First Impressions on the new City System
-
can anyone give me a tldr of this essay?
-
@Gropes said in First Impressions on the new City System:
can anyone give me a tldr of this essay?
120+ Building spots have been reduced to 36~ cities per planet.
This was done so that towns are not left derelict and people not in guilds can still have a place in the world - People can have houses in cities even if they are not part of the guild that owns the city.
Cities are safe zones and people stood inside them cannot be attacked (there is some consideration to allow players to change the rules of their cities to avoid abuse by enemies, or how the cities / guilds wish to operate etc)
Harbours are now able to be used by anyone, and are not tied to their respective city.
Hope that helps as a general run down.
-
Sounds like the planet should be designed so that there is:
1 capital city
5 (or so) major cities
35 (or so) minor cities
60 (or so) towns
100 villagesthe hard limit could be adjusted over time either with a script or manually.
maybe, the setup above can change as "political boundaries" rise up. maybe there's a wall placed between 2 of major cities and the script or manually, this creates a divide where either side can now have 1 capital city.
maybe an order of conquering can happen so that the villages, towns and minor cities have to be controlled first before the major cities and capital city can be sieged.
think of this like a dartboard. where the outter ring needs to be controlled (and it'd be much easier), then you move to the next closest ring, then further in until you can capture the capital city.
-
@Kazzier I thoought all these changes were pretty good what is OP suggesting exactly?
-
@Gropes said in First Impressions on the new City System:
@Kazzier I thoought all these changes were pretty good what is OP suggesting exactly?
Not in relation to OP's post, but a proportion of the playerbase dislike some of the changes.
I don't think people minded the reduction of cites, as that in many respects made a lot of sense. Although it might hurt small guilds / groups who wanted their own small piece of the map to call home.
The main issue people had was cities becoming safezones and how that changes the whole dynamic of the game. Your guild's base can essentially be accessed by your enemies, and then your enemies can take advantage of your cities commodities. They can also stand there taunting you and such and there is nothing you can do about it. That can feel very un-immersive and is a bit of a slap in the face to anyone who wants to take their cities and the game seriously. There also wont be random events happening in cities, such as brawls, duals or robberies, as they are all safezones. There was discussion of having an option to allow players to change the rules of their cities, however even so it still changes a vast fundamental of the game, as undoubtedly the majority of cities will be inclined to be friendly/open cities, aka, safezones.
I'm not exactly opposed to changes such as these, as they have their advantages. It certainly helps casual players and less-knowledgeful players start out (which is a good thing), but it also takes away a lot of what the game was originally envisioned to be (by many players outside of the PvE planet).
I think the problem is several people are concerned that recent changes are altering the games design direction and it feels more....casual centric in recent design than what was originally being developed.
Personally, I think the only safezones should be inside buildings and the starting zones. I think that's a fair compromise. Otherwise I feel it impacts the immersion and identity of the game too heavily. But that's just my personal opinion.
-
@Kazzier said in First Impressions on the new City System:
Personally, I think the only safezones should be inside buildings and the starting zones. I think that's a fair compromise. Otherwise I feel it impacts the immersion and identity of the game too heavily. But that's just my personal opinion.
I understand the above is your opinion, but that goes against the original design theme of Fractured too. In the original press releases (Kickstarter overviews) it was billed that it would cater to all 3 major playstyles, PvE, PvP and Mixed, with the human planet being the mixed area, which would be mostly safe but contain some areas where PvP was possible.
