What I "DO NOT" want to see in this game
-
@Tuoni I think it is not a stretch to say that there definitely will be small to medium one-two city guilds as technically all you need to have in order to successfully defend a city is 20 good PvP players, everything else can be substituted in the form of non guild affiliated players just taking up spots in the given town just like it was originaly intended. In this case Fractured is very different from the other alike games. So maybe we won't have a 2 party global war after all haha
However suck a guild may attract a lot of other players and grow over time to become one of the aforementioned big guild so who knows
-
@humerus Oh well, In Albion you need only 5 good players and how that has changed the result?
-
Yeah @Tuoni i see your point.
And i am going with you, a bad system can give such Pro-Gamer-Guilds a big advantage to rule the whole world and for this reason to make smaller guilds leaving. It is not a fun to get ganked by "Pros" all the time, just because they can do it.
For this part i am sharing the concerns and i also don't want to have a One-Big-Guild-Rules-The-Game.
Let's cross all our fingers, that Dynamight will have a receipe for a good balancing.
That you can survive and enjoy the game even as very small guild.
Nothing is more frustrating in an player driven MMO, if you are forced to join a big big super ruler guild, just to be able to play all content.
-
Usually when zerg alliances are involved, its not about skill at all but purely about numbers.
If you are zerg you can be present en mass everywhere, block all trade routes, affect whole economy.
Some zerg limitations are indeed needed. Imho.
-
@Kralith Well said. Most important thing is that developers are awere of the risks what will happen if too much power is left on the hands of players, and they have planned some mechanics to prevent a total world domination. In perfect gaming world there will be quite equal distribution of cities between various of guilds where also the smallest ones has a chance to compete. However, this is more like a dream rather than reality, and finding a balance in city wars is at least a huge challenge. Anyhow, a longer test phase (I presume Beta 1) will show which direction the system is actually going, but I also predict that the first one will not be the last one.
-
hmmmm... Interesting that Albion started as B2P.
@dgca raised a fair question. I'm learning about the concept of 'sandbox' - from the way folks here use the term, it seems to mean that you put a world out there and see what happens when your players go to work in it. Is that correct? Maybe someone can hone my definition...So, if a group of players decides they want to invest all that time and energy to rule the world, why not let them? Whatever strictures are set up to prevent that would, as dgca notes, cut into the 'sandbox' concept, right? I'm no purist, and I'm not advocating for this kind of pure 'sandbox' idea, just learning about how the word is used.
I'm hoping dgca is assuming a sandbox game that isn't your garden-variety freemium P2W set-up, unless they think oligarchy is working out well for us in real life. In a P2W context, idealizing a 'pure sandbox' seems to me like just a fig leaf for whales-gonna-whale. I get enough of that IRL these days, thank you kindly.
-
@PeachMcD said in What I "DO NOT" want to see in this game:
hmmmm... Interesting that Albion started as B2P.
@dgca raised a fair question. I'm learning about the concept of 'sandbox' - from the way folks here use the term, it seems to mean that you put a world out there and see what happens when your players go to work in it. Is that correct? Maybe someone can hone my definition...@PeachMcD Well you are on right tracks with the sandbox part. The base idea is freedom and minimal character limitations, however, inside frames and rules the developers have set. Sandbox does not mean a total freedom but it does not hold players hands either. There are no story driven quests to guide players through the content, and rather the game leaves players much more freedom to explore and do what ever they want to. In Sandbox games players will create the content and developers focus to implement the tools and enough interesting things to do.
So, if a group of players decides they want to invest all that time and energy to rule the world, why not let them? Whatever strictures are set up to prevent that would, as dgca notes, cut into the 'sandbox' concept, right? I'm no purist, and I'm not advocating for this kind of pure 'sandbox' idea, just learning about how the word is used.
