Knotti wrote: » I'm not necessarily trying to be fully realistic but rather trying to give economic value to risk vs reward and time/skills chosen.
Dygz wrote: » Summon (empty) Caravan is not fast travel.
Sathrago wrote: » Knotti wrote: » Sengarden wrote: » Sometimes I don't want my mount out next to me. Sometimes I want to ride to a dungeon, but there are also 50+ other people in the dungeon. Am I going to see a gargantuan, sprawling menagerie of tied up beasts chilling outside of every dungeon entrance when I leave mine there to wait? Seems a little strange. This is a game. It's a video game. Not everything needs to be realistic, it just has to be immersive enough to continue your suspension of disbelief. A flat decked raid wagon would be appropriate, and the potential hauler that's moving this raid could make some coin for their time and choices of skills. If everyone rode their mounts to the dungeon and they all got killed that would have a massive economic effect potentially increasing the price of mounts for a time. If the raid doesn't have a hauler, rather just a designated driver, they could park it outside at risk. The raid wagon does not need to have storage for crates because crates won't be made inside a dungeon but could potentially have storage on them if so chosen. The wagon could also be deconstructed and held by players along with the mounts pulling it. I'm not necessarily trying to be fully realistic but rather trying to give economic value to risk vs reward and time/skills chosen. Perhaps mounts should also have a "go home" option, though that would have risk. People with animal husbandry could also have the ability to tame mounts out in the wild and trade to people. These mounts perhaps aren't fully trained depending on time/skills and could go wild at any time. im just so confused at this point. you are rabbit-holing hard here.
Knotti wrote: » Sengarden wrote: » Sometimes I don't want my mount out next to me. Sometimes I want to ride to a dungeon, but there are also 50+ other people in the dungeon. Am I going to see a gargantuan, sprawling menagerie of tied up beasts chilling outside of every dungeon entrance when I leave mine there to wait? Seems a little strange. This is a game. It's a video game. Not everything needs to be realistic, it just has to be immersive enough to continue your suspension of disbelief. A flat decked raid wagon would be appropriate, and the potential hauler that's moving this raid could make some coin for their time and choices of skills. If everyone rode their mounts to the dungeon and they all got killed that would have a massive economic effect potentially increasing the price of mounts for a time. If the raid doesn't have a hauler, rather just a designated driver, they could park it outside at risk. The raid wagon does not need to have storage for crates because crates won't be made inside a dungeon but could potentially have storage on them if so chosen. The wagon could also be deconstructed and held by players along with the mounts pulling it. I'm not necessarily trying to be fully realistic but rather trying to give economic value to risk vs reward and time/skills chosen. Perhaps mounts should also have a "go home" option, though that would have risk. People with animal husbandry could also have the ability to tame mounts out in the wild and trade to people. These mounts perhaps aren't fully trained depending on time/skills and could go wild at any time.
Sengarden wrote: » Sometimes I don't want my mount out next to me. Sometimes I want to ride to a dungeon, but there are also 50+ other people in the dungeon. Am I going to see a gargantuan, sprawling menagerie of tied up beasts chilling outside of every dungeon entrance when I leave mine there to wait? Seems a little strange. This is a game. It's a video game. Not everything needs to be realistic, it just has to be immersive enough to continue your suspension of disbelief.
DarkestLink wrote: » I think that when you summon a caravan, an NPC should be dispatched from the nearest node that then drives the empty caravan to you. If pathfinding is an issue, then it could be limited to only driving on roads. The only part I'm uncertain about with this idea is whether players should be allowed to attack the caravan as it travels to you. Perhaps, you allow players to attack the caravan, but because it is being driven by a node NPC, attacking it would cost you rep with that node or make you an outlaw?
Knotti wrote: » A ship is essentially the raid wagon I'm talking about, just for use over land.
Sengarden wrote: » This was the first thought I had when I saw the system, but honestly, what’s the difference here? It would make no sense for the caravan to actually be on the road and not be attackable. And if it should be attackable, then I think most people would rather be in control of it themselves. So I feel like requiring players to coordinate and have one nearby or sent out as soon as the battle is looking good and driven by an ally to the pickup site is just better overall.
