Sorry for the delayed response I've been sick with covid or something for a few days. from what I can tell, you will not be able to immediately become a green non-combatant the second someone destroys your caravan, especially if they are already attacking you. Wouldn't make much sense if you could.
This requires you to use the caravan in the first place. I'm saying that doing that is pointless, if you just want to carry some valuable resources that can be carried on your person.
Carrying 10k stones? Yeah, you'll probably do it faster with a caravan, but unless I misunderstood you - you weren't talking about plain stones.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited February 13
Attacking a caravan carries significant risks beyond mere financial gain.
Consider this:
If you assault a caravan, you're not only jeopardizing your own interests but also risking the group transporting or ire of the guild or alliance, or node responsible for its transport. This could escalate tensions to the point where your guild, alliance, or even your entire node becomes embroiled in a costly conflict or labeled as Kill On Sight (KOS) targets. And if you are not part of any group, then just you only!
Surely the potential let alone the reality of such repercussions should be sufficient to deter any rational individual from engaging stopping caravans?
For that reason, I see only the foolish or the very bold or perhaps those with political agenda stopping a caravan
Defending a caravan carries significant risks beyond mere financial gain.
Consider this:
If you defend a caravan, you're not only jeopardizing your own interests but also risking the group who needs to block it, or ire of the guild or alliance, or node which will be suppressed if it arrives. This could escalate tensions to the point where your guild, alliance, or even your entire node becomes embroiled in a costly conflict or labeled as Kill On Sight (KOS) targets. And if you are not part of any group, then just you only!
Surely the potential let alone the reality of such repercussions should be sufficient to deter any rational individual from engaging in defending caravans?
If you attack a caravan you risk death, wasting time, progression loss, travel loss, and social consequences. When you defeat a caravan your immediate reward is progression and the choice to take easily turned in materials/stolen goods by breaking the crates open. OR you can RISK taking them all back in a caravan, the exact same way the first group did. Because you won, those rewards are yours now, and they immediately become a risk based on your decisions from then on.
Its a direct pipeline of reward into risk, You do not need there to be an absolute initial risk equivalent to the other party for it to be considered balanced.
I think many people forget 2 important things:
1) Profit multiplier. On "Caravan Preview" livestream 1.5g item turned into 8g item which is more than 5x. This is a HUGE difference. And it definitely has to come with a significant risk.
2) Item sink system. There are two phases of item sink: upon the destruction of a caravan and if attackers decide to open crates on the spot. If you switch from defenders/attackers POV and look at the system from game economy perspective, it makes perfect sense. Preventing inflation shouldn't be taken out of equation.
If you attack a caravan you risk death, wasting time, progression loss, travel loss, and social consequences. When you defeat a caravan your immediate reward is progression and the choice to take easily turned in materials/stolen goods by breaking the crates open. OR you can RISK taking them all back in a caravan, the exact same way the first group did. Because you won, those rewards are yours now, and they immediately become a risk based on your decisions from then on.
Its a direct pipeline of reward into risk, You do not need there to be an absolute initial risk equivalent to the other party for it to be considered balanced.
I think many people forget 2 important things:
1) Profit multiplier. On "Caravan Preview" livestream 1.5g item turned into 8g item which is more than 5x. This is a HUGE difference. And it definitely has to come with a significant risk.
2) Item sink system. There are two phases of item sink: upon the destruction of a caravan and if attackers decide to open crates on the spot. If you switch from defenders/attackers POV and look at the system from game economy perspective, it makes perfect sense. Preventing inflation shouldn't be taken out of equation.
The devs are the one setting that profit multiplier.
Also, this doesn't prevent inflation in any way, that... I don't even know if I know how to explain how and why that doesn't work in the overall schema.
Man, it's easy to see why games turn out like this, though, I don't even know where to start, which obviously leads to the 'you don't know what you're talking about' flow we see sometimes...
The devs are the one setting that profit multiplier.
Also, this doesn't prevent inflation in any way, that... I don't even know if I know how to explain how and why that doesn't work in the overall schema.
Man, it's easy to see why games turn out like this, though, I don't even know where to start, which obviously leads to the 'you don't know what you're talking about' flow we see sometimes...
But, I gotta say it anyway, I guess.
This does not work like that.
Well, probably not "prevent", but "contribute to slowing it down".
Speaking of multipliers, from what I heard on "Caravan Preview" stream, the numbers will be in that range (obviously, it will depend on supply & demand, so it may be lower or higher)
I'd appreciate if you clarify why, in your opinion, it doesn't work that way
The devs are the one setting that profit multiplier.
