I still don't fundamentally understand the argument here. Risk vs Reward. Caravan risk: getting attacked by other players Caravan reward: thousands of possible wealth if not more Attacker risk: the possibility of walking away with nothing. Attacker reward: possibility of getting resources then leaving you to be attacked in retaliation. That last part is what I see absolutely no one else talking about. People are acting like they get attacked and lose, hands up in the air it's all over... except it's not. You then have to transport the stolen goods. You then open yourself to the proverbial table turn. So let's say the tables do turn, and you lose the counter attack...not only did you lose your shipment, but now you lose the counter attack and now you're also heavily penalized. Is this really what y'all want? It blows my mind how dumb that is.... The system is actually balanced, and this "argument" is nothing but a thinly disguised false narrative to push a more PvE balanced agenda. I'm not against a stronger loss penalty for attacking and failing. But not so detrimental that no one is incentivized to attack in the first place, which is what I'm seeing a lot of PvE centric players asking for.
Oh i agree with you, but for these types of players it is over. For these types of players they do not attack. I'm ignoring the fact that most people will do this and accepting their premise because, even with their proposed situations it can still be profitable to run caravans. The system is fine imo and there's not much of a leg to stand on otherwise until we get into alpha 2
Okay, but even if they do lose the counter attack, the stakes are still extremely imbalanced. "Oh no, we lost the caravan we spent half an hour fighting for" is not the same as "Oh no, we lost the caravan we've spent literally a week filling up.". I dislike the narrative you're presenting here. PVP players can want this to be fixed and not be a PVE player. Fixes can be made that will still make it worthwhile. Like the guy said, losers will meta and optimize the fun out of everything. As it stands, it is not meta to transport caravans, only to attack. The nodes that prioritize attacking will grow faster than those that do not.
@@krschu00 the nodes that prioritize attacking also take on a lot more risk than those that do not. Also, attacker and defender roi is very dependent on how often you're finding these things and knocking them over. It's not as clear cut as attackers have it better
It would be wise for nodes to organize multiple caravans at one time, some being empty… it would be a shell game with no risk to defenders and could increase the chance of success while wasting the attackers time…
didnt they menthion on ther previous live update that you could hire mercenaries and guards to lessen the risk of losing the caravan? and they also said that the attackers will get the corruption which will put your character at risk of being hunted? idk why people forgot about that when watching this pvp caravan live update...
I see both points of this argument and all i can say is, we really just need to wait till the game goes live, it's all theoretical and so many things are likely to change
people forget that the attackers will get corruption after taking someones caravan which will put their character at risk of being hunted by mercenaries and such. the only place that the attackers wont get the penalty of getting the corruption is at the open sea map.
Seems like many people have never heard of the term opportunity cost. If attackers don't win, they make 0 income in the time they needed to setup and execute the attack. In that case they could have done something else, something more valuable. This alone already explains why in EVE Online (enforced full loot open world PvP, so even "more evil" than Ashes) there really aren't that many pirates, and why piracy as an activity is extremely difficult to execute in a way that's profitable enough to be better than most other money-making options.
Agree it is mainly about node and ressources, trading in these kind of game have risks, but if the reward is good like you demonstrated it does not matter people will do it. Attacking caravan will not be that much worth it, imagine you spent 10 hours looking for one, instead of doing 5 caravan run yourself. Lets be honest it wont be that easy to find caravan to attack to, it will balance itself out anyway, if a trade route is too risky, people will stop sending caravan that way, attacker will loose time running around finding nothing, or fight themselve for the same caravan lol. The thing is, in this test people know there is caravan at the specific location, it will not be that easy in the real game, unless the trade route is frequent, and it will probably be even more chaotic than that, since you could have multiple attackers attacking each other.
Bro I play Albion Online and it is a full loot PVP game and has a lot trading between the cities and transport system similar to Ashes... Full PvP everywhere and when you learn about the system, you will may think that it would never work, but it works really nice. Even the game being 60% -70% being a PVP MMORPG, you can do PVE all day long and ignore a lot the PVP when you learn how to play... I think that maybe this caravan system in Ashes looks kind of too risk for PVE players and not enough risk to the Gankers now...but I am pretty sure that few weeks later or a month later they will balance, the hype will goes away and it will become very easy to transport with the caravan around... I am very sure that sometimes small groups it will transport many times during the night and it will not make a single fight just like Albion Online and also now Ravendawn
Didn’t even mention how caravan defenders will have an advantage due to the buffs the caravan gives (speed, knock back effects for example). Attackers will have to have prior knowledge of a caravan to have time to organize a group. Travel in this game will be time consuming, so unless attackers are already grouped up and in the right place at the right time, I’d bet most well guarded caravans will go untouched. If defending caravans becomes too hard or risky, I guarantee the devs will make adjustments to help the defenders.
