How do you define "Risk vs. Reward"?

In your own words: what do YOU think Risk vs Reward is? There seems to be a general consensus that "reward" should be commensurate with the "risk" of PvP happening in a given context but that seems a bit narrow considering there are downsides to failing at PvE encounters potentially. What would be a more all-encompassing conceptualization that fits the equation of Risk v Reward into it?

Personally I find the idea that Time + Resources (and hence the risk of losing them upon failing the given task) should equal reward. This opens broadens the definition to include things like PvE contexts which may or may not involve PvP as well.

What do you guys think or what are some other conceptualizations that wrap up Risk vs Reward as cleanly as possible?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Also irrelevant to this topic.

Got distracted by what Steven thinks and why he talks about PvP.
The adrenaline must flow.

Otr

Aszkalon wrote: »

But Who are we ? To demand that other Players don't have to be a possible Scource of Danger nearby us ?

Owners of something.

After a node is destroyed, the footprint of the node will enter a ruined state and will become an open PvP zone for a number of days equal to the node's level. These ruins consist of a debris field of treasures that are lootable by certain players.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_destruction

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.

"Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing.[2"] – Steven Sharif

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.

Indeed - having money doesn't make one correct on every count. Steven can be objectively wrong sometimes too.

I am not entirely sure you understand the meaning of the word "objectively".

Srixun

The easiest way I can explain this is "Gas station sushi"

Aszkalon

Otr wrote: »

Owners of something.

I read that our Freeholds are like magically untouchable and can not be sacked and/or attacked as long as our Node still stands.

Sathrago

Aszkalon wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Owners of something.

I read that our Freeholds are like magically untouchable and can not be sacked and/or attacked as long as our Node still stands.

do not promote removing safe places in a world full of danger. People need a place to chill and a freehold is a form of housing.

Noaani

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.

Indeed - having money doesn't make one correct on every count. Steven can be objectively wrong sometimes too.

I am not entirely sure you understand the meaning of the word "objectively".

Sure I do.

You can have an opinion on some things, and that is subjective.

However, if someone tries to tell me that using base10 as a system, 1+1=6, they are objectively wrong.

This is the same as someone saying time is not the only risk players have in an MMORPG. Any other 'opinion' that is contrary to that (as opposed to building upon it), is objectively wrong.

Dygz

Aika wrote: »

I mean one would argue it's also consensual since you have the choice not to engage with that content.

We can’t truly argue it here because the mods would start banning if I gave you concrete examples of consent and non-consent, but…

Yes. That’s why Ashes including non-consensual PvP with no Corruption in the Open Seas is a deal breaker for me.
Since I don’t consent to non-consensual, I refuse to play on servers that have that mechanic.
Since so many people have asked me to play anyway - I simply will ignore all forms of Risk and Reward and Progression while I explore as much of the map as possible while maintaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.

Aika wrote: »

Like instead of moving your caravan through the sea to save 30mn travel time, you know you'll be in an unrestricted pvp area and you're risking it.

I consider Caravans, Sieges and Wars to be Meaningful Conflict, rather than Risk v Reward.
I’m a fan of Meaningful Conflict - especially since those forms of PvP are all consensual.

Aika wrote: »

Also there's always the option to hire people to accompany you mitigating the risk.

As always, that is a patently absurd suggestion which in no way ameliorates any concerns with forced, non-consensual behavior.

Myosotys

Noaani wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.

Indeed - having money doesn't make one correct on every count. Steven can be objectively wrong sometimes too.

I am not entirely sure you understand the meaning of the word "objectively".

Sure I do.

You can have an opinion on some things, and that is subjective.

However, if someone tries to tell me that using base10 as a system, 1+1=6, they are objectively wrong.

This is the same as someone saying time is not the only risk players have in an MMORPG. Any other 'opinion' that is contrary to that (as opposed to building upon it), is objectively wrong.

It's also like persons who thinks they hold the only truth to such an extent that they think their opinions are objective. Such people objectively have a superiority complex or a psychiatric disorder of some kind.

Not everyone can claim to be a dogmatist. That implies much more intellectual rigor than you do Noaani.

Dygz

Aszkalon wrote: »

In Real Life, we are also not entitled to this Privilege of being unassailable.

Actually, we are entitled to that privilege in the US. The penalties for non-consensual attacks are high enough that most people will never be attacked as an adult.

Aszkalon wrote: »

And i think the People who have the biggest Problem with being able to get attacked everywhere in the Open World of Verra are People who think they will be more or less "safe" when that is not the Case. They think (hope?want?) that it will be like in the later World of Warcraft.

It’s a concern for those of us who play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
First question has always been, why would I play an MMORPG with no PvE-Only server.
But that was also when we thought Ashes would be the next impactful MMORPG to release before 2020.
Which made Corruption perhaps a worthwhile compromise.
Of course, now, there will be plenty of other MMORPGs to play that are better suited for those of us who abhor non-consensual PvP.
So… it’s all good.
Ashes isn’t made for everyone…

I don’t recall any demands being made.
This topic is about how Risk v Reward is defined.

Dygz

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.

"Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing.[2"] – Steven Sharif

That is a great quote, my friend.
It’s from the next Livestream after the Open Seas reveal - which is when Steven began obsessing over Risk v Reward.
In the September Livestream, Margaret had to remind Steven that risk is not just about PvP.
“Oh. Yes. Right.”

The quote you’ve posted here is from a section that Steven asked Margaret to put together to help him respond to constructive criticism and debate around the ramifications of the Open Seas being added.
And, you know, it would be right I stated that the Open Seas is a deal-breaker for me.