Also, this doesn't prevent inflation in any way, that... I don't even know if I know how to explain how and why that doesn't work in the overall schema.
Man, it's easy to see why games turn out like this, though, I don't even know where to start, which obviously leads to the 'you don't know what you're talking about' flow we see sometimes...
But, I gotta say it anyway, I guess.
This does not work like that.
Well, probably not "prevent", but "contribute to slowing it down".
Speaking of multipliers, from what I heard on "Caravan Preview" stream, the numbers will be in that range (obviously, it will depend on supply & demand, so it may be lower or higher)
I'd appreciate if you clarify why, in your opinion, it doesn't work that way
Some other time maybe. I already overstepped by even getting into this thread.
Sorry for posting for my usual selfish reason. Just ignore it.
Of course caravans are listed under the section of risky activities because the party which carries the valuable stuff might lose it. That is how any PvP with full loot works.
The only problem I see is that players in this game don't drop their gear when they die. That allows gear to become more valuable than the cargo.
Ashes doesn't have full loot.
Caravan Bandits have half normal death penalties when they die. So that is less Risk than normal.
What other Risks do Attackers suffer for failing to disrupt the Caravan run?
I'm not saying there should be other Risks. I'm just saying there really are none besides the negative hit to Bandit/Highwayman progression.
As with the Open Seas....
When Steven says Risk v Reward he really just means there are no Rewards without a very high chance of PvP combat.
In Ashes, Risk is synonymous with PvP combat.
Setback on the highwayman progression will have bigger consequences than losing the cargo.
Players with low progression will not use slow valuable personal caravans unless the safety is high (low population, player agreements...). Their progression will predict their fate.
Setback on the highwayman progression will have bigger consequences than losing the cargo.
Players with low progression will not use slow valuable personal caravans unless the safety is high (low population, player agreements...). Their progression will predict their fate.
This is suggesting that the outcome of a caravan attack is pre-determined by the progression through this path that each member of the attacking and defending side have undergone.
For that reason, I see only the foolish or the very bold or perhaps those with political agenda stopping a caravan
To add to Azherae's point above, no, people will attack caravans for personal gain.
In order for the things you are talking about to matter to an individual or a guild, they have to buy in to the notion that the node is bigger than the guild.
Most players that come to the game with an existing guild simply won't buy in to that. Why would I put an in game structure as being more important than people I have been playing MMO's with for 15+ years?
It also doesn't address the fact that nodes are likely to have agreements with a handful of nearby nodes - not with all nodes. If I did care about my node at all, then I would just head off towards an area where we have no agreements of any kind, and hunt caravans there.
Suddenly, there are none of those reprocussions for me at all.
Setback on the highwayman progression will have bigger consequences than losing the cargo.
Players with low progression will not use slow valuable personal caravans unless the safety is high (low population, player agreements...). Their progression will predict their fate.
This is suggesting that the outcome of a caravan attack is pre-determined by the progression through this path that each member of the attacking and defending side have undergone.
I can't see this happening.
If you want to have high progression, you work with your guild in an organized way.
I don't see random players joining together being as efficient as a pvp focused guild.
Attacking a caravan carries significant risks beyond mere financial gain.
Consider this:
If you assault a caravan, you're not only jeopardizing your own interests but also risking the group transporting or ire of the guild or alliance, or node responsible for its transport. This could escalate tensions to the point where your guild, alliance, or even your entire node becomes embroiled in a costly conflict or labeled as Kill On Sight (KOS) targets. And if you are not part of any group, then just you only!
Surely the potential let alone the reality of such repercussions should be sufficient to deter any rational individual from engaging stopping caravans?
For that reason, I see only the foolish or the very bold or perhaps those with political agenda stopping a caravan
That's all theoretical.
People will understand that bigger guilds will consider smaller runs as content. Which it is.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Surely if any player(s) is taking down caravans in their own nodal territory would not their actions be counter-intuitive to their own progression and if they take down caravans in another, then they risk conflict? So the likelihood is more on others territory than own.
And if by a guild, then the visibility of the action of the group only further creates tension and risk of wars, trades ceasing etc.
Setback on the highwayman progression will have bigger consequences than losing the cargo.
Players with low progression will not use slow valuable personal caravans unless the safety is high (low population, player agreements...). Their progression will predict their fate.
