In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" manner. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
Drama would usually come from the usual drama creators of "I took your mom to the movies and she loved that" and general kid behavior, which is unavoidable in any game.
And L2 always had smth to fight for, because anything you were doing was propelling your progression forwards, so anyone stopping you would in fact make you fight for the thing you wanted (and that enemy usually wanted it themselves).
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
When you think about it, you are right, the attackers have plenty of risk already. More than many people seem to realize. For one, Steven said in the latest live stream that successful attacks on a caravan don't yield the full amount of cargo that was on it to begin with. Second, the attackers has to have a caravan of their own, which may not even be upgraded with armor or enough storage to even carry what was dropped, and take the risk of being attacked while summoning it, which is quite high considering the original driver would likely want revenge. Plus they get the added deterrent of being flagged as a combatant or corrupted which further increases their risk of being attacked, and has other downsides as well, such as dropping your gear if you do become corrupted and get killed. Plus it looks like attacking a Carriage won't necessarily be easy without a group, assuming you have some upgrades such as that repulsor Steven showed off in the stream that knocked players away. I think all that plus some tearing and tweaking will make for a great system with risk and reward for both sides, just as intended.
Attackers does not have any risk for attacking - they only have a risk if they win. If they lose, nothing happens, they just get killed and respawn. If they win, still have no risk per say. They can open crates and tale whatever they can carry, or they can get their own caravan to haul everything. If they cant carry all the stuff, they have to take a risk. But is it a risk? Its goods they just stole, if they still walk away with nothing, they lost nothing.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Definitely not on the same page as those who think there will be very limited or no social/political repercussions for raiding caravans.
Drawing from experiences from Lineage 2 (L2), there were quite harsh consequences for; stealing loot, taking down raid bosses and entering dungeons "owned" by certain guilds. (and own guild)
In L2, taking loot often led to being marked as "Kill On Sight" (KOS) for a period or even initiating a guild-wide war if the attacker belonged to a guild. And if the guild did not reciprocate in a guild war, then the war was either maintained as one way or just expanded the KOS to exert pressure. This created political tensions and consequences within the game world. Castles were highly contested for the income they provided.
I guess our visions are different as I expect similar repercussions in Ashes.
In the scenario of someone seizing control of a guild's caravan in Ashes, some players may expect immediate retaliation such marked as KOS or a declaration of war or their own guild`s caravans to be persecuted..
Definitely not on the same page as those who think there will be very limited or no social/political repercussions for raiding caravans.
Even if those things all happen - so what?
If I raid enough of your caravans, I'm rich and you aren't. You want to declare war on me when I have ten times your wealth?
The game system based aspects of all in game content need to be balanced. It is utterly rediculous that anyone would argue otherwise. Even if all these things you are talking about come to pass, the game itself still needs to be balanced.
And again - while I'm sure that kind of thing happened in L2 - it literally never happened in Archeage. If you went crying to someones guild leader that they attacked you and took your packs, they would just laugh at you.
Literally.
It's PvP dude. You don't penalize people for PvP in a PvP game - again unless you specifically have an agreement with them, and even then if your guild wasn't strong enough to put up a fight they would still attack you if they wanted.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In the scenario of someone seizing control of a guild's caravan in Ashes, some players may expect immediate retaliation such marked as KOS or a declaration of war or their own guild`s caravans to be persecuted..
That’s not really “risk”. It’s just more PvP.
Which is what PvPers enjoy.
It’s especially not a risk for gamers using alts to hunt Caravans.
In the scenario of someone seizing control of a guild's caravan in Ashes, some players may expect immediate retaliation such marked as KOS or a declaration of war or their own guild`s caravans to be persecuted..
That’s not really “risk”. It’s just more PvP.
Which is what PvPers enjoy.
It’s especially not a risk for gamers using alts to hunt Caravans.
Something else I've noticed in my time playing PvP games, many (not all) so called PvP players actually don't want to get involved in PvP.
All they want to do is win, and be seen to be winning. If they PvP someone, there is a chance they may lose.
So, to some so called PvP players, more PvP is indeed a risk rather than a reward.
0
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I agree that there might be social risk involved. I am not disputing that at all.
What I am saying is if I am a bandit and in a bandit guild, I don't care. I literally just killed you and took your stuff. I am expecting you to be upset about that. I am expecting you to try to kill me the next time you see me. Because I am a bandit.
