The point is that even if what the OP asks gets implemented, it simply wouldn't work.
Assuming that you could click on abilities, then what? Most of them depend on where your mouse is in that moment. You would be restricted to playing with a third of the skills of this game.
While it could be a cool idea, I feel that it would miss its target.
First of all as you noticed it would work only for humans, so whatever possible exploit could still be done by bringing a beastman to Syndesia.
Also, most of the possible exploits are actually possible through multi boxing, not by using alt chars. The family system does in no way help against multi boxing.
Finally, the alignment system is going to change in the next alpha, so I would first check how it ends up working. I'm not sure that there will be many possible exploits, since the only true limitations are the impossibility to use banks, shrines and inns of the other cities. You can technically work around the problem of banks by having another char, but this would again be by multi boxing.
Welcome onboard ILLatus!
As you probably now the game is currently in alpha testing, and the next testing if expected in the second half of September. In the mean time, I suggest that you take a look at the blog entries.
I'd put bounty hunters at least on neutral level of drops. After all according to the roadmap, bounty hunters can be neutral, they are not always blue.
One of the core concepts of the equipment design in Fractured, seems to be that it WILL break. Period. Nothing is permanent.
This is done to make sure that the player driven economy has a need for a constant influx of new equipments and that it isn't possible for the economy to "saturate".
This currently works quite fine in PvE, where the durability of items decrease at an acceptable rate and requires a constant refresh of the equipment.
In PvP though, Fractured has the same issue of many other games of its kind. Since the equipment loses durability based on the amounts of times it is used (hit/being hit), in PvP the durability goes down really slowly, since you are exchanging a lot less blows than in PvE. High grade equipments will likely be used only for PvP, not surely to hunt goblin heads, and will last almost eternally. They will change hands, but they will not decay.
Equipment in PvP simply does not phase out.
This could technically be fixed by changing the durability degrade to be based on some other factor, but it would require too much work. Instead, I think that the new pvp loot system provides a good way to include a bit of phasing out.
According to the roadmap, blue players lose 1 or 2 items on death, and neutral players lose 3 or 4.
What I propose is this:
If the blue players drops only one item, then another random item breaks (or suffers severe durability damage).
If a neutral player loses only 3 items, then another random item breaks.
When a Red gets killed, one item has a chance to break.
In this way, a blue player killed will always "lose" 2 items. Be it because they dropped them or because one was looted and one broke.
Same for the neutral player. He will always "lose" 4 items. Either 4 dropped or 3 dropped and one broken.
Red players already lose everything on death. It doesn't really matter if one the items actually breaks.
This should provide a certain quota of items phasing out during pvp activities.
Note: We are talking about KILLS, not Knock Outs.
According to the last roadmap, blue players will only drop 1 or 2 items on death. This is fine if we consider that blue players are usually gatherers or players doing low level content. They don't actually stand a real chance in a fight so they also don't suffer most of the consequences.
The problem I see with this though is that Bounty Hunters too are blue, and they are very very ready to fight. They are out there looking to take heads.
Doesn't seem fair that in a Red vs Bounty Hunter fight, the only one risking something is the Red.
Being a Bounty Hunter should provide you with the chance to reap a reward from hunting Reds, but should also lose you the blue protection, or at least a part of it.
This is something that was not detailed in the roadmap, so maybe that this is already planned. Just wanted to make sure that this aspect was considered.
Thank you for your valuable contribution. 
Care to add some explanation on why you think that way?
Yeah, usually they are one per season. In fact in the last news article, they already gave a name to the next test and it is "Summer Alpha", so we can expect it in August at the latest (provided that there are no delays).
In any case, it looks like we are going to receive an update to the development roadmap, so I suggest that you wait for that and make your decision.
By the way, hop on the discord, it will be easier to follow the news.
The population of the Alpha right now is low, and that's due to the alpha cycle that the game is following.
We have around one test every season and it lasts for around one month. The alphas have a lot of players in the first 1-2 weeks of testing due to all the players experimenting around with the new mechanics implemented in that test, and then the population starts dwindling toward the end.
This alpha is close to its end, so the population at the moment is at its minimum.
There is a little caveat in this though. We are still missing the implementation of a key mechanic (sieges), which should be hopefully coming this week. Following that then the population will again rise to test it, but it will also mean that the test will close in the following week.