This is suggesting that the outcome of a caravan attack is pre-determined by the progression through this path that each member of the attacking and defending side have undergone.
I can't see this happening.
If you want to have high progression, you work with your guild in an organized way.
I don't see random players joining together being as efficient as a pvp focused guild.
Surely if any player(s) is taking down caravans in their own nodal territory would not their actions be counter-intuitive to their own progression and if they take down caravans in another, then they risk conflict? So the likelihood is more on others territory than own.
And if by a guild, then the visibility of the action of the group only further creates tension and risk of wars, trades ceasing etc.
You're imagining a system we haven't been shown. Remember when I say anything, it's not because I hate this system, I just hate the current form of it.
"Trades ceasing"
We've seen the idea that people fight for Glint, they pile up this Glint, the Glint is used for commodities, and then you maximize profit by Caravan. There are surely other purposes for Glint, but I'm pointing out that we still don't see any real sign that 'Trade Ceasing' is going to mean anything.
"Tension and risk of wars"
What would this actually even affect? A game 'giving a constant way for strong guilds to taunt weak ones into battles where they can be crushed'? In reality this works because the large empire or whatever can 'be worn down', and because the driving factors of political structures work based on the 'fear of death' motivation. We literally know what happens when you take away the fear of death for soldiers, it is so powerful that historically, societies raise morale by finding ways to circumvent people's fear of death.
"Visibility of the action of the group"
They're all already at 'war' if it matters, though. And yet, you can scout for caravans without being part of the group. You can send an army of NonCombatant 'spotters' and alts whose main task is to get Caravan locations and to bait people into being corrupted. You can 'use gatherer spotters' and just stash your main character at whatever chokepoint while you do it. If anything this is the biggest imbalance. Since a caravan moves, the defenders must be online the whole time, the attackers can coordinate their attacks without even stopping their other activities.
As we have seen it now, this is just another noob trap 'All Penalties' addition to the game that Top Guilds will use to bully weaker ones into being absorbed. Except that this one is apparently a huge economic lever (and it is impossible to make it not be one, a large guild that can run these unopposed because of might, gains might, a small guild failing to run these unopposed gives more might to the large one.
Also, anyone who looks at this system and doesn't understand why it's a noob trap, I have some concerning news for you... you're the noob.
makes me think you are just trying to earn points.
This is a thing? Earn points for what?
ftr: I'm NOT even against the system as its designed.
But don't tell me or try to sell me "big reward will have big risk" and then make all the game mechanic loss just on the caravan. How many different attacking groups/raids can attack the caravan along the way with no world-risk-flagging system? Is it just 1? Or is it 63/i.e.everyone? And now for the attackers?
This post is very telling for those who have never gotten their ass beat and those who have.
And if you can’t defend it, you don’t deserve to keep it.
Welcome to actual PvX.
nobody is talking about that really.
if you lose, you lose. and lose a lot. great. welcome to pvx.
but if you CAN defend it, there should be serious game designed losses for the attacker, not just theoretical or reputational.
Caravans are the end stage for people running goods.
Players start off on foot, then they move on to a mule, and finally a caravan.
If a person is running a caravan, it's assumed they can defend it.
The risk isn't on the attacker, the risk is assumed by those actually engaging in a logistical operation of moving goods.
When it comes to attackers, its on their end to actually gather intelligence on what caravans that are moving across the world that may be profitable.
Now we're talking about predicting what is in the crates, what route they're running if its a well known static route, whether their route has it depreciating value on turn in and if the route needs to change completely.
When you bungle that as an attacker, there is assumed risk involved.
Heres what happens when someone attacks a logistical supply line that belongs to a strong military power. They get destroyed.
Heres what will happen to attackers who attack a logistical supply line to a strong PvP power. They will get destroyed.
If people cannot destroy their enemies, then find someone else who will.
3
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I have no desire to attack others regularly and know my methods for maintaining relationships. It does not change the fact that if I come across a caravan and do decide to pvp for fun, it is a no brainer to be an attacker. There is no benefit other than the skill tree advancement to being a defender.
That all said for everyone talking about reputation and making enemies. If I was a part of a bandit guild, why would I care if I pissed your guild off? We are bandits remember?
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited February 14
Attackers don’t need to do much research.
The devs said in the demo that the Caravan routes have natural/environmental choke points designed to make it easier for Attackers to find Caravans.
PvPers don’t really need to care about the specific loot if they summon their own Caravan to pick up the dropped crates.