The problem is that I think the meta will be the best guilds (that have great influence on the best nodes) will only use caravans at 3 AM when nobody is playing the game to trade safely goods to improve their nodes. Casuals and semi-casuals will use the caravan system at prime time and fail most of the time since they cant win against the sweat guilds that have all the players online. This will lead at casual people not using this system at all. The caravan system will be obsolete at the most important time of the day (which is when everyone is playing the game). I think to fight this Intrepid will have to restrict at which times people will be able to launch caravans. I dont see many people talking about this. It will ruin the game if people cant be in touch with the game systems.
An hour caravan defending sounds boring for PvPers like me. I’d much rather attack them as I can get an instant fight. I also find it funny that you say with practice your group of defenders can increase the success rate from 20% to 40 or 60%. This assumes the attackers don’t also get better. The caravan system will work for large guilds with good gatherers and good PvPers. It will also work for a guild of good PvPers that simply attack them.
Sure, if you're in the right place at the right time and you spot them and your group is big enough to fight them, and they already weren't raided by other attackers...then you can attack them! This scenario given offsets the populations to where there's a lot less defenders and a lot more attackers, meaning that attackers have to work harder for longer to find a fight that isn't already taken. It's like throwing a chicken into a pen full of alligators. The supply is not enough and many will come away empty handed. As a defender i can just go to where I need to go and the fight will come to me. Not everyone improves in a game, I'm just showing that even though you lose more than you win, it can still be profitable to do so over doing the safer option. If your roi is lower to where it's more beneficial to drop resources off at home base, then do that.
It's all going to depend on how big the world is and how difficult it is to traverse. Pirating fishers in AA was fun as hell, but it was more viable to fish in the long run because the oceans are so vast and transport is so tedious and catching them is difficult in and of itself, so it was balanced relatively well. I'm not sure how AoC will be, afaik the land mass is quite huge and if it doesn't have fast travel then caravans will have a significant chance, but it will be a fine balance that will need tonnes of tuning more than it currently has.
What's to stop any high stakes events from being organized at a dead server time like 5AM? If I plan an extremely risky caravan at 5AM nobody is going to attack it. Same goes for attacking a node, nobody will be online to defend it.
@@isth3reno1else good to know thank you. I guess that leaves my questions for caravans. Is it annoying sure but i'm betting the guilds will assign 3 or 4 suckers once a week to wake up early and lose a couple of hours of sleep.
You have good points and I have no doubt the system will work if well balaced. My only problem with this tho is how gated running a caravan is, and how little gating there is to attack one. I don't think social structure will be enough, attacking a caravan in the wild will still be an obvious choice for most people.
I don't disagree, but the gating can be a bonus. Easier to attack doesn't mean easier to attack well. Defenders spending more time to organize and route run, as well as be on comms will be an advantage another equally sized but pug group does not have
IF 80% of caravans are lost to attackers that means 1 player is grinding mats for 20 hours and getting nothing in return. Worst than getting nothing for all the hours spent grinding, that player is watching another player profit off his work. How long does it take to gank a caravan? 1 minute? 2? No matter how much fuzzy math you throw at them, that player is going to feel all those hours that are being thrown away making.someone else rich. At the start of the video you make the snarky remark: "If players know the most efficient path, most players don't" but your math assumes that everyone knows the most mathematically effcient path and can pursue it without obstacle! And if what you describe is the most efficient approach to caravans then why isn't the game programmed that way??? Why aren't goods sold to PvP'ers, who can then do whatever they want with them??? "You don't care." amirite.
You think me stating that most people don't know the most efficient path to a system is snarky when it is inherently player based? Perhaps you're coming from this at an already influenced angle. The math i did is very, very clear here. If you want the safe money, do that. If you want more money and losing caravans, then do that. Even in this extreme situation where you lose 80% of caravan runs you still break even. People aren't going to lose that much, and the incentive that intrepid initially showed was a 6x-8x investment for a 20 minute caravan run. Im doing a 5x example here on an hour long run. It's a waste of hours to not partake in the caravan example i have given. That's just how it works. "do you know how long it takes to gank a caravan?" yes i do. everyone should do it! I'll defend in that situation then and I'll love it. "And if what you describe is the most efficient approach to caravans then why isn't the game programmed that way??? " It is, and people are arguing it isn't fair. I'm arguing that it is and showing why. " Why aren't goods sold to PvP'ers, who can then do whatever they want with them??? "You don't care." amirite." I do care, but I care to inform on what the system is. If people don't like the system, as I stated in the video then outsource that aspect and do the things that you enjoy. You DO NOT have to engage in the system, but you should work with somebody that is good at it who does, it will yield more gold in the long run. Or, you know, be safe at home risk free and fall behind. It's up to you
I think people are definitely forgetting or ignoring the fact some groups will happily farm/grind/PvE but are completely risk averse. I'm sure there will be guilds or groups going around offering a courier service for node goods while charging people. The real question will be if Intreprid adds an official courier or contract system pre-launch.
