The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight
-
you will not able to kill them before or after , they go inside the city
i know your not very creative, so let me to help you, after they leave the city, towards their own city... try to catch them...
-
For me it sounds like as non-citizen I get all the advantages, without the disadvantages with the current idea.
I think the city owners should have more advantages for letting people stay in their area like taxes, bonuses, ... special plot reservation/spots for citizens, ...
About the discussion "Guild vs. Solo players" - in the past I have done all:
- Joining guilds when I liked to play with them.
- Joining guilds just for the buffs but not interacting with them.
- Playing solo (including endgame).
It always depends on the community what I do.
I think it shouldn't be a discussion how people want to play but a discussion how to make it fair for all players.
-
You will perform worse in an MMO when playing solo. Period.
That's how it is. That's how it always should be. This is an MMO, not a single player game.
As for cities this design is a damn joke and it absolutely benefits players avoiding city ownership the most.
My guild would just camp cities, use their shit and kill everyone as they leave. A city is just a big red target planted on your guild.
If this is how we plan to proceed....I'm out right here and now.
@grofire said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:
you will not able to kill them before or after , they go inside the city
i know your not very creative, so let me to help you, after they leave the city, towards their own city... try to catch them...
You're an absolute idiot.
Why leave when you are at a disadvantage? Just sit in the city and wait for the most opportunistic time to jump out and attack people.
Allowing your ENEMIES to benefit from your work is fucking laughable. "Ohh I know we were just killing each other but come on in, craft some new armor and weapons then attack me with them." - Anyone that supports this shit is a goddamn moron.
Players WILL exploit this for their own advantage. Enjoy the non-stop shit talking in local chat of your city that you can't do a damn thing to stop.
-
@Nekrage LOL your a pathetic man, good luck in life.
-
Source?
Go for any parse site. Filter by guild. Very few hardcore guilds and lots of casuals, small guilds (active players).
But its usually data from pve games. PvP game i dont think we have enough data. Maybe Crowfall, but i usually dont play.
But yes, sandbox games arent for solo players but small groups? Since SWG....
-
@GamerSeuss I totally agree with your points and suggestions. I think The more freedom in a sandbox mmo we can get the better so that means you should be free to be a solo player. However, I agree that it should be more difficult to be a solo player and incentivize people to joining groups/guilds/cities. There should be a small tax on any financial/crafting transaction that occurs within a city which goes to the upkeep/coffers. The tax should be higher for non citizens to not only promote them to joining the city, but to also deter hostile factions from exploiting the hard work of the current citizens. Also, the Governor should be able to "pardon" specific non citizens from these higher taxed transactions, if they are deemed to be providing the city with some benefit that the city needs or just have been having good relations with the city. This would be for solo merchants/traders who may or may not travel from city to city to bring exotic goods to your city. Or perhaps for mercenaries who have served the city well in their time of need.
-
@Gropes Thank you, Gropes!
As to the Guild concerns as to enemies using their resources against them, the GAME (not a Governor or Guild) could apply a Flag to a character that has attacked a City Citizen, making them Capture on Sight by NPC guards, and allowing Citizens/Bounty Hunters to PvP them until a 10 day timer runs out, or they have spent 1/2 that in-game time in Jail in that city.
This would not allow Governors and Guilds to make their cities exclusive, BUT it would address enemies exploiting the open city rules unrestricted.
-
@Nekrage said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:
it absolutely benefits players avoiding city ownership the most.
Not necessarily. I think you are only looking at the game play aspect and ignoring the economic aspect. We know a fair amount about the former but almost nothing about the latter.
For example if city taxes on crafting, AH, etc. extracts ~30% of the value of nearby resources, owning a city means the controlling guild can pimp their players out with 0 time spent. That time can then be spent raiding nearby cities for their loot... Basically, a peasant/ lord relationship. Peasants gather up local resources, land owners pillage the other lords' peasants.