There’s going to be some material reward for a successful raid.
With the primary reward being the PvP encounter itself.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That all said for everyone talking about reputation and making enemies. If I was a part of a bandit guild, why would I care if I pissed your guild off? We are bandits remember?
I think the argument was intended to be that if you are attacking Caravans too often and gain a reputation of a notorious Bandit, that could reflect negatively on the reputation of the TheoryForge guild and the TheoryForge Alliances.
I think it’s fairly unlikely that the TheoryForge Guild would be a “bandit” guild.
But I also find it unlikely that our guild would gain a negative rep for one member’s rep as a Bandit.
Also…again… if it were truly a problem for the TheoryForge Guild - that’s what alts are for.
Regardless, there’s probably no amount of negative rep Fantm could accrue that would cause him or his main character to be considered friendless.
And I can’t think of any scenario where we would want his main character to be kicked from the TheoryForge Guild.
That’s just not the way the relationships in the TheoryForge Community work.
I have no desire to attack others regularly and know my methods for maintaining relationships. It does not change the fact that if I come across a caravan and do decide to pvp for fun, it is a no brainer to be an attacker. There is no benefit other than the skill tree advancement to being a defender.
That all said for everyone talking about reputation and making enemies. If I was a part of a bandit guild, why would I care if I pissed your guild off? We are bandits remember?
That part where the node you pissed off chain declares war on you for the next week and you get nothing done because as soon as you log back in you'll be getting jumped on.
I have no desire to attack others regularly and know my methods for maintaining relationships. It does not change the fact that if I come across a caravan and do decide to pvp for fun, it is a no brainer to be an attacker. There is no benefit other than the skill tree advancement to being a defender.
That all said for everyone talking about reputation and making enemies. If I was a part of a bandit guild, why would I care if I pissed your guild off? We are bandits remember?
That part where the node you pissed off chain declares war on you for the next week and you get nothing done because as soon as you log back in you'll be getting jumped on.
Except you just go to a different node - perhaps one where players from that node that has you KoS arent exactly welcome.
Good luck with your crusade against me when I am sitting in an area where everyone hates you, and will attack you. Tell then you want to come in to attack me because I had the audacity to PvP against you and see how that goes for you.
Point is, no matter how you spin it, social aspects of PvP can never be considered a risk.
When you bungle that as an attacker, there is assumed risk involved.
No there isnt.
The most you are risking is the few minutes you spend attacking.
The notion of research from the attackers side is also just amusing. All you need to know is that the caravan has materials of some sort in it, and you know you stand to profit from taking it. Since there will be a visual indicator on the caravan itself, the notion of research for an attacker is just not a thing.
I have no desire to attack others regularly and know my methods for maintaining relationships. It does not change the fact that if I come across a caravan and do decide to pvp for fun, it is a no brainer to be an attacker. There is no benefit other than the skill tree advancement to being a defender.
That all said for everyone talking about reputation and making enemies. If I was a part of a bandit guild, why would I care if I pissed your guild off? We are bandits remember?
That part where the node you pissed off chain declares war on you for the next week and you get nothing done because as soon as you log back in you'll be getting jumped on.
Except you just go to a different node - perhaps one where players from that node that has you KoS arent exactly welcome.
Good luck with your crusade against me when I am sitting in an area where everyone hates you, and will attack you. Tell then you want to come in to attack me because I had the audacity to PvP against you and see how that goes for you.
Point is, no matter how you spin it, social aspects of PvP can never be considered a risk.
Except there isn't a node that hates him and actually ha some ties to the node that dislikes you forcing you to move even further away to a more under developed node that has draw backs towards .
You guys don't understand the length pvp people will go based on the amount of damage you cause if you actually build a "rep" from being a bandit. A rep isn't attacking just one node or one group, if you are known for attacking a node that it most likely would start a war between the nodes so it be fair game at that point.
Either way lot of things to consider and think about,, node swapping shouldn't be a common thing either without some form of control.
I have no desire to attack others regularly and know my methods for maintaining relationships. It does not change the fact that if I come across a caravan and do decide to pvp for fun, it is a no brainer to be an attacker. There is no benefit other than the skill tree advancement to being a defender.
That all said for everyone talking about reputation and making enemies. If I was a part of a bandit guild, why would I care if I pissed your guild off? We are bandits remember?
That part where the node you pissed off chain declares war on you for the next week and you get nothing done because as soon as you log back in you'll be getting jumped on.
