It's counter-intuitive, but makes perfect sense in context of AoC.
Most rewarding world bosses can be mechanically most simple, since large portion of the challenge will come from other players. Those bosses just need to feel epic with huge AOEs.
It also works the other way. Most complex bosses can be given the least reward. This will make them least contested - perfect for those who primarily seek a great PvE experience.
This provides a nice content gradient form primarily PvE to primarily PvP, while being PvX all the way through.
Makes sense thematically as well - if there is 200 players around a huge dragon in the field - it's just going to breath fire at 50 of them, not really do some intricate mechanic. While some dungeon dwelling mystery monster can be all kinds of unexpected and complex.
Food for thought.
I actually don't disagree.
I've said for many years now that even if Ashes had a full on instanced raid progression, the best loot in the game would have to come from open world encounters that ideally have a corruption free area around them.
The issue I have with it is in assuming that this is in any way a balanced form of risk vs reward.
It is not.
As such, it is bad game design, even if it is was Ashes should have (open world PvP in an MMORPG is in itself bad game design outside of Korea, I see no reason to stop with the bad game design decisions at that point).
Why not? Did you see my example? Players manage risk vs reward.
What happens when players have something better to do and so don't show up?
What happens when players don't have something better to do and so all show up?
Each of these will increase or decrease the risk involved to who ever wins. Proper risk vs reward would dictate that increased risk = increased reward, decreased risk = decreased reward, yet that is not the case here.
There is a difference in risk if there is a swing of just 10 players in your favor or against your favor.
Thus, this is not a balanced form of risk vs reward. The reward is not directly attached to the risk - each is derrived from different entities.
There is a difference in risk if there is a swing of just 10 players in your favor or against your favor.
Thus, this is not a balanced form of risk vs reward. The reward is not directly attached to the risk - each is derrived from different entities.
On average it is balanced. Sometime harder - other times easier. But there will be expected level of competition, just like you expected roughly 300 players on red dragon in your example from another thread.
Yes, but by definition that means it isn't balaced each time. Risk vs reward means you get reward based on the risk you experienced, not the average risk you could have faced.
And even then, there is no guarantee that it will be balanced over time. If one server has a guild that is dominant enough, they won't have anyone challenging them at all.
Yes, but by definition that means it isn't balaced each time.
You consider this a downside - i find it to be the main reason to have PvX game - so that encounters differ from time-to-time, based on player activity.
Yes, but by definition that means it isn't balaced each time.
You consider this a downside - i find it to be the main reason to have PvX game - so that encounters differ from time-to-time, based on player activity.
Encounters differing due to PvP is fine.
Calling results of those encounters appropriate/balanced in regards to risk vs reward isn't.
i think he means the acquisition of the reward. also you can get item rewards by killing other players such as materials and of course, gear if they are red
i think he means the acquisition of the reward. also you can get item rewards by killing other players such as materials and of course, gear if they are red
Indeed.
Risk vs reward in regards to other players is in place.
If you have corruption, ans I see you have an armor buff telling me you have mostly low level armor, I know that I will have less risk fighting you, but will also stand to gain a lower quality item if I kill you and you drop something.
The converse is true if you have a higher tier armor buff icon. I know you will be harder to kill, but potentially will drop better items.
With encounters dropping rewards and the challenge coming from PvP rather than the encounter itself, more people being present means more risk and less chance of a reward. It is the opposite of what risk vs reward is supposed to do.
Imagine an encounter. You and I both bring our guilds, and we are evenly matched. We fight for a bit, then one of us wins and gets the loot. At the start of that fight, it is 50/50 who gets it, and we both go in knowing that.
Then imagine that same fight, but NiKr brings his guild as well. It is even more of a challenge, we will all die even more, and we now each have only 33% chance of getting that same reward.
Now imagine a fourth guild comes along, we risk even more again, and have an even lower chance to get that same reward.
This is nit how risk vs reward works.
