My Issue with the Caravan System - Risk vs. Reward in PvP

Hello everyone, Vlhadus here. I've been talking in podcasts, to friends and anyone that loves Ashes of Creation about the recent Caravan system that was showcased this past month. I know PvP wasn't shown however, there is clearly an imbalance in risk from people attacking caravans all day. I think I have came up with a solution that makes it pretty much equal between attackers and the people who made the caravan in the first place.

Okay, so let's talk about a realistic scenario that will happen in the Alpha 2 regarding Caravan PvP. I'm a GM of a guild that attacks all potential caravans in sight. Doesn't matter who it is, we attack. I bring my team of 40 people to attack a nearby caravan. We engage in battle and overpower the defending team pretty easily. We kill all their players and successfully destroy the caravan. The caravan loot is on the ground and each of us gets a small caravan piece and places it in our player inventory. After that, we ride off into the sun set to destroy more player constructed caravans. Do you see how little is risked by the attacking side? This is my proposal to fixing the risk vs. reward regarding attackers.

Let's use the same scenario listed above. My team of 40 players riding off to find a caravan to destroy and loot. We find a caravan, attack their team, kill off their team and destroy their caravan as well. The first thing that would happen is everyone on the attacking team would become a "bandit". Similar to corrupted players, bandits are now visible to anyone in the bounty hunter system. Bandits are weaker towards Bounty Hunters and Bounty Hunters can kill bandits for extra rewards. Also, bandits are still purple combatants but with a debuff labelling them as Bandit. It's like a lesser than version of corrupted players. This also expands the Bounty Hunter system which needs some work anyway. Also, just wanted to make this clear about the bandit system, they would ONLY become bandits once the attack on the caravan was successful meaning they destroyed the caravan. Before that, they are just combatants. The second thing that would happen as soon as the caravan is destroyed and the loots goes everywhere, NO ONE CAN LOOT THE CARAVAN CRATES! No attacking players, no defending players or anyone can place any crates into their player inventory. This is where it becomes equal. One of the people on the attacking side would have to place a caravan from their inventory on or near the caravan wreckage. The two minute timer starts and once completed, the new caravan AoE loots all the caravan crates into its storage and now the tables have turned. The bandits are now defending their caravan with stolen goods heading to whatever node they want to drop off.

The main problem with the caravan system to me was one side made a caravan and the other side wasn't. Now, EVERYONE has to make and have caravans in their inventory in order to pick up the cargo on the floor. I don't like the idea of people picking up items and riding off with them even if they are small. I know this forces people to use the caravan system on both sides but I think it is good overall for everyone. It makes it more fun and exciting, imagine you are close to a node and are like 20 yards to the yellow line at the node and the attackers destroyed your caravan! Now, they can place their caravan (if they have one in their inventory) to get all the loot and safely pass in to the node! Or now it creates this battle royal right outside a node for treasure! I know as it stands that you can only place caravans right outside the node but I think Intrepid should also allow us to place caravans on wreckages as well.

If you are hauling multiple caravans and one of your caravans is empty, and you see a wreckage of spoils on the floor. There should be a caravan ability that AoE loots the wreckage onto your caravan storage. The ability can be channeled and take like 20 seconds. I want the caravan system to be like a game of cat and mouse and by making the looting ONLY by spawning a caravan at the wreckage, it makes us both make a caravan, buying/using components however the attackers have a disadvantage by becoming Bandits and also carrying stolen goods. Just want to mention that if the original caravan owners destroy the attackers caravan, they can take their stuff back and its not labelled stolen. As long as the original caravan owners have another caravan in their inventory or they brought one from a node.

