How do you define "Risk vs. Reward"?

Azherae

Otr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Time spent vs reward.

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

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

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

Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.
Burn out is a risk which you get by spending time.

Some players may need illusions to get fun. Those illusions can be lost or destroyed. Spending more time may not build them back, depending on illusion type.

Information and knowledge plays a role too.
Some people have more fun not knowing things and discovering things gradually. As they gain more and more knowledge, they run out of things to discover. Risk is getting information you don't want to get.

Then come the streamers who have other objectives than having fun in the game and will not make the game more enjoyable for most of us. They are a risk.

No, fun is not a reward.

It specifically needs to be a progressive increase in one's ability to have fun, or an advantage gained over others (which specifically converts to other people not being able to lessen your fun), to be viewed as a 'Reward'.

Also, note that the reason I even bothered to bring up that definition is because I personally don't think 'Risk vs Reward' as Steven uses it relative to Ashes has any meaning.

It's meant to be a counterpoint. When Steven says 'there is a Risk when you go out to do X', it's only true if there's some progression setback that's possible, and that progression setback often needs to be relative to the 'X'.

Consider games where you can't lose or degrade gear, but there's still PvP. A player who wants PvP, who has their PvP gear, can go out and PvP without ever having a 'Risk'. The stronger they get, the more they can do this, in some games.

Similarly for certain PvE. In some games you can PvE 'forever' against challenging things because you won't run out of ammo, or food, or resurrection items if you aren't that good, or the game has systems to prevent extreme length encounters.

In those games, no progression setback is possible.

This is also why 'griefing' is so important to stop. If you make effort to gain the ability have more fun, and others can use minimal effort to disrupt your fun that you gained, then most people feel 'unrewarded'.

"Why did I spend 3 hours farming these pop items when some random can show up and steal the boss or prevent me from being able to fight it?"

Otr

Noaani wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.

Again, if we are talking about risk vs reward as a game design concept, this is actually not true.

The point of the game is to be entertained, or to have fun. This part is very true.

However, that does not mean fun is the reward in regards to risk vs reward from a game design perspective.

If that were the case, there would be no need for gear, or for leveling, or for any form of progression, or for in game currency. All of these things are the reward side of risk vs reward, "fun" is not. Fun is something that should be inherent to the game as a whole (not necessarily every single part of it, but the vast majority of it).

I disagree with the part marked with red.
Causality of Fun is not a bijective function.
If developers can identify a source of fun does not mean the other sources are redundant.
As long as they do not oppose each other, all should be considered.

Noaani wrote: »

Rather, the specific game design concept of "risk vs reward" is limited to the idea of "here is a piece of content, what risk do players have when participating in this one specific piece of content, and as a result what is an appropriate reward for this one piece of content".

That is it. That is the limit in scope of what risk vs reward is.

If we restrict to almost mathematical mechanics, Information plays a big role too, because risk (chance) depends on what the player knows or can know and can predict. Knowing where players or NPCs are and what they are doing can decrease the risk a lot.
That knowledge may come from using external tools to gather, process and store information.
Some players may find the game-play more rewarding when using such tools. They say "hey for me is more fun playing like that, please put it into the game as an optional feature". Then rewards should depend if players use such risk reducing means or not.

Otr

Azherae wrote: »

In those games, no progression setback is possible.

This is also why 'griefing' is so important to stop. If you make effort to gain the ability have more fun, and others can use minimal effort to disrupt your fun that you gained, then most people feel 'unrewarded'.

"Why did I spend 3 hours farming these pop items when some random can show up and steal the boss or prevent me from being able to fight it?"

If somebody else takes the loot you call it griefing?

Edit: I agree that progression is important for many players and setbacks can be painful. I am not sure what to do with this information. I wouldn't want a PvE game with less risk of having setbacks.

Azherae

Otr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

In those games, no progression setback is possible.

This is also why 'griefing' is so important to stop. If you make effort to gain the ability have more fun, and others can use minimal effort to disrupt your fun that you gained, then most people feel 'unrewarded'.

"Why did I spend 3 hours farming these pop items when some random can show up and steal the boss or prevent me from being able to fight it?"

If somebody else takes the loot you call it griefing?

Edit: I agree that progression is important for many players and setbacks can be painful. I am not sure what to do with this information. I wouldn't want a PvE game with less risk of having setbacks.

No, I put 'griefing' in quotes.

