Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

OCD : Reduce quantity of trash items


Forecore
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 3/1/2020 at 10:05 AM, Vicid said:

 oh you're arguing for full loot?  Harvesters will harvest naked, and that's boring

It's funny, as soon as full loot works its way into the equation, suddenly "it's boring" when the ganker has more to lose and less to gain.
Very curious. 🙃 

231e101d88.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2020 at 1:31 AM, APE said:

Someone harvesting is risking not only their loot but the time it took them to gather it. A harvesters/caravan transporter gets nothing in return for defending their goods but a waste of their time doing so instead of their focus. High risk and reward for harvesting and no reward for defending.

A crafter risks their time, harvester time, and the value of the materials they are using to craft. Depending on the RNG gods, could be high risk and reward.

PVPers risk wasting time although the act of PVPing or the hunt might be reward in of itself and not a waste win or lose. They have the same risk of time wasting as anyone else doing anything and dying. They have the potential to collect big off the backs of others putting in the time with other roles. Seems like little risk with high reward.

Doesn't seem very even IMO. Full loot would fix that of course but...

 

Harvesting is substantially more rewarding, immediate, and guaranteed than ganking. That's why the risk of getting all your crap stolen is appropriate.

Should you successfully steal said poorly made socks, congratulations. You've now assumed that risk.

 

You're talking about harvesters like they're some kind of helpless bunny in Crowfall. They're not. CF harvesters are capable of every nuance of combat the people ganking them are, and can accomplish every harvesting task at an extremely high level of competency with zero compromises for gear or character build.

You may be able to CHOOSE to adjust up a full set of harvesting gear, harvesting runes, etc. but in my experience the juice isn't really worth the squeeze.

Full pockets are both risk and reward, and unlike someone searching for a gank, the harvester is GUARANTEED a reward, which means they're GUARANTEED a risk. The ganker is neither guaranteed a reward nor risk. Its just as common in CF to jump a harvester and get your ass handed to you as it is to walk away richer. It also a fact that were you to opt to harvest yourself and kill the people trying to gank you rather than try to find someone to gank you'd walk away better rewarded.

 

You're laying out a version of reality that doesn't exist. Ganking is not a zero risk activity in CF. It is in fact more likely you'll die trying to gank someone than it is you'll die hitting rocks. The risk is inherent in the action of acquiring loot, regardless of how it is acquired.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Groovin said:

It's funny, as soon as full loot works its way into the equation, suddenly "it's boring" when the ganker has more to lose and less to gain.
Very curious. 🙃 

People trying to gank them will only wear what they're willing to lose.  I wanna try full loot campaigns but I'm just being real about how people will play them

12Oe7ot.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Vicid said:

People trying to gank them will only wear what they're willing to lose.  I wanna try full loot campaigns but I'm just being real about how people will play them

I'm just teasing. You're not wrong.
I don't disagree with anything in particular in this thread. Harvesters do seem to be at a disadvantage, but it's also true that you're not actually "losing" anything, except maybe extra tools (which fully embody easy come easy go).
But working under the assumption that
A) spirit banking isn't a factor and
B) temple teleport isn't a factor,
It's also true that the ganker is also at risk of losing whatever they just looted.
Maybe not such an issue out in the world, but at tight pois like canyons, and near safe areas like keeps where a majority of high tier nodes show up, the risk of getting killed after a gank is probably pretty high.

Edited by Groovin

231e101d88.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Harvesting is substantially more rewarding, immediate, and guaranteed than ganking.

Perhaps for some folks. I play PvP games to PvP, any PvE activity that I must do in order to PvP is done begrudgingly. When I am doing those activities I will try and be as efficient as possible, yes that mean avoiding PvP like the plague since that would reduce efficiency. I can not describe banging a rock or tree as rewarding. Ganking on the other hand, would be much more fun and rewarding no matter the loot gains. To be fair, I just don't see ganking as a viable, steady source of resources. More an entertaining PvP type activity that can result in loot gains with zero risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

an entertaining PvP type activity that can result in loot gains with zero risk

It's not zero risk. Gear takes durability damage on death. And if you do get any loot, you then risk losing it.

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

Perhaps for some folks. I play PvP games to PvP, any PvE activity that I must do in order to PvP is done begrudgingly. When I am doing those activities I will try and be as efficient as possible, yes that mean avoiding PvP like the plague since that would reduce efficiency. I can not describe banging a rock or tree as rewarding. Ganking on the other hand, would be much more fun and rewarding no matter the loot gains. To be fair, I just don't see ganking as a viable, steady source of resources. More an entertaining PvP type activity that can result in loot gains with zero risk. 

You are confusing the words "fulfilling" and "rewarding" in the context of this conversation.

