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

Otr

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?

What if looting a valuable resource from the ash piles of another player would trigger a sound in the area?

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

The cascading effects on the systems would be minimal if players did not drop items on death. It would require a rebalance of the economy, but so does 'changing Corruption in any way'. I'd argue that any change to Corruption would require a larger economy rebalance than that, except that we have no solid information on the economy to begin with, at this time.

We simply don't know what work has been done to the systems so far, that would be affected if this was changed. There are models in which this would instantly break the whole thing, and models in which it would require a few number tweaks.

I say this to point out that if you're talking to a person that doesn't follow Ashes, explaining the effects won't always 'land', since any logical bases you use to explain it, will just be speculation, to them.

I think Nerror is including no looting Caravans?
Which would have a significant negative impact on the designs for Sieges and Node progression.

Even now, I'm hearing many PvPers say that there is not enough incentive/compensation/reward to warrant choosing to Defend Caravans if they don't get a cut of the Resources on the Caravan.

Dygz

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.

Because people won't PK you if they think you have nothing to loot?
I will certainly be testing that hypothesis.

Definitely there is less risk of losing stuff since there is then no risk of losing stuff.
In Ashes, Risk actually means Risk of PvP combat.
For me, it's more about reduced consequences.... for DEATH.
In a game that already has no permadeath.
Death should have significant consequences - otherwise death is meaningless.

Nerror

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

The cascading effects on the systems would be minimal if players did not drop items on death. It would require a rebalance of the economy, but so does 'changing Corruption in any way'. I'd argue that any change to Corruption would require a larger economy rebalance than that, except that we have no solid information on the economy to begin with, at this time.

We simply don't know what work has been done to the systems so far, that would be affected if this was changed. There are models in which this would instantly break the whole thing, and models in which it would require a few number tweaks.

I say this to point out that if you're talking to a person that doesn't follow Ashes, explaining the effects won't always 'land', since any logical bases you use to explain it, will just be speculation, to them.

I think Nerror is including no looting Caravans?

Not for this thought experiment. So the incentives to run caravans would have to be changed some probably, like how much weight a character can carry relative to a caravan, and the potential profits and such.

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

Because people won't PK you if they think you have nothing to loot?
I will certainly be testing that hypothesis.

Definitely there is less risk of losing stuff since there is then no risk of losing stuff.
In Ashes, Risk actually means Risk of PvP combat.
For me, it's more about reduced consequences.... for DEATH.
In a game that already has no permadeath.
Death should have significant consequences - otherwise death is meaningless.

Possibly. The point I was making was more about gaining confidence based on experience ranging the world, including dangers from players and monsters.

Remember, even if I’m purple I’ll lose 100% of the drop rate if I’m killed by a mob.. Edit: I got this wrong - drops are the same whether killed by mob or player.

Players are A threat, but not close to the only threat.

The more time folks spend in Verra, the better they will be at assessing threats, and therefore extending their outings accordingly.

Unless of course they choose to be wandering monks like us, where death may be as close to meaningless (measured by tangible consequence) as plausible. 😆

Ludullu

CROW3 wrote: »

Remember, even if I’m purple I’ll lose 100% of the drop rate if I’m killed by a mob.

Could you give a link to where this idea came from? Cause I don't remember ever hearing this.

CROW3

NiKr wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Remember, even if I’m purple I’ll lose 100% of the drop rate if I’m killed by a mob.

Could you give a link to where this idea came from? Cause I don't remember ever hearing this.

Oh! Good catch, @NiKr. Thanks for the call out, I got that wrong. Here’s the bit from the wiki:

Previously it was stated that death penalties do not differ between PvP and PvE.[30]

I’ll call out the mistake above.

Child Item