Read more about Ashes of Creation ➜ https://ashesofcreation.mgn.tv
Hey everyone!
Since this topic has been brought up just about everywhere, I wanted to get my point of view out there as well, highlighting some of the aspects that I think have been overlooked.
This is the type of debate that cannot be all encompassing though, so let me know what you think!
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 Introduction
1:42 What is the Argument?(Attackers don’t have enough risk)
4:58 Progression + Scarce Resources/Accomplishments Will Drive Competition
7:05 Ashes will Turn Into a Land Rush on Release
7:40 What Does this have to do with Caravans?
9:00 Why Caravans will Incentivize Nodes and Players to Run Them
10:46 Math ROI On Potential Caravan Returns
13:00 With the Right ROI Everyone Will Run Caravans (Everyone is a Defender)
15:00 Caravan Attackers Carry A LOT of Risk
16:15 The Risk of Attacking a Larger Node
17:42 The Potential Landmine of Attacking Small Nodes
18:28 Not Losing Resources isn’t the Same as Not Carrying Risk
20:00 Why these Systems Incentivize Group Play/Teamwork
Ashes of Creation,Ashes of Creation PvP,Caravan PvP,AoC Caravan PvP,MMORPG PvP,Open World PvP,Risk vs Reward PvP,Strategy & Tactics PvP,PvP Tips & Tricks,The caravan discussion,risk vs reward for the attacker,caravan livestream,ashes of creation alpha 2 discussion
source
looks like nw lol
I find this debate a non-starter.
Good for conversation, good for content, but ultimately it's pointless.
The devs want player conflict. The caravan system isn't just for PvE purposes, or just for city building or wealth….it's a system to drive conflict.
Too heavy of a penalty for attacking means no one's attacking. I'm sure that's exactly what the PvE Andy's want, but that's not what the devs want.
Funny how people conveniently leave out how the caravan has it's own spells on top of players defending, something attackers don't have, further putting risk on the attackers.
The solution is simple…bring a army to defend your caravan. This game isn't for the solo player.
Debating this is a non-starter.
I can't say that I have been swayed by your arguments. In general, you appear to be balancing the passive social risk that all players encounter simply by playing the game (guild wars, node sieges, social consequences, etc) against the active economic risk engendered by players who elect to seek higher profits through the caravan system. For the most part, I have seen that commentators fall on one side of the issue or the other based upon their root inclination whether bandit or merchant. I don't think any of this matters, however, because an unbalanced system of risk is necessary to the caravan system. Without banditry, a caravan becomes a PvE economic exercise that cannot be justified in a PvX game. Any additional economic risk imposed upon bandits through some new game mechanism would discourage banditry and invalidate the PvX component of the system. Harvesting has the same sort of unbalanced economic risk (harvester vs bandit) and I am sure that other systems will prove to follow this dynamic as well.
Math and PvP
I'm sold.
Your summary was quoted: "It doesn't tangibly look fair.". True.
And: "(Raiders risk) is tangible, it is real" FALSE. You meant to say theoretical and absolutely not tangible.
You are projecting your thoughts, concepts and possibly hopes in a misleading way.
Just a correction, it's actually the best processing that comes from freeholds, the best crafting will be at nodes
Make the attackers lose whatever gear they have on and whatever is in the inventory and then make them have a debuff