You sitting there wagging a finger at me saying "Oh you are in so much trouble now!" will do nothing other than make me laugh.
The player has made the decision knowing the consequences and accepting them.
Having a progression system for this behavior will further invite it to be present and allow some people to make a career out of it.
This is exactly what Steven wants. He wants you to get angry at the person that is stealing your items, because it is what leads to world change.
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.
I can assure you that it is not theoretical, because if my node's caravans are attacked, this is exactly how i'd respond.
You don't have to win, you just need to do enough to make the attacks less profitable than attacking someone else.
Regardless, the caravan system will be a gold race. Even if more people engage in attacking, and we have no idea if that is the case, there are plenty of examples where the defender ROI will be better. I just made a video yesterday showing how even in a murder box caravan situation, defender ROI will be better than attacker roi. I don't think the game will skewe heavily to the example i showed, but the point is, if I'm making 50% more gold defending caravans than attacking them, then I and smart money players will defend, and vice versa. This will be a cat and mouse event, where one side doesn't always get the better investment.
So sure, people can attack and they are incentivized to do so, that's good because you need both sides incentivized to have a good pvp system. Just because you win more doesn't mean you earn more...and that is really overlooked because optimization in material and gold acquiring is how people will advance their nodes and guilds faster.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
In the scenario of someone seizing control of a guild's caravan in Ashes, some players may expect immediate retaliation such marked as KOS or a declaration of war or their own guild`s caravans to be persecuted..
That’s not really “risk”. It’s just more PvP.
Which is what PvPers enjoy.
It’s especially not a risk for gamers using alts to hunt Caravans.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
All the theorists on the forums typically are going to be in for a big surprise the first time they see a node being destroyed because people fucked around and found out.
I chalk it up to a lack of experience and being a theory crafter over a gamer.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
All the theorists on the forums typically are going to be in for a big surprise the first time they see a node being destroyed because people fucked around and found out.
I chalk it up to a lack of experience and being a theory crafter over a gamer.
How a mayor or guild leader will operate:
1. Don't attack these guys, they're bigger than us and it's not worth the risk
2. Don't attack these nodes, they have more pvpers and it's not worth the risk
3. Don't attack these smaller nodes, they're coordinated and actually outnumber us
4. don't attack these nodes, we're on good standing with them and need them to not get toppled over by some other nodes
5. Attack these nodes because they don't fight back and it's free.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
All the theorists on the forums typically are going to be in for a big surprise the first time they see a node being destroyed because people fucked around and found out.
I chalk it up to a lack of experience and being a theory crafter over a gamer.
How a mayor or guild leader will operate:
1. Don't attack these guys, they're bigger than us and it's not worth the risk
2. Don't attack these nodes, they have more pvpers and it's not worth the risk
3. Don't attack these smaller nodes, they're coordinated and actually outnumber us
4. don't attack these nodes, we're on good standing with them and need them to not get toppled over by some other nodes
5. Attack these nodes because they don't fight back and it's free.
Those who think there won’t be politics involved are only fooling themselves and aren’t paying attention.
I agree that there might be social risk involved. I am not disputing that at all.
What I am saying is if I am a bandit and in a bandit guild, I don't care. I literally just killed you and took your stuff. I am expecting you to be upset about that. I am expecting you to try to kill me the next time you see me. Because I am a bandit.
You sitting there wagging a finger at me saying "Oh you are in so much trouble now!" will do nothing other than make me laugh.
The player has made the decision knowing the consequences and accepting them.
Having a progression system for this behavior will further invite it to be present and allow some people to make a career out of it.
This is exactly what Steven wants. He wants you to get angry at the person that is stealing your items, because it is what leads to world change.
Steven defines the framework. I think is too much to say he wants to make players angry.
Those who cannot deal with the loss will not drive caravans.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
Not at all.
Again, what I have been talking about is directly from the game that has the most similarity to Ashes in regards to how much there is for players to keep up with. In Archeage, if I am taking up to 10% of your packs, you wouldn't care at all about it because you know you don't have the time to spend on it. If you start wasting time on me, you'll fall behind on Luscas, you'll miss Kraken and dragon spawns, Abyssal, what ever. There was always something going on, and if you wasted time on me, you'd miss out on something bigger.