Not sure I fully understand your node vs player death but seems to me it has no basis on the caravan discussion. Death of player vs node effect occurs whether attacker or defender -- no change in caravan profits in any form. As for defender receiving 5k gold 20% of the time under an 80/20 success rate is interesting - yet I did not hear anything about the 80% (possible 20k at 5k per 20%) that attacker receives with out the time effort and cost to transfer goods that come out of the 20% of the trader. My question - why never look at BOTH sides of the issue?? Because most of the content creators plan to become attackers - and do not want ant resistance to profit if they can avoid it. risk v reward is no where near equal so everyone become an attacker -- it, currently, is the least resistance to profit !!! An idea where one side get a 5k win 20%of the time - yet attackers getting 5k 80% of the time -- is ridiculous -- gaslight someone else pls.
As far as the node player death discussion goes, I did that in the previous video. My point is that because caravans are a group based event, groups(typically guilds) will attack caravans. If you topple the wrong caravans or too many caravans you risk your node that you are affiliated with being leveled by 1. Bigger/better nodes(there's always at least one unless you're the absolute best node) 2. Smaller nodes working together in a suicide pact. From my experience, you attack enough people and take their resources, enough sentiment will build to where they do something about it. It's not immediate, but this type of risk will stop a lot of players from attacking specific nodes and players, because they do not want to risk their node progress. The point with this video is to ignore that(even though I think it is wrong) and to accept the situation that people are implying: People will only attack, and therefore nobody will send out caravans. My point with this video is showing that if the supplies aren't getting anywhere, and demand gets high enough as it should, regardless of how low the success rate gets as long as the roi is there people will run caravans. The main crux of the argument that i have seen is that too attack heavy means no caravans. In this video Im rebutting specifically that point that it doesn't matter as long as the server resources are properly allocated. If they are not THEN the system will not be used. In the system i propose above, attackers obviously benefit, and their overall win rate is higher(there are more of them afterall!), but if more people are attacking than defending, then the most profitable route could be to become an elite defender of caravans, get the pvp you want and get a higher ROI. Your last part of what you're saying is lumping in attackers as one person, like it isn't a bunch of piranhas in this situation looking for a bite. We're taking whole pies as defenders. Where there is market inequality smart people will benefit, and in this scenario it is defenders. As far as your argument that "most content creators want to attack" goes, did you not make it to the point in the video where I specifically highlighted in this situation that i'd be a defender? Also, what content creators are you watching because I'm very strongly in the minority here lol.
also we're ignoring the big initial investment. the defender doesn't just get 5k gold 20% of the time. they actually go -2.5k (lets just assume 100% profit) the other 4/5 times, so depending on the profit ratio of what they're selling, they can very quickly instantly be bankrupted because they're just losing money. on the pvp side, its just pure profit always, with only time wasted.
@@cynikuu any system that intrepid creates where players are incentivized more to drop off at home than run caravans, they will do that and it will be a dead system. The point of the video is trying to prove that there is an roi and cost amount that exists where caravan runners will choose caravans over depositing. In this video I did a 1 hour long travel w a 5x return. In the livestream in November they showed a 20 ish minute caravan w a 6x and 8x roi on different materials. Even if you lose more than you win, the incentive can be there
I think you probably should have calculated the pvprs gph because that’s what people are talking about in terms of optimizing content. If the pvprs let’s say bring the same amount of people and win the fight they are making 333.33 gph, 10x what the pvp caravan escort group is making (assuming the meta has reached that point). In order for the gph or risk/reward to be balance, that pvp group would either need to win one out of 10 fights or spend 10 hours finding a caravan to win each time. Now the game is not out, so I’m not sure how this will work, but if finding a caravan is not that hard, why doesn’t the pvp raiders bring 5x the amount of attackers for the caravan pvp? They will still make a greater gph of 66.666 compared to the escort guild and the farmers, unless that pvp guild wins while being outmanned 5:1. Let me know if I messed anything up here, but I think it seems like the only argument against this would be that’s not fun, but people almost always take optimization over fun in mmos. Maybe the node war/guild war system will handle it, but in a vacuum I don’t think the caravan system can really stand on its own.
