The City Monopoly Meta


  • Content Creator

    Currently the best option is to spread out your guild among as many cities as possible to hold a monopoly on the games resources.

    This means the multi-boxing and multiple accounts is the way to success in Fractured. This is the exact issue I discussed in one of my previous threads I created IN AUGUST found here: https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/topic/12052/the-potential-city-problem?page=1.

    THIS IS OCCURRING NOW ON A MASS SCALE.

    Proof: https://i.imgur.com/lPLmAKO.png https://i.imgur.com/sqCThLd.png https://i.imgur.com/Kk96fuK.png https://i.imgur.com/s6S7Oek.png

    The fact that a rank 1 city gets access to the same amount of resources as a max rank means you are better off leaving your cities at rank 1 all over the map to keep upkeep low while you suck the map dry of resources.

    Before anyone comes in with "but then you can't defend them". Yes you can. You can join sieges to defend cities(once implemented) even if you are not a citizen.

    One of the changes would be to limit siege defense to citizens only and place a 1 week cooldown to join another city once you leave one.

    Additional Concern: Players are FORCED to trade with others. In a PvP heavy game it's VERY easy for players to refuse trades due to...well...PvP. Players tend to get upset and create their blacklists especially in a game with full loot PvP. Having to rely on other players to obtain resources is a huge hit to the future PvP community.

    My Suggestion: Completely revamp the resource system. Remove the resource allocated to cities design. Have resource hotspots such as quarries that players would fight and compete for. Fertile Grounds could be removed completely and a slight increase to all farming yields could be applied.

    The entire city system should be adjusted so players WANT to focus on one city and attempt to level it to the max rank. I believe as the city ranks increase the available land allocated to the city should also increase. This way massive cities begin to form on the continents truly allowing cities to differentiate themselves from other cities. Bonuses could be applied to reduce the amount of resources needed for some crafts rather than increase the amount of resources players obtain.

    A reduction in the amount of cities available could also greatly benefit players allying and competing for land. The painful truth should be that not everyone will own a city and battles must be fought to claim your own.

    The current city and resource system will be the death of the Fractured competitive environment and eventually the game itself.

    I know that both the community and Prometheus know that I truly want the best for Fractured. I spent a hell of a lot of money and time testing and supporting this project. I love you Fractured and Dynamight Studios but this is the honest truth. If the game launches with this system in place, I think I would have to say my goodbyes.


  • TF#5 - LEGATE

    Completely agree. An additional fact that the 4 extra citizens don’t even need to be part of the city permanently (as long as they rejoin the town within 24h to stop it collapsing). This means they can go to their main town to make most of facilities and then go back


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    Yeah, for sure some issues.

    This alpha brought many of them to light so far....


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    This is where having a Very Helpful Demon comes in handy! Seeing the exploit in advance & warning about the possible uses of that exploit instead of just... EXPLOITING. Kinda angelic, actually....

    Once again, @Nekrage, I'm forced to wonder whether you're pretending to be a demon when you're actually an angel doing cosplay. πŸ€” πŸ˜‰ πŸ’ž
    77178920-acb6-40fd-a9b9-f576fb955d5e-image.png


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    Yes, i can see the ''city rush'' to keep resources.

    But i dont think we should keep only pvp nodes. We NEED node wars (and we will have, its on the roadmap) and we will have cities with 2+ resources nodes (roadmap too). Cities will compete to get more resources.

    But city nodes are good. Game have, since day one, a heavy focus on community city building so small communities will need resource nodes.

    Or we can just pack our things and go pve world....

    1st Edit:

    If a big guild (or alliance) want to spam a megapolis and can keep several pvp nodes, go for it.

    But small guilds should be ''ok'' just with a small city, the city node and trade. Small guilds will not have players to keep all resources they will need to trade. If the big guilds will controll al resources we should just disband our small guilds and be lackeys on big alliances.

    Let the big guilds play the great open world node wars. Let us small play small.

    "The painful truth should be that not everyone will own a city and battles must be fought to claim your own."

    2nd edit.
    The painful truth is: small guilds will just go for pve world and this is the usual death of pvp centric games (only hardcore pvpers will stay on hardcore pvp setups). We know the chorus, its not the first time.


  • Content Creator

    @Vollmond said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    The painful truth is: small guilds will just go for pve world and this is the usual death of pvp centric games (only hardcore pvpers will stay on hardcore pvp setups). We know the chorus, its not the first time.

    Can't say I agree with your response. As ALL players must enter the realm of PvP if they wish to progress as far as possible. Even the Beastman planet will have 50%+ of it as PvP enabled areas.

    Stifling competitive PvP in a game that is advertised to support it is the death of the game. As I called this previously in my post in August, I am calling it here and now. If this does not change this will be the death of Fractured. We know the chorus, it's not the first time.

    @PeachMcD said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    This is where having a Very Helpful Demon comes in handy! Seeing the exploit in advance & warning about the possible uses of that exploit instead of just... EXPLOITING. Kinda angelic, actually....

    Once again, @Nekrage, I'm forced to wonder whether you're pretending to be a demon when you're actually an angel doing cosplay. πŸ€” πŸ˜‰ πŸ’ž
    77178920-acb6-40fd-a9b9-f576fb955d5e-image.png

    I am the Demon that looks out for those in need then once they are strong enough to stand up on their own two feet....I kill them. :^)


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Nekrage said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    As ALL players must enter the realm of PvP if they wish to progress as far as possible.