In Ashes, if I am taking 10% of your caravans and you come after me, you'll not be prepared for the next siege, you'll have a bigger guild declare war on you, you'll fall behind on node experience for what ever node you are trying to build up - what ever.
Point is, you would ONLY ever come after me if the amount of caravans I am raiding from you is seriously hampering your efforts in regards to the thing you actually want to do.
If all it takes for you and your guild to take your eyes off of what your larger goal in game is, is for an alt guild to take over a few caravans, then you and your guild are never going to get far enough in the game to be considered a top guild of any description.
That is what it boils down to. That is why it was a thing to some people in L2 and BDO, but why it wasn't in Archeage and won't be in Ashes. You should have far more important things to focus your time on than a guild that is taking a handful of caravans.
The thing is, if I am taking a handful of caravans from every guild, I'm making more money than any of you.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
All the theorists on the forums typically are going to be in for a big surprise the first time they see a node being destroyed because people fucked around and found out.
I chalk it up to a lack of experience and being a theory crafter over a gamer.
How a mayor or guild leader will operate:
1. Don't attack these guys, they're bigger than us and it's not worth the risk
2. Don't attack these nodes, they have more pvpers and it's not worth the risk
3. Don't attack these smaller nodes, they're coordinated and actually outnumber us
4. don't attack these nodes, we're on good standing with them and need them to not get toppled over by some other nodes
5. Attack these nodes because they don't fight back and it's free.
This is so true and annoying, and ill be trying to move as far from boring groups like this as possible.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
Not at all.
Again, what I have been talking about is directly from the game that has the most similarity to Ashes in regards to how much there is for players to keep up with. In Archeage, if I am taking up to 10% of your packs, you wouldn't care at all about it because you know you don't have the time to spend on it. If you start wasting time on me, you'll fall behind on Luscas, you'll miss Kraken and dragon spawns, Abyssal, what ever. There was always something going on, and if you wasted time on me, you'd miss out on something bigger.
In Ashes, if I am taking 10% of your caravans and you come after me, you'll not be prepared for the next siege, you'll have a bigger guild declare war on you, you'll fall behind on node experience for what ever node you are trying to build up - what ever.
Point is, you would ONLY ever come after me if the amount of caravans I am raiding from you is seriously hampering your efforts in regards to the thing you actually want to do.
If all it takes for you and your guild to take your eyes off of what your larger goal in game is, is for an alt guild to take over a few caravans, then you and your guild are never going to get far enough in the game to be considered a top guild of any description.
That is what it boils down to. That is why it was a thing to some people in L2 and BDO, but why it wasn't in Archeage and won't be in Ashes. You should have far more important things to focus your time on than a guild that is taking a handful of caravans.
The thing is, if I am taking a handful of caravans from every guild, I'm making more money than any of you.
My points are in relationship to you have made a rep, meaning you are doing LARGE amount of pvp in relationship to hampering node growth and stealing a lot of materials from players.
Anything in relation to pocket change or a small amount does not equal to building a rep for effectively engaging in pvp that has direct effect on players gold and node growth.
I'm not factoring in spawns and doing pve (including crafting and other progression growths), if you are carrying a lot of stuff for your node both teams are not engaging in that pve dungeon / boss element.
That is my view, you don't need to agree with me, it will just be a learning experience if that game systems are as tied and deep as players are hoping for. In the scenario raiding caravans doesn't do much that it won't matter and people won't care and you won't make much of a rep for it. But not something I'm going to go by thinking you won't get much unless I'm shown other wise. Right now you steal 100% of the stuff on the caravan
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
All the theorists on the forums typically are going to be in for a big surprise the first time they see a node being destroyed because people fucked around and found out.
I chalk it up to a lack of experience and being a theory crafter over a gamer.
How a mayor or guild leader will operate:
1. Don't attack these guys, they're bigger than us and it's not worth the risk
2. Don't attack these nodes, they have more pvpers and it's not worth the risk
3. Don't attack these smaller nodes, they're coordinated and actually outnumber us
4. don't attack these nodes, we're on good standing with them and need them to not get toppled over by some other nodes
5. Attack these nodes because they don't fight back and it's free.
This is so true and annoying, and ill be trying to move as far from boring groups like this as possible.
In the scenario of someone seizing control of a guild's caravan in Ashes, some players may expect immediate retaliation such marked as KOS or a declaration of war or their own guild`s caravans to be persecuted..
That’s not really “risk”. It’s just more PvP.