I'm not necessaroly saying anything is wrong with the above scenario (though there is something wrong with it, but it shoukd exist regardless), I am simply saying that labeling that as being risk vs reward is simply factually incorrect.
its still risk vs reward. steven never said 50-50 split risk vs reward xD
also, what if we decid eto ally and kill the boss? less reward since we have to split the loot for sure, but less risk. none of us dies, plus we kill the boss faster before nikr guild comes. also, th e lack of fast trave mitigates this. its up to the players whether they want to ally or fight for the boss.
also, if the war system is like l2, and your guild wins the pvp vs mine, you get points that you can use for things, so even more rewards that you werent counting on..
now, if there are 4 guilds fighting for the boss, 3 guilds die and the last one gets the boss, why should the losing guilds get a reward from the boss? dont you think its fair that only those who kill the boss get the reward? why reward people who didnt kill the boss.
i understand what you mean that the rewards for killing the boss wont change and increase if there is pvp for the boss, but the pvp is for the right to kill the boss. so the guild who wins the pvp gets the opportunity to kill the boss, and once they do, they get 100% of the reward.
The term "risk vs reward" is that the system in question provides a reward that is appropriate to the risk that was undertaken. If a system allows for an increased risk without also increasing the reward, it is not a risk vs reward system.
also, what if we decid eto ally and kill the boss? less reward since we have to split the loot for sure, but less risk. none of us dies, plus we kill the boss faster before nikr guild comes. also, th e lack of fast trave mitigates this. its up to the players whether they want to ally or fight for the boss.
The fact that there are some ways in which the risk can be mitigated and the reward is thus lessened does not detract from the fact that there are ways in which the risk can be increased while the reward is decreased, or the risk can be nullified while the reward is kept the same (or increased if you want to talk about statistical chances of winning).
also, if the war system is like l2, and your guild wins the pvp vs mine, you get points that you can use for things, so even more rewards that you werent counting on..
Yes, some other forms of PvP do indeed have a proper risk vs reward system, that isn't what I'm debating.
now, if there are 4 guilds fighting for the boss, 3 guilds die and the last one gets the boss, why should the losing guilds get a reward from the boss? dont you think its fair that only those who kill the boss get the reward? why reward people who didnt kill the boss.
i understand what you mean that the rewards for killing the boss wont change and increase if there is pvp for the boss, but the pvp is for the right to kill the boss. so the guild who wins the pvp gets the opportunity to kill the boss, and once they do, they get 100% of the reward.
I never said the losing guilds should get a reward. I'm also not specifically saying the design should change.
What I said is that this needs to stop being referred to as risk vs reward.
The term "risk vs reward" is that the system in question provides a reward that is appropriate to the risk that was undertaken. If a system allows for an increased risk without also increasing the reward, it is not a risk vs reward system.
well, look at the corruption system. high risk, low reward. its intended that way so less players participate on it. if it was low risk, high reward, more players would participate on it.
so high risk, low reward isnt still a risk vs reward system? the split doesnt always have to be 50/50
well, look at the corruption system. high risk, low reward. its intended that way so less players participate on it. if it was low risk, high reward, more players would participate on it.
so high risk, low reward isnt still a risk vs reward system? the split doesnt always have to be 50/50
Whether this is true or not doesn't actually alter the point I am making.
If a system allows for an increased risk without also increasing the reward, it is not a risk vs reward system.
If there is more players fighting for the rewards - the demand for that reward is higher. Meanwhile supply stays the same, so reward goes up in value for that encounter.
If a system allows for an increased risk without also increasing the reward, it is not a risk vs reward system.
If there is more players fighting for the rewards - the demand for that reward is higher. Meanwhile supply stays the same, so reward goes up in value for that encounter.
No the value stays the same, because the demand stays the game. If it is the best item in the game, the demand for it is everyone on the server of a suitable class for it.
More people showing up for the fight isn't an indicator that more people want the item, it is an indicator that more people think they are in a position to get it.
No the value stays the same, because the demand stays the game. If it is the best item in the game, the demand for it is everyone on the server of a suitable class for it.
More people showing up for the fight isn't an indicator that more people want the item, it is an indicator that more people think they are in a position to get it.
This is why you should work towards lowering that risk, if its value outweighs the reward. With that lower risk (of adding more people) your reward might seem lower because you'd need to split it, but if the risk was so damn high due to too much competition - the overall probability of you getting the reward would be higher, which means that on average your reward is higher. Not base full reward, but still higher than it was before.
This is "feature not a bug" of sandboxy owmmos. And it makes the whole encounter way more social instead of "we have an instanced boss and a spreadsheet of how to fight it".