Except you just go to a different node - perhaps one where players from that node that has you KoS arent exactly welcome.
Good luck with your crusade against me when I am sitting in an area where everyone hates you, and will attack you. Tell then you want to come in to attack me because I had the audacity to PvP against you and see how that goes for you.
Point is, no matter how you spin it, social aspects of PvP can never be considered a risk.
Except there isn't a node that hates him and actually ha some ties to the node that dislikes you forcing you to move even further away to a more under developed node that has draw backs towards .
Nah, we can just jump on to our mains and let the heat cool off of the bandit alt guild.
You guys don't understand the length pvp people will go based on the amount of damage you cause if you actually build a "rep" from being a bandit.
Yes we do.
These lengths are quite short.
In my experience of modern MMO PvP, PvP players tend to not get a negative reputation for PvP'ing within the games PvP systems.
Sure, it used to be the case that you would - but it really isnt how it works now, at least not in the four years I played Archeage, or the few years playing other PvP MMO's.
These days, you gain bad reputation by cheating, or by going against agreements or alliances, or by not following through, or by reneging on your word.
I have no desire to attack others regularly and know my methods for maintaining relationships. It does not change the fact that if I come across a caravan and do decide to pvp for fun, it is a no brainer to be an attacker. There is no benefit other than the skill tree advancement to being a defender.
That all said for everyone talking about reputation and making enemies. If I was a part of a bandit guild, why would I care if I pissed your guild off? We are bandits remember?
That part where the node you pissed off chain declares war on you for the next week and you get nothing done because as soon as you log back in you'll be getting jumped on.
Except you just go to a different node - perhaps one where players from that node that has you KoS arent exactly welcome.
Good luck with your crusade against me when I am sitting in an area where everyone hates you, and will attack you. Tell then you want to come in to attack me because I had the audacity to PvP against you and see how that goes for you.
Point is, no matter how you spin it, social aspects of PvP can never be considered a risk.
Except there isn't a node that hates him and actually ha some ties to the node that dislikes you forcing you to move even further away to a more under developed node that has draw backs towards .
Nah, we can just jump on to our mains and let the heat cool off of the bandit alt guild.
You guys don't understand the length pvp people will go based on the amount of damage you cause if you actually build a "rep" from being a bandit.
Yes we do.
These lengths are quite short.
In my experience of modern MMO PvP, PvP players tend to not get a negative reputation for PvP'ing within the games PvP systems.
Sure, it used to be the case that you would - but it really isnt how it works now, at least not in the four years I played Archeage, or the few years playing other PvP MMO's.
These days, you gain bad reputation by cheating, or by going against agreements or alliances, or by not following through, or by reneging on your word.
Not from PvP'ing within the games PvP systems.
Going to be different with all the systems and how they work together most likely so long as they have a strong enough impact (which is seeming to be the case on paper).
I've had guild wars over one person being killed (from in game system) leading to a war for years. It is one thing to use the systems for pvp and to actually make a rep causing damage to a node. If you are raiding and stopping half their stuff coming in that is going to get noticed, or if you are constantly attacking a lot of node.
People will dec for that, you are effectively reaching into some ones pocket and people will take things personal when their is money involved even more so if you impact a lot of people / guilds.
If swapping to another character was enough to get heat off, id say you didn't really make any kind of rep with pvp. If you have a rep multiple nodes / guilds will have perma decs on you for awhile (i'm talking about weeks-year) or as often as they can.
Though there are other factors in to but not going to get into all those.
That part where the node you pissed off chain declares war on you for the next week and you get nothing done because as soon as you log back in you'll be getting jumped on.
Who says they would be able to easily find him?
Also - that's kinda the whole point of Ashes - to have rivals for PvP. Especially citizens from rival Nodes.
That part where the node you pissed off chain declares war on you for the next week and you get nothing done because as soon as you log back in you'll be getting jumped on.
Who says they would be able to easily find him?
Also - that's kinda the whole point of Ashes - to have rivals for PvP. Especially citizens from rival Nodes.
Basically, this is my problem with the systems as we see them so far.
There are a lot more "Someone's might suppresses any resistance" than there are 'actual ebb and flow of friction', and Intrepid if you're still checking this thread this is the number one thing I want you to fix.
Both your game theory model and your sociological models seem to me to be wrong, relative to this goal, assuming it even is actually a goal.