I'm not saying this is a perfect fix or the right fix but hopefully a step in the right direction. I also just wanted to mention Mules and what their function would be in all of this. Me, personally, I wouldn't allow Mules to loot ANY Caravan crates from wreckages. Mules are player mounts and I wouldn't want Mules to deter the caravan system. I would make mules have extra storage space for gatherers to place their mats in. It would be too powerful if they could loot even a single piece of caravan materials. It would just be a numbers game at that point for attackers. Okay well, thank you for reading my feedback and I would love to see your thoughts regarding my fix towards the caravan system!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sathrago

George_Black wrote: »

Adding implemented profits by simply defending caravans instead of being payed by the caravan owner will lead to zerg "escort quests".
Npc gameplay rewards and 0 pvp.

exactly this. For reference, check out the loot trains in New world where everyone just runs around the maps zerging through high level zones to mass loot the daily chests.

This would be horrible for a game like ashes.

Gaul_

Vlhadus discussed this topic on his channel and clarified a few things, and I would have to concede that the caravan system could be a big challenge for caravan drivers who don't have formal arrangements for protection, like a guild operation (or by paying a guild to guard your caravan).

One might say, "skill issue," however it is worth noting that last stream one of the developers said:

"We are trying to create these ways for people who maybe are used to solo MMO gameplay experience to have easy ways to take the first step towards collaborating with each other."

If your caravan gets blasted because you didn't arrange enough protection, then maybe that does make the decision easy to group up next time

I'm not sure that's what the developer meant, though.

On the other hand, I do agree that it would an enormous problem if caravans ended up being too safe. Maybe Intrepid is treading lightly on attacker drawbacks for this reason?

Kilion

The main reason why they are not trying to adjust anything big right now is because the Alpha 2 is around the corner and they will have to first gather data on the efficacy of the systems they have designed so far. If adjusting the numbers doesn't work with the systems currently designed, then they will be much more willing to introduce additional balancing mechanics.

With that being said I remember Chicago making a post that basically goes down the other direction how caravans were too strong to be taken down (especially for smaller groups).

Which I see as support of my thesis that for now we will get introduction to systems, we will test them as they were presented during Alpha 2 and they will only go back to the drawing board when they turn out to be completely dysfunctional.

Hardhit

I think that balance can be achieved in a variety of ways to make Caravan systems a really fascinating component of gameplay.

As a base concept, attackers have the advantage of all of the upside with no downside apart from some subjective reputation risk. This has to be addressed by altering either the risk or the reward sides of the equation in the core system.

Thinking outside the box, what if the design of the Caravan system was balanced such that it took the average total dps of a team of [20] max level players to destroy an ordinary Caravan with no defenders over an average length journey.

Add to that a very broad passive "Circle the Wagons" AOE shield bubble effect rendering Defenders immune to attack until the Caravan itself was destroyed, but Defenders could still attack the Attackers within the AOE bubble. This of course dramatically shifts the odds of success towards the defenders such that a small group of defenders could resist a much larger group of attackers.

If the Caravan does get destroyed enroute, it would become a free-for-all fight to bring a new Caravan to loot the wreckage where both sides would have to deal with their own Caravan spawn timers and a loot timer before a new AOE bubble is erected. Another timer would preclude players looting the wreckage individually. The idea would be that looting crates would NOT become stolen commodities (surely, what merchant in need would question a sealed crate that just arrived in town?). This would ensure that they retain their value for either party.

I think this mechanism would raise the risk of attacking considerably and lowers the probability of attacker success. The balance could also be easily adjusted as needed or even dynamically based on regional population density under the premise that bigger cities have better trained Caravan guards. (note that limitations would need to be put in place to prevent the usage of the AOE shield for other non-Caravan purposes).

Balancing risk aside, I'd still like to see rewards favor either outcome with participants rewarded individually as opposed to just going to the Caravan driver from a successful sale. Both attackers and defenders should feel equally motivated to fight for some reason or another.

In balancing, one needs to consider that the original Caravan driver, if successful, should always get an outsized reward directly from the profit from the sale of the goods such that Reward(caravan driver)= Profit Margin = Sale Revenue - Purchase Cost = (1+x%)*Purchase Cost - Purchase Cost = (x%) * Purchase Cost.