Which is what PvPers enjoy.
It’s especially not a risk for gamers using alts to hunt Caravans.
What?
What is stopping an alt created to focus on attacking Caravans from joing a Guild created for characters that focus on attacking Caravans.
There is nothing in that link that states attacking Caravans prevents Guild progression.
Also a Bandit Guild doesn't necessarily have to rely on initiating their own Caravan runs.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
Not at all.
Again, what I have been talking about is directly from the game that has the most similarity to Ashes in regards to how much there is for players to keep up with. In Archeage, if I am taking up to 10% of your packs, you wouldn't care at all about it because you know you don't have the time to spend on it. If you start wasting time on me, you'll fall behind on Luscas, you'll miss Kraken and dragon spawns, Abyssal, what ever. There was always something going on, and if you wasted time on me, you'd miss out on something bigger.
In Ashes, if I am taking 10% of your caravans and you come after me, you'll not be prepared for the next siege, you'll have a bigger guild declare war on you, you'll fall behind on node experience for what ever node you are trying to build up - what ever.
Point is, you would ONLY ever come after me if the amount of caravans I am raiding from you is seriously hampering your efforts in regards to the thing you actually want to do.
If all it takes for you and your guild to take your eyes off of what your larger goal in game is, is for an alt guild to take over a few caravans, then you and your guild are never going to get far enough in the game to be considered a top guild of any description.
That is what it boils down to. That is why it was a thing to some people in L2 and BDO, but why it wasn't in Archeage and won't be in Ashes. You should have far more important things to focus your time on than a guild that is taking a handful of caravans.
The thing is, if I am taking a handful of caravans from every guild, I'm making more money than any of you.
My points are in relationship to you have made a rep, meaning you are doing LARGE amount of pvp in relationship to hampering node growth and stealing a lot of materials from players.
Yes, if I do nothing other than go after you, your guild and your node, I expect retaliation.
At that point though, the caravan isnt the target, your guild is. If I am not specifically targeting your guild - if I am being a bandit for the sake of being a bandit - then I am not going to take enough of your caravans to cause you to lose focus on what you are doing.
Thus, if caravans/profit is the goal, the entire notion of social repercussions - as we have been saying - dont exist.
In games with nothing to fight over (L2, BDO et al), players need to manufacture things to fight over.
Just to comment on this from my L2 days, majority of pvpers respected each other if those fights happened in a "fair" matter. What's "fair" tended to vary between some people, but usually if numbers were equal or if there'd been no backstabbing behind the scenes - things were fair.
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
Not at all.
Again, what I have been talking about is directly from the game that has the most similarity to Ashes in regards to how much there is for players to keep up with. In Archeage, if I am taking up to 10% of your packs, you wouldn't care at all about it because you know you don't have the time to spend on it. If you start wasting time on me, you'll fall behind on Luscas, you'll miss Kraken and dragon spawns, Abyssal, what ever. There was always something going on, and if you wasted time on me, you'd miss out on something bigger.
In Ashes, if I am taking 10% of your caravans and you come after me, you'll not be prepared for the next siege, you'll have a bigger guild declare war on you, you'll fall behind on node experience for what ever node you are trying to build up - what ever.
Point is, you would ONLY ever come after me if the amount of caravans I am raiding from you is seriously hampering your efforts in regards to the thing you actually want to do.
If all it takes for you and your guild to take your eyes off of what your larger goal in game is, is for an alt guild to take over a few caravans, then you and your guild are never going to get far enough in the game to be considered a top guild of any description.
That is what it boils down to. That is why it was a thing to some people in L2 and BDO, but why it wasn't in Archeage and won't be in Ashes. You should have far more important things to focus your time on than a guild that is taking a handful of caravans.
The thing is, if I am taking a handful of caravans from every guild, I'm making more money than any of you.
So, you benefit from taking caravans from other guilds, but you don't think they would benefit doing the same?
What if all of the guilds you're attacking and taking 10% from decide that they're going to each take 10% from you. What happens when the average node size of 100 people is sieged by 2-3 nodes tired of getting attacked by the same node, making it a 250 v 100 and putting themselves in a good situation to level all progress made so far and then cleaning up all of those resources collected.
Not getting vassaled without a fight doesn't seem like a waste of time to me.
Comments
Drama would usually come from the usual drama creators of "I took your mom to the movies and she loved that" and general kid behavior, which is unavoidable in any game.