DarkestLink wrote: » Sengarden wrote: » This was the first thought I had when I saw the system, but honestly, what’s the difference here? It would make no sense for the caravan to actually be on the road and not be attackable. And if it should be attackable, then I think most people would rather be in control of it themselves. So I feel like requiring players to coordinate and have one nearby or sent out as soon as the battle is looking good and driven by an ally to the pickup site is just better overall. With the current system, only the attackers and defenders know the exact location of a destroyed caravan. But, if a new caravan had to actually drive to the attacker's location, then this would allow other players in the area to follow it as it led them to the destroyed caravan and all of its goods. Even if the transiting caravan was invulnerable, I think this would be an improvement upon the current implementation. However, I don't think invulnerability is needed to ensure that the caravan reaches its destination with a reasonable level of reliability. I think that there would be little incentive for most players to attack the caravan while its empty, particularly if there was some negative consequence such as becoming corrupted.
Tyranthraxus wrote: » Knotti wrote: » A ship is essentially the raid wagon I'm talking about, just for use over land. The whole point of your thread is moot, in that summoning a pre-made item doesn't constitute quick-travel; you're still in the same place. Pre-done effort went into summoning the item. If you have a problem with the timer on the item, that's fine - but it doesn't feel as though you'd have a lot of support for having to start at a Carvaneer for a looters' Caravan.
Sengarden wrote: » This was the first thought I had when I saw the system, but honestly, what’s the difference here? It would make no sense for the caravan to actually be on the road and not be attackable. And if it should be attackable, then I think most people would rather be in control of it themselves. So I feel like requiring players to coordinate and have one nearby or sent out as soon as the battle is looking good and driven by an ally to the pickup site is just better overall. This system can be used by single players, but should, imo, in virtually every case, be more easily handled by a group of at least a few, if not a dozen or more. Having one person on your team be the pickup driver isn’t asking much for the sake of a more dynamic, player-driven (literally) transition between take-downs and pick-ups.
Sathrago wrote: » DarkestLink wrote: » Sengarden wrote: » This was the first thought I had when I saw the system, but honestly, what’s the difference here? It would make no sense for the caravan to actually be on the road and not be attackable. And if it should be attackable, then I think most people would rather be in control of it themselves. So I feel like requiring players to coordinate and have one nearby or sent out as soon as the battle is looking good and driven by an ally to the pickup site is just better overall. With the current system, only the attackers and defenders know the exact location of a destroyed caravan. But, if a new caravan had to actually drive to the attacker's location, then this would allow other players in the area to follow it as it led them to the destroyed caravan and all of its goods. Even if the transiting caravan was invulnerable, I think this would be an improvement upon the current implementation. However, I don't think invulnerability is needed to ensure that the caravan reaches its destination with a reasonable level of reliability. I think that there would be little incentive for most players to attack the caravan while its empty, particularly if there was some negative consequence such as becoming corrupted. Bandits will 99% of the time say screw the work and just take the stolen commodities with your suggestions, removing any chance for defenders to run back and try to get their stuff back. you are essentially taking the current chance of people fighting again for their caravan and reducing the chance to almost never. Because think about it, now the defenders need to make another caravan and waddle it out in hopes that the bandits didnt just open the boxes and run away on mounts. The rare exceptions will be when specific extremely valuable loot is on the line. But even then I would fully expect most players to just take what is easily taken instead of risking losing it all by getting caught on the road.