(This system assumes that Purchase Cost is a system recorded variable like an adjusted cost base of a stock)

Since attackers have no cost, Average Reward(attacker) = Sale Revenue /# of attackers = (1+x%)*Purchase Cost / # of attackers. (Of course the full payout likely goes to one attacker - the one who delivers the goods, thereby skewing the payout distribution unless the attackers negotiate for a split or the sale happens automatically upon arrival of the caravan and loot is distributed evenly) .

The average defenders of a successful caravan should get remuneration in the form of danger pay of roughly equivalent value to the average attacker (to reflect that a defender could have chose to be an attacker) adjusted downwards by a multiplier reflecting the higher probability of success for defenders given the shield bubble. The multiplier would take into account the ratio of actual defenders to a base grid defender value commensurate with the number of attackers to effectively calibrate for the risk. The curve could be calibrated based on actual testing experience. The "danger pay" would need to be a pot funded by the originating node and distributed fairly to all defenders at conclusion.

Ra= 1/n*(1+x%)*PC where n= # of attackers x%=margin PC= Purchase Cost
Rd = 1/n*(1+x%)*PC*m/d where d= # of defenders and m= vlookup grid value of base defenders to # of attackers

The grid could look something like:

n m
20 1
25 2
30 3
40 4

So if 30 attackers won on a PC of 500 glint and a 10% price margin at the destination node, they would receive an average reward of Ra= 18.33 glint.

If 3 defenders won against the 30 attackers they too would receive an average reward of Rd=18.33 glint. If 2 defenders beat 30, they'd get slightly more. If 4 defenders beat 30, they would receive less since the base grid only called for 3 defenders so danger pay was lower.

Note that this system would result in diminishing rewards based on larger group sizes as their splits become smaller but if you wanted to encourage larger scale battles, this could be modified.

I can't however, justify the logic as to why the originating node would pony up such a large danger pay reward for defense, so I think defenders will need to be rewarded, in large part, through some other means - renown points or node credits etc. in order to maintain a semblance of logic.

Tyranthraxus

Would greatly enjoy expansion of the criteria that will go into allowing us to place player-bounties.

Kilion

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Would greatly enjoy expansion of the criteria that will go into allowing us to place player-bounties.

Like what?

Raven016

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Would greatly enjoy expansion of the criteria that will go into allowing us to place player-bounties.

Could work if is a gold sink too, if Steven gets 50%.
Also bounties should not be public and bounty hunters should get them randomly.

Raven016

Hardhit wrote: »

If the Caravan does get destroyed enroute, it would become a free-for-all fight to bring a new Caravan to loot the wreckage where both sides would have to deal with their own Caravan spawn timers and a loot timer before a new AOE bubble is erected. Another timer would preclude players looting the wreckage individually. The idea would be that looting crates would NOT become stolen commodities (surely, what merchant in need would question a sealed crate that just arrived in town?). This would ensure that they retain their value for either party.

Commodities purchased from NPCs do not become stollen. Just the glint and resources / materials originating from player.

Raven016

Hardhit wrote: »

I think that balance can be achieved in a variety of ways to make Caravan systems a really fascinating component of gameplay.

As a base concept, attackers have the advantage of all of the upside with no downside apart from some subjective reputation risk. This has to be addressed by altering either the risk or the reward sides of the equation in the core system.

Thinking outside the box, what if the design of the Caravan system was balanced such that it took the average total dps of a team of [20] max level players to destroy an ordinary Caravan with no defenders over an average length journey.

Add to that a very broad passive "Circle the Wagons" AOE shield bubble effect rendering Defenders immune to attack until the Caravan itself was destroyed, but Defenders could still attack the Attackers within the AOE bubble. This of course dramatically shifts the odds of success towards the defenders such that a small group of defenders could resist a much larger group of attackers.