Is it worth buying right now? I don't know. I did buy it in the previous alpha and I'm having quite a bit of fun. Even if it is an alpha it is quite enjoyable. Point is that it is an alpha, so we have only a little set of the full features (only one continent, around a third of the skills, only one race...) and this obviously impacts the longevity of the experience. It isn't something that you can play regularly for a long time, at the moment. If that is what you are looking for, then you should wait at least the beta.
As far as the development, I'm proparly a bit biased but I think that they are doing great. The project is ambitious (take a look at the blog articles) and even if they are a bit late on the schedule, they keep pursuing it without major hiccups.
Yeah, having BOTH the RNG system AND a way to force higher grade would be the best of both worlds for me. Not sure if it is worthy of attention though. For me the system is fine like this.
I had thought the same thing regarding the enchants and durability (but durability damage was partially RNG 
) and stopped exactly for the reason that you can't trade items without full durability.
Also, you introduced another hot topic there. Durabilty damage in pvp. Right now there isn't, so good equips just change hand, they never get destroyed.
A 25% durability damage on items when getting killed (not just knocked down) would be a good start IMO.
@OlivePit said in Alternative to crafting and enchanting RNG headache.:
I acknowledge your point Jacenson however at the moment one of the few ways you can reduce the odds of item destruction when enchanting is to use higher quality equipment -excellent- which makes it kind of a requirement if you intend to do any enchanting beyond one enchantment.
If the odds of loosing an item to enchanting destruction were not tied to quality or had some other way to help mitigate then the good quality items would see more value.
This is not true.
I regularly enchant my good quality equipment with double enchant. The failure chance is fairly low and quite manageable. Yes, it will sometimes happen that you destroy the item. It is one of the events that you have to react to, like missing a skill in pvp. I despise games which are too much dependant on RNG, where luck is your main factor, but this one clearly isn't one of those. This one holds just that little amount of RNG which makes it so you not only have to plan but also react. There are games where you suffer the RNG and games like this where you manage the RNG.
Now, as I said a solution without RNG would still be good for me. Not as good as the current RNG one, but it surely wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. What is important though, is that the resource investment to create an higher quality item increase exponentially with the quality. With the current difference between a poor item and an excellent item, if a poor item requires 1 resource, the fine one should require 2, the good one 4 and the exceptional 8. Exceptional items should be luxury items and the norm should be between fine and good.
Personally my enjoyment in RNG systems is because it requires more "skill" to be managed.
You can't math your ideal solution. You need to optimize and improvise, Managing lesser quality products without them becoming trash, finding a market for all your production no matter the quality is what makes a succesful crafter in a sandbox game.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the player which just wants to make his armor, RNG sucks. Because in his case he actually trashes the bad results. He doesn't have the volume of production to optimize.
This usually means that the single player pays more in trying to make his own stuff than what he would pay if he just were to buy it, because the seller has more production and so more optimization.
This has its perks and flaws.
Usually the design goes like this:
You give priority to the single player making his own stuff ---> No RNG crafting.
You give priority to "crafters" supplying multiple players with stuff ---> RNG crafting.
Personally I love spending most of my time in a crafter role, so I like the RNG systems, but I also understand those who don't like it.
In the end, I would live fine with any of them.
@Jacenson
That's exactly my point. As you said, right now discarding metal products would be foolish. That's because IMO the metal process is the only one correctly implemented at the moment.
Indeed, if you look around at my posts, you will see that I've many times stated that the current system for leather and wood needs some more work and the current system for cloth looks more like a placeholder than an actual planned system.
Wood needs a refining process. Have it dry first.
Leather does not entail hauling heavy materials around, so it should at least interact with other resources. Ideally when we get alchemy, we should have tanning agents. Put the leather in the tanning tube and then add the agent. Weak tanning agents for tier 1 and 2 leather, mild agent for tier 3 and strong agent for tier 4. The amount of agent depends on the amount of leather in the tube.
Similar system for cloth.
If you are arrive at the point that you can flood the market in an attempt to make the exceptional item, it means that you could afford to discard the good ones even though the difference between a good and an exceptional one is many times negligible.
If that happens, the problem is that the resource is way too common.
That button enables pvp, but only evil players can attack non evil players.
A good player which activates that only gets to attack red players.
Also, if you don't have a good reason to activate it, don't. It makes you susceptible to friendy fire.
They are one and the same.
If someone is evil, he is red.
Only evil players can attack you.
If someone isn't red, they can't attack you.
If he isn't red, he can't attack you.
If someone is red, he is accepting a big risk in exchange for being able to attack players, so if you see red, start shooting.
Yeah, if you go with the two step version, maybe you can do it but... man this opens up so many exploits that I can't even start to count them 