I don't want Caravans to be 'the strong guilds that run the strong nations get to make bank while everyone else is too afraid to attack them. Why? Because running caravans is slow, and without the battles it isn't much in terms of 'gameplay', but it's also unpredictable in a way that doesn't make sense for any levels of high reward.
Except that you can't have low reward because then we don't run them for the other reasons. For me, this has nothing to do with 'whether or not attackers explicitly need more risk'. It's about the massive imbalance in 'risk' that 'might' affords to whoever. Sure, there are always people in games like this who 'want to play the underdog', but seriously, it's gonna be bad enough without this 'Glint Farming Rate 3x Value' (the minimum viable, basically) Caravaneering.
Technically after the last showcase I was waiting for Steven's usual 'additional clarifying comments in Discord' but I think those didn't come this month.
On the other hand, I suppose I can't complain too much since I wanted TL and Ashes to be divergent, and TL has recently 'made strides to give smaller PvP groups some actual influence and content' to break up their mega-alliances... so I guess it's natural for Ashes to be the opposite?
Going to be different with all the systems and how they work together most likely so long as they have a strong enough impact (which is seeming to be the case on paper).
I see it the other way.
All of the systems in the game, all of the means of PvP happening - these all mean people don't need to fabricate a reason to fight.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
In games where the game gives you things to fight over (Archeage, Ashes), players dont need to fight over such trivial things.
If swapping to another character was enough to get heat off, id say you didn't really make any kind of rep with pvp.
Having an alt guild that no one knows is actually just your guild is not hard. This is especially true in a game that wants players to be able to engage in espionage on alts.
Comments
Carrying 10k stones? Yeah, you'll probably do it faster with a caravan, but unless I misunderstood you - you weren't talking about plain stones.
Consider this:
If you assault a caravan, you're not only jeopardizing your own interests but also risking the group transporting or ire of the guild or alliance, or node responsible for its transport. This could escalate tensions to the point where your guild, alliance, or even your entire node becomes embroiled in a costly conflict or labeled as Kill On Sight (KOS) targets. And if you are not part of any group, then just you only!
Surely the potential let alone the reality of such repercussions should be sufficient to deter any rational individual from engaging stopping caravans?
For that reason, I see only the foolish or the very bold or perhaps those with political agenda stopping a caravan
Consider this:
If you defend a caravan, you're not only jeopardizing your own interests but also risking the group who needs to block it, or ire of the guild or alliance, or node which will be suppressed if it arrives. This could escalate tensions to the point where your guild, alliance, or even your entire node becomes embroiled in a costly conflict or labeled as Kill On Sight (KOS) targets. And if you are not part of any group, then just you only!
Surely the potential let alone the reality of such repercussions should be sufficient to deter any rational individual from engaging in defending caravans?
I think many people forget 2 important things:
1) Profit multiplier. On "Caravan Preview" livestream 1.5g item turned into 8g item which is more than 5x. This is a HUGE difference. And it definitely has to come with a significant risk.
2) Item sink system. There are two phases of item sink: upon the destruction of a caravan and if attackers decide to open crates on the spot. If you switch from defenders/attackers POV and look at the system from game economy perspective, it makes perfect sense. Preventing inflation shouldn't be taken out of equation.
The devs are the one setting that profit multiplier.
Also, this doesn't prevent inflation in any way, that... I don't even know if I know how to explain how and why that doesn't work in the overall schema.
Man, it's easy to see why games turn out like this, though, I don't even know where to start, which obviously leads to the 'you don't know what you're talking about' flow we see sometimes...
But, I gotta say it anyway, I guess.
This does not work like that.
Well, probably not "prevent", but "contribute to slowing it down".
Speaking of multipliers, from what I heard on "Caravan Preview" stream, the numbers will be in that range (obviously, it will depend on supply & demand, so it may be lower or higher)
I'd appreciate if you clarify why, in your opinion, it doesn't work that way
Some other time maybe. I already overstepped by even getting into this thread.
Sorry for posting for my usual selfish reason. Just ignore it.
Good point.
The Highwayman progression will to be important for both attackers and defenders:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Highwayman_system
Setback on the highwayman progression will have bigger consequences than losing the cargo.
Players with low progression will not use slow valuable personal caravans unless the safety is high (low population, player agreements...). Their progression will predict their fate.
This is suggesting that the outcome of a caravan attack is pre-determined by the progression through this path that each member of the attacking and defending side have undergone.
I can't see this happening.
In order for the things you are talking about to matter to an individual or a guild, they have to buy in to the notion that the node is bigger than the guild.