This creates an incentive for a city owner to have as many people living in or near their city as possible, as it increases resource gathering and raises demand for pillaged gear looted from foreign players.
-
I have so little experience w MMO play that I'm just watching this conversation with increasing trepidation & suspense.
Will all the worst fears of @Nekrage be confirmed once the alpha starts?
Will @Prometheus reveal more content tomorrow in the Q&A to mitigate the potential for nasty exploits?
Will the devs incorporate some of the suggestions made by experienced designers like @GamerSeuss?
I so value opinion/experience of others in this conversation, and hope to see you all tomorrow at the online Q&A. Whatever happens, I hope folks will give the devs a little bit of credit for intelligence - this game isn't launched or finished yet, and one test of the very new system may be all it takes to convince the devs that More changes need to happen.
-
I feel it is a stupid idea for the cities to be open (unless the governor is allowing it if the players are given the choice) for everyone to just come into and use the shops and crafting stations.
It's a slap in the face of the city citizens (whether they're all in the same guild or not) who worked, and will work, to build and rank up the city and then some people who never helped with the city just come in and start crafting just cause they want to or that city's crafting stations are the closest or highest about.
Not to mention there are toxic players who will just waste time in safe zones and run their mouths off non-stop in the chats. I do not know about you, but I do not like ignoring people and I generally end up turning off local, global, and other chats not to see that crap. This stuff should not be allowed to happen in player cities.
-
This tread is getting a bit toxic. I see some good ideas and valid concerns here. I'm going to try to be constructive since that is kind of the point of playing games in Alpha phases.
In regards to giving governors the option to close or open a city, I think the city merchant/trader should be crucial in that decision. Trading between cities is supposed to be very important and each city won't have all resources nearby. If you close your city you shouldn't be able to buy or sell goods thru your merchant and would have to rely on your citizens traveling the world to collect resources.
As far as who can use crafting stations inside an open city, maybe non citizens could get access thru trading, tithe, tax etc. Governors shouldn't be able to effectively close an open city by setting the tax too high tho.
Lastly, residents outside of the city safe zone should always be citizens no matter who conquers the city. People are going to start building houses before there are governors or cities. if an Uber guild wants all those houses for their closed city they can buy off the residents already living there or go find an empty area. or they can build all their houses inside the city walls.
Those are my ideas right now. might change as the game develops.
-
Thanks everyone for responding in this thread. The original issue that I was concerned about when I started this thread has been mostly addressed in this Q&A by Prometheus here
I wanted to thank Dynamight and Prometheus for taking the time to honestly assess player feedback and concerns. Going to keep an eye on how all these plans will be implemented into the game and continue to give feedback!
I guess you are all pretty passionate about your opinions on MMOs lol. It's a debatable hot topic for sure but this thread wasn't started with the idea of trying to make a war of "group players vs solo players". I was merely stating that if Fractured was trying to find a middle ground between supporting solo players vs group players, then they should offer the community the tools to do so instead of trying to force any permissions settings. And it seems like so far they do have fair ideas about that, so I'm not as worried now
Please watch the Q&A if you haven't yet before any further replies here!
-
I would personally not make ALL cities "non attackable zones".
I would make it "same as planet - rules", however city would have guards that would intervene on aggression.
Guild controling the city would be able to tweak how guards work, and change it only in specified times of day, to avoid exploitation.
Visitor approaching the city would get notified by game message what ruleset is valid in city at that moment.
-
The developers are obviously trying to strike a medium between running their PvP players out of town, and being able to bring in new players.
If you sit on one end of this decision, you are doing this project no good. A true sandbox is most successful when all play styles are catered to without a detriment to any of them.
Ultimately, I'd suggest allowing the testing to determine how the system evolves further before writing it off.