More people coming for PvP means more risk, but also means less reward (due to a lower statistical chance of you winning that reward)
We made progress, now you understand that PvP modifies risk/reward, like i said earlier.
I can be bad at explaining myself, sorry.
I do understand the issue you have with this system, i am reading your posts.
What you are dissatisfied with - is that "reward does not go up with risk".
No the value stays the same, because the demand stays the game. If it is the best item in the game, the demand for it is everyone on the server of a suitable class for it.
More people showing up for the fight isn't an indicator that more people want the item, it is an indicator that more people think they are in a position to get it.
There is several concepts that are confusing, lets try to clear them, so we stay on the same page.
Your second paragraph is correct. People showing up - is not an indicator that more people want the item. It's indicative of increased demand. Demand quantifies what players overall are willing to do or pay to obtain the item. Simply wanting an item, and actually attempting to get it - are different things*, latter being called "Demand".
Read your first paragraph of second quote, and see how much sense it makes now. Supply stays same. Demand changes. Value changes.
Another point of confusion is "reward". Seems like everyone, including me, calls two different things a "reward". I do mean a specific thing when i say "reward", based on context, but it is confusing.
Is reward - the item itself, that can be dropped by the boss, or being in possession of that item?
I tried to use "higher worth" or "higher value" instead of "higher reward" when referring to actual possession of an item. In the topic name "baseline" refers to both difficulty and the reward. Maybe it only added to confusion, i don't know. Point is - there is a huge difference.
"Baseline reward" is what developers set to be the drop table for the boss. Maybe better to call it "potential reward", or simply "loot". It does not change based on competition.
What does change, however - is it's worth. The possession of said loot is worth more, if there is higher demand for it.
Now back to "reward does not go up with risk" argument.
If risk is higher - loot does not get better, being in possession of that loot becomes worth more.
*See how that relates to "no participation prizes" and "risk vs reward"? If you want something - you will have to do what it takes to get it. What you want matters to no one. You need to show how much you want it - put in the required effort to get it.
What you are dissatisfied with - is that "reward does not go up with risk".
You are almost right.
It doesn't go up or down.
Also, I am not "dissatisfied", I have said a few times in this thread I am not trying to change it.
I am trying to stop people calling it risk vs reward when it is not. The basic notion of risk vs reward is that you gain increased reward for increased risk, or decreased reward for decreased risk. The basic point that you made here is why PvP over these encounters isn't an example of risk vs reward, and so people should stop suggesting they are.
If risk is higher - loot does not get better, being in possession of that loot becomes worth more.
This is objectively untrue. The reward is the same, the power gain is the same, the demand is the same, the value on the open market is the same.
The only way that reward has increased in value is if the value you place in it is in having it v someone else not having it. Basically, showing off.
If that were the value you place in it, then the drops from these mobs may as well be cosmetic only items. You are still able to show off that you have the thing and someone else doesn't.
If an item is the best in the game, then everyone of that class will want that item. Thus the demand for that item will remain the same until either many people have it, or an equally good item is released.
This discussion was fun to read through! We're doing some Dev Discussions on loot soon. I'd love to see some of these thoughts brought there, when that day comes
No the value stays the same, because the demand stays the game. If it is the best item in the game, the demand for it is everyone on the server of a suitable class for it.
More people showing up for the fight isn't an indicator that more people want the item, it is an indicator that more people think they are in a position to get it.
This is why you should work towards lowering that risk, if its value outweighs the reward. With that lower risk (of adding more people) your reward might seem lower because you'd need to split it, but if the risk was so damn high due to too much competition - the overall probability of you getting the reward would be higher, which means that on average your reward is higher. Not base full reward, but still higher than it was before.
This is "feature not a bug" of sandboxy owmmos. And it makes the whole encounter way more social instead of "we have an instanced boss and a spreadsheet of how to fight it".
Well you see if we put our numbers into this ai bot with classes and our track logs, the ai can tell us what to do and when to do it so we beat the encounter.
It has been a long journey but we finally mastered the game ourselves with our sick skills.
No the value stays the same, because the demand stays the game. If it is the best item in the game, the demand for it is everyone on the server of a suitable class for it.