You might recognize that often, the difference in what people consider 'griefing' is related to what type of fun they think the game is supposed to be about.

Otr

Azherae wrote: »

No, I put 'griefing' in quotes.

You might recognize that often, the difference in what people consider 'griefing' is related to what type of fun they think the game is supposed to be about.

Ah, yes. I use the quotes the same way.

Azherae wrote: »

It's meant to be a counterpoint. When Steven says 'there is a Risk when you go out to do X', it's only true if there's some progression setback that's possible, and that progression setback often needs to be relative to the 'X'.

I agree that Steven or anyone should normally understand the possibility of a setback.
Yet he also mentioned the emotional response
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/464346/#Comment_464346
Not everyone reacts the same way.
The final goal are the emotional responses.
Those are definitely stronger than in games without setbacks.

Money, resources... these are means to trigger them. But not for everybody.
Some people may care more about destroying nodes or castles than collecting virtual items.
Failing to destroy is a risk.

Azherae

Otr wrote: »

Money, resources... these are means to trigger them. But not for everybody.
Some people may care more about destroying nodes or castles than collecting virtual items.
Failing to destroy is a risk.

If there was some investment that didn't match the investment on the other side, maybe.

I think it would be a bad idea to design the game in a way where we ignore economic factors and just claim that someone who 'fails to kill/disrupt/destroy a random target' is at risk.

But I have a huge bias toward economic systems, so I'd automatically prioritize that. If Ashes changes to remove or lessen the impact of economic systems, then it shouldn't matter and 'Risk vs Reward' can be defined closer to the MOBA version, or whatever Steven wants.

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

You are obsessed about the PvP.

I abhor non-consensual PvP in MMORPGs. Yes.

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

I also want you to play the game because I think players like you would make the game community better.
But you risk losing your good reputation or gaining a different one.

I don't really know what that means since, after launch, I won't be pursuing any Leveling progression or participating in Sieges, Caravans, or Wars. I don't know how that makes the game community better, but...

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

No, fun is not a reward.

It specifically needs to be a progressive increase in one's ability to have fun, or an advantage gained over others (which specifically converts to other people not being able to lessen your fun), to be viewed as a 'Reward'.

I disagree.
I think primarily with the word "increase".
Having an advantage gained over others definitely is not included in my concept of fun. Especially not in an RPG.
In an RPG, the primary fun is RPing with other players and seeing how they play their classes. Hopefully with a narrative from the devs that continues to be interesting, dynamic and... engaging.

Azherae wrote: »

Also, note that the reason I even bothered to bring up that definition is because I personally don't think 'Risk vs Reward' as Steven uses it relative to Ashes has any meaning.

It's meant to be a counterpoint. When Steven says 'there is a Risk when you go out to do X', it's only true if there's some progression setback that's possible, and that progression setback often needs to be relative to the 'X'.

Steven tends to mean specifically if there are other players who can prevent you from achieving the Reward and you can defeat other players in combat and achieve the Reward(s) when other players cannot.

Azherae wrote: »

Consider games where you can't lose or degrade gear, but there's still PvP. A player who wants PvP, who has their PvP gear, can go out and PvP without ever having a 'Risk'. The stronger they get, the more they can do this, in some games.

I think that would still fit within Steven's concept of Risk v Reward.
PvP with gear loss and degradation for PKers is mostly to minimize rampant griefing.
Even without PvP, there would be risk from PvE death penalties.
For Steven, Risk = PvP. And that is what prevents everyone from being able to eventually achieve all the trophies from PvE gameplay.

Azherae wrote: »

This is also why 'griefing' is so important to stop. If you make effort to gain the ability have more fun, and others can use minimal effort to disrupt your fun that you gained, then most people feel 'unrewarded'.

"Why did I spend 3 hours farming these pop items when some random can show up and steal the boss or prevent me from being able to fight it?"

Yeah. I mean. I do see the quotes around "Griefing" because it really does depend on what people perceive Grefing to be. The only Griefing I experience in MMORPGs is non-consensual PvP.
And that is definitely more a factor stolen time - where other players can steal game session time from me - doesn't really even matter to me who wins the battle or what "Rewards" might be involved. I'm going to be pissed about how much time was wasted by some other player forcing me to engage in an activity I'm not in the mood to participate in. IE forcing me into an activity that is not fun for me at that moment.
I don't really share the concept of "stealing a Boss". And, while I would spend 3 hours exploring to uncover the fog of war, I would probably not play a game where other players could literally prevent me from fighting the boss or we would be completely incapable of sharing some of the loot if we both/all participated in killing the Boss.
Because the fundamental core of RPGs should be cooperation with other players, rather than competition with other players.