And L2 always had smth to fight for, because anything you were doing was propelling your progression forwards, so anyone stopping you would in fact make you fight for the thing you wanted (and that enemy usually wanted it themselves).
This is what will happen with caravans in Ashes.
If you run a caravan full of stuff and I attack it and take it, that is the risk you took. You dont go declaring war on me and my guild (unless we had an agreement),you just accept that you took a risk and lost.
The claim of social repercussions for raiding a caravan is a fantasy.
This is why the risk/reward structure built in to the game needs to he more balanced.
Attackers does not have any risk for attacking - they only have a risk if they win. If they lose, nothing happens, they just get killed and respawn. If they win, still have no risk per say. They can open crates and tale whatever they can carry, or they can get their own caravan to haul everything. If they cant carry all the stuff, they have to take a risk. But is it a risk? Its goods they just stole, if they still walk away with nothing, they lost nothing.
Drawing from experiences from Lineage 2 (L2), there were quite harsh consequences for; stealing loot, taking down raid bosses and entering dungeons "owned" by certain guilds. (and own guild)
In L2, taking loot often led to being marked as "Kill On Sight" (KOS) for a period or even initiating a guild-wide war if the attacker belonged to a guild. And if the guild did not reciprocate in a guild war, then the war was either maintained as one way or just expanded the KOS to exert pressure. This created political tensions and consequences within the game world. Castles were highly contested for the income they provided.
I guess our visions are different as I expect similar repercussions in Ashes.
In the scenario of someone seizing control of a guild's caravan in Ashes, some players may expect immediate retaliation such marked as KOS or a declaration of war or their own guild`s caravans to be persecuted..
If I raid enough of your caravans, I'm rich and you aren't. You want to declare war on me when I have ten times your wealth?
The game system based aspects of all in game content need to be balanced. It is utterly rediculous that anyone would argue otherwise. Even if all these things you are talking about come to pass, the game itself still needs to be balanced.
And again - while I'm sure that kind of thing happened in L2 - it literally never happened in Archeage. If you went crying to someones guild leader that they attacked you and took your packs, they would just laugh at you.
Literally.
It's PvP dude. You don't penalize people for PvP in a PvP game - again unless you specifically have an agreement with them, and even then if your guild wasn't strong enough to put up a fight they would still attack you if they wanted.
Which is what PvPers enjoy.
It’s especially not a risk for gamers using alts to hunt Caravans.
Something else I've noticed in my time playing PvP games, many (not all) so called PvP players actually don't want to get involved in PvP.
All they want to do is win, and be seen to be winning. If they PvP someone, there is a chance they may lose.
So, to some so called PvP players, more PvP is indeed a risk rather than a reward.
What I am saying is if I am a bandit and in a bandit guild, I don't care. I literally just killed you and took your stuff. I am expecting you to be upset about that. I am expecting you to try to kill me the next time you see me. Because I am a bandit.
You sitting there wagging a finger at me saying "Oh you are in so much trouble now!" will do nothing other than make me laugh.
The player has made the decision knowing the consequences and accepting them.
Having a progression system for this behavior will further invite it to be present and allow some people to make a career out of it.
This is exactly what Steven wants. He wants you to get angry at the person that is stealing your items, because it is what leads to world change.
I can assure you that it is not theoretical, because if my node's caravans are attacked, this is exactly how i'd respond.
You don't have to win, you just need to do enough to make the attacks less profitable than attacking someone else.
Regardless, the caravan system will be a gold race. Even if more people engage in attacking, and we have no idea if that is the case, there are plenty of examples where the defender ROI will be better. I just made a video yesterday showing how even in a murder box caravan situation, defender ROI will be better than attacker roi. I don't think the game will skewe heavily to the example i showed, but the point is, if I'm making 50% more gold defending caravans than attacking them, then I and smart money players will defend, and vice versa. This will be a cat and mouse event, where one side doesn't always get the better investment.
So sure, people can attack and they are incentivized to do so, that's good because you need both sides incentivized to have a good pvp system. Just because you win more doesn't mean you earn more...and that is really overlooked because optimization in material and gold acquiring is how people will advance their nodes and guilds faster.
I think you are going to be in for a big surprise.