More people showing up for the fight isn't an indicator that more people want the item, it is an indicator that more people think they are in a position to get it.
This is why you should work towards lowering that risk, if its value outweighs the reward. With that lower risk (of adding more people) your reward might seem lower because you'd need to split it, but if the risk was so damn high due to too much competition - the overall probability of you getting the reward would be higher, which means that on average your reward is higher. Not base full reward, but still higher than it was before.
This is "feature not a bug" of sandboxy owmmos. And it makes the whole encounter way more social instead of "we have an instanced boss and a spreadsheet of how to fight it".
Spread sheet how to fight it im doone lmao
Yeah this was a pretty inflammatory and weird take, from NiKr.
I'd understand it in the other thread so we could push the numbers, but not really sure what's with that response in this one...
Comments
I actually don't disagree.
I've said for many years now that even if Ashes had a full on instanced raid progression, the best loot in the game would have to come from open world encounters that ideally have a corruption free area around them.
The issue I have with it is in assuming that this is in any way a balanced form of risk vs reward.
It is not.
As such, it is bad game design, even if it is was Ashes should have (open world PvP in an MMORPG is in itself bad game design outside of Korea, I see no reason to stop with the bad game design decisions at that point).
What happens when players have something better to do and so don't show up?
What happens when players don't have something better to do and so all show up?
Each of these will increase or decrease the risk involved to who ever wins. Proper risk vs reward would dictate that increased risk = increased reward, decreased risk = decreased reward, yet that is not the case here.
There is a difference in risk if there is a swing of just 10 players in your favor or against your favor.
Thus, this is not a balanced form of risk vs reward. The reward is not directly attached to the risk - each is derrived from different entities.
Isn't that already in the game in some form? Siege bosses?
It is in place for some events, but Dygz is an RP idealist.
And even then, there is no guarantee that it will be balanced over time. If one server has a guild that is dominant enough, they won't have anyone challenging them at all.
Encounters differing due to PvP is fine.
Calling results of those encounters appropriate/balanced in regards to risk vs reward isn't.
PvE sets baseline risk/reward. PvP modifies it further.
If encounters differing due to PvP is fine - then risk/reward differing due to PvP is fine.
Indeed.
Risk vs reward in regards to other players is in place.
If you have corruption, ans I see you have an armor buff telling me you have mostly low level armor, I know that I will have less risk fighting you, but will also stand to gain a lower quality item if I kill you and you drop something.
The converse is true if you have a higher tier armor buff icon. I know you will be harder to kill, but potentially will drop better items.
With encounters dropping rewards and the challenge coming from PvP rather than the encounter itself, more people being present means more risk and less chance of a reward. It is the opposite of what risk vs reward is supposed to do.
Imagine an encounter. You and I both bring our guilds, and we are evenly matched. We fight for a bit, then one of us wins and gets the loot. At the start of that fight, it is 50/50 who gets it, and we both go in knowing that.
Then imagine that same fight, but NiKr brings his guild as well. It is even more of a challenge, we will all die even more, and we now each have only 33% chance of getting that same reward.
Now imagine a fourth guild comes along, we risk even more again, and have an even lower chance to get that same reward.
This is nit how risk vs reward works.
I'm not necessaroly saying anything is wrong with the above scenario (though there is something wrong with it, but it shoukd exist regardless), I am simply saying that labeling that as being risk vs reward is simply factually incorrect.
also, what if we decid eto ally and kill the boss? less reward since we have to split the loot for sure, but less risk. none of us dies, plus we kill the boss faster before nikr guild comes. also, th e lack of fast trave mitigates this. its up to the players whether they want to ally or fight for the boss.
also, if the war system is like l2, and your guild wins the pvp vs mine, you get points that you can use for things, so even more rewards that you werent counting on..
now, if there are 4 guilds fighting for the boss, 3 guilds die and the last one gets the boss, why should the losing guilds get a reward from the boss? dont you think its fair that only those who kill the boss get the reward? why reward people who didnt kill the boss.
i understand what you mean that the rewards for killing the boss wont change and increase if there is pvp for the boss, but the pvp is for the right to kill the boss. so the guild who wins the pvp gets the opportunity to kill the boss, and once they do, they get 100% of the reward.