All that being said...
Where non-consensual PvP only disrupts my game session goals for 10-15 minutes out of an 8 hour play session, I'm OK with it. When other players are capable of "stealing" more than 15 minutes of gameplay time, I'm going to be pissed off.
And... I'm good to go for about an hour of consensual PvP in an 8 hour play session.

Steven's concept of Griefing, with PKers repeating PKs in what he refers to as harassment, is significantly more tolerant than mine because Steven is a PvPer who loves competition, while I am not.
Of course, that's OK because he's making Ashes specifically for players with his playstyle.
Still, when he's talking about Risk - he's not really talking about the kinds of risk that could be found on a PvE-Only server.

Sathrago

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

I also want you to play the game because I think players like you would make the game community better.
But you risk losing your good reputation or gaining a different one.

I don't really know what that means since, after launch, I won't be pursuing any Leveling progression or participating in Sieges, Caravans, or Wars. I don't know how that makes the game community better, but...

What will do you? professions? Because those will probably require you to level your adventure class to progress.

Dygz

The Ultimate Carebear Challenge:
Explore as much of the map as possible while remaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.
I won't be doing anything to actively progress Professions.
0 Kills

My response to Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward is to ignore as much of Risk v Reward as possible.
That way, other players cannot significantly interfere with my game session goals.

Noaani

Otr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.

Again, if we are talking about risk vs reward as a game design concept, this is actually not true.

The point of the game is to be entertained, or to have fun. This part is very true.

However, that does not mean fun is the reward in regards to risk vs reward from a game design perspective.

If that were the case, there would be no need for gear, or for leveling, or for any form of progression, or for in game currency. All of these things are the reward side of risk vs reward, "fun" is not. Fun is something that should be inherent to the game as a whole (not necessarily every single part of it, but the vast majority of it).

I disagree with the part marked with red.
Causality of Fun is not a bijective function.
If developers can identify a source of fun does not mean the other sources are redundant.
As long as they do not oppose each other, all should be considered.

The point I was making is that making the game fun is independent of risk vs reward. The two things can be connected (you can derive fun from both the risk and the reward), but risk vs reward is not inherently supposed to be where fun is derived from. Essentially, they are separate things that have connections, but still need to be considered independently.

Noaani wrote: »

Rather, the specific game design concept of "risk vs reward" is limited to the idea of "here is a piece of content, what risk do players have when participating in this one specific piece of content, and as a result what is an appropriate reward for this one piece of content".

That is it. That is the limit in scope of what risk vs reward is.

If we restrict to almost mathematical mechanics, Information plays a big role too, because risk (chance) depends on what the player knows or can know and can predict. Knowing where players or NPCs are and what they are doing can decrease the risk a lot.
That knowledge may come from using external tools to gather, process and store information.
Some players may find the game-play more rewarding when using such tools. They say "hey for me is more fun playing like that, please put it into the game as an optional feature". Then rewards should depend if players use such risk reducing means or not.

There will always be unknowns in the risk side of risk vs reward, and so as a mathematical problem to solve, there is no perfect answer in regards to how much of a reward you need to apply for any given piece of content.

As an example, if there is a given mob thst has a specific reward that is just kind of mid, you may find that very few people contest it and thus the risk isn't that high. However, make that reward a little better and suddenly more people contest it, meaning your increase in reward has also provided an increase in risk. The increase in risk here may or may not be proportional to the increased reward.

This is where discussion in regards to risk vs reward can be interesting - comparing the risk/reward ratio of different pieces of content, or even the same piece of content under different circumstances.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

The Ultimate Carebear Challenge:
Explore as much of the map as possible while remaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.
I won't be doing anything to actively progress Professions.
0 Kills

My response to Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward is to ignore as much of Risk v Reward as possible.
That way, other players cannot significantly interfere with my game session goals.

I thought you were doing that because you enjoy it and wanted to, not out of spite for the games design?

Arya_Yeshe

imagine if you can't kill a healer who is only healing and othing else... !! LOL

Well, at least EVE Online got this right, when your ship gets out of capacitor (mana) then all your active resistances shutdown and you become paper thing so your tanking simply crumbles and you die, it won't matter anymore how high your healing was

Otr

Noaani wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.