On a personal note, I am interested in these changes. It's obvious that Dynamite will make adjustments based off of feedback. So it's quite possible and quite likely that if these changes don't work, they will find alternate solutions. Cities now reap the rewards of allowing residents to purchase land, without residents feeling forced to actively participate in city activities. Allowing residents to refine resources freely, gives them something of value to bring into the city for trade or for sale. This is a win for the city, as the residents are actively producing value for the city while the resident feels that they are personally gaining from such a transaction. The adjustments to the amount of city plots should keep city population up, as ghost towns were clearly an issue with the last test. To me, all of those changes were obvious and needed. Solo players will still find it harder than players in large groups. Nothing has changed.
My main concern is the harbor. I'd like to see how that works. Personally, I'm not sure about detaching them from cities. I like the idea of repairing, rebuilding, and managing them. It's illogical to have no control over a harbor that is directly outside of your city. In my opinion, sticking with the theme here, all residents should be able to use the harbor. And the city should still have to manage it. I guess I just don't understand the decision behind it.
The other one is allowing enemy guilds and residents to enter your city. I wouldn't mind this, if not for your city being a safe area. To me, it's a game-y mechanic, that really doesn't make logical sense. Enemy factions should be tagged for PvP upon entering. Either that, or they physically can't enter at all once a 'gate' is constructed. Acting as a buffer between your allies and your enemies. Protecting your lands for your residents should be important.
Not at all concerned about random non-residents taking nearby resources. If you want your residents and guilds to have access to those resources, defend them. You won't even have to anyways, as most people aren't going to travel an hour by wagon in order to strip mine your resources, and then travel an hour back to their city. It's absurd.
-
@Nekrage Solo players shouldn't be able to progress in end game? LOLOL what?? Do you want to gatekeep this game from the tons of small scale/ solos that will play??
-
I'm mostly a Solo player, and even I think that it's okay to have a few Boss type encounters that require a group to defeat. Your character improves only to a finite level of ability, and certain epic battles are just meant for groups to take down.In that regard, end game content can partially be reserved for group play, but it doesn't have to be Guilds or Alliances, it can be Bands of the Moment/Special Event type play. Definitely, city sieges aren't going to be taken on by single players either afterall.
I want Solos to be able to do just about everything in the game, to mostly be able to be self-sufficient, however, I do want Legendary Challenges to come up from time to time...at least with a player driven economy, these legendary challenges won't be dropping some game breaking piece of equipment or reagents, but instead, more lore related stuff, and/or bigger supplies of harder to find reagents instead.
-
@GamerSeuss the level of the battle/event shouldn't be a subject of who try to defeat said challenge.
if a solo player got to a level he can do a boss then there shouldn't be a game mechanic that prevent that... and he should get all the reward for that boss.
that what @Nekrage basically keep asking, game mechanic that will prevent solo players to get powers, and become stronger.
-
This is a game which is supposed to have an HORIZONTAL progress.
In no case a player should become so strong as to do the work of multiple players.
-
@spoletta THIS
With a game based around mostly Horizontal over Vertical Growth of power, where really players earn a variety of abilities as they go, not exactly a higher power scale, at least to an extent, you can't expect there to eventually be players you would expect to take on the Balrog or Smaug type enemies. These are the epic battles that you expect to draw groups together to vanquish for the glory of all.
Now, at the end of these big battles, said mega-beasts will be dropping large amounts of Gold (or more likely be guarding chests containing such) and maybe a few pieces of really really rare Lore pages and mayhaps say instead of 1xBeast Blood(example) and 1xMagic Essence, you get 10xBeast Blood, and 10xMagic Essence, or even everybody who participates gets 2xMagic Essence presplit. Who knows.
What you won't find is a single player throwing such massive bolts of magic around that Smaug cowers in a corner, and you won't see drops like Dwarven Full Plate +4 of Fire Immunity. That's not Fractured.
-
@GamerSeuss even in Horizontal you can farm for the skills that you need, and with the right skills some creatures are a lot easer...
I do not see the difference between what you said and what I said.
