vmangman wrote: » Warth wrote: » vmangman wrote: » Warth wrote: » So do the defenders that get killed while transporting in Albion/Eve. Here, both the defender and attacker have less risk, as they merely suffer the death penalty, but their gear/loadout is save. I’m so confused as to how you don’t understand this... In AoC the defenders are subject to losing their entire haul/transport and the attackers aren’t subject to losing anything. There is no risk to being an attacker. In Eve/Albion the defenders are subject to losing their entire haul/transport and their ship/gear and the attackers are subject to losing their ship/gear. There is a risk to being an attacker. I totally get what you mean. It's still not relevant at all. The caravan system is an open world PvP system that revolves around opportunity and risk. Caravans facilitate the transfer of goods for players wishing to turn a profit. It's not meant to be a risk for the attacker. It's meant to be a risk for the person owning the goods. The same way, the Attacker in a Castle Siege don't suffer any risk. The same way the Attacker in a Node Siege don't suffer any risk. The risk is with the people owning the goods/Castle/real estate in the Node. Once the attacker get the goods or the castle, they will be the ones carrying the risk next. It's not a balanced like a scale for both attackers and defenders. It's a circular systems, where you carry the risk once you have the goods. On the caravan owners side, the reward has to grow with the increased risk. That's the only real requirement for this system to work. If nobody but you dares to run a caravan with materials to Node B, then you will make a whole lot of money upon achieving that. Comparing the risk and reward between attackers and defenders is nonsensical, as it isn't a system that's designed around having equal Reward/Risk on both the attackers and defenders side. The flucuating risk/rewards is primarily meant to work on the side of the owner of the goods, as stated by intrepid themselves. If less than a handful of groups/guilds dare to run a caravan full of mithril ore to Node B, then that is completely fine, as long as they reap significant rewards for doing exactly that. They will profit from the large amount of mithril in Node A (cheap to buy) and profit from the scarcity of Mithril in Node B (high price when selling it). Not everybody is supposed to run caravans, not everybody should run caravans. Doing them should carry significant risk, otherwise there won't be any meaningful rewards tied to it. By minimizing the risk the attacker carries, you automatically increase the risk the defender carries and in turn the rewards attached to it. The attackers in castle and node sieges do have a risk. They risk losing all the materials and resources they invested in declaring the siege. Declaring a siege is supposed to be a monumental task and losing all of that investment is definitely a risk. All I’m saying is that the system needs to be balanced because otherwise all random people will decide to attack the caravan because it has no risk and potential for great reward.
Warth wrote: » vmangman wrote: » Warth wrote: » So do the defenders that get killed while transporting in Albion/Eve. Here, both the defender and attacker have less risk, as they merely suffer the death penalty, but their gear/loadout is save. I’m so confused as to how you don’t understand this... In AoC the defenders are subject to losing their entire haul/transport and the attackers aren’t subject to losing anything. There is no risk to being an attacker. In Eve/Albion the defenders are subject to losing their entire haul/transport and their ship/gear and the attackers are subject to losing their ship/gear. There is a risk to being an attacker. I totally get what you mean. It's still not relevant at all. The caravan system is an open world PvP system that revolves around opportunity and risk. Caravans facilitate the transfer of goods for players wishing to turn a profit. It's not meant to be a risk for the attacker. It's meant to be a risk for the person owning the goods. The same way, the Attacker in a Castle Siege don't suffer any risk. The same way the Attacker in a Node Siege don't suffer any risk. The risk is with the people owning the goods/Castle/real estate in the Node. Once the attacker get the goods or the castle, they will be the ones carrying the risk next. It's not a balanced like a scale for both attackers and defenders. It's a circular systems, where you carry the risk once you have the goods. On the caravan owners side, the reward has to grow with the increased risk. That's the only real requirement for this system to work. If nobody but you dares to run a caravan with materials to Node B, then you will make a whole lot of money upon achieving that. Comparing the risk and reward between attackers and defenders is nonsensical, as it isn't a system that's designed around having equal Reward/Risk on both the attackers and defenders side. The flucuating risk/rewards is primarily meant to work on the side of the owner of the goods, as stated by intrepid themselves. If less than a handful of groups/guilds dare to run a caravan full of mithril ore to Node B, then that is completely fine, as long as they reap significant rewards for doing exactly that. They will profit from the large amount of mithril in Node A (cheap to buy) and profit from the scarcity of Mithril in Node B (high price when selling it). Not everybody is supposed to run caravans, not everybody should run caravans. Doing them should carry significant risk, otherwise there won't be any meaningful rewards tied to it. By minimizing the risk the attacker carries, you automatically increase the risk the defender carries and in turn the rewards attached to it.
vmangman wrote: » Warth wrote: » So do the defenders that get killed while transporting in Albion/Eve. Here, both the defender and attacker have less risk, as they merely suffer the death penalty, but their gear/loadout is save. I’m so confused as to how you don’t understand this... In AoC the defenders are subject to losing their entire haul/transport and the attackers aren’t subject to losing anything. There is no risk to being an attacker. In Eve/Albion the defenders are subject to losing their entire haul/transport and their ship/gear and the attackers are subject to losing their ship/gear. There is a risk to being an attacker.
Warth wrote: » So do the defenders that get killed while transporting in Albion/Eve. Here, both the defender and attacker have less risk, as they merely suffer the death penalty, but their gear/loadout is save.
The caravan system is an open world PvP system that revolves around opportunity and risk. Caravans facilitate the transfer of goods for players wishing to turn a profit.
Percimes wrote: » The attackers can, logically, only carry a fraction of the goods in the caravans. If everything could have been transported on foot by individual, the caravan wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. To take everything, they would need to gain control of the caravan and take it somewhere to sell (or store) what was being transported. Has the mechanic for caravans been details yet?
Warth wrote: » Attackers don't loot the goods that are carried by the caravan. They loot certificates for the goods it was transporting, which they can turn in at the node of origin for the materials the caravan was carrying initially. These certificates allow you to carry much more goods, than the physical goods would.
Percimes wrote: » The goods were being moved to another city to be sold at a higher price, so bringing the certificates at the starting city means the victorious attackers have a reward balanced to the risks. Same for the caravan if it reaches its destination, bigger risks and bigger rewards. Seems fair to me.
Sathrago wrote: » Percimes wrote: » The goods were being moved to another city to be sold at a higher price, so bringing the certificates at the starting city means the victorious attackers have a reward balanced to the risks. Same for the caravan if it reaches its destination, bigger risks and bigger rewards. Seems fair to me. It also means that the attackers now have goods to be caravaned to another city for profit XD
