Thought experiment: What if they removed dropping things on death?

Just as a thought experiment, what if Intrepid decided to stop glint, gathered and processed goods from dropping on death? What cascading effects would it have? What would need to be changed at a minimum, to stop the whole system from falling apart?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Depraved

Nerror wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

I was just talking to a friend who won't play Ashes, and one reason is they don't like dropping stuff on death. I told them there are cascading effects if they remove that aspect of the game, and I was just curious what ya'll think those effects are.

Well, what did you tell your friend the cascading effects were?

There's certainly a cascading effect on development...

I didn't really get into specifics much. It wasn't the setting for that, since I was driving.

I mentioned changes would have to be made to caravans, the corruption system, boss drops like epic and legendary materials, and the economy in general, since it removes one of the significant money/item sinks in the game.

But the topic kept buzzing in my head, hence this thread.

hey! don't text (post) and drive. that's dangerous!

They were in the passenger seat! But traffic was busy

you had multiple people in the passenger seat? O_O why they didn't sit at the back?

Otr

Depraved wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

I was just talking to a friend who won't play Ashes, and one reason is they don't like dropping stuff on death. I told them there are cascading effects if they remove that aspect of the game, and I was just curious what ya'll think those effects are.

Well, what did you tell your friend the cascading effects were?

There's certainly a cascading effect on development...

I didn't really get into specifics much. It wasn't the setting for that, since I was driving.

I mentioned changes would have to be made to caravans, the corruption system, boss drops like epic and legendary materials, and the economy in general, since it removes one of the significant money/item sinks in the game.

But the topic kept buzzing in my head, hence this thread.

hey! don't text (post) and drive. that's dangerous!

They were in the passenger seat! But traffic was busy

you had multiple people in the passenger seat? O_O why they didn't sit at the back?

Maybe he is a raid leader and was using a bus to reach the dungeon

Apok

death warping also changes the whole flow of things on the PvE side too, limited inventory but then you can just die to tele back and offload items on a gathering alt and just ignore the xp penalty cause it's not a character you're trying to level.

deathwarping will make the game a lot easier on many levels weather it's bots going for basic resources or people doing suicide runs in high level areas. this combined with the pvp issues it brings up will just take away from the overall experience of which would make a dynamic world feel more alive

no adversity just participation trophies really. it turns risk for reward into get something for doing something

Azherae

Apok wrote: »

death warping also changes the whole flow of things on the PvE side too, limited inventory but then you can just die to tele back and offload items on a gathering alt and just ignore the xp penalty cause it's not a character you're trying to level.

deathwarping will make the game a lot easier on many levels weather it's bots going for basic resources or people doing suicide runs in high level areas. this combined with the pvp issues it brings up will just take away from the overall experience of which would make a dynamic world feel more alive

no adversity just participation trophies really. it turns risk for reward into get something for doing something

This isn't necessarily true in Ashes since XP debt may lower your droprates for gathering or collecting things from mobs.

It is true that there would be some period of cost-less 'transportation', but this aspect of the equation has already been at least considered.

Basically, you can only ignore the XP penalty for a certain amount of deaths, which means you must 'pay time to restore the XP eventually', and that time can be factored.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

So now we are talking about what you think (even though you didn't post it here with your stance) in changing the system to be more lax.

Nerror asked "what do you think would happen if there was no player loot". This topic was touched upon in another Nerror thread, so instead of retyping all of that shit I simply said "if you've read you own thread, Nerror, you know what I think about this topic".

I mentioned your response, because I don't think the "PKers will still drop stuff" was mentioned there, so I thought this clarification would be nice for anyone who's not familiar with the L2 system.

Those who are interested in my opinion can go read that thread (which you allegedly already done), those who don't care and just want to interact with the thread obviously skipped my response because it's inconsequential to them

But I appreciate that you care so much about my opinions that you got tripped over even a simple mention of them.

Ludullu

Percimes wrote: »

Will you guys loot the random ash piles you come across? Or leave them for their dead owner to claim them back?

Loot and PM the victim (I assume we'll see names of the ashes) to give the loot back to them.

CROW3

Dropping stuff on death is an important aspect of risk. The more you gather, the further you are from home, the more risk you take on - but the more confident you’ll grow in how to navigate the world.

It just adds that much more meaning to almost every activity outside your doorstep.

Xeeg

CROW3 wrote: »

Dropping stuff on death is an important aspect of risk. The more you gather, the further you are from home, the more risk you take on - but the more confident you’ll grow in how to navigate the world.

It just adds that much more meaning to almost every activity outside your doorstep.

Yeah, I get that, but it also adds that much more loss aversion to many people, which is why they avoid these games.

I'd say as long as you get to keep a good portion of your collectables on death it would go a long way to retaining those people. Like 50% or more.

edit: keep in mind we wont be able to pick up everyone's gatherables because of bag slots etc.

