Caravan solutions, solo players/small guilds, risk<->reward

Lunatick

Hello!

Hope this message reaches the Devs.
I just seen this video from Space Coconut, it pretty much summarizes all the aspects and problems with the caravan system.
Bugs will happen that is not the main focus here, rather the system.
The main takeaway for me is the attacker/defender risk vs reward and how to control zerging caravans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhiuiGykx5w

Thank you.

Hutchy1989

I think if attackers lose they get a banditry debuff for a set amount of time is a good idea

eyawn

What are the risks for a MAX level player, who destroys a person who's 1st time driving a caravan? None.
I say it this way, because they would be a low level vs a MAX level.
What are the rewards? None, because MAX level would have way more gold, than what the low level caravan could offer.

So this interaction, should either NOT happen. OR the risks for the MAX level should be punishing. (like loss of level, and corruption applied, make the risks real.)

If this is a player driven economy, but only some players can drive, there will be a deflation problem.......

The reason why I bring up MAX level, is because EXP is useless for them, so it really is 100% griefing.

I am not saying they shouldn't be able to hit the Caravan, heck I would like the opposite. Just make it so they REALLY don't want to kill the low level and the low level has to try and drive it to the nearest safe area. That would actually make it so: (because I am sure there will be times, there the low level, might have a fully done up caravan, and that RISK might be worth it)
A ) MAX level would think twice before taking 2 gold, which they don't need.
B ) It would give hope to the low level, and make the journey more meaningful, if they did get attacked.
C ) Allow money to come into the economy and help keep the market up, deflation is a killer.

Personally, I think, being MAX level should not be, once you get there, you have it for good. Or the corruption system will fail, as EXP debt is meaningless.

I do hope this gets looked at.

lukedawuke

yes! let us all hold hands and sing kumbaya around the campfire together. everybody should have the same chances of success and fun in this game, regardless of their level, how good they are at the game, whether they play solo, in a small guild, in a small group, in a big self help group, or in a big pro guild. anything else would be mean and unfair and uncool and would make me cry

clowns lmao

Bobrational

If a game is only fun for a few, then only a few will play the game.

AirborneBerserker

lukedawuke wrote: »

yes! let us all hold hands and sing kumbaya around the campfire together. everybody should have the same chances of success and fun in this game, regardless of their level, how good they are at the game, whether they play solo, in a small guild, in a small group, in a big self help group, or in a big pro guild. anything else would be mean and unfair and uncool and would make me cry

clowns lmao

Bobrational wrote: »

If a game is only fun for a few, then only a few will play the game.

Unfortunately this very simple concept is beyond poor @lukedawuke simple mind.

@Lunatick yeah this won't work, if you increase the amount of mats received based on the number of people attacking then guilds will send minimal numbers of players with the best gear, that's assuming you don't make it so the number of mats is able to go higher then what was spawned.

Part of the problem with OWPvP is when you attach rewards to it people will win trade. It happens in every game. The only way to ensure this doesn't happen is to make sure the loss is something people earned themselves. Even things like buffs and titles people will win trade for.

At the same time this game is trying to encourage OWPvP which means lowering the rewards is a bad idea, on top of that they are going for large scale OWPvP. So what they don't want to do is discourage people getting into large groups and engaging in PvP.