from dying. Time as a penalty can take many forms, but in an MMORPG, all penalties are simply a matter of time. Again, this is just an objective fact.