Azherae

Xeeg wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Dropping stuff on death is an important aspect of risk. The more you gather, the further you are from home, the more risk you take on - but the more confident you’ll grow in how to navigate the world.

It just adds that much more meaning to almost every activity outside your doorstep.

Yeah, I get that, but it also adds that much more loss aversion to many people, which is why they avoid these games.

I'd say as long as you get to keep a good portion of your collectables on death it would go a long way to retaining those people. Like 50% or more.

edit: keep in mind we wont be able to pick up everyone's gatherables because of bag slots etc.

50% is already the value.

It does nothing for retention among my small sample size, which consists of '3 people that can definitely understand my econ ramblings', '3 people that sorta understand', '6 people that don't understand but trust them', and about a dozen that just follow without having any real connection to me, but for whom I have detailed data.

It doesn't seem to be connected to the actual amount, in my experience, therefore. In my arrogance, I feel that I know why that is, and it was true mostly before any changes to anything, though Glint and Stolen Glint don't help the matter.

There's a Dev Discussion on it too, which gives a lot more data that is difficult to read with a bias toward what you've said. i.e. even if you interpret responses in a generous/permissive way toward the 50% droprate, it's still a pain-point tier thing.

Aszkalon

Depraved wrote: »

you had multiple people in the passenger seat? O_O why they didn't sit at the back?

That doesn't sound legal ... ... ^^"

Xeeg

Azherae wrote: »

There's a Dev Discussion on it too, which gives a lot more data that is difficult to read with a bias toward what you've said. i.e. even if you interpret responses in a generous/permissive way toward the 50% droprate, it's still a pain-point tier thing.

Yeah, but that's the idea behind the game. If people are so risk adverse that they can't handle any loss, no matter how miniscule, then the basis of the game falls apart.

Azherae

Xeeg wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

There's a Dev Discussion on it too, which gives a lot more data that is difficult to read with a bias toward what you've said. i.e. even if you interpret responses in a generous/permissive way toward the 50% droprate, it's still a pain-point tier thing.

Yeah, but that's the idea behind the game. If people are so risk adverse that they can't handle any loss, no matter how miniscule, then the basis of the game falls apart.

Just to be clear, are you saying that 50% is 'required' for the 'risk behind the game'?

Because at no point did I mean to say 'these people don't want any risk'.

The ones I know have extremely specific and detailed workable risk profiles, and the Dev Discussion is a good way to look at more of that.

I don't know what caused the shift from '50% is ok', 'well no, that number might still be too much', 'well the game breaks if people can't handle any risk'.

No one's debating that, but dropping things on death isn't even a thing that happens in a large number of situations that 'should' matter to this.

Xeeg

Azherae wrote: »

Xeeg wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

There's a Dev Discussion on it too, which gives a lot more data that is difficult to read with a bias toward what you've said. i.e. even if you interpret responses in a generous/permissive way toward the 50% droprate, it's still a pain-point tier thing.

Yeah, but that's the idea behind the game. If people are so risk adverse that they can't handle any loss, no matter how miniscule, then the basis of the game falls apart.

Just to be clear, are you saying that 50% is 'required' for the 'risk behind the game'?

Because at no point did I mean to say 'these people don't want any risk'.

The ones I know have extremely specific and detailed workable risk profiles, and the Dev Discussion is a good way to look at more of that.

I don't know what caused the shift from '50% is ok', 'well no, that number might still be too much', 'well the game breaks if people can't handle any risk'.

No one's debating that, but dropping things on death isn't even a thing that happens in a large number of situations that 'should' matter to this.

I have no idea what the number should be at for the majority of players to accept it as gameplay risk that is worth the pain. 50% seems like a good start, shrug.

And yes, players who are actively going out "to pvp" are likely going with bags empty so they have nothing to lose. But who knows? Maybe a triggered pvp event rolls up while your bags are half full and you need to make a decision on whether to join it for the fun/glory and risk your mats or head home.

The whole "dropping things on death" creates a decision dynamic for the player that isn't there otherwise. There is a strategic value in depositing things, which equals travel time, and I think that's what they are going for at the end of the day. Just an added element to the game to consider. If the pain isn't too high, then more people might be willing to accept it as part of the game they enjoy.

I'll check out the dev discussion.

daveywavey

Percimes wrote: »

Side question...

Will you guys loot the random ash piles you come across? Or leave them for their dead owner to claim them back?

Noaani

Xeeg wrote: »

50% seems like a good start, shrug.

If Ashes is intended to be a game where risk is real, that means that risk needs to be realized - as in, people need to want to kill you to take your stuff. If no one wants to kill you to take your stuff, the risk is theoretical, as opposed to real.

If that risk is indeed real, there is no reason to assume a person would only be killed once on any given outing. In fact, if we are able to see that someone has experience debt, it is likely that being killed once will attract others to attack you (easier target).

