Posts made by Gothix

As far as I know, there are no plans to implement sharding.

Also, imho, games without sharding are better games.

Problem is with bots and gold spammers.

For price of 1 basic package you get 4 spam accounts.
And if someone manages to crack pass number generator... million spam accounts for free.

Perhaps if these passes would provide access to a "limited game" without ability to chat, and some other abilities that bots and gold sellers use.

Free gifting of CS items (without any limitations) can lead to P2W.

$$ -> CS items -> sell to other players for gold

I hope there will be no "gifting", or at least that gifting will be limited to like 1 item per week/month or something like that.

Dual wield shields, safe space mode.

@Jetah the same is achieved by simply starting to sell standard cash shop currency (which already exists - Dynamight gold). No special extra tokens need to be created.

You can use Dynamight gold to buy anything in cash shop.

1. Makes beast man
2. Grabs Legendary weapon
3. Proceeds to kill PvE mobs in Arboreus for a while (and an occasional demon invader when he is visiting arboreus and weak)
4. Becomes practically immortal over time
5. insert any fun activity here

@Jetah said in Animal taming and breeding.:

@Gothix

Blizzard

Yeah Blizzard was different before, and also they were both developers and producers of their own product.

Most MMOs nowdays are given by original devs to other external producers to distribute around. And those producing companies (that do not make their own games, but only take games by others and try to make money on distributing them) are mostly greedy and just calculate how they will make most money out of the deal.

That's the problem of all small studios that do not have resources to distribute their own products. By giving away their product to other companies to distribute they renounce most of their rights, and contracts are made so producers get to decide many things about the game.

Many games, where devs promised they will be run in certain way, got completely changed in producers hands. This is why i stopped being a part of crowdfunding events in early stages, because you just don't know how game will change till it's released.

Now days I first wait to see which company will distribute the game before I decide if I will play it or not.

Just one example, if Fractured is given to MyCom, I will not touch it with a stick... Because we all know what MyCom does to games.

@FibS perhaps music should be procedurally generated as well, to fit in better with Fractured style?

@Jetah said in Animal taming and breeding.:

@Gothix

everyone is greedy going by that statement. you work, get paid; then you're greedy. do you see how stupid that sounds?

With the exception that if i break rules on work i get fired...
There are clear rules and clear punishment.

In MMOs, rules are clear, but (real) punishment for violating those rules isn't there.

Your analogy makes no sense...

Investors invest money, and they would get the return even if they ban the violators... but they are greedy, and they want more money, so they don't ban them... so they break their own rules (avoiding giving necessary punishment specified by TOS events), to get more money... and in any (non gaming) company breaking rules to get more money is often considered criminal activity (in countries with decent legal system).

Meanwhile, I work, I get payed for exactly how much i worked. I do not break any rules to get more money.

So consider again what sounds stupid and what doesn't.

The main problem of MMOs today are greedy producers / investors.

They want to keep as much of player population in the game, so they are very lenient on punishment for various TOS violations. Most bans given today are temporary and most violations aren't even punished.

Greediness, and wish to keep as much players playing is the main problem why players keep breaking TOS, using bots, exploiting etc. They know that when they are caught they will get a warning ban only, they will rest for day or two, and that's it (IF they are even caught).

SOLUTION: (that will likely never happen) Keeping in mind that many players will not even get caught, those that do, when they do, SHOULD get terminal punishment right away. Only if players knew that perma ban awaits them INSTANTLY, they would watch out to not violate TOS.

As long as GMs are lenient, be certain you will have zerg of bots around, all kind of exploits and other violations.

I have lost faith in devs / investors about them actually really punishing violators. Greediness has taken over modern MMOs, and we have what we have.

I would also say that even if I see Fractured as very promising and potentially great MMO, game play wise. And even if I believe developers will do their technical part great... I honestly doubt that producers / investors will be harsh in punishing TOS violators. Most violators will still get warning bans mostly, and we WILL be seing many bots around. This is harsh reality.

Future of gaming: "I'm not a robot" pop up test every time you click to herb a mushroom...

Must have an ability to set enemy town banners on fire (outside of sieges as well). If you manage to slip by guards undetected (which should be hard).

Grats boiz and girz!

Programming can never be perfect. Every code, no matter how well written, can always be worked around by other skilled people.

This is why TOS exists, to state what is not allowed, regardless if players are actually able to exploit it or not.

In regards of this instance, it is not allowed that same person plays more than one account simultaneously (logged in at same time). Regardless if this is done with software, or otherwise.

You can try to find "loopholes" in wording, but this will still not be allowed, and potentially questionable wording (if there is one) will get fixed and re written.

DrPrometheus saves the day.

@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:

you need to put yourself in the average players shoes.

financial success largely depends on the size and fidelity of your audience.

But THAT is exactly why all MMOs nowdays suck.... because they all cater to an "average player"... and guess what game becomes then? ... that's right game becomes "average" as well...

Game might gain a bit larger player base BUT... game loses all the "competitive" players, players that drive the social conflict in the game, players that put in the effort to theory craft on the top level, players that write top guides, game loses on the best "out of the game" content that those top 10% players do, because those players will not want to invest an effort in a game that caters to an "average" player.

Yes there will still be guides and stuff, but only such "average" guides written by "average" players that are playing.

Games like that just sink in the mediocracy of other MMOs, and become part of gray mass, unrecognizable, and their life span is short.

This is why you can't just cater to an "average" player, even if such players form the largest part of player base.

THAT is the bigger picture.

(Would like to add that players that are afraid of "imbalance" have a WHOLE PLANET to play on without fear...)
(And as in every other MMO, such player will never be happy with what he already has and will always ask for more and more regardless of how much he gets... it's in his personality description.)

@grofire said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:

there is no real "sandbox" game, the developers always decide how the world act

There wasn't so far, because developers always decided...

This doesn't mean that there can't be one, if developers let player choices drive the game completely, rather then imposing mechanical limitations and "forced balance".

@Xzoviac said in What albion did wrong- not a bash thread:

If a game is balanced it's designed for carebare cryers?

If the balance is forced by game mechanics then yeah.

(There should be no "balance" in a game, there should be only what players make of it, and if players play in the way so it becomes balanced, then fine, if players play differently, then they deserve to get whatever they got by their play style and their choices.)

If some player plays better then he deserves to be ahead of other player. If some group organizes better and puts in more effort, then they deserve to own another group that didn't do that.

If a group makes an effort to promote their political agenda and attracts more players to them, then they deserve to be able to do things with more players then another group that sounded "boring" and attracted lesser amount of players.

Any developer interference that annuls an effort of an individual or a group by giving (undeserved) power to another individual or group to "force the balance" would just make the game lame.

What do you not understand about that?

I'm not defending any certain thing in particular. I'm defending game play without "forcing the balance".

I'm defending game play that's driven and directed purely by players, and not by "forced balance" mechanics imposed by game design.

One does not get to say ok lets have "sandbox" but lets "force the balance" with these limitations...

The moment you start "imposing forced balances", your game isn't sandbox anymore... it's now a game that looks after poor sensitive players. I'm sorry but that's the hard truth. Too many games nowdays do that sadly...

Software now days can recognize what machine it's installed on. So the game could recognize if 2 (or more) clients are running on the same machine (and disallow it), or on different machines (and allow it).

So even if family played together (on different machines) this wouldn't be blocked... but alt tabbing would.