Certificates

Hello awesome people. I was thinking about system of the caravans and certificates dropped from monsters. I can't help but wonder one simple thing. Why bother with caravans transporting your good when you can simply just run or ride on your mounto into an another node. When people will see caravan they gonna think - damn free loot, but when you ride on a mount you look like a regular player getting into your random destination. Can someone explain it to me please ? I was looking at wiki and couldn't find anything. Cheers have a good day.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Reflet

No way.
This is exactly where your blindness leads.
You keep on looking at the system from your pespective and don't give a fuck of other's way of playing and even dare telling me to move away if I don't like the way you want to play a/this game, so, sorry if I waked you up, but the people I referred to were, at their time and condiction, on the side of the system, not part of it. (I know their conditions were lot worst than the way I feel crafters are with the actual system of caravan in AOC, but either you reconcider your point of view and come to a debate which shows that you put yourself in the craftrer shoes, then I'll edit my post, or you keep on seeing crafters like lootable mobs and I'll keep my post on ; maybe you forgot an point of human social things = freedom of speech).

Noaani

Reflet wrote: »

No way.
This is exactly where your blindness leads.

OK, so, lets break this down.

You said that you think it is stupid that you can attack and defeat a caravan and don't need to take the materials as they are and transport them. I said that the reason they did it this way is because they feel (note; not I feel) that it is better gameplay.

You then asked what the point of even having caravans were, to which I simply answered that they are gameplay. I mean, Intrepid could make the game without them, but then there will be one less thing to do in the game. We could then ask what the point of crafting is, the game would be fine without it, there would just be one less thing to do. As I said in the post, the eventual last question in that line of thinking is - why play an MMO in the first place.

You then mistook that as me saying you shouldn't play, which is quite clearly not what I said - I was VERY CLEARLAY talking about your line of questioning, and how asking why even have any specific gameplay loop is pointless - the answer in every case will be simply "gameplay". Take away those gameplay loops and you have no game left to, well, play.

You also then simply assumed that I am talking about things from my perspective, despite me specifically saying it was Intrepids reasoning, not my own - not that we have even arrived at me giving you their reasoning as yet.

Then you made the false assumption that because the caravan system doesn't have the exact risk vs reward structure that you want to see, it must not have any risk vs reward structure. This is the whole part in your post that ends with you stating that "then gameplay will be fair" - you are simply assuming that because it doesn't work how you want, it isn't fair. This is despite you very clearly not knowing how it works.

Then you end up with the most unnecessary, vile comment I have ever seen on any forum outside of 4chan - a comment that is very clearly a reflection of how you view thew world (your inference is that anyone that doesn't agree with you on all things must be racist and sexist).

Again, that is a vile and unnecessary comment, and I will not converse any longer with you while that comment remains in place.

Reflet

First : I wrote "unless", but maybe you didn't noticed (I'm glad to see that you didn't felt concerned about that).
Second : I'm talking about facts not just my point of view (you took it personaly while I was seeing you blocked on the same point ; had to wake you move ahead so debate can even start). And I'd rather see Intrepid saying that the caravan system (about the looting part of it) will be improved but not now because they have more important point to work on, then I'd say "ok. I won't use caravans for now, I'll check that later." . (Maybe they said it, I didn't reed that yet).
Third : what the point of discussing/debating on a subject if you can't say more what we already know? Isn't a forum on "in development" game made for debating on points of the game so the devs can build it a more effective way? And then we can make the difference between a gameplay we choose or not (like the orcs side in LOTRO are the bad guys because Tolkien's world is like that) and a gameplay we see broken because of a system where class balancing isn't right (here : crafters vs robbers).

Noaani

Point one - saying "unless" doesn't excuse your comment. You are still the one that pulled racist and sexist bullshit out of no where.

Point two - no you aren't, you don't know how the system works as a whole, not Intrepids reasoning for why it works that way. You literally can not be claiming that you are talking facts when you do not know the facts.

Point three - before a discussion or debate can actually begin on Intrepids current design decisions, those design decisions need to be understood by all parties in that discussion or debate.

Hinotori

Reflet wrote: »

Then the gameplay will be fair.

The gameplay is fair. It's a pvp enabled gameplay activity. If crafters or people trying to play the regional markets want to move their goods they have to contend with brigands and plan accordingly.

If a crafter plans and has adequate people defending the caravan they're rewarded potentially with a great pay day and being able to craft their rare gear and have a good time.

If they fail then they lose their caravan goods and brigands get certificates and they have a good time.

It's on both sides to plan.