Sengarden wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » DarkestLink wrote: » Sengarden wrote: » This was the first thought I had when I saw the system, but honestly, what’s the difference here? It would make no sense for the caravan to actually be on the road and not be attackable. And if it should be attackable, then I think most people would rather be in control of it themselves. So I feel like requiring players to coordinate and have one nearby or sent out as soon as the battle is looking good and driven by an ally to the pickup site is just better overall. With the current system, only the attackers and defenders know the exact location of a destroyed caravan. But, if a new caravan had to actually drive to the attacker's location, then this would allow other players in the area to follow it as it led them to the destroyed caravan and all of its goods. Even if the transiting caravan was invulnerable, I think this would be an improvement upon the current implementation. However, I don't think invulnerability is needed to ensure that the caravan reaches its destination with a reasonable level of reliability. I think that there would be little incentive for most players to attack the caravan while its empty, particularly if there was some negative consequence such as becoming corrupted. Bandits will 99% of the time say screw the work and just take the stolen commodities with your suggestions, removing any chance for defenders to run back and try to get their stuff back. you are essentially taking the current chance of people fighting again for their caravan and reducing the chance to almost never. Because think about it, now the defenders need to make another caravan and waddle it out in hopes that the bandits didnt just open the boxes and run away on mounts. The rare exceptions will be when specific extremely valuable loot is on the line. But even then I would fully expect most players to just take what is easily taken instead of risking losing it all by getting caught on the road. Do you really not think that's going to be a problem already? When the local area is just spamming invites to randoms to join a raid, and some of them are telling their friends to come over, pretty soon you have a full group. All it takes is 15-ish minutes for this group of randoms to come crashing down on the caravan, destroy it in about a third of that total time, crack the crates, and be on their way. In fact, all it takes is two or three people out of the entire raid to prefer cracking the crates over doing the delivery run, because there's nothing stopping anyone from doing it however they want. And as soon as one person starts doing it, I think you'll be hard pressed to find many players that won't freak out and join in before it's all gone and the rest of the goods are forfeited. Personally, I think the crate-cracking thing either needs to go, or player-driven caravans need to not have public invites to destroy it spammed out to the entire local area. I think players should need to be in organized groups if they want to destroy a caravan, and multiple groups should be able to attack the defenders (and each other) at the same time. Random people aren't going to be coordinating recovery trade runs. I can't even fathom the average MMO player putting that together without voice communication and a pre-built foundation of trust before crates start getting busted open. Groups that want to finish the run should be able to trust that they're all on the same page with a plan in place, and should be able to kill randoms who're trying to crack crates for scraps.
Sengarden wrote: » Might not be fast travel, but it sure is boring (especially considering the timing of when it happens, right after you're all full of adrenaline and ready to make your escape) and immersion breaking.
Sengarden wrote: » I think you should either have someone on your team with a caravan waiting around where your raiding party was hiding, or waiting somewhere nearby to head your way as soon as the tide of the battle turns in your favor.
Sengarden wrote: » Imo, it would make the system more engaging rather than turning caravans into little more than moving high-value PvP targets.
Dygz wrote: » Sengarden wrote: » Might not be fast travel, but it sure is boring (especially considering the timing of when it happens, right after you're all full of adrenaline and ready to make your escape) and immersion breaking. Boring is subjective and not particularly constructive criticism. It's not immersion-breaking in a High Magic Fantasy setting. It would be immersion-breaking if Ashes were a Low Magic Fantasy setting. Sengarden wrote: » I think you should either have someone on your team with a caravan waiting around where your raiding party was hiding, or waiting somewhere nearby to head your way as soon as the tide of the battle turns in your favor. This is the part you don't have to explain. Just because you think that way does not mean everyone will agree. In this case, the devs don't agree with you. Sengarden wrote: » Imo, it would make the system more engaging rather than turning caravans into little more than moving high-value PvP targets. Yep. I think we understood that's your opinion when you said Summoning a Caravan is boring.
Sengarden wrote: » Every opinion on this forum is subjective, that’s what opinions are. What’s your point exactly? Where did I ever say I expected everyone to agree with me? The devs have one idea of how to do things right now, and they showed it off for feedback. I gave my feedback.
Sengarden wrote: » Are you suggesting that the caravans are magically being teleported to the flag location? Because that’s the only possible “fantasy” explanation for how it works the way it does right now. And if caravan teleport is possible, why are we driving them at all? “It’s a high fantasy setting” isn’t an excuse for inconsistency, especially if you’re of the opinion that the inconsistency doesn’t benefit the gameplay - which you may not be, but others are.