In a discussion about risk/reward you're not determining if something is fun. You're determining the amount of wealth it outputs. The math of "what is the rate of gain in economic power" versus "how likely is it that they suffer a loss in economic power"

Fulfillment is a measure of enjoyment. You like killing people more than trees. That doesn't have anything to do with assigning the risk/reward values. The fact that harvesting is guaranteed to be the most rewarding activity (hit a thing, make a profit, guaranteed) also justifies the fact that it commits the player to more risk (Your things can be looted) even though ganking might be a more fulfilling activity for most people, the uncertainty and inherent risk that comes with attacking other players means it is a far less rewarding activity when you're simply doing the math.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

You are confusing the words "fulfilling" and "rewarding" in the context of this conversation.

Yes I did.

34 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

The fact that harvesting is guaranteed to be the most rewarding activity (hit a thing, make a profit, guaranteed) also justifies the fact that it commits the player to more risk (Your things can be looted) even though ganking might be a more fulfilling activity for most people, the uncertainty and inherent risk that comes with attacking other players means it is a far less rewarding activity when you're simply doing the math.

I can understand your point for the activity of gathering resources. I wish we just had full loot, even partial paperdoll loot would be acceptable and would, imho would balance out the equation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mystafyi said:

Yes I did.

I can understand your point for the activity of gathering resources. I wish we just had full loot, even partial paperdoll loot would be acceptable and would, imho would balance out the equation. 

I mean we technically have the ability to run many loot variants but the tricky thing with full looting in CF is the whole EK export thing. To make full looting work in a campaign you'd have to turn up resource gain or something in that campaign  and then that begs the question "what about exports and the EK economy"

I think, though, most of the people who like the idea of full loot also seem to like the idea of a zero import/export so it could be a self solving problem.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Harvesting is substantially more rewarding, immediate, and guaranteed than ganking. That's why the risk of getting all your crap stolen is appropriate.

Should you successfully steal said poorly made socks, congratulations. You've now assumed that risk.

A PVPer only assumes that risk after taking what someone else has put in the time to obtain. I can log in, run across someone in the first 5 minutes, gank them, and take their last 30 min of effort. That seems fairly immediate/rewarding. Sure it isn't guaranteed that I'll see anyone, be able to take what they have, nor get it to safety, but I don't see it as a huge one sided setup. Also very simplistic way to look at it when you factor that it won't be just a bunch of solo sheep/wolves roaming around. Sometimes it will sway heavily one way or the other due to numbers.

As I've mentioned, I could take someone's loot and delete it and not assume any further risk of losing it. I win, they lose guaranteed, immediate, rewarding, and fulfilling. 

21 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

You're talking about harvesters like they're some kind of helpless bunny in Crowfall. They're not. CF harvesters are capable of every nuance of combat the people ganking them are, and can accomplish every harvesting task at an extremely high level of competency with zero compromises for gear or character build.

You may be able to CHOOSE to adjust up a full set of harvesting gear, harvesting runes, etc. but in my experience the juice isn't really worth the squeeze.

I'm too lazy to go re-read everything I typed, but I don't mean to portray harvesters as helpless. I'm not suggesting anything be changed for them at all in regards to how they play the game. High risk, high reward. My gripe is with my own preferred playstyle as a PVPer. I expect more challenge/fear/risk for the potential reward we can obtain. This includes fighting a random player 1v1 or another group in the world. Siege/POI have risk/reward tied to them, PVP in other flavors does not.

If there is zero compromises choosing to play as a harvester or any non-PVP focused role, something is wrong with the design.

They initially sold the concept of specialization and meaningful choices. To me that means someone can go all in and be a "harvester" or "combatant" and all their choices play into that. Someone that goes full "harvester" shouldn't be 95% as effective at PVP as a person focused on it while being 80% better at harvesting, or however the break down might be. There should be some tasty juice for the effort to squeeze it out.

With so many stats, passive training choices, disciplines, gear options, etc the distinction between roles shouldn't be so blurred that much of it becomes irrelevant and turns into an Oprah episode "you get to be a PVPer" "you get to be a harvester" "you get to be a crafter." Choosing a role should come at a cost to other options. Maybe that is too much for ACE to accomplish or not their goal, but seemed like it was originally.

21 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Full pockets are both risk and reward, and unlike someone searching for a gank, the harvester is GUARANTEED a reward, which means they're GUARANTEED a risk. The ganker is neither guaranteed a reward nor risk. Its just as common in CF to jump a harvester and get your ass handed to you as it is to walk away richer. It also a fact that were you to opt to harvest yourself and kill the people trying to gank you rather than try to find someone to gank you'd walk away better rewarded.

Crowfall doesn't exist so I can't look to any past experiences as what will happen or not. Once this thing is a fully functioning game with more then a whisper of a population and feature complete, then I'll have a better idea.

Assuming they actually work on stats/character design and make choices matter more, I wonder if people focused on PVP/combat will continue to have little to no advantage vs someone focused on harvesting when it comes down to what is on paper, not accounting for player skill.

I like harvester's risk/reward where it is.

My issue is with PVPers, be it they are ganking people or fighting one another randomly. There is no PVPer specific risk or cost.

