Posts made by Gothix

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

and what if the game is Dieing because of lack of mechanics/balancing?
Devs should move on and make a new game?

If game is "dying" this means the lack of players right?
If there is a lack of players than you don't have the problem your mentioned anymore (guilds with thousands of players).

This is why game can not die, due to problem you mentioned, because as soon as player number starts to drop, problem starts resolving itself on its own.

And... that would be if the game would die due to this in the first place... and it wouldn't... it's just your own fear of being outnumbered. But the game will certainly not die.

Developers shouldn't interfere in the game (specially a sandbox game) once players get the economy and social mechanics rolling.

This is the meaning of sandbox... even if things go in direction where most players didn't expect, this is due to players playing like they played, and if situation will change, it should also be through players, not through developers meddling with mechanics during game life.

Airborne housing as a stretch goal.

Houses that float just a little bit above ground, and have a little teleportation circle drawn on the ground near them, which owner can use, or those that have been granted permission by the owner.

@Jetah said in Race Evolutions Sugestion.:

@deusex2

DS will introduce the god of laziness which might or might not grant that divine quest.

I would definitely follow god of lazyness.

I hope that number of pets that you have following you isn't limited, but instead, maintenance of several simultaneously used pets becomes higher and higher, and in this way it becomes very hard to have many pets out.

But if someone loves pets and is willing to pay high maintenance that comes with that, he should be allowed to have more pets out following him.

I would love to see some "risk vs. profit" technology.

For example, an eye implant that can make you able to see better in dark (without having a torch), but if someone lights up a torch near you, and you didn't deactivate this implant, you will get blinded for a while.

Something that gives benefits, but also has risk attached to it, or some drawbacks.

It comes down to this...

Life isn't fair... nor should the game be. The more "safeguards" are in place, the more dull game becomes.

The fun is in risk, in expectation that anything can happen, and in knowing that that changes depend solely on you. The freedom and the risk, without limitations. This is the game as I want to play it. This is why i stay away from theme park MMOs that limit you with various mechanics.

People here come with arguments "But what if i need to leave the game for some time...?" .... well that's your own problem man. If you leave, then deal with the consequences, that's life. You can't have everything, you need to make choices.

If i wanted a game that protects me, that safeguards me when I need to leave, that balances things for me regardless of what I do or where I go... I would go play Farmville.

And... Fractured is already taking care of you in that regard. If you are worried about everything, simply play as Beastmen on Arboreus, and you are safe, from invasions, if you leave for few days,... you can play in peace.

What more do you want? (that is rethorical question, I know what you want, for Syndesia and Tartaros to conver to Arboreus as well... this is what you want in every MMO that's being created. Forums are full of threads like this... asking for same thing over and over by same type of players.... give us safety.... I want to play solo, make others not touch me...)

It's getting old.

Littlefinger pledge pack - start by owning your own "small enterprise" in one of the towns.

@DCCCXIX said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

those should be limited so small and big guilds get about the same amount.

No they shouldn't.

You are free to grow your guild in size if you want stuff. And if you chose to play in small guild then you should accept the drawbacks that come with it.

Also larger guild must split those resources among larger number of members, so it would be completely illogical for small and large guilds to get the same amount....

Grats to everyone!

@Tuoni said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

@Farlander said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
Sandbox doesn't mean no rules. It means open world with no linear path. You are allowed to go where you want and do what you want.

This is pretty good definition. I would only add, that this all happens within the rules and frames set by developers. Idea is of course only set rules which are needed.

Exactly... everyone is allowed to do what he wants, including the guy that's "taking the toys".

Example 1:

• make the logistical cost of owning multiple cities high and not easy to maintain
• but do not limit how many cities is guild allowed to own (if they succeed being geniouses at logistics)

Example 2:

• give smaller guilds a nice GUI to easily form alliances in need, when attacked by large guild, and make an alliance GUI to help communication between smaller guilds helping them organize easier
• but do not forcibly impose small guild member limit so larger gaming communities can not play together

Example 3:

• impose taxes on profit, and make logistics of larger enterprises more demanding, and those of small crafts less demanding
• but do not limit how large enterprise one can grow, and how much he is allowed to earn (if successful)

Example 4:

• make movement of larger groups more visible (NPCs around the world will see them and spread the word, a large army never moves around undetected), this will help the cities become aware of possible invasions in advance
• but do not prevent the large invasions all together by limiting them by game mechanics somehow

Example 5:

• let players have some hiding skills and tools, so small groups can outsmart larger groups sometimes (guerilla fighting)
• but do not mechanically give extra strength and power to smaller groups, simply because they are smaller

Example 6:

• let players have a lots of options for where to find resources
• but do not mechanically prevent a larger group of people owning and controlling a certain world area if they organize well

People should be told that they are required to work (and compete) for resources, and not expect for game mechanics to simply hand them over, because, hey, they "do not have the mood to compete".

