Posts made by Rife

Taxation already goes to the city coffers if im not mistaken. The only problem is that if you want a guild to move, you want to make the tax a really high number, which also then affects the other residents that you dont want to be affected. A safe eviction system is targeted - you can target those who you dont want them to live in your city to move out, whereas a tax system affects everyone, and there is also no guarantee that the previous guilds would move either.

In fact the current tax system might hurt solo-ists even more. A guild takes over, puts high tax to make their enemies move, their enemies are rich, they dont mind paying the tax - but the solo-ists are not, they are forced to leave anyway.

Also, new continents and new cities solves the problems of residence, but does not solve the problem of established cities not having any incentive of being fought over.

@GamerSeuss I dont think giving a real world example is a good thing, since in the real world there is never a case where you take over a city and you're not able to live there.

My whole point about this topic is to enable new guilds that dont own a city to be able to establish a foothold in a city they conquer. If you don't allow new guilds to own new cities, then the game is not going to bring in new players, and that is a whole recipe for disaster.

The current system basically gives 0 incentives for a new guild to attempt sieging a city when it's residential district is full and has lots of the current city's guild members.

@GamerSeuss said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):

But later game, the Solo'ist, who fought to earn enough to get a plot early and claimed a spot, now may not have any spots available as a solo'ist and must join a Guild in order to own property again as all solo plots are taken. This is completely unacceptable. Nothing should force a solo'ist into joining a guild. Late game joiners may not get any plots at all, and that's true of Guild members as well as solo'ists, which only encourages the Devs to create new continents and new Residential/City areas late game during expansions periodically, which IS a good growth system. The game starts with 3 planets and 3 continents per planet, and a fixed number of cities per continent, but as new releases come out, that can be expanded upon. 'Lost Continents' and even Underground Cities can be discovered and claimed.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree with this. Early players already get loads of advantage with city, equipment, skills, etc etc. They definitely do not need a free permanent spot that can never be taken as well, this makes large guilds who come first have well established cities that people have almost 0 incentives to take over.

Creating 10-20 homes in your city by destroying existing buildings is not going to be feasible anyhow, so the argument to make homes in the buildable area of your city is a pretty bad one. Why play a game which has you taking over a city only to need to massively lose it's efficiency and productivity to have an even standing with people you've already beaten who get to freely live near your city and continue to harass you with ease, while you have to sacrifice your city buildings to be able to live there. Makes zero gameplay sense. This system is a huge detriment to the city siege gameplay loop and has to change, hence my suggestion.

@GamerSeuss In your example, then yes, some of the solo's will get evicted to make space for the new city's guild members, but I think in certain cases like the example you put out, this just cannot be avoided to maintain a functional system.

A functional system is one where in residential plots change hands depending on who owns the city, and not a static system where residential plots are based on first come first serve.

Which system do you think promotes a better health of the game? A game where residential plots are not static - where new players have a chance to fight for spots ( even casual players who want to own a residential plot can then join a guild and then work together to fight for plots in an existing city ) And most importantly - evicted players get a safe period to safely remove their stuff so none of their items get lost.

Or a static system where once a plot gets claimed, it's claimed forever. No new players have a chance to fight for it, city takeovers dont get a chance to fight for it, nobody can fight over plots, leading well established cities to hold it's dominance forever and putting off any new players from trying to join in the gameplay loop.

Think about all the emergent gameplay systems that can arise from a healthy eviction system, versus how much restrictions are created due to a static system like the one currently.

The eviction system is not a deterrent to the solo'ist playstyle. It is only promoting the solo-ist to be more inclusive in it's gameplay loop systems. We cannot exclude anyone who lives in the residential area from entering the political system of a city take over because the residential area is so tightly coupled into the fight for the city.

And sure, in your scenario solo's have to move, but they are paid compensation, and they can move safely. In short, they lose little. But a scenario where a guild cannot move in to the residential area of their city will hurt the guild a lot more than a solo needing to leave the city to settle elsewhere safely and with little to no loss.