Reflet

"With caravans we really want to emphasize this idea of not necessarily stealing the vehicle, but being forced to achieve victory through destruction; and when you do you then have the logistical issue of how you're going to transport those goods on your own rather than servicing the transport of that by just hijacking.[58] – Steven Sharif" - even Steven contradicts itself.
So no point talking to you.
And by the way, why do you think I need to be excused from anything? ... wait. No, don't bahter to answer, I don't care anymore.

Reflet

Natasha wrote: »

Reflet wrote: »

Then the gameplay will be fair.

The gameplay is fair. It's a pvp enabled gameplay activity. If crafters or people trying to play the regional markets want to move their goods they have to contend with brigands and plan accordingly.

If a crafter plans and has adequate people defending the caravan they're rewarded potentially with a great pay day and being able to craft their rare gear and have a good time.

If they fail then they lose their caravan goods and brigands get certificates and they have a good time.

It's on both sides to plan.

I never argued on "can be attacked or not". I'm talking about running away with a tonne of goods in your pockets rather having to caravan it yourself. The debate is only about that.

Noaani

Reflet wrote: »

"With caravans we really want to emphasize this idea of not necessarily stealing the vehicle, but being forced to achieve victory through destruction; and when you do you then have the logistical issue of how you're going to transport those goods on your own rather than servicing the transport of that by just hijacking.[58] – Steven Sharif" - even Steven contradicts itself.
So no point talking to you.
And by the way, why do you think I need to be excused from anything? ... wait. No, don't bahter to answer, I don't care anymore.

I mean, yeah, and?

So, when I have resources in a node, if they have value in that node I am going to sell them there. Why would I risk it if I can make a profit without moving them?

So, if I load them all on to a caravan and start moving them, and then someone comes along and destroys my caravan, they are left with a certificate that entitles them to those resources back at the node I just left - the node where they are worthless (or near enough).

As such, if this player wants to make money from their activities, they then need to organize moving those resources to a node where they are in demand - this is the logistical aspect that Steven is talking about in your quote. This player cant just wait until I am 45 seconds from my destination before attacking me and my caravan and then moving those resources that last 45 seconds to get said resources in a node where they are more valuable. They have to do that whole logistics aspect all over again.

Also;

The reason why for this is because what might happen is you may have some type of collaboration within a guild to kind of game that system. Hey I'm gonna reach this caravan just to the border of the region and then we're all destroy it, collect the goods and take it to you know that region's warehouse; and have to skip out on the last half of the way. So it must successfully reach its destination before the goods can be considered a part of that region.

Reflet

You really don't get it!!! Terrible.
Could you read with your eyes not with your brain for a sec?
I'm talking about the robbers having to deal with a volume/weight stolen, not on the way it works after. The "selling the certificats" mecanics that goes with it is ok... is ok according the certificats mecanics. I'm saying the certificats mecanics is not a good system. If the robbers would have to deal with the volume/weight rather than just with the "how to deal with a peace of paper", they would check more on "is it worth it or not?" rather than what risk to happen = ppl jumping on what ever caravan because in the end it's the same.

Noaani

Reflet wrote: »

You really don't get it!!! Terrible.
Could you read with your eyes not with your brain for a sec?
I'm talking about the robbers having to deal with a volume/weight stolen, not on the way it works after. The "selling the certificats" mecanics that goes with it is ok... is ok according the certificats mecanics. I'm saying the certificats mecanics is not a good system. If the robbers would have to deal with the volume/weight rather than just with the "how to deal with a peace of paper", they would check more on "is it worth it or not?" rather than what risk to happen = ppl jumping on what ever caravan because in the end it's the same.

No, it isn't us that really don't get it!!! Terrible.

You seem to be suggesting that if you are running a caravan and I destroy it, I get a certificate that I can turn in somewhere for coin.

That is incorrect.

Reflet

No, I'm just saying tonnes of iron ingots should stay tonnes of iron ingots and not a peace of paper. I fucking don't care about where and to whom he'll sell it to.

Noaani

Reflet wrote: »

No, I'm just saying tonnes of iron ingots should stay tonnes of iron ingots and not a peace of paper. I fucking don't care about where and to whom he'll sell it to.

Again, it was pointed out to you that Ashes is not a simulation, it is a game.

Depraved

Reflet wrote: »

No, I'm just saying tonnes of iron ingots should stay tonnes of iron ingots and not a peace of paper. I fucking don't care about where and to whom he'll sell it to.

true but it was changed to prevent abuse

Reflet

So many post for someone so pointless!!!
Why do you keep on replying on forum posts when a wiki would just be fine for you?
Talking/debating on subjects of aoc is precisely because what is made/planned so far isn't suitting the people creating the post. Then people can talk/debade on what to do and why in order get something that could work, ideas which can be then concidered by the devs. But loop answer what is in wiki has no interest what so ever.

