Dev Discussion #45 - Gathering and PvP

We have not received permission from Vaknar to share the quoted post.

In response to the change of the wording, here is quote of original feedback, followed by any related/restated notes, below that.

Azherae wrote: »

I find this question hard to answer because it feels like even considering this option is shifting Ashes away from what it has been implied to be.

So many systems seem as if they would lose value in this case, and social requirements would be reduced.

To me this is much less a question of if you drop things, and much moreso about 'being attacked just because your opponent thinks you have things'.

But if I had to give a suggestion or request, it would be this:

A player's inventory should have a subset of slots, probably 5-8, of 'things that they have not packed away yet' or whatever explanation you like. When gathering or transporting goods, raw and processed materials and some 'basic loot drops' go into this inventory first, and after a time, they move into 'main inventory'. The player can never PUT things into these slots personally, and the timer counts for the whole stack.

So if I am gathering mushrooms and they are stacking up in inventory, every time I gather one of a specific type of mushroom, that stack 'refreshes'. I would need to stop gathering mushrooms in order to have the timer tick down to get them into 'main inventory'.

If I find something rare, therefore, and I run out the timer, I get to keep it most of the time. Or not, the question is about mitigating chances, not removing them. So it could be that I still have a chance to drop that one Perfect Mushroom even if it is in main inv, but it's not as high as dropping the other stuff.

I feel this would retain most of the risk without making too many of the TYPES of meta-gameplay loop that come from other methods of mitigating 'loss of materials on death', and could also allow a more nuanced approach to 'what sorts of things players can drop'.

But overall, I don't like the idea of alternative play loops that would change the standard flow of 'go out into world, get materials, move materials to sale point or having the buyer come and have to transport them', so anything that starts to give players 'a way to avoid doing that', I think I am opposed to.

Now, I can say that I would absolutely only be content with almost exactly what I described above. Normally, I obviously just say 'do whatever Intrepid feels is best until tested', but between 'the other responses to the thread before now' and 'my concerns about the balance of activities', this is now the only thing I would want to see.

I don't want anyone to have any option for a separate activity based on the level of their Artisanship that reduces the reward (EDIT: or mitigates chance of dropping items) in any way, so that leaves only 'tools'.

I don't want anyone to have any tools (EDIT: for mitigating drops) that are explicitly reliant on their Artisanship level, because I feel this might reduce social situations more and skew outcomes.

I don't want players to have to plan things around the immediacy of a situation, I feel like being able to opportunistically note 'oh there's no one here right now' while passing through an area with the right gathering tool, should be able to organically lead to the immediate thought of 'I should gather some stuff and see if I can get away with it' without them having to recalculate where they were going or what they were doing, consistently.

I don't want players to have control over what goes into their 'safety bag' in any way that would let them 'just put away a precious resource when they get it' because that leads right back to situations where someone finds something rare or worse, steals it from someone else, and then immediately that item becomes 'uncontested'.

I don't want players to be able to wait near safer areas for gatherers returning from dangerous areas, regardless of the other social solutions that the gatherer could employ in that situation. If you want to take an Artisan Gatherer's rare resource from them, go up the same mountain/down into the same mine they did, or at least, consider that your chances of getting that resource from them if you do not, are much smaller .

So yes, given the change, this is just me doubling down on original feedback.

Thank you for the opportunity as always, Intrepid.

The prompt changed, but my answer hasn't. No changes are necessary.

We have not received permission from Moovie to share the quoted post.

I have now watched the video. There's some problems here.

1. If we have two greens (anyone who isn't red and hasn't hit a player in the last 90 seconds), and they want to have a fully agreed-upon and willing duel...

Both flag so they can hit each other. Green1 hits Green2. Green1 is now Purple1. Green2 fights back and becomes... Green2. The only person 'allowed' to win a duel they both agreed to is Green2. There's no fully willing and intentional (on both sides) PvP configuration that doesn't guarantee corruption for one of the participants should they win.

2. The presenter claims you are punished for fighting back. You are not.

- Fighting back means you lose less stuff if you die. (Setting aside that you might win.)
- Not punishing your attacker is not a punishment to you . You are already dead. You gain nothing and lose nothing based on whether your attacker turns red or not.

The stated purpose of the corruption system is to encourage PvP, encourage people fighting back, and discourage only serial ganking. That's why you are required to pay a price (higher green death penalties) to put a bounty on your attacker's head. You're only intended to do this if they're enough of a troublemaker that it's worth that to you.