I think there's parts of it: 1. Attacker GPH and Defender GPH should be separate. Because there will be people that have resources, they have the choice to caravan them or not caravan them. As long as their winrate is over the roi threshold(in my example 20%) they will send caravans. Attackers can be plentiful, but they will still send because that's the better gold making option. 2. The attacker ROI will vary so much but yes absolutely. There will be some groups that will clean house because the defenders send too much and are not good. Other defenders will be smart and if they see enemy people in the area, they'll just wait until they get bored and leave. If i was running caravans and there were that many formidable and hostile people in the area i'd just wait and continue my other game loops until they found other targets. Then I would run my caravans. These hours factor in. 3. The map is so huge and with that come a ton of other variables. 4. Attackers sacking a caravan lose half the resources on sight. if people start to crack crates they also are only taking a fraction of what the caravan holds. Your transport amount AND hours waiting are just tough to calculate. The tl;dr is attacking very well may be more profitable for a lot of people. For some people it may turn into a chase game where although it's fun to get that big score, the hours or days apart it takes to get may have been better spent doing something else.
4/5 That isn't breaking even. That's a massive loss... particularly if either 1- huge groups/guilds are getting them done based on # s. 2- if the attackers are turning-in what was yours.
i am accepting the premise given. with these returns with the minimal loss in resources, this would be break even. the point is that even if you lose more than you win, the roi can be there. what i did not include in this video was the fact that if the attackers are winning more it's probably because they're more plentiful. the only reason so many caravans fail is if there's attackers on every route run. this means that as an attacker you have to find the right time and place to sack a caravan, before someone else does. as an attacker you suffer from a higher group of people attempting to raid caravans. in this situation it easily could be possible that the best route is be a caravan defender. you're ensured a fight wherever you go, and if your roi is high enough you will profit more.
as far as gold optimization goes, i think you're ignoring a significant group of players that play for fun, not optimization. griefers will happily spend all day every day griefing people for no profit to themselves, so give even a little motivation, and a significant number of people will be hunting caravans just because its fun to take stuff for free, even if its not the most efficient. while i like this system, because its exactly what I'll be doing a lot of, I am worried it will kill the system if its too unbalanced, it will need a lot of adjustments to get things right. Also re: the supply vs demand thing, since the stolen caravans loot can still be delivered, it feels like the supply part is broken because the supply is still being met, its not destroyed or anything, its just now supplied by someone who paid nothing for it.
If the caravan is destroyed, half the resources are taken with it. Automatic resource sink. I'm also excited about the system, but the thing is the variables in here are too large to mention in one video, so I just wanted to make a hyper specific point that win rates can be really bad and people will still run them because the incentive is there to do it
I think people are going to protect tf out of these caravans I think there will be an economy for good PvP players to protect these caravans. Guilds will make a good living just protecting caravans all day. Also, I believe people will get very creative and send dummy caravans with a low amount of supplies to distract attackers. There will be a ton of strategies and ways to optimize this stuff. People are so scared of conflict for some reason. This is a PvP game your gonna have to sack tf up and PvP.
The caravan system is just fine as it is. No one in their right mind will ever move their goods by caravan in the game. There are other ways to move goods such as Pack Mule and your personal backpack.
Wrong. The amounts of gold earned will be so small in comparison to the amount of gold earned with one caravan. In addition, if you're thinking of selling player harvestable goods by mule, there are plenty of players willing to kill you and your mule. Glint turned into cargo must be caravaned to another node for sale. Cargo doesn't go into your backpack. The caravan system will be used by everyone who wants to make profit and progress their NODE.
I think the risk for attackers just being death is fine, caravan owners get to choose when, where and what they're moving so as long as you have at least 4 or 5 guards I imagine you won't get ganked like in the livestream because no one is going to know your moving goods ahead of time and you'll only have to deal with solo players most of the time and sense they won't be able to solo your small squad the caravan defender tree will encourage them to sign on to help you guard it if anything. The times that this sort of gank does happen will likely be with the larger guilds or apposing kingdoms moving war supplies that will be easier to socially infiltrate. Even if another guild does learn your route and what time your doing it, deciding the time is a huge advantage because the caravan guilds schedule is probably not going to be ideal for the bandit guilds. If the attackers had any less risk than wasted time and death I would actually worry that no one would bother attacking caravans.
Why would attackers need additional risk? If a caravan sets out to transport goods and they don't bring enough defenders, that's on them. Also, those same caravan defenders might come across another guild transporting their own caravan and thus have an opportunity to be the attacker. There is literally zero reason for additional risk being thrown at attackers. It's just absolute illogical nonsense.
It will be fun at first like most things then die down drastically and become a niche thing.. like so many other tried ideas in mmos, it does not translate well into games.. the risk in real life was death, here you can just respawn..
@@isth3reno1else I turn that around on ya, why play an online game and pay a sub or micros if you know it will flop and die... Trying something new is fine, knowing and seeing the flaws that will be apparent saves you cash because you know what's coming.. Like Electric vehs in a winter state...told people but they did not want to listen and chicago is a EV graveyard..
@@isth3reno1else That was the whole point, you just rewrote the statement for no reason hahaha how bad.. The idea of caravans sounds only exciting at the beginning but this will be abused and get old realllll fast but hey wishful thinking for some