So, basically, the Demon World = 100% PvP, little to no safezones whatsoever (except maybe the 2 starting cities per continent)
the Beastmen World = 100% Safe, no PvP anywhere, or very very small 'Arena' style zones, and special Invasion Events being the only break from the norm.
and the Human world should then = about 50% PvP. Much of the actual wilderness is a PvP area, but more civilized areas like established towns would be safe zones (as it is currently being proposed).Remember, as always, PvE play does not mean Casual play...there are serious players who never, EVER enter into the PvP portion of a game, and there are casual players who spend much of their time in PvP (often dying). It is a major misnomer to think that non-PvP/Safe-zone play makes one a casual gamer. Casual versus serious is more a matter of how much time and effort you invest/are willing to invest in a game. Many so-called serious PvP players invest their time in 20+ different games all over the internet, so obviously they aren't dedicating the lion's share of their attention to a single or couple of games, (such as Fractured). where on the other hand, there are hard-core skillers, as an example, who spend 8+ hrs a day, 5-7 days a week playing games like Old School RuneScape, and even WoW, and nobody should think to call them casual. Skillers/PvE gamers can be 'competitive' players too, they just don't necessarily enter into the PvP competitions, but many games also have other mini-games involving the skills and/or storyline of the game that they get very passionate about. In fact, those who play on Role-Play servers, I'd argue, are some of the most serious gamers of all, playing in modes like HCIM (Hard Core Iron Man), LMS (Last Man Standing) and other modes where a lot of what they have the seriously have to work 10x harder for.
-
@GamerSeuss said in First Impressions on the new City System:
(...)In the original press releases (Kickstarter overviews) (...)
So, basically, the Demon World = 100% PvP, little to no safezones whatsoever (except maybe the 2 starting cities per continent)
the Beastmen World = 100% Safe, no PvP anywhere, or very very small 'Arena' style zones, and special Invasion Events being the only break from the norm.
and the Human world should then = about 50% PvP. Much of the actual wilderness is a PvP area, but more civilized areas like established towns would be safe zones (as it is currently being proposed).
(...)Sorry, but do you happen to have a link to that? I was around for longer than the Kickstarter and I don't recall them making a claim that mentioned 50% of the Human planet would be a safe zone. I read the initial first design journal and it talks about human having free will and there being consequences to actions. Yes, humans have laws and if you don't abide to them, you risk being hunted down, cast out of the community (village) or whatever other punishment the law intends. But it didn't mention there being a massive non PvP area, because that basically means you don't have a free will.
-
@Logain I was not saying the press releases/kickstarter was making the claims with the %'s, I was simply stating that the original plan of the game was equal support for all 3 playstyles, PvP, PvE, and Composite, and from that I extrapolated the obvious breakdown to a degree. I'm sorry if that seemed to indicate otherwise. You took the first part of my post and took it to mean they decided/advertised the entire content of my post directly and I don't want to misrepresent the Devs in any way.
-
@GamerSeuss replying to @Kazzier said
- Remember, as always, PvE play does not mean Casual play...there are serious players who never, EVER enter into the PvP portion of a game, and there are casual players who spend much of their time in PvP (often dying). It is a major misnomer to think that non-PvP/Safe-zone play makes one a casual gamer. Casual versus serious is more a matter of how much time and effort you invest/are willing to invest in a game.
- Skillers/PvE gamers can be 'competitive' players too, they just don't necessarily enter into the PvP competitions, but many games also have other mini-games involving the skills and/or storyline of the game that they get very passionate about.
I can't possibly thank you enough for articulating this so well.
During alphas, and in previous rpg and rts games I've played, I've put in a good chunk of time daily, and been a reliable, contributing member of any guild I've joined. If I wasn't going to be around when I normally would've been, my guildies knew it in advance (unless I was hospitalized or incarcerated). That's nobody's definition of casual.
I have fought when it was necessary, and done my best to kill when ordered to do so - I just haven't enjoyed that part.
I get SO tired of people assuming I'm a coward, or less invested, for not enjoying PvP. I love the challenges of PvE, and I truly appreciate a game where the devs have promised a whole world of that without having to constantly deal with people being demeaning and condescending bc I don't enjoy PvP battles.
I do enjoy being able to choose when I fight another player, in a 'fair fight arena' type of context. But ganking and griefing and all that brouhaha? All y'all Tartarsaucians can have my share
-
@GamerSeuss said in First Impressions on the new City System:
(...) I extrapolated the obvious (...)