@GamerSeuss said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):

Yes, there is a good chance that many of the Residential spots will be taken up by Guildies of the first guild running the town, and their Allies, but several spots will also be taken by Solo'ists looking for a plot of their own, free from the fallout of Sieges. They are still affected, because when the new 'Owners' of a City come in, they may end up tearing down the one crafting station you mainly used the town for, necessitating you taking your goods further afield to get them finished. That's the breaks, you take that bad with the good of not having to lose your house when a Siege is decided. The Governors don't control the Residential district, period. They get a passive tax on building/upgrading, and that's it. They can't say who gets to stay or go, that was made quite clear by the Devs, and thus no amount of money should change that. The city is owned by the Governor and his Guild, the Residential plots are not, so if there aren't enough plots for a new Guild who takes over, they get to decide what City buildings stay and which ones must go to make room for residences.

The city area is much smaller now, so wanting to move a bunch of your guildies and allies in is going to severely weaken your city's productiveness.

The current system is not going to appease to new players 1-2 years after Fractured is release. A potential new guild would look at the systems in the game, realize they cant move in to a city which is already well established, and simply choose to move on to a different game where they can actually move in to a city that they essentially take over.

The Fractured system right now is just plain weird. You can take over a city, but you may not necessarily be able to live there. That line itself has so many things wrong with it, I'm really not sure how people seem to be okay with that.

A good portion of Fractured's gameplay loop is going to be about cities. Sieges are a big part of that. Preventing people from being able to live in the cities they take over is a huge turn off to the whole mechanic. People will not want to go through such a hassle to take over a city if they cant even live in the city they've taken over without destroying your cities productivity and efficiency, while having the previous city owners all live in comfort in your city's residence. It just does not make sense period.

The system that I propose is basically the fine line that balances solo play and group play. Solo players wont be affected by city take overs still because it's costly to remove neutral players out of your residence ( you also want solo players to be in your residence to be able to rank up ), but you are able to evict enemy players from your city so that you can move in. This system is basically the "between" that @Logain mentioned.

But yes, like what @LonelyCookie mentioned, this system is hard to test, the scenarios that I describe would only come about after cities are fully developed and lived in after all.

@GamerSeuss said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):

The Devs have said that the Residential Area outside of a city is not under a city's governance. The city gets a small 'tax' from those plots when they are bought, but that's it. It is purposefully set up so that if you take a Residential Spot, you are completely safe from Sieges and their outcomes, as if to say you are opting out of the Siege subgame.

Except that this will definitely not be the case. Most of the residents of a city is going to be the players who first own the city as well as their friends and allies. This means that when a new guild comes in and takes over, they are going to be in a weird position, mainly due to the fact that the previous occupants actually live closer to the city than they do. This will definitely lead to undesirable behaviour where taking a city is going to make it hard for you to keep it since the previous owner can launch attacks from areas near your city while you struggle since you cant build near your own city anymore.

This is also why there is a cost to evict someone. This means that new city owners will not evict people for no reason, and would primarily only evict the previous city members to take over their houses so that they can establish a proper base in their city.

Existing players in cities should be aware of the political climate of the city, and they can always make contact with the new owners to establish good relationships. ( Residents would want to have close relationships with the city owner anyway, so that they can use crafting stations of the city and to also let the city owners know which crafting stations they'd like to see upgraded/built ).

I don't agree that residents should have no contact with the city owners at all, this is an mmorpg, so social interaction in this game should be a key, if you do not want to have relationships with any city, then it's better to live in the wilderness ( although not sure if that's still going to be a thing with the residential areas now )

@Farlander The point is to also make it costly to evict people. A casual player who owns a residential plot in a city is most likely not going to get evicted because the conquering guild is already going to pay a large amount of money to evict the previous guild members who stay in the city.

Also, evicting cost gets more expensive the more stuff you have built on your plot, so if the casual player has a lot of stuff on his plot, the cost will just not be worth it.

Hey all,

With the recent changes to the city, each city now has a residential area in which nothing changes to the residents even when a city changes hands.

Take note that this means that when a new guild takes over an established city, the new guild may not have enough residential spots to take, and will be forced to settle elsewhere ( unless they choose to reduce their already small city size by building new housing plots, which could involve removing existing city buildings already upgraded by the previous owners ).

What this means is that essentially a new guild would be owning a city where their previous owners have a base of operations much closer to the city than they do, which is pretty weird, and not optimal at all for a game where travel time matters.

So we have two problems here that we need to address :
i) Guilds that take over a city have no place in the city to stay
ii) We don't want to have a system that forces all residents to lose everything they have in their residential plot every time a city gets taken over, this will be a huge loss to players, and is not conducive at all.