So… yes…
With notes prepared with help from Margaret, it is easier for Steven to remember to also discuss risk in relation to PvP.
But, when Steven extemporaneously discusses Risk v Reward, 95% of the time, he will focus on PvP and not mention PvE risk (mobs/NPCs/Bosses).

Noaani

Myosotys wrote: »

It's also like a person who thinks they hold the only truth to such an extent that they think their opinions are objective.

In a non pay to win MMORPG, the only input players have is time, thus the only risk is time.

It is an objective truth.

It is nothing to do with any superiority complex. One could claim it is being dogmatic, but laying something down as an undeniable principle (ie, being dogmatic) is actually the correct thing to do when you are talking about an undeniable principle.

You disagreeing with it is no different to flat earthers that honestly believe they are right. The rest of the world has been dogmatic in stating that the world is an oblate spheroid, and such people are not wrong to be dogmatic about that.

Myosotys

Noaani wrote: »

You disagreeing with it is no different to flat earthers that honestly believe they are right.

Yes excatly. And you are the flat earthers in this story. Whatever you can tell them, they will still be sure that the earth is flat ). They think it's an "objectve point of view".

Noaani wrote: »

One could claim it is being dogmatic

But you're not dogmatic, so don't rejoice too quickly. And you don't seem to understand the term correctly. To take your flat earth example again, you'd have to be able to demonstrate scientifically that the earth is flat, and I doubt you would.

If there is no longer any doubt that the earth is flat, it's because thousands of scientific demonstrations have been made.

Noaani

Myosotys wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You disagreeing with it is no different to flat earthers that honestly believe they are right.

Yes excatly. And you are the flat earthers in this story. Whatever you can tell them, they will still be sure that the earth is flat ). They think it's an "objectve point of view".

Most definitely not.

I have an incredibly simple method for you to prove me wrong. All you need to do is specify one thing players put in to a non pay to win game that isn't time.

I would assume you want to say skill, but since you are not putting that in to the game (you retain your level of skill, you do not place it in the game), it isn't applicable.

You may want to mention something about unique items that could be lost - but even then what you are really losing is the collective time it took to acquire that item.

If you can't name anything other than time that players put in to a game, your next step is to explain how players could risk something they haven't put in to the game.

If you can't answer either of these questions, then you should rethink who the flat earther here is.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

With notes prepared with help from Margaret, it is easier for Steven to remember to also discuss risk in relation to PvP.

You are obsessed about the PvP.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Aika wrote: »

I mean one would argue it's also consensual since you have the choice not to engage with that content.

We can’t truly argue it here because the mods would start banning if I gave you concrete examples of consent and non-consent, but…

Yes. That’s why Ashes including non-consensual PvP with no Corruption in the Open Seas is a deal breaker for me.
Since I don’t consent to non-consensual, I refuse to play on servers that have that mechanic.
Since so many people have asked me to play anyway - I simply will ignore all forms of Risk and Reward and Progression while I explore as much of the map as possible while maintaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.

I also want you to play the game because I think players like you would make the game community better.
But you risk losing your good reputation or gaining a different one.

Otr

Azherae wrote: »

I define fun in my designs and somewhat in life as time spent freely expressing one's identity in the context of a challenge or social situation.

Risk is any scenario in which your ability to achieve fun can be set back considerably, either to a previous state of advancement (relative to the fun specifically) or you can be prevented from being able to experience the same fun for a certain amount of time.

Reward is anything where your success at 'fun' leads to a progression in your ability to achieve similar fun.

I define it this way mostly because it helps to unite multiple types of gamer personality. People who go red and stay red can be viewed as Risking little if they get to continue to have their expressive fun. People who get ganked and lose stuff are also risking little if they get to continue to have their expressive fun.

I don't view time spent as a risk, for this reason, unless we are looking at the really old days of design where one needed to spend long periods not having fun, to advance your ability to occasionally have fun.

So tl;dr:
Risk is a potential setback to your ability to have more kinds of fun, and Rewards are when you gain more ways to have fun. Fun itself is relative.

First time the word "fun" was mentioned in the thread.

Otr

Noaani wrote: »

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Time spent vs reward.

From an objective standpoint, this is the only correct answer.

This is simply because time is the only thing we players put in to an MMORPG other than the subscription that only grants access.

Even Azheraes notion above of risk being a setback of your ability to have fun is still a risk of time. That setback simply means you need to spend more time in order to have the fun you want from the game.

Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.
Burn out is a risk which you get by spending time.

Some players may need illusions to get fun. Those illusions can be lost or destroyed. Spending more time may not build them back, depending on illusion type.

Information and knowledge plays a role too.
Some people have more fun not knowing things and discovering things gradually. As they gain more and more knowledge, they run out of things to discover. Risk is getting information you don't want to get.

Then come the streamers who have other objectives than having fun in the game and will not make the game more enjoyable for most of us. They are a risk.

Noaani

Otr wrote: »

Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.

Again, if we are talking about risk vs reward as a game design concept, this is actually not true.

The point of the game is to be entertained, or to have fun. This part is very true.

However, that does not mean fun is the reward in regards to risk vs reward from a game design perspective.

If that were the case, there would be no need for gear, or for leveling, or for any form of progression, or for in game currency. All of these things are the reward side of risk vs reward, "fun" is not. Fun is something that should be inherent to the game as a whole (not necessarily every single part of it, but the vast majority of it).

Again, keep in mind that the concept of "risk vs reward" is specific. It is not a term about fun for the game over all, it is not a term about burnout, it is not a term about anything like that.

Rather, the specific game design concept of "risk vs reward" is limited to the idea of "here is a piece of content, what risk do players have when participating in this one specific piece of content, and as a result what is an appropriate reward for this one piece of content".

That is it. That is the limit in scope of what risk vs reward is.

Child Item