I think we could settle for the initial design journals and advertising left a lot of room for interpretation? And even later down the line, things could easily be misinterpreted. Only dynamite studios knows what they had in mind in the beginning.
-
i still think we need to test the current system in alpha and see how it goes.
-
Resource (RSS) number and spawn:
Having multiple resources within each region for cities to harvest is a must.
Resource avalibility is a interesting question... If there is infinate resources always avalible but only of the node type then scheduling is not necessary and players go and harvest whenever needed, the major cost is time and limited exposure.
Having the resources limited and on a timer makes resource harvesting strategic. The guild/s owning the city keep a log of when the node was cleard last and sets a timer for the next spawn. At the next spawn it sends out a protection crew allong with miners and carters and drain it quickly. As this is an organized event and it is in the guilds interest to make it quick (reduced exposure time) it is probably a good idea to make it a cooperative event with all people living around the city who happen to be on. All get the bennefit of the protection and organization.
Having the resources on a rolling probablility timer (x% chance for RSS to spawn every 15 min after harvest for example) makes RSS unreliable and gives the most bennefit to those who spend the most time checking in on the RSS zone for new spawns. This promotes smaller groups or guilds who can organize their own regular time to go check the field for new spawns. As the spawning is random there is no strategy involved but also makes it less proffitable to raid the miners as possible proffit is low and risk high (presuming the city cares and sends out enforcers when a raiding party attacks).
Depending on what direction the devs want any of the above are possible.@lonely cookie, and @Ostaff
-Remember that settling costs money which can be set by the governer. If they do not want people settling they can raise the price and make exceptions for players that they approve of by kick backs or temporary price reduction.Setting zones as open or closed creates magical boundries which restrict player movment... I do not think that this is appropriate in an open world game or that it would be supported or easily implemented by the devs.
If the 'kill on sight' mentality were to occur at all I think it would only apply to the -red- named people who have to flag themselves before they can do anything. This is easy to spot and the community around the city would probably eagerly race for the opportunity to kill them and take their stuff.
I am confused as to the ammout of farming space avalible in the game.
In this picture from the farming video I see one farming plot with 16 spots where the grain is presumably planted.
In the video prometheus says that one wheat produces 250 wheat. Is that per field of 16 blocks? Or for each of the 16 blocks?
He also states in the tech tree update that a begining village (not hamlet) would require 80 bags of wheat per week. 100 unit of wheat produces 1 bag as shown in the farming video. In addition it would take 3 fields in rotation to continuously produce wheat (nutrient loss). And it takes 7.5 days to grow the wheat. That means that you need about 100 plots or plants to feed the village.
In the city update we saw this city with 30 farming squares equating to 420 plants.
So either the city has plenty of food or no where near enough depending on if the return is per plant or per square. So which is it?
-
@OlivePit said in First Impressions on the new City System:
y has plenty of food or no where near enough depending on if the return is per plant or per squa
The return is per square. Each farm plot can produce a set amount of crops (250 max), however the terrain also determines how much crops are able to be harvested (mountain terrains have terrible production of crops) and soil fertility as well as hydrogation have a major factor to play as well, this means that for the most part you will be getting less than maximum output. The way they have set up the farm system is that a low to mid ranked town may feed themselves from their city-based farm plots, however high tier cities will need to import crops from Cities with Fertile Grounds if they themselves are not a fertile ground city.
-Remember that settling costs money which can be set by the governer. If they do not want people settling they can raise the price and make exceptions for players that they approve of by kick backs or temporary price reduction.
Jacobo pretty much covered this problem area in his live Q&A, our concerns had arisen from the News Article which had been released before the Q&A was presented. If they follow through on what we discussed in the Q&A, I think the bulk of the problems will have been dealt with properly.
-
@Ostaff
Thanks for the heads up...
So that city pictured is totally boned for grain. ouch.
-
The system looks to have a very dynamic aspect to it. I definitely look forward to the ability to test this.