The thing to keep in mind with 50% - that means if you are killed twice it is 75%. If you are killed 3 times, it is 87.5%. It is reasonable for people to expect this to happen on occasion, and so it is this compounded loss that people would be looking at.

On the other hand, if it is set at 20%, being killed three times would see you losing 49.2% of the materials you originally had on you.

If it were dropped down to 10%, even being killed 10 times in a row would see you retaining almost 35% of the materials you originally had.

Obviously what ever loss players recieve needs to be reflected in corruption - the more loss on death, the more punishing corruption can be. The less is dropped on death, the less punishing corruption needs to be in order to ensure there are still people willing to gain corruption.

Percimes

And if you fought back, becoming purple, you would cut each of these loses in half. Unless attacked by an already corrupted character since, in that case, you'd remain green.

Xeeg

Noaani wrote: »

Xeeg wrote: »

50% seems like a good start, shrug.

If Ashes is intended to be a game where risk is real, that means that risk needs to be realized - as in, people need to want to kill you to take your stuff. If no one wants to kill you to take your stuff, the risk is theoretical, as opposed to real.

The whole corruption system is aiming to limit that incentive, or at least create two opposite incentives: their stuff vs corruption.

There is a strategic cost/risk element to this. If corruption lasts 30m and lowers your stats by 10% and flags you, it might not be "worth" it to kill the guy for his stuff. Meaning, you might have been able to farm the equivalent amount of stuff you just picked up if you didn't kill them or something. This is only something we will be able to measure by playing the game. People may fight back just to lose less stuff, and then you don't get the corruption. Shrug.

It's all speculative at this point, but they have provided incentives for many different actions. Alpha 2 can help fine tune these so that the game play is fun and doesn't collapse into 1 or 2 strategies that everyone does all the time and turn the game stale quickly.

Noaani wrote: »

The thing to keep in mind with 50% - that means if you are killed twice it is 75%. If you are killed 3 times, it is 87.5%. It is reasonable for people to expect this to happen on occasion, and so it is this compounded loss that people would be looking at.

This is assuming that you immediately run back into danger after respawning over and over. Maybe you run back to town and depot first? Not sure how respawn works here.

If you are in a situation where you are getting killed over and over, it's probably because you are heading back to help allies in a fight and aren't as concerned about your mats.

Azherae

Xeeg wrote: »

This is assuming that you immediately run back into danger after respawning over and over. Maybe you run back to town and depot first? Not sure how respawn works here.

You might just get killed in town though.

Ashes can easily be the sort of game where you're safer before death #1 than you are after it, in terms of location.

If you're in a dungeon, gathering, and some unfriendly groups arrive, dying to one person might be a chain reaction.

Would it be 'your fault' for gathering in an area with too many theoretical unfriendlies? Maybe. But...

"Hey I see a target, log in your alt at the spawn point just in case you can get the double kill when I drop them, I'll let you know how much I get from their corpse so you know if it's worth it'."

(note that it does not matter if that person does not actually spawn at the spawn point, the cost to the PK-er who happened to be doing something in town and switch to their alt is not large, even less so considering the currently proposed 'BDO style' NPC-processing)

Honestly a 'town PK alt' is one of the best things a group could have. Guards should just kill them repeatedly to un-corrupt them, and you just log them in and let that happen whenever someone is around to pick up any loot they drop.

Unless we get guards confiscating Red player drops when they kill them, NOT having such an alt in your home node as a serious player group would almost be an oversight.

Noaani

Percimes wrote: »

And if you fought back, becoming purple, you would cut each of these loses in half. Unless attacked by an already corrupted character since, in that case, you'd remain green.

Yeah, that is what the 10% figure I had was for - half of 20% that you drop while green.

Noaani

Xeeg wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Xeeg wrote: »

50% seems like a good start, shrug.

If Ashes is intended to be a game where risk is real, that means that risk needs to be realized - as in, people need to want to kill you to take your stuff. If no one wants to kill you to take your stuff, the risk is theoretical, as opposed to real.

The whole corruption system is aiming to limit that incentive, or at least create two opposite incentives: their stuff vs corruption.

Yes, obviously. This was all contained in the part where I said the lower the drop players have, the lower the corruption you get for killing a green.

The point I was making is that in order for the game to have that risk factor that everyone (including Steven) considers core to the games premise, people need to be attacking each other in open world PvP. If that isn't happening, the game doesn't have that base level risk.

Honestly, this is such a core component of Ashes design that I don't expect it needs discussion - in order for the game to have the risk that Steven talks about all the time, people need to be fighting in open world PvP.

Xeeg wrote: »

This is assuming that you immediately run back into danger after respawning over and over.

It is assuming literally nothing at all other than that if players can see that a character has experience debt, they will consider that character to be an easy target.

What you seem to be assuming is that it will be easy to get back to town. I don't consider this to be something that can be assumed.

Child Item