Most players that come to the game with an existing guild simply won't buy in to that. Why would I put an in game structure as being more important than people I have been playing MMO's with for 15+ years?
It also doesn't address the fact that nodes are likely to have agreements with a handful of nearby nodes - not with all nodes. If I did care about my node at all, then I would just head off towards an area where we have no agreements of any kind, and hunt caravans there.
Suddenly, there are none of those reprocussions for me at all.
I don't see random players joining together being as efficient as a pvp focused guild.
That's all theoretical.
People will understand that bigger guilds will consider smaller runs as content. Which it is.
And if by a guild, then the visibility of the action of the group only further creates tension and risk of wars, trades ceasing etc.
Yeah, but PvP guilds would be on both sides.
You're imagining a system we haven't been shown. Remember when I say anything, it's not because I hate this system, I just hate the current form of it.
"Trades ceasing"
We've seen the idea that people fight for Glint, they pile up this Glint, the Glint is used for commodities, and then you maximize profit by Caravan. There are surely other purposes for Glint, but I'm pointing out that we still don't see any real sign that 'Trade Ceasing' is going to mean anything.
"Tension and risk of wars"
What would this actually even affect? A game 'giving a constant way for strong guilds to taunt weak ones into battles where they can be crushed'? In reality this works because the large empire or whatever can 'be worn down', and because the driving factors of political structures work based on the 'fear of death' motivation. We literally know what happens when you take away the fear of death for soldiers, it is so powerful that historically, societies raise morale by finding ways to circumvent people's fear of death.
"Visibility of the action of the group"
They're all already at 'war' if it matters, though. And yet, you can scout for caravans without being part of the group. You can send an army of NonCombatant 'spotters' and alts whose main task is to get Caravan locations and to bait people into being corrupted. You can 'use gatherer spotters' and just stash your main character at whatever chokepoint while you do it. If anything this is the biggest imbalance. Since a caravan moves, the defenders must be online the whole time, the attackers can coordinate their attacks without even stopping their other activities.
As we have seen it now, this is just another noob trap 'All Penalties' addition to the game that Top Guilds will use to bully weaker ones into being absorbed. Except that this one is apparently a huge economic lever (and it is impossible to make it not be one, a large guild that can run these unopposed because of might, gains might, a small guild failing to run these unopposed gives more might to the large one.
Also, anyone who looks at this system and doesn't understand why it's a noob trap, I have some concerning news for you... you're the noob.
ftr: I'm NOT even against the system as its designed.
But don't tell me or try to sell me "big reward will have big risk" and then make all the game mechanic loss just on the caravan. How many different attacking groups/raids can attack the caravan along the way with no world-risk-flagging system? Is it just 1? Or is it 63/i.e.everyone? And now for the attackers?
Caravans are the end stage for people running goods.
Players start off on foot, then they move on to a mule, and finally a caravan.
If a person is running a caravan, it's assumed they can defend it.
The risk isn't on the attacker, the risk is assumed by those actually engaging in a logistical operation of moving goods.
When it comes to attackers, its on their end to actually gather intelligence on what caravans that are moving across the world that may be profitable.
Now we're talking about predicting what is in the crates, what route they're running if its a well known static route, whether their route has it depreciating value on turn in and if the route needs to change completely.
When you bungle that as an attacker, there is assumed risk involved.
Heres what happens when someone attacks a logistical supply line that belongs to a strong military power. They get destroyed.
Heres what will happen to attackers who attack a logistical supply line to a strong PvP power. They will get destroyed.
If people cannot destroy their enemies, then find someone else who will.
That all said for everyone talking about reputation and making enemies. If I was a part of a bandit guild, why would I care if I pissed your guild off? We are bandits remember?
The devs said in the demo that the Caravan routes have natural/environmental choke points designed to make it easier for Attackers to find Caravans.
PvPers don’t really need to care about the specific loot if they summon their own Caravan to pick up the dropped crates.
There’s going to be some material reward for a successful raid.
With the primary reward being the PvP encounter itself.
I think it’s fairly unlikely that the TheoryForge Guild would be a “bandit” guild.
But I also find it unlikely that our guild would gain a negative rep for one member’s rep as a Bandit.
Also…again… if it were truly a problem for the TheoryForge Guild - that’s what alts are for.
Regardless, there’s probably no amount of negative rep Fantm could accrue that would cause him or his main character to be considered friendless.
And I can’t think of any scenario where we would want his main character to be kicked from the TheoryForge Guild.
