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

Noaani

Myosotys wrote: »

You thought the debate was the High School diploma in Philosophy ?

Not at all, if anything it is basic economics.

Myosotys

Noaani wrote: »

Myosotys wrote: »

You thought the debate was the High School diploma in Philosophy ?

Not at all, if anything it is basic economics.

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.

Noaani

Myosotys wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Myosotys wrote: »

You thought the debate was the High School diploma in Philosophy ?

Not at all, if anything it is basic economics.

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".

Sunboy

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.

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

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.

Otr wrote: »

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.

Aiyara

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

Dygz

Aika wrote: »

For me Risk vs Reward is [PvP]...

TL;DR

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Aika wrote: »

For me Risk vs Reward is [PvP]...

TL;DR

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).

Aiyara

Dygz wrote: »

Aika wrote: »

For me Risk vs Reward is [PvP]...

TL;DR

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

Azherae wrote: »

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).

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

Azherae

Aika wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Aika wrote: »

For me Risk vs Reward is [PvP]...

TL;DR

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

Azherae wrote: »

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).

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.

Dygz

I mean... Aika agreed with my interpretation, so... I don't understand what was unfair.

In Ashes, Economy and Politics are included under PvP.
To the extent that Inventory Bags are designed to have players contemplating "Economic Warfare" whenever they plan to Harvest.
PvP is not necessarily always PvP combat. We agree.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

I mean... Aika agreed with my interpretation, so... I don't understand what was unfair.

Like I said, my bad.

Just a bad habit I need to get over.

Ace1234

It depends on what you guys mean by "pvp is the main risk" do you mean that you are risking being forced to play pvp, or do you mean that pvp is just the catalyst that leads to other forms of risk?

If it's that "forced pvp gameplay" is the main risk in Ashes, I disagree, if its that "pvp is the main catalyst for other forms of risk" then I agree to an extent.

In the context of a systemic emergent gameplay loop "the potential of being forced to play pvp even if you don't feel like it" at times is a good thing, as that again falls under the idea that there is a potential consequence of a time-sink resulting in you temporarily not playing how you want to play, making that gameplay more engaging for thrill seeking players. You are going to be on your toes as an explorer if you are required to look out for pirates who can interrupt your desire to explore.

Its defintely not for everyone but for some it heightens the exploration experience. I don't consider that "forced pvp gameplay" in that circumstance, I just consider that risk. So in that context potential unwanted pvp is a risk, yes, but its not "forced pvp" from the perception of that type of player who is choosing to engage with that system. In other words, its not really "forced pvp", if that potential forced pvp is a part of the appeal when trying to do other activities.

Its just that risk kind of steps on the toes of agency in that case. If you want full agency of having no pvp gameplay then you are going to have to sacrifice some risk in the design, because then you would just be playing how you want at all times with not as much risk (at that point there would be no time-sink of playing a different way as a potential penalty, unless it manifest itself in another form by just time-sinking you in ways other than pvp which would just be the same kind if design anyway) If you could just explore 24/7 in a systemic/emergent atmosphere, then there is no risk of potentially not being able to explore, and (for the types of players that enjoy competition) no way of gaining a competitive advantage within that exploration because no potential setback exists.

But, pvp doesn't always have to serve as that distraction. If you are already pvping, you can be forced to travel if you die and lose resources as well. The distraction in that case is the time-sink of having to travel back to that location to continue playing pvp if thats what you desire to do in the moment, and the time-sink of having to regather or recraft goods to be competitive in your desired pvp gameplay again. So again, "forced to pvp" is not the "go-to" whenever risk is a thing.

Regarding pvp as a catalyst for other forms of risk:

Yes, I can agree with this, but this doesn't have to hinder your gameplay and risk can exist through pvp without forcing you to actually play pvp.

If you are a crafter providing goods for other players, a lot of the fun is through the crafting gameplay loop and the satisfaction of watching others succeed and compete using your crafted goods. In that case, you would want pvp to happen occasionaly in order to observe that performance using your goods. The risk at that point would be the bad performance of your crafted gear which would represent your potential failure as a crafter, and the risk of having to do non-crafting things to make up for that failure such as getting new materials, learning more about the game to craft better, etc.

So in that case "forced pvp gameplay" is good and necessary for that play-loop and not a "risk", but pvp would be a catalyst for the actual crafting risk that would affect crafting gameplay and competitive performance.

Yes some players want the potential for a completely purist gameplay experience (like pve only), but you shouldn't expect that in a systemic/emergent gameplay loop and the fact that emergent systems adds risk has nothing to do with saying "risk is all about just forcing this type of gameplay". There are some conundrums to an extent and the game is not for everyone.

Yes not all players like the feeling of having that extra "risk" in the design due to added stress, but that is one key benefit to maximizing risk and thus sacrifices are made for certain gameplay loops in order to provide that specific experience.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

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.