The term "risk vs reward" is that the system in question provides a reward that is appropriate to the risk that was undertaken. If a system allows for an increased risk without also increasing the reward, it is not a risk vs reward system. The fact that there are some ways in which the risk can be mitigated and the reward is thus lessened does not detract from the fact that there are ways in which the risk can be increased while the reward is decreased, or the risk can be nullified while the reward is kept the same (or increased if you want to talk about statistical chances of winning). Yes, some other forms of PvP do indeed have a proper risk vs reward system, that isn't what I'm debating. I never said the losing guilds should get a reward. I'm also not specifically saying the design should change.
What I said is that this needs to stop being referred to as risk vs reward.
well, look at the corruption system. high risk, low reward. its intended that way so less players participate on it. if it was low risk, high reward, more players would participate on it.
so high risk, low reward isnt still a risk vs reward system? the split doesnt always have to be 50/50
If there is more players fighting for the rewards - the demand for that reward is higher. Meanwhile supply stays the same, so reward goes up in value for that encounter.
More people coming for PvP means more risk, but also means less reward (due to a lower statistical chance of you winning that reward).
You are literally making my argument for me here.
No the value stays the same, because the demand stays the game. If it is the best item in the game, the demand for it is everyone on the server of a suitable class for it.
More people showing up for the fight isn't an indicator that more people want the item, it is an indicator that more people think they are in a position to get it.
This is "feature not a bug" of sandboxy owmmos. And it makes the whole encounter way more social instead of "we have an instanced boss and a spreadsheet of how to fight it".
I can be bad at explaining myself, sorry.
I do understand the issue you have with this system, i am reading your posts.
What you are dissatisfied with - is that "reward does not go up with risk". There is several concepts that are confusing, lets try to clear them, so we stay on the same page.
Your second paragraph is correct. People showing up - is not an indicator that more people want the item. It's indicative of increased demand. Demand quantifies what players overall are willing to do or pay to obtain the item. Simply wanting an item, and actually attempting to get it - are different things*, latter being called "Demand".
Read your first paragraph of second quote, and see how much sense it makes now. Supply stays same. Demand changes. Value changes.
Another point of confusion is "reward". Seems like everyone, including me, calls two different things a "reward". I do mean a specific thing when i say "reward", based on context, but it is confusing.
Is reward - the item itself, that can be dropped by the boss, or being in possession of that item?
I tried to use "higher worth" or "higher value" instead of "higher reward" when referring to actual possession of an item. In the topic name "baseline" refers to both difficulty and the reward. Maybe it only added to confusion, i don't know. Point is - there is a huge difference.
"Baseline reward" is what developers set to be the drop table for the boss. Maybe better to call it "potential reward", or simply "loot". It does not change based on competition.
What does change, however - is it's worth. The possession of said loot is worth more, if there is higher demand for it.
Now back to "reward does not go up with risk" argument.
If risk is higher - loot does not get better, being in possession of that loot becomes worth more.
*See how that relates to "no participation prizes" and "risk vs reward"? If you want something - you will have to do what it takes to get it. What you want matters to no one. You need to show how much you want it - put in the required effort to get it.
You are almost right.
It doesn't go up or down.
Also, I am not "dissatisfied", I have said a few times in this thread I am not trying to change it.
I am trying to stop people calling it risk vs reward when it is not. The basic notion of risk vs reward is that you gain increased reward for increased risk, or decreased reward for decreased risk. The basic point that you made here is why PvP over these encounters isn't an example of risk vs reward, and so people should stop suggesting they are.
This is objectively untrue. The reward is the same, the power gain is the same, the demand is the same, the value on the open market is the same.
The only way that reward has increased in value is if the value you place in it is in having it v someone else not having it. Basically, showing off.
If that were the value you place in it, then the drops from these mobs may as well be cosmetic only items. You are still able to show off that you have the thing and someone else doesn't.
If an item is the best in the game, then everyone of that class will want that item. Thus the demand for that item will remain the same until either many people have it, or an equally good item is released.
Spread sheet how to fight it im doone lmao
It has been a long journey but we finally mastered the game ourselves with our sick skills.
Yeah this was a pretty inflammatory and weird take, from NiKr.
I'd understand it in the other thread so we could push the numbers, but not really sure what's with that response in this one...