If the Caravan does get destroyed enroute, it would become a free-for-all fight to bring a new Caravan to loot the wreckage where both sides would have to deal with their own Caravan spawn timers and a loot timer before a new AOE bubble is erected. Another timer would preclude players looting the wreckage individually. The idea would be that looting crates would NOT become stolen commodities (surely, what merchant in need would question a sealed crate that just arrived in town?). This would ensure that they retain their value for either party.

I think this mechanism would raise the risk of attacking considerably and lowers the probability of attacker success. The balance could also be easily adjusted as needed or even dynamically based on regional population density under the premise that bigger cities have better trained Caravan guards. (note that limitations would need to be put in place to prevent the usage of the AOE shield for other non-Caravan purposes).

Balancing risk aside, I'd still like to see rewards favor either outcome with participants rewarded individually as opposed to just going to the Caravan driver from a successful sale. Both attackers and defenders should feel equally motivated to fight for some reason or another.

As you say, attackers need to be motivated.
You cannot motivate 20 attackers to fight against 3 defenders.
The fight must happen over something the 3 defenders earned. I cannot see how 3 players can have enough valuables to make 20 attackers happy.

Depraved

Vlhadus wrote: »

Hello everyone, Vlhadus here. I've been talking in podcasts, to friends and anyone that loves Ashes of Creation about the recent Caravan system that was showcased this past month. I know PvP wasn't shown however, there is clearly an imbalance in risk from people attacking caravans all day. I think I have came up with a solution that makes it pretty much equal between attackers and the people who made the caravan in the first place.

Okay, so let's talk about a realistic scenario that will happen in the Alpha 2 regarding Caravan PvP. I'm a GM of a guild that attacks all potential caravans in sight. Doesn't matter who it is, we attack. I bring my team of 40 people to attack a nearby caravan. We engage in battle and overpower the defending team pretty easily. We kill all their players and successfully destroy the caravan. The caravan loot is on the ground and each of us gets a small caravan piece and places it in our player inventory. After that, we ride off into the sun set to destroy more player constructed caravans. Do you see how little is risked by the attacking side? This is my proposal to fixing the risk vs. reward regarding attackers.

Let's use the same scenario listed above. My team of 40 players riding off to find a caravan to destroy and loot. We find a caravan, attack their team, kill off their team and destroy their caravan as well. The first thing that would happen is everyone on the attacking team would become a "bandit". Similar to corrupted players, bandits are now visible to anyone in the bounty hunter system. Bandits are weaker towards Bounty Hunters and Bounty Hunters can kill bandits for extra rewards. Also, bandits are still purple combatants but with a debuff labelling them as Bandit. It's like a lesser than version of corrupted players. This also expands the Bounty Hunter system which needs some work anyway. Also, just wanted to make this clear about the bandit system, they would ONLY become bandits once the attack on the caravan was successful meaning they destroyed the caravan. Before that, they are just combatants. The second thing that would happen as soon as the caravan is destroyed and the loots goes everywhere, NO ONE CAN LOOT THE CARAVAN CRATES! No attacking players, no defending players or anyone can place any crates into their player inventory. This is where it becomes equal. One of the people on the attacking side would have to place a caravan from their inventory on or near the caravan wreckage. The two minute timer starts and once completed, the new caravan AoE loots all the caravan crates into its storage and now the tables have turned. The bandits are now defending their caravan with stolen goods heading to whatever node they want to drop off.

The main problem with the caravan system to me was one side made a caravan and the other side wasn't. Now, EVERYONE has to make and have caravans in their inventory in order to pick up the cargo on the floor. I don't like the idea of people picking up items and riding off with them even if they are small. I know this forces people to use the caravan system on both sides but I think it is good overall for everyone. It makes it more fun and exciting, imagine you are close to a node and are like 20 yards to the yellow line at the node and the attackers destroyed your caravan! Now, they can place their caravan (if they have one in their inventory) to get all the loot and safely pass in to the node! Or now it creates this battle royal right outside a node for treasure! I know as it stands that you can only place caravans right outside the node but I think Intrepid should also allow us to place caravans on wreckages as well.