He has to be sure people don't have illusions, like hoping to get PvE servers and then game content to compete with other PvE mmos.
So let him talk and remind about them.

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

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.

There will be corruption which will protect to some degree.
But to find out if the other player wants to PvP or not, one must attack and flag up. And players will lose just a little bit of resources.
Adrenaline will not be as high as it could be in a full PvP game.
Might end up closer to a PvE experience while the PvP-ers are busy with the caravans, sieges, deep ocean, guild wars...

Otr

Ace1234 wrote: »

If you are a crafter providing goods for other players, a lot of the fun is through the crafting gameplay loop and the satisfaction of watching others succeed and compete using your crafted goods.

Imagine being killed with your own weapon

Aszkalon

Otr wrote: »

People who like to be mayors... every month will have nightmares about voting results.

But not the Ones who have "many Friends" in the same Node, right ? I think this is where "Discord-Mayors" (LOL) really come into play and start to shine.

But they won't be able to avoid a certain Logic.

In the End it doesn't matter if you can get elected again and again and again and again and all over again every single time.

When People keep being dissatisfied with You for whatever the Reason - and start liking you less and less,

up to the Point where they might start hating You,

they will either leave the Node if the whole Area around it is not an Area they love very much and want to stay at,
OR they might even "help" an Enemy Node to bring You down. They could attempt to sabotage You and the whole Node in even a Node Siege.

I think we have nice Potential for sweet, sweet Drama here - in the future.

Aiyara

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Oooh I see, I completely misunderstood you, apologies

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

He has to be sure people don't have illusions, like hoping to get PvE servers and then game content to compete with other PvE mmos.
So let him talk and remind about them.

That is WHY Steven talks about Risk v Reward.
This topic is about how Risk v Reward is defined.
In Ashes, Steven defines Risk v Reward as "There needs to be Risk associated with opportunity."
"Not everyone is as excited about PvP, but , as I've always said, 'Ashes of Creation is not meant to be the game for everyone.' We want to encourage intelligent calculations of Risk v Reward. These are elements where I feel players feel really accomplished when they know they overcame Risk (PvP) for their trophy. That not everybody makes it, but I did."
---Steven, Open Seas reveal

Otr wrote: »

There will be corruption which will protect to some degree.

The Open Seas adds too much non-consensual PvP to Ashes for my playstyle.
Great for people with Steven's and Margaret's playstyle.
I'm not sure why you mention that here, though.
"Protection" is irrelevant to this topic.

Otr wrote: »

But to find out if the other player wants to PvP or not, one must attack and flag up. And players will lose just a little bit of resources.

Corruption is a mechanic in play in some areas of the map. Yes.
That is irrelevant to this topic.

Otr wrote: »

Adrenaline will not be as high as it could be in a full PvP game.
Might end up closer to a PvE experience while the PvP-ers are busy with the caravans, sieges, deep ocean, guild wars...

Also irrelevant to this topic.

Aszkalon

Otr wrote: »

Adrenaline will not be as high as it could be in a full PvP game.

It is a matter of Principle at this point, i think.

In Reallife we are also not entitled to this Privilege of being unassailable. And i think the People who have the biggest Problem with being able to get attacked everywhere in the Open World of Verra,

are People who think they will be more or less "safe" when that is not the Case. They think (hope?want?) that it will be like in the later World of Warcraft.

Where a single Person can more or less safely butcher whole LANDSCAPES full of Enemies - especially when You are familiar with where which kind of Enemies reside and how many of those.

In WoW Vanilla - when You were not careful and pulled just a single Mob more than usual -> you were in ACTUAL Danger of your Character being killed.

Korthia from the Shadowlands ? Is a JOKE.

Pretty much every single Area in Shadowlands ? Including Zereth Mortis ? Is a JOKE !!!

This is the Case for pretty much all Area's in quite many Expansions EVEN BEFORE Shadowlands. Usually the only Danger is when one is unexpectedly ambushed by a powerful Rare Mob.

But Who are we ? To demand that other Players don't have to be a possible Scource of Danger nearby us ?

Are we "that" privileged ?? Last time i checked, our only Privilege in a Game with countless possible Enemies IS DEATH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only way we could stack the Danger even higher than being able to get PvP'ed everywhere, is to enable Friendly Fire like in Planetside Two.

Aiyara

Dygz wrote: »

The Open Seas adds too much non-consensual PvP to Ashes for my playstyle.
Great for people with Steven's and Margaret's playstyle.
I'm not sure why you mention that here, though.
"Protection" is irrelevant to this topic.

I mean one would argue it's also consensual since you have the choice not to engage with that content. Like instead of moving your caravan through the sea to save 30mn travel time, you know you'll be in an unrestricted pvp area and you're risking it

Also there's always the option to hire people to accompany you mitigating the risk but lowering the reward also since you pay for their service

Child Item