That’s just not the way the relationships in the TheoryForge Community work.
That part where the node you pissed off chain declares war on you for the next week and you get nothing done because as soon as you log back in you'll be getting jumped on.
Agreed 1000%. Thank you.
Hopefully people will quit trying to say otherwise.
Including the "no reward without significant risk" pitches.
Except you just go to a different node - perhaps one where players from that node that has you KoS arent exactly welcome.
Good luck with your crusade against me when I am sitting in an area where everyone hates you, and will attack you. Tell then you want to come in to attack me because I had the audacity to PvP against you and see how that goes for you.
Point is, no matter how you spin it, social aspects of PvP can never be considered a risk.
The most you are risking is the few minutes you spend attacking.
The notion of research from the attackers side is also just amusing. All you need to know is that the caravan has materials of some sort in it, and you know you stand to profit from taking it. Since there will be a visual indicator on the caravan itself, the notion of research for an attacker is just not a thing.
Except there isn't a node that hates him and actually ha some ties to the node that dislikes you forcing you to move even further away to a more under developed node that has draw backs towards .
You guys don't understand the length pvp people will go based on the amount of damage you cause if you actually build a "rep" from being a bandit. A rep isn't attacking just one node or one group, if you are known for attacking a node that it most likely would start a war between the nodes so it be fair game at that point.
Either way lot of things to consider and think about,, node swapping shouldn't be a common thing either without some form of control.
Yes we do.
These lengths are quite short.
In my experience of modern MMO PvP, PvP players tend to not get a negative reputation for PvP'ing within the games PvP systems.
Sure, it used to be the case that you would - but it really isnt how it works now, at least not in the four years I played Archeage, or the few years playing other PvP MMO's.
These days, you gain bad reputation by cheating, or by going against agreements or alliances, or by not following through, or by reneging on your word.
Not from PvP'ing within the games PvP systems.
Going to be different with all the systems and how they work together most likely so long as they have a strong enough impact (which is seeming to be the case on paper).
I've had guild wars over one person being killed (from in game system) leading to a war for years. It is one thing to use the systems for pvp and to actually make a rep causing damage to a node. If you are raiding and stopping half their stuff coming in that is going to get noticed, or if you are constantly attacking a lot of node.
People will dec for that, you are effectively reaching into some ones pocket and people will take things personal when their is money involved even more so if you impact a lot of people / guilds.
If swapping to another character was enough to get heat off, id say you didn't really make any kind of rep with pvp. If you have a rep multiple nodes / guilds will have perma decs on you for awhile (i'm talking about weeks-year) or as often as they can.
Though there are other factors in to but not going to get into all those.
Also - that's kinda the whole point of Ashes - to have rivals for PvP. Especially citizens from rival Nodes.
Basically, this is my problem with the systems as we see them so far.
There are a lot more "Someone's might suppresses any resistance" than there are 'actual ebb and flow of friction', and Intrepid if you're still checking this thread this is the number one thing I want you to fix.
Both your game theory model and your sociological models seem to me to be wrong, relative to this goal, assuming it even is actually a goal.
I don't want Caravans to be 'the strong guilds that run the strong nations get to make bank while everyone else is too afraid to attack them. Why? Because running caravans is slow, and without the battles it isn't much in terms of 'gameplay', but it's also unpredictable in a way that doesn't make sense for any levels of high reward.
Except that you can't have low reward because then we don't run them for the other reasons. For me, this has nothing to do with 'whether or not attackers explicitly need more risk'. It's about the massive imbalance in 'risk' that 'might' affords to whoever. Sure, there are always people in games like this who 'want to play the underdog', but seriously, it's gonna be bad enough without this 'Glint Farming Rate 3x Value' (the minimum viable, basically) Caravaneering.
Technically after the last showcase I was waiting for Steven's usual 'additional clarifying comments in Discord' but I think those didn't come this month.
On the other hand, I suppose I can't complain too much since I wanted TL and Ashes to be divergent, and TL has recently 'made strides to give smaller PvP groups some actual influence and content' to break up their mega-alliances... so I guess it's natural for Ashes to be the opposite?
All of the systems in the game, all of the means of PvP happening - these all mean people don't need to fabricate a reason to fight.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
In games where the game gives you things to fight over (Archeage, Ashes), players dont need to fight over such trivial things. Having an alt guild that no one knows is actually just your guild is not hard. This is especially true in a game that wants players to be able to engage in espionage on alts.