@Roccandil said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

If one bully takes everyone else's toys

...then others should organize, plan a tactic (use some brain work and logistics) to take the toys back.

Btw. someone is not a "bully" simply because he played smarter from others and managed to acquire those toys (resources). The main aim of this game (Fractured) is not to share the resources, but to compete for them...

This is why you can not ask for mechanical limitations that would force the sharing and equality... this is not such game...

I'm just saying that "setting too many rules and limitations" would make the game not fun anymore.

If someone placed an effort, was smart about how to organise and do things, and as consequence he gained advantage over others... he should be allowed to reap the rewards of his smart play... and not pushed back with the message "hey, others are weak so we will now limit you so others can feel successful too".

Smart game design will, of course, give some tools to weaker players (groups) to allow them to learn, to get better by learning and to be able to fight as underdogs, but those tools should never directly limit those players (groups) that worked to be successful and earned it by smart play.

Tools need to be designed so they can aid players in need with options and with an opportunity to improve, but should never be designed in such way so that balance is achieved by "taking away the success" of players that earned it.

TLDR:

• yes, design the game so that it helps weaker players to learn so they could become better, give them different playing options so they can succeed with various playing styles
• no, do not try to force the balance by limiting the success of players (groups) that just played well and deserve to reap the rewards of their smart play

In any game there will be those more successful and less successful... a good game should never "force the balance" by mechanical limitations.... difference in success between players (and groups) needs to exist because that is what drives the social mechanics of the game.

And... things can always turn around... people just need to be taught that they need to work for it, rather then expect this to be gifted to them by game mechanics.

I just hope that everyone will remember that this is promoted as a sandbox MMO.

If limits will be set all around the game on various "mechanics" to prevent imbalance and other similar situations, then people that came here for sandbox will leave.

If we wanted a theme park then we would look for MMO promoted as theme park. We want to play a game that does not impose mechanical limitations on group of people that are just "too good in organisation" while their opponents "suck" at it.

In other words...

If some people will "suck at playing" it should be their own problem in a sandbox game. They should learn to play instead of asking for game to be converted to a theme park with various limits that insure balance.

Thank you for understanding.

PS: I'm preetty sure someone will say that guild having 500 members beating a guild composed from 50 members has nothing to do with organisation skills... but it really does.

If you cant get people to join on your side than the problem is in you... your political skills, your planning, logistics, motivation, and multiple other factors...

Starting play field is equal for everyone, and whatever advantage other guilds will have against you (including member number) that is on you, and your lack of success in playing.

@Farlander said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:

They will use every legal way of doing it and skirt every rule that stops them.

That is the meaning of sandbox, the lack of "dev set rules". Letting player community decide where the things will go by pure social interaction. This is why people play sandbox games.

Players that prefer rules and safety nets more often opt for theme park games.

You have to understand that Fractured is designed as a sandbox game, and this means that you will have to work for making life in your surroundings nice for you. No one else will do this for you.

This is the beauty of sandbox games. Regardless of what direction things move to (even if towards chaos), player community action can always change things around, with an effort of course.

If you prefer that rules are set by devs and that game mechanics dictate how you are supposed to play, you are looking at wrong type of MMO. Themepark MMO is where such design is found.

Devs said that "for now" they are working with an idea of allignment based guilds in mind, but they also said that they are hearing players feedback and it is possible for this to change.

So everything is still posible.

Taxation based on guild size sounds fair.

Gameplay should also be designed in a way so that guild doesn't offer too many advantages besides common chat and decorative banners.

People can group up (raid groups) regardless if they are in the guild or not, so limiting guild size isn't the solution.

It's not because games are sandbox. It's because people are looking for "the route of lowest effort", and seek the safety by joining the more powerful guilds.

I've always been in a guild where we went us vs. the rest of the world, no matter the odds. And we always had more than enough PvP and fun.

Solution: don't change the game, change your play style.

1. click on the top photo where large "Fractured" is written
2. at the bottom of any page where "Copyright 2019 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured" is written, click on "Fractured"