This is where our proposal system comes in, to address both of these problems.

Basically whenever a city gets taken over, the new governor can choose selected residents to evict at a cost. The residents chosen have to move out, and when they are evicted out, they will get a "refugee" status.

The Eviction System :
Governors need to pay a cost for every resident they want to evict. The cost can be higher the more resources spent to build up the plot of land that the governor is evicting the resident from. This allows new guildies to move in - but at a cost, but due to the high cost, they will not choose to evict random neutral players that were not part of the conflict, they would most likely only choose to evict the enemy guild members that they took the city from.

Governor can then have an approval system on who gets to live in the evicted plots, that last for a certain amount of time, if nobody new comes to live in the plot, than anybody can live there, even the evicted person. ( Logically if you evict someone out of the plot, it would be for a guild member to take it, if your guild members or friends dont come and apply to live there, then anyone can live there, even the previously evicted person. )

This then solves both the problems where, the conquerors have no place to live in, and also random and casual players not part of the conflict will most likely not be evicted and can continue living in the residential area as usual.

This would of course increase the cost of sieging, but that's fine, there should always be a cost to sieging anyway.

The Refugee System :
Players who get evicted out of their plots get a "refugee" status. The refugee status means that they cannot be attacked or attack other players. This means no players can cast spells/skills/attack them, and they cannot cast skills/spells/attack anyone else.

If a player wants to remove their refugee status, they can either manually choose to do so, or wait for the refugee timer status to run out.

The refugee system is there to protect players who get evicted. We don't want to run into a situation where an evicted person gets paid their compensation, and grabs all their items to move, only to get ganked by the guild who paid them in the first place.

And there you have it folks, many thanks to @spoletta and @LonelyCookie for coming up with the solution together.

TL;DR
When a guild conquers a city, it can evict existing residents for a price, evicted residents have a "refugee immunity" status for a time period to be protected so that they can move their stuff.

Reproduction scenario :

1. Equip greatsword, check combat modifier on character sheet
2. Memorize a preset with Blademaster talent
3. See that combat modifier on character sheet with greatsword has no change.

Expected result : On (3), we should have an increase of combat modifier for the greatsword since the blademaster talent should work on swords.

Hey,

Not sure if this is a bug or not, but it's basically impossible to make Tier 2 Accuracy enchantment.

Seems unfair against evasion builds since they can do tier 2 evasion enchantments.

Ok, this might be a false report too, as it seems like I got damage from corrosion, and not poison

Oh nevermind, I saw it wrongly, the magic resistance does go up, and there is no armor bonus since it apparently doesnt stack with existing armor.

Reproduction scenario :

1. Activate mage armor
2. Check that no armor bonus receieved or magic resistance received on character sheet

The poison immunity talent still allows me to get poisoned and receive poison damage from player poison skills

Basically, while Frenzy is on, you cant use any healing skills, the healing skill will go off as usual, but there will be a +0 to your health, instead of the normal increase.

Reproduction scenario :

1. Turn on frenzy
2. Get damaged, try to use bandage, see that it will be +0
3. Turn off freny, use bandage, see that you will be healed normally.

Relentless talent doesnt seem to be working for Handaxe.

Reproduction scenario :

1. Use the skill Relentless Style to always get max damage.
2. Make sure Relentless Talent is memorized
3. Hit monsters - check that base damage ( not crit damage ) doesnt increase, when it should since you are deducting the armor.

Reproduction :
Starve yourself.

When starving, the usual "gear" icon that you get from hovering over things of interest ( like fireplaces, wagons, banks, etc ) do not show up, making things really hard to click.

When using melee against Utagg, he frequently teleports ( this is fine ).

The problem is when he teleports himself out of his own "area", which will then reset him, and he'll run back to his place and regen.

This doesnt seem like it should be expected behaviour, a boss shouldnt teleport himself out of his own area range and basically "reset" himself.

But still here in patch 2.4.1

@Kralith @boogis I am perfectly aware of holding the mouse button, but holding your mouse button for 30-45 minutes straight for multiple times a day is contributing to hand strain, and doing this repeatedly is probably going to end with me and others having a bad case of carpal tunnels.

I'm not suggesting the auto pathing like mobile games have. I'm suggesting a simple button that toggles your character to move to your cursor's position. That way you move your character by moving your mouse without having to click any buttons. This will help tremendously already in preventing hand strain.