That is where some players and guilds aim for, however, the problem is that e.g. if one alliance dominates the whole world, markets, cities and open world, what you think how long other players will play that game if their gaming experience will be mostly bad because of this situation? If players do not have a chance to compete and they will be excluded from the most interesting content of the game, why to bother play such game? Same from the dominating alliance point of view, where is the challenge and goals if everything is already accomplished and no one offers any meaningful resistance? Therefore, most people will quit the game.
-
@dgca Cause it eventually stagnates and kills the game. Remember, this is a game not real life. People come to have fun, which they can't do if "elites" restrict what they are able to do. UO was a prime example of that for those old enough to have played it back in its hay day. (Shards are still up but not with the same problems as the original had from players). UO was a very great game, but pk started killing that which is why we see so many variations on PK now to reduce that problem.
-
@PeachMcD There is nothing about the concept of a sandbox, or any other kind of game, that forbids "limitations". "Limitations" are what make a game a game.
If Mario was able to teleport to the end of every level, he would have less limitations, but also no game.
If you had no story quests in Grand Theft Auto, and could just instantly summon any car or weapon instead of having to go find one, you'd have less limitations, but also less game.
The entire definition of a game is a set of rules (limitations) with a coherent goal. If you want to just control an entire world and never have to follow any rules... then you're not a gamer, you're an artist.
-
What I don't want to see in this game... that's easy, laaaaaaaggggg, please no laaaaaagggg
-
@Clinion said in What I "DO NOT" want to see in this game:
Recently, I have been watching alpha tests and introduction trailers of Albion Online. They have so much in common with Fractured in those early stages. However, Albion changed drastically over time and I did not quite like those changes. Here are a couple of things I do not want to see in Fractured(or change in Fractured)
- Albion has no players cities, only cities with rich people buying all the spots. I do not want to see that happen in Fractured.
- Gathering is very unpopular in Albion as far as I see. Game forces you to hardcore PvP and rewards those who does. Consequently people do not prefer gathering. Instead, they do newly introduced dungeons and hellgates to obtain money and gear.
- Related to previous matter, in a sandbox game, I would love to see gathering&crafting be the backbone of everything and they should be the primary focus.
- Being a sandbox game should not indicate complete freedom. Currently in Albion, they are trying to reduce the power of huge alliances and guilds by applying certain debuffs and so on. Instead, there should be limits for number of players in a guild/alliance for proper control.
Those are my ideas and I would love to see what the community thinks about them.
My two cents
Player cities is cool concept hope it works for Fractured.
But I don't agree with the point for Albion cities. Monopolies and cartels were just the natural outcome in sandbox game. I've owned plots(was never part of cartel) it was a lot of effort not making any money even losing money depending how much they bid on your plot on the auction. The problem is you only need one of each building in town and the lowest priced one get all the work. which result in price wars or cartels or monopolies. Also feeding/repairing and managing the buildings is a lot of effort.Gathering in Albion: It is not unpopular there are a lot of gatherers. The problem is it is not fun. I was more economy focused gatherer/trader etc. I've gather a lot but just running and clicking things and running from Gankers is not fun. Also the whole material system is just bad, if you see resource that is non enchanted you have to wait for it to enchant but then someone else will get it so you gather it flat. Which is just bad feeling.
Also ganking is too easy compared to gathering, there are way way too many gankers and as gatherer you feel like fighting against the world.I disagree with you on the last point. Being a sandbox game should not limit the guild member/alliance sizes. I've played many MMOs which had guild member limits very low and no alliances at all. People still made unofficial alliances this is politics and you won't change the people behavior with limits and rules.
The only game that has good large scale PvP is WvW in GW2 with hard limits on players participating, Albion tried this but people started zone locking surrounding zones...
You will always have such problems Limit a guild to 20 people then all you accomplish is a guild that mass all 20 will win against guild that could mass 10.
With 100 man guild vs 20 man guild, 20 man guild will complain against the numbers again. Open world massive ZvZ cannot be balanced, the only solution is buffs/debuffs but it has to be very severe similar to the Resource boss zerg buff in albion. You bring way too many people you make your enemies way way too overpowered and you lose.
