Risk for attacking Caravans:

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

Depraved wrote: »

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

How are they screwed? What does an attacker lose other than time?

Attackers need no risk in this case.
There will be fast caravans for solo players with high chance to escape.

I'd be somewhat ok with that if it applied to successful bandits. We'll supposedly have a progression system for defense/attack of caravans, so BHs should be alerted about currently active caravan attacks if they're perpetrated by bandits that have reached a certain stage in that system.

In other words, an infamy system that boosts the difficulty of caravan attacks. This would obviously have to be balanced out against any potential abuses of forced failures that bring you down on that progression path (if we can even go down).

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

How are they screwed? What does an attacker lose other than time?

you asked that in the other thread and gave you some examples xd

Raven016 wrote: »

Attackers need no risk in this case.
There will be fast caravans for solo players with high chance to escape.

Highly highly doubt this will be the case. Otherwise they'll be OP as fuck and used by all guilds/groups to multiply their money.

NiKr wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Attackers need no risk in this case.
There will be fast caravans for solo players with high chance to escape.

Highly highly doubt this will be the case. Otherwise they'll be OP as fuck and used by all guilds/groups to multiply their money.

You already doubted before

NiKr wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

I had to go and check the stream again. I thought I misunderstood

I agree those are good quotes against what I'm saying. We'll have to see which one of those survive the testing, where literally everyone simply takes the fastest caravans and outruns any attackers, while multiplying their income by dozenfold, because they can now go from southernmost point on the map to the northernmost point.

It's the classic "plans don't survive an encounter" type of deal. If a caravan, that's faster than attackers, can only carry a tiny piece of coms that would yield less money than just selling some glint - no one will use it.

And if that caravan can carry just enough coms to benefit from running it - everyone will use it, because it'll be all the reward with none the risk.

This then leads me to believe that Steven will then try to force people to use slower caravans in some way, which will be even worse for the system

The price when you carry commodities from a node to the next will change. The profit will be smaller and smaller as players fill the destination node with those specific commodities.

Depraved wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

How are they screwed? What does an attacker lose other than time?

you asked that in the other thread and gave you some examples xd

Ill be on the look out for every reply, so sorry king

Raven016 wrote: »

The price when you carry commodities from a node to the next will change. The profit will be smaller and smaller as players fill the destination node with those specific commodities.

But if you're free to do whatever, cause your caravan is invulnerable - you don't care about destinations. This is mainly why I doubt any given caravan will ever come close to being untouchable. It would simply break the system.

Depraved wrote: »

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

I think they'll have incentives. Some progression which will help them be better at their activity.
Possibly the caravan defenders will have a progression too.

NiKr wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

The price when you carry commodities from a node to the next will change. The profit will be smaller and smaller as players fill the destination node with those specific commodities.

But if you're free to do whatever, cause your caravan is invulnerable - you don't care about destinations. This is mainly why I doubt any given caravan will ever come close to being untouchable. It would simply break the system.

There will be choke points. And zergs defending them with powerful AoEs

Crossing rivers will also take time.
It might worth doing a few runs with a fast caravan in the metro nation area where your own citizens are active, but only if you notice a bigger price difference. Or if you want to create a stash if the node falls later, to sell the commodities at higher price.
But probably other activities will be more profitable: the bigger slower caravans might carry other stuff too, not only commodities.
Could be that the fast caravans will be worth for low level players and role playing.

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

I think they'll have incentives. Some progression which will help them be better at their activity.
Possibly the caravan defenders will have a progression too.

Defenders risk: Losing god knows how many days/weeks worth of gold, material and time
Defenders reward: gaining some or a lot of gold

Attackers risk: losing a little bit of time (and they can keep attacking with no further risk)
Attackers reward: a bunch of pillaged goods for some or a lot of gold

I dont really see how this is balanced without some additonal risks for Attackers. Its the definition of unbalanced (in its current iteration), but im sure Intrepid is already thinking about this.

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Attackers risk: losing a little bit of time (and they can keep attacking with no further risk)

There's also, allegedly, gear decay, so if you keep dying over and over - your gear will be fucked. And obviously if you take shitty gear into the fight - you might not win at all.

Though I definitely agree that it's a pretty shitty deterrent, if it even can be considered one.

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

How are they screwed? What does an attacker lose other than time?

you asked that in the other thread and gave you some examples xd

Ill be on the look out for every reply, so sorry king

slaaayyy

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

I think they'll have incentives. Some progression which will help them be better at their activity.
Possibly the caravan defenders will have a progression too.

Defenders risk: Losing god knows how many days/weeks worth of gold, material and time
Defenders reward: gaining some or a lot of gold

Attackers risk: losing a little bit of time (and they can keep attacking with no further risk)
Attackers reward: a bunch of pillaged goods for some or a lot of gold

I dont really see how this is balanced without some additonal risks for Attackers. Its the definition of unbalanced (in its current iteration), but im sure Intrepid is already thinking about this.

There must be gold sink. Gold must be lost somewhere. And this is the proper place rather than sooner while gathering, where the corruption protects a little bit.
AoC is a PvP game.
Players will go and attack the caravans of competing metro nations. Eventually they might become enemy of the state and everyone will be able to attack them. But this information was not confirmed recently. We have to ask during the next caravan stream.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Reputation

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

why fk up attackers more. they are already quite screwed. if anything, they need more incentives to attack

I think they'll have incentives. Some progression which will help them be better at their activity.
Possibly the caravan defenders will have a progression too.

they both get or lose progression

NiKr wrote: »

Dimitraeos wrote: »

Attackers risk: losing a little bit of time (and they can keep attacking with no further risk)

There's also, allegedly, gear decay, so if you keep dying over and over - your gear will be fucked. And obviously if you take shitty gear into the fight - you might not win at all.

Though I definitely agree that it's a pretty shitty deterrent, if it even can be considered one.

Yeah we will have to see exactly how that gear decay works, but I think a risk involved directly with the action being committed is what im trying to get at with this. Doing "bandit" shit should have risks involved with being a bandit. Not Corruption in this case, for gameplay purposes, is that would be to harsh, but something somewhat even with the risk of the other party.

here is the link
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/57127/risk-vs-rewards-for-caravans#latest

check the last post

Everyone posting at the same time