Again, if we are talking about risk vs reward as a game design concept, this is actually not true.

The point of the game is to be entertained, or to have fun. This part is very true.

However, that does not mean fun is the reward in regards to risk vs reward from a game design perspective.

If that were the case, there would be no need for gear, or for leveling, or for any form of progression, or for in game currency. All of these things are the reward side of risk vs reward, "fun" is not. Fun is something that should be inherent to the game as a whole (not necessarily every single part of it, but the vast majority of it).

I disagree with the part marked with red.
Causality of Fun is not a bijective function.
If developers can identify a source of fun does not mean the other sources are redundant.
As long as they do not oppose each other, all should be considered.

The point I was making is that making the game fun is independent of risk vs reward. The two things can be connected (you can derive fun from both the risk and the reward), but risk vs reward is not inherently supposed to be where fun is derived from. Essentially, they are separate things that have connections, but still need to be considered independently.

Noaani wrote: »

Rather, the specific game design concept of "risk vs reward" is limited to the idea of "here is a piece of content, what risk do players have when participating in this one specific piece of content, and as a result what is an appropriate reward for this one piece of content".

That is it. That is the limit in scope of what risk vs reward is.

If we restrict to almost mathematical mechanics, Information plays a big role too, because risk (chance) depends on what the player knows or can know and can predict. Knowing where players or NPCs are and what they are doing can decrease the risk a lot.
That knowledge may come from using external tools to gather, process and store information.
Some players may find the game-play more rewarding when using such tools. They say "hey for me is more fun playing like that, please put it into the game as an optional feature". Then rewards should depend if players use such risk reducing means or not.

There will always be unknowns in the risk side of risk vs reward, and so as a mathematical problem to solve, there is no perfect answer in regards to how much of a reward you need to apply for any given piece of content.

As an example, if there is a given mob thst has a specific reward that is just kind of mid, you may find that very few people contest it and thus the risk isn't that high. However, make that reward a little better and suddenly more people contest it, meaning your increase in reward has also provided an increase in risk. The increase in risk here may or may not be proportional to the increased reward.

This is where discussion in regards to risk vs reward can be interesting - comparing the risk/reward ratio of different pieces of content, or even the same piece of content under different circumstances.

That is very true.
In single player games, a character fighting mobs may find junk items and once in a while some better items, maybe from bosses. The frequency of these special drops cannot be too high but should not be too low either. Knowing how to balance the time and frequency is important.

In mmorpgs, economy can play a role too. The game could observe players actions and auto adjust itself.
AoC world manager is supposed to maintain scarcity so there is some feedback loop. Could happen that valuable drops will decrease as players get them. Maybe they'll go to one guild's stash...

But definitely AoC should not focus only on risk vs reward through PvP or even PvE.
There are 4 node types and those could introduce variations to such concepts.

Otr

Azherae wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Money, resources... these are means to trigger them. But not for everybody.
Some people may care more about destroying nodes or castles than collecting virtual items.
Failing to destroy is a risk.

If there was some investment that didn't match the investment on the other side, maybe.

I think it would be a bad idea to design the game in a way where we ignore economic factors and just claim that someone who 'fails to kill/disrupt/destroy a random target' is at risk.

But I have a huge bias toward economic systems, so I'd automatically prioritize that. If Ashes changes to remove or lessen the impact of economic systems, then it shouldn't matter and 'Risk vs Reward' can be defined closer to the MOBA version, or whatever Steven wants.

I agree, economy is important.
I think players will specialize even within a guild. PvPers will want to do more PvP, crafters more crafting ...
Somebody will pay the price and will assign the best PvPers to do what they are good for.
Their reputation will be at stake.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

I thought you were doing that because you enjoy it and wanted to, not out of spite for the games design?

I have no spite.
I don't play MMORPGs on servers that include non-consensual PvP. The Open Seas is non-consensual PvP.
Enough people have asked me to play anyway that I looked for a way to accomodate them.
And the solution I found is to ignore progression and Risk v Reward.

With the Ultimate Carebear Challenge, it's not really possible for other players to disrupt my game session and death penalties for my deaths will be irrelevant, but...
When I want to actually PLAY an MMORPG, rather than just socialize with friends, I'll be playing other games.