Time loss and gear damage are shared by all and two sinks that everyone will deal with.

My suggestion for a PVP specific system is sacrificing skulls for a buff or something. To me this seems like a plausible option. If I kill someone in random PVP or while taking their loot, I get a reward. If I lose, then I essentially give my enemy a reward that will help them in whatever they choose. I'm still not risking on the same level as full loot, but at least I know that my death will potentially help my enemy.

Could also implement value to skulls like a bounty system. The more enemies I've killed, the higher value my skull. So killing the big bad ganker that's slayed 20 poor souls would net a larger reward.

Overall I just want the game to be more interesting and not rely on the sheep/wolf dynamic that seems to be unhealthy long term. This is one suggestion to add value to PVP for everyone involved. Random PVP has more value. Sheep/Wolf dynamic comes with a potential risk to the Wolf and or reward to the Sheep.

21 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

You're laying out a version of reality that doesn't exist. Ganking is not a zero risk activity in CF. It is in fact more likely you'll die trying to gank someone than it is you'll die hitting rocks. The risk is inherent in the action of acquiring loot, regardless of how it is acquired.

That isn't reality or fact, that's a possibility unless you have stats to back up the death rate doing any action in game with all the variables involved. Banging rocks is putting a target on your back, going after those targets allows someone to pick and choose who/when/where/what they do, likely to their favor.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vicid said:

People trying to gank them will only wear what they're willing to lose.  I wanna try full loot campaigns but I'm just being real about how people will play them

Unless they have someone feeding them gear, eventually they'll have nothing. So they'll at least have to play smart instead of throwing themselves into danger without care for their own safety.

I played EQ/DAoC and others before WoW. Dying in PVE could be a loss of a good deal of time/experience and even gear if you weren't careful. When WoW came around, PVE death became almost irrelevant beyond a run back to continue whatever I was doing. It definitely allowed me to play more careless.

To me this plays out the same way in PVP games with different loot/death rules. Everything from how I build my character, who I play with, where I go, who I attack, etc can change greatly depending on what I am risking (or not).

Which is my issue with this model. I can PVP with little to no regard for my own safety. Gear damage and time loss are an issue, but not as much as full loot or other harsh penalties.

Neither is the right way to do it, but both come with different experiences.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, APE said:

I can PVP with little to no regard for my own safety. Gear damage and time loss are an issue, but not as much as full loot or other harsh penalties.

Neither is the right way to do it, but both come with different experiences.

That is the point of that system though. Minimal risk to your ability to fight, and deriving risk from what's in your pocket in stead. The idea that players should be more likely to seek out PvP if they're carrying nothing of value, and assume more risk when they are is meant to inform their behavior and make competing over objectives something they're more likely to do than if every objective fight carried the kind of economic risk you get in a full loot system.

Personally I prefer that model. Durability means there's still a cost to being a complete idiot, but the cost isn't so high that it makes the entire player base super risk averse the way I see it tend to happen in full loot systems.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

That is the point of that system though. Minimal risk to your ability to fight, and deriving risk from what's in your pocket in stead. The idea that players should be more likely to seek out PvP if they're carrying nothing of value, and assume more risk when they are is meant to inform their behavior and make competing over objectives something they're more likely to do than if every objective fight carried the kind of economic risk you get in a full loot system.

Personally I prefer that model. Durability means there's still a cost to being a complete idiot, but the cost isn't so high that it makes the entire player base super risk averse the way I see it tend to happen in full loot systems.

This is why even though I've enjoyed full loot, I don't see it is viable long term in most games and especially not with what ACE has created. 

My suggestion of a "skull" or some other item of value that can be sacrificed/redeemed is more of a reward then punishment system. The winner gets something they didn't have prior regardless if someone ganks another at half health resting after a PVE fight and they have nothing of value in their bags, a harvester manages to send a ganker back to their spawn, or the graves of the fallen are looted after a siege. The loser technically doesn't lose anything more then they already do now (durability/time), but they are indirectly helping their enemy where they currently don't. Everyone gets something for defeating an enemy regardless of their chosen role or the activity playing out.

Just using the skull as an example since it is already something in place. Instead of throwing it in a bank to forget about or putting in an EK to rarely see, the player could get a useful buff, consumable, gold, experience, insert anything of value that they can use in the immediate or near future. Of course the skulls would be lootable as well so it is still up to the victor to run them back to safety. Maybe someone could store them up during a campaign and sacrifice them in their EK prior to the next. Starting off the campaign with an extra harvesting/PVE/crafting/combat buff for example.

Beyond exploiting which can be prevented, I don't see much down side to this suggestion while it adds to the overall experience of PVP and role dynamics. I'm sure ACE and more creative people could improve or come up with better ideas that don't require extensive resources to create. Not that I expect anything, just an idea. If not, oh well, I'll enjoy ganking, deleting items that I don't need, and using what I do with with little regard for risk. I just hope I don't fall asleep doing so. ;)

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...