Noaani

Reflet wrote: »

So many post for someone so pointless!!!
Why do you keep on replying on forum posts when a wiki would just be fine for you?
Talking/debating on subjects of aoc is precisely because what is made/planned so far isn't suitting the people creating the post. Then people can talk/debade on what to do and why in order get something that could work, ideas which can be then concidered by the devs. But loop answer what is in wiki has no interest what so ever.

If you want to discuss a better alternative to what Intrepid have planned, you first of all need to articulate that you have fully understood their plans, and then present a reason as to why they may not work.

Your only reasoning in this thread seems to be that you don't like it. Not once have you talked about any issues with what Intrepid have planned in terms of gameplay loops.

Reflet

Depraved wrote: »

true but it was changed to prevent abuse

Yes, but I think that to prevent abuse on moving half way and selling an easy way they cameup with that system. I'm saying that having a leaving the goods has they are but, maybe, having the caravan's ownership being "lootable" (after a long channel for exemple) or just free for anyone to grabbs the reins after the driver was kicked away from the seat and leave wit the caravan (same way, a long cast/channel in order to grabb the reins/set the hitch ready).

Reflet

Noaani wrote: »

If you want to discuss a better alternative to what Intrepid have planned, you first of all need to articulate that you have fully understood their plans, and then present a reason as to why they may not work.

Your only reasoning in this thread seems to be that you don't like it. Not once have you talked about any issues with what Intrepid have planned in terms of gameplay loops.

Because you "don't like" things you never checked/read about?

Noaani

Reflet wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

true but it was changed to prevent abuse

Yes, but I think that to prevent abuse on moving half way and selling an easy way they cameup with that system. I'm saying that having a leaving the goods has they are but, maybe, having the caravan's ownership being "lootable" (after a long channel for exemple) or just free for anyone to grabbs the reins after the driver was kicked away from the seat and leave wit the caravan (same way, a long cast/channel in order to grabb the reins/set the hitch ready).

The two options with the long channel sound really unsatisfying. Any activity that ends in a channel is just dull. Intrepids plan for caravans is specifically that a successful attack on a caravan ends in destruction of said caravan - an event much more enjoyable than a channel.

Also, both of the suggestions you gave that end in a channel are open for massive abuse. If I am able to simply take over your caravan, I will do so right at the end of your trip, thus you did all the work and I get all the benefit.

At least with Intrepids plan, if I kill you and destroy your caravan just before you finish your run, I still have to head all the way back to where you started to get the resources I got from your caravan, and then need to move those materials to where I want them (or where I can sell them).

This was an issue that was accounted for even before the one on the wiki, and was so basic and obvious that mention of it never even made it to said wiki.

Reflet

The channel thing would be done in order to get onto the car seat by anyone else than the driver who would had been trown away from the seat (during the attack or after him running away). A channel can be cut casted so no one would grabb the caravan in one clic and run away, and would be part of the event (mecanics being used stop the caravan or just kicking away the driver).

Taking my caravan isn't an abuse, it's the gameplay that goes with it, that's why the caravan owner can hire NPCs and players in order to protect it. If you wait for my caravan at the end of the trip and are able to drive away the defenders, you would be able to drive away the diffenders from the beginning as well. I see more abuse with destroying a caravan in order to get the certificates and deliver them rather than the whole stock. Would be better to have, if broken, a pile of goods in a broken caravan openned to llot for so many minutes rather than some papers.

Noaani

Reflet wrote: »

The channel thing would be done in order to get onto the car seat by anyone else than the driver who would had been trown away from the seat (during the attack or after him running away). A channel can be cut casted so no one would grabb the caravan in one clic and run away, and would be part of the event (mecanics being used stop the caravan or just kicking away the driver).

Anything to do with a channel is just boring

Taking my caravan isn't an abuse, it's the gameplay that goes with it, that's why the caravan owner can hire NPCs and players in order to protect it. If you wait for my caravan at the end of the trip and are able to drive away the defenders, you would be able to drive away the diffenders from the beginning as well. I see more abuse with destroying a caravan in order to get the certificates and deliver them rather than the whole stock. Would be better to have, if broken, a pile of goods in a broken caravan openned to llot for so many minutes rather than some papers.

I never said the abuse was against you, I said quite specifically that the abuse would be against the system you put forward.

yes, if I am able to destroy your caravan at the end of your trip I could probably do the same at the end. The difference is, with your suggestion I am able to work the system so that I only destroy caravans near my home node, meaning I can take over many caravans with no need to transport anything for more than 45 seconds or so.

With Intrepids plan, if I wait around my node and kill a caravan nearby, I then have to travel back to where that caravan started - potentially many nodes away - and do all that transporting myself.

Any suggestion made where by the possession of goods transfer happens at the site of the caravans destruction simply won't work.

Child Item