Those alts will be less efficient because they do not receive guild progression benefits.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guilds#Guild_progression
All the theorists on the forums typically are going to be in for a big surprise the first time they see a node being destroyed because people fucked around and found out.
I chalk it up to a lack of experience and being a theory crafter over a gamer.
How a mayor or guild leader will operate:
1. Don't attack these guys, they're bigger than us and it's not worth the risk
2. Don't attack these nodes, they have more pvpers and it's not worth the risk
3. Don't attack these smaller nodes, they're coordinated and actually outnumber us
4. don't attack these nodes, we're on good standing with them and need them to not get toppled over by some other nodes
5. Attack these nodes because they don't fight back and it's free.
Those who think there won’t be politics involved are only fooling themselves and aren’t paying attention.
Steven defines the framework. I think is too much to say he wants to make players angry.
Those who cannot deal with the loss will not drive caravans.
Not at all.
Again, what I have been talking about is directly from the game that has the most similarity to Ashes in regards to how much there is for players to keep up with. In Archeage, if I am taking up to 10% of your packs, you wouldn't care at all about it because you know you don't have the time to spend on it. If you start wasting time on me, you'll fall behind on Luscas, you'll miss Kraken and dragon spawns, Abyssal, what ever. There was always something going on, and if you wasted time on me, you'd miss out on something bigger.
In Ashes, if I am taking 10% of your caravans and you come after me, you'll not be prepared for the next siege, you'll have a bigger guild declare war on you, you'll fall behind on node experience for what ever node you are trying to build up - what ever.
Point is, you would ONLY ever come after me if the amount of caravans I am raiding from you is seriously hampering your efforts in regards to the thing you actually want to do.
If all it takes for you and your guild to take your eyes off of what your larger goal in game is, is for an alt guild to take over a few caravans, then you and your guild are never going to get far enough in the game to be considered a top guild of any description.
That is what it boils down to. That is why it was a thing to some people in L2 and BDO, but why it wasn't in Archeage and won't be in Ashes. You should have far more important things to focus your time on than a guild that is taking a handful of caravans.
The thing is, if I am taking a handful of caravans from every guild, I'm making more money than any of you.
This is so true and annoying, and ill be trying to move as far from boring groups like this as possible.
My points are in relationship to you have made a rep, meaning you are doing LARGE amount of pvp in relationship to hampering node growth and stealing a lot of materials from players.
Anything in relation to pocket change or a small amount does not equal to building a rep for effectively engaging in pvp that has direct effect on players gold and node growth.
I'm not factoring in spawns and doing pve (including crafting and other progression growths), if you are carrying a lot of stuff for your node both teams are not engaging in that pve dungeon / boss element.
That is my view, you don't need to agree with me, it will just be a learning experience if that game systems are as tied and deep as players are hoping for. In the scenario raiding caravans doesn't do much that it won't matter and people won't care and you won't make much of a rep for it. But not something I'm going to go by thinking you won't get much unless I'm shown other wise. Right now you steal 100% of the stuff on the caravan
That’s politics and player behavior.
We aren’t going to see the wheat from the chaff separated either because people aren’t going to show up to the sweaty servers.
What is stopping an alt created to focus on attacking Caravans from joing a Guild created for characters that focus on attacking Caravans.
There is nothing in that link that states attacking Caravans prevents Guild progression.
Also a Bandit Guild doesn't necessarily have to rely on initiating their own Caravan runs.
Ashes is not made for everyone.
At that point though, the caravan isnt the target, your guild is. If I am not specifically targeting your guild - if I am being a bandit for the sake of being a bandit - then I am not going to take enough of your caravans to cause you to lose focus on what you are doing.
Thus, if caravans/profit is the goal, the entire notion of social repercussions - as we have been saying - dont exist.
Was wondering where your thoughts were. I guess thats fair.
Why? There are several valid opinions even if they don't all match yours.
Liniker is one of those people that thinks the only valid opinion is exactly the opinion he has.
So, you benefit from taking caravans from other guilds, but you don't think they would benefit doing the same?
What if all of the guilds you're attacking and taking 10% from decide that they're going to each take 10% from you. What happens when the average node size of 100 people is sieged by 2-3 nodes tired of getting attacked by the same node, making it a 250 v 100 and putting themselves in a good situation to level all progress made so far and then cleaning up all of those resources collected.
Not getting vassaled without a fight doesn't seem like a waste of time to me.
You should be the last one saying this.