Otr wrote: » 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 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.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » Time spent vs reward.
Noaani wrote: » 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).
Otr wrote: » Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back. Fun is the reward.
Noaani wrote: » 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.
Azherae wrote: » In those games, no progression setback is possible. This is also why 'griefing' is so important to stop. If you make effort to gain the ability have more fun, and others can use minimal effort to disrupt your fun that you gained, then most people feel 'unrewarded'. "Why did I spend 3 hours farming these pop items when some random can show up and steal the boss or prevent me from being able to fight it?"
Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » In those games, no progression setback is possible. This is also why 'griefing' is so important to stop. If you make effort to gain the ability have more fun, and others can use minimal effort to disrupt your fun that you gained, then most people feel 'unrewarded'. "Why did I spend 3 hours farming these pop items when some random can show up and steal the boss or prevent me from being able to fight it?" If somebody else takes the loot you call it griefing? Edit: I agree that progression is important for many players and setbacks can be painful. I am not sure what to do with this information. I wouldn't want a PvE game with less risk of having setbacks.
Azherae wrote: » No, I put 'griefing' in quotes. You might recognize that often, the difference in what people consider 'griefing' is related to what type of fun they think the game is supposed to be about.
Azherae wrote: » It's meant to be a counterpoint. When Steven says 'there is a Risk when you go out to do X', it's only true if there's some progression setback that's possible, and that progression setback often needs to be relative to the 'X'.
Otr wrote: » Money, resources... these are means to trigger them. But not for everybody. Some people may care more about destroying nodes or castles than collecting virtual items. Failing to destroy is a risk.
Otr wrote: » You are obsessed about the PvP.
Otr wrote: » 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.
Azherae wrote: » No, fun is not a reward. It specifically needs to be a progressive increase in one's ability to have fun, or an advantage gained over others (which specifically converts to other people not being able to lessen your fun), to be viewed as a 'Reward'.
Azherae wrote: » Also, note that the reason I even bothered to bring up that definition is because I personally don't think 'Risk vs Reward' as Steven uses it relative to Ashes has any meaning. It's meant to be a counterpoint. When Steven says 'there is a Risk when you go out to do X', it's only true if there's some progression setback that's possible, and that progression setback often needs to be relative to the 'X'.
Azherae wrote: » Consider games where you can't lose or degrade gear, but there's still PvP. A player who wants PvP, who has their PvP gear, can go out and PvP without ever having a 'Risk'. The stronger they get, the more they can do this, in some games.
Azherae wrote: » This is also why 'griefing' is so important to stop. If you make effort to gain the ability have more fun, and others can use minimal effort to disrupt your fun that you gained, then most people feel 'unrewarded'. "Why did I spend 3 hours farming these pop items when some random can show up and steal the boss or prevent me from being able to fight it?"
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » 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. I don't really know what that means since, after launch, I won't be pursuing any Leveling progression or participating in Sieges, Caravans, or Wars. I don't know how that makes the game community better, but...
Otr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 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). I disagree with the part marked with red. Causality of Fun is not a bijective function. If developers can identify a source of fun does not mean the other sources are redundant. As long as they do not oppose each other, all should be considered.
Noaani wrote: » 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. If we restrict to almost mathematical mechanics, Information plays a big role too, because risk (chance) depends on what the player knows or can know and can predict. Knowing where players or NPCs are and what they are doing can decrease the risk a lot. That knowledge may come from using external tools to gather, process and store information. Some players may find the game-play more rewarding when using such tools. They say "hey for me is more fun playing like that, please put it into the game as an optional feature". Then rewards should depend if players use such risk reducing means or not.
Dygz wrote: » The Ultimate Carebear Challenge: Explore as much of the map as possible while remaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible. I won't be doing anything to actively progress Professions. 0 Kills My response to Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward is to ignore as much of Risk v Reward as possible. That way, other players cannot significantly interfere with my game session goals.
Noaani wrote: » Otr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 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). I disagree with the part marked with red. Causality of Fun is not a bijective function. If developers can identify a source of fun does not mean the other sources are redundant. As long as they do not oppose each other, all should be considered. The point I was making is that making the game fun is independent of risk vs reward. The two things can be connected (you can derive fun from both the risk and the reward), but risk vs reward is not inherently supposed to be where fun is derived from. Essentially, they are separate things that have connections, but still need to be considered independently. Noaani wrote: » 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. If we restrict to almost mathematical mechanics, Information plays a big role too, because risk (chance) depends on what the player knows or can know and can predict. Knowing where players or NPCs are and what they are doing can decrease the risk a lot. That knowledge may come from using external tools to gather, process and store information. Some players may find the game-play more rewarding when using such tools. They say "hey for me is more fun playing like that, please put it into the game as an optional feature". Then rewards should depend if players use such risk reducing means or not. There will always be unknowns in the risk side of risk vs reward, and so as a mathematical problem to solve, there is no perfect answer in regards to how much of a reward you need to apply for any given piece of content. As an example, if there is a given mob thst has a specific reward that is just kind of mid, you may find that very few people contest it and thus the risk isn't that high. However, make that reward a little better and suddenly more people contest it, meaning your increase in reward has also provided an increase in risk. The increase in risk here may or may not be proportional to the increased reward. This is where discussion in regards to risk vs reward can be interesting - comparing the risk/reward ratio of different pieces of content, or even the same piece of content under different circumstances.
Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Money, resources... these are means to trigger them. But not for everybody. Some people may care more about destroying nodes or castles than collecting virtual items. Failing to destroy is a risk. If there was some investment that didn't match the investment on the other side, maybe. I think it would be a bad idea to design the game in a way where we ignore economic factors and just claim that someone who 'fails to kill/disrupt/destroy a random target' is at risk. But I have a huge bias toward economic systems, so I'd automatically prioritize that. If Ashes changes to remove or lessen the impact of economic systems, then it shouldn't matter and 'Risk vs Reward' can be defined closer to the MOBA version, or whatever Steven wants.
Dolyem wrote: » I thought you were doing that because you enjoy it and wanted to, not out of spite for the games design?