If you are hauling multiple caravans and one of your caravans is empty, and you see a wreckage of spoils on the floor. There should be a caravan ability that AoE loots the wreckage onto your caravan storage. The ability can be channeled and take like 20 seconds. I want the caravan system to be like a game of cat and mouse and by making the looting ONLY by spawning a caravan at the wreckage, it makes us both make a caravan, buying/using components however the attackers have a disadvantage by becoming Bandits and also carrying stolen goods. Just want to mention that if the original caravan owners destroy the attackers caravan, they can take their stuff back and its not labelled stolen. As long as the original caravan owners have another caravan in their inventory or they brought one from a node.

I'm not saying this is a perfect fix or the right fix but hopefully a step in the right direction. I also just wanted to mention Mules and what their function would be in all of this. Me, personally, I wouldn't allow Mules to loot ANY Caravan crates from wreckages. Mules are player mounts and I wouldn't want Mules to deter the caravan system. I would make mules have extra storage space for gatherers to place their mats in. It would be too powerful if they could loot even a single piece of caravan materials. It would just be a numbers game at that point for attackers. Okay well, thank you for reading my feedback and I would love to see your thoughts regarding my fix towards the caravan system!

you are missing important information.

first, 40 people isnt a lot, but lets leave that aside. i get your point.

the attackers are actually risking a lot more than you think, but the risks arent obvious

first, we have caravan progression. defenders and attackers have different progression paths. if you attack and fail, there are consequences (but there are also consequences for failing defense). still, its a risk.

the attackers dont really get an immediate reward. when a caravan is destroyed, a potion of the loot is destroyed (iirc) and the other portion can be picked up by anyone, including the defenders. if you decide to focus and destroy the caravan using range attacks, the defenders that are near the caravan can pick up the loot and you dont really get anything, other than preventing your enmies to progress (which is still a win).

to loot the caravan, you will probably have to kill everyone nearby, which you might even be able to do, so you can lose attackers quest progression here.

even if you manage to loot, you still have to go back to town and run a caravan of your own. you dont get instant rewards, and now you become the defender.

social reputation. people will remember what youve done and destroy your caravans (plus attack you during bosses, lock you out of an area, etc), trust me. if you attack every caravan on sight, and probably not even every caravan, at some point you wont be able to run anything and you will feel the weight of your actions,so you better have the numbers to back it up, and 40 isnt that many people tbh.

you are also forgetting that people can send decoy caravans, and caravans take a bit to be destroyed. chances are you will not be able to attack every caravan nearby, and you are just wasting your time and resources with decoys.

id say that the attackers have it worse than the defenders. at least, the defenders get immediately rewarded if they succeed, unlike the attackers who have to go back to town with the loot and launch their own caravan.

JC31

Deleted.

JC31

"The main problem with the caravan system to me was one side made a caravan and the other side wasn't. Now, EVERYONE has to make and have caravans in their inventory in order to pick up the cargo on the floor. I don't like the idea of people picking up items and riding off with them even if they are small."

^ part of original post ^

This is where they use the idea that you summon mounts the same way caravans are summoned. There is a radius around the node where you can summon your caravan. Make the same radius be where you can summon your mount. You probably can't afford a caravan anyway. Allow mounts to be upgraded in the same way a caravan will be upgraded. Sacrifice movement speed for armor and bag slots. Obviously a mount would carry no where near the same amount that a caravan would. I agree with most of your original post.

Also, your mount must follow you around once you are outside of the radius of the node and is up for being attacked much like a caravan would be, but no one has to drive the mount because your mount will listen to your commands as long as it is fed and happy.

Child Item