    If they want. I'm a casual and i played almost all pvp games. Remember Crowfall? Full pvp worlds with ''soft'' player house? Indeed..now player house is a thing cause people just want this kind of activity. Sure, people play pvp centric games for pvp but casuals on pvp centric game dont go for ''progress as far as posible''.

    You know albion online, right? So you know plenty of casuals stay on T4 and chill.

    Its why the game focused on ''not so hardcore pvp''...

    I can say more about others game, from the casual pov.
    Yes, we are the plague of games...


  • Content Creator

    @Vollmond Nothing wrong with being more casual or less into PvP.

    Fractured supports different playstyles and even different PvP playstyles such as full loot and non-full loot.

    HOWEVER when we get down to progression we NEED to have a game that is designed against multi-boxing and spamming cities as a method to progress.

    I know the RP'ers will actually back me on this when I say building a CAPITAL having having a reason to focus and prosper in that city is more appealing than spamming rank 1 cities all over the map.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    HOWEVER when we get down to progression we NEED to have a game that is designed against multi-boxing and spamming cities as a method to progress.

    Sure, but i dont think removing city resource plots will help small guilds and casuals.

    This will only force us to be allies (vassals) with big guilds.


  • Content Creator

    @Vollmond said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    Sure, but i dont think removing city resource plots will help small guilds and casuals.
    This will only force us to be allies (vassals) with big guilds.

    I understand your concern 100%.

    That's why I believe there should be different gathering options.

    1. A heavily PvE contested area where 2-5 players(or more if you want) can work together to clear into the quarry like area, mine the resources, then carry it out. This could be an area that triggers respawns of PvE enemies when players are nearby, making it a bit of a "gauntlet" to get in an out.

    2. A heavily PvP contested area that may still have some PvE enemies(less than the first option). This could be something smaller groups may have trouble with but I argue that bringing a stealth crew in to jump a group that is fighting other players or PvE enemies can turn the tides real quick.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Nekrage

    Uhnn, i think its a good option but they will need to make more buildings and a good city tech tree so cities will need to make hard chooses. The hard choose, now, is the city resource node. And maybe we can change the way resources will be refined, so you still can be a ''mining city'' but now you can get more stone blocks from raw stone or something like.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Nekrage said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    Players tend to get upset and create their blacklists especially in a game with full loot PvP. Having to rely on other players to obtain resources is a huge hit to the future PvP community.
    My Suggestion: Completely revamp the resource system. Remove the resource allocated to cities design. Have resource hotspots such as quarries that players would fi

    I thought Arboreus or whatever it is called is non pvp. Or at least, VERY hard to do there??


  • Content Creator

    @Xulu said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    @Nekrage said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    Players tend to get upset and create their blacklists especially in a game with full loot PvP. Having to rely on other players to obtain resources is a huge hit to the future PvP community.
    My Suggestion: Completely revamp the resource system. Remove the resource allocated to cities design. Have resource hotspots such as quarries that players would fi

    I thought Arboreus or whatever it is called is non pvp. Or at least, VERY hard to do there??

    Correct. It should be VERY hard to invade Arboreus and PvP there but not impossible.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Nekrage said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    Correct. It should be VERY hard to invade Arboreus and PvP there but not impossible.

    Correct and most of the Planet completly safe from PvP, as far as i remember like a really small percentage of the planet (like 25% or less) is open for PvP, the rest is PvE only.


  • Content Creator

    @Shivashanti Seems like it's 30% - 50%

    Source: https://i.imgur.com/nTZe4YN.png


  • Content Creator

    excuse my english, i may not understood everything clear, but i think if you change the system it wont prevent people from multiboxing. ok maybe you will do everything and people will stop multiboxing, ok? imagin that for a moment, but bigg guild could do the same multiboxing but with real people. u know? whats a diffrence betweet one player with 3 boxes and 3 actual players who in cahoots.


  • TF#9 - FIRST AMBASSADOR

    I agree.

    The number of resources should depend on the size of the city.


  • Content Creator

    @Blectorn said in The City Monopoly Meta:

    I agree.

    The number of resources should depend on the size of the city.

    rich get richer???


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    For first i also see your concerns @Nekrage and i think there is a big need of balancing and even changing the system.
    But to prevent, that very big guilds will hold all needed ressources at once, is almost impossible.
    I just see one way, and thats to make cities bound to guilds and restrict the amount of cities they can have.
    BUT, then again, people just will make different guilds.
    Restrict it to alliances, people will not do alliances.
    There will be always a way around.

    The other way would be to make the progress of a city so expensive, that you can't upkeep them, if you spread out.
    But then you screw smaller guilds.

    To bind the amount of ressouces to the rank of the city is probably a way, since the prestige and citizen size is a value you need to raise too, to get a needed rank.
    Also a cool down for changing citizenship would be a good idea, to prevent fast hopping from one to another city, just to fill up the needs to claim/rank it.


  • Content Creator

    This is a big problem but author have not suggested valuble solutions. Some games fix this by adding fractions. So this fraction own this land and that fraction own that land. But is not owr way as I understood.

    But lucky you i have a solution. Quaite radical but it will fix it. Tell me if im wrong. So here it is - are u ready? lol (sorry)
    OWN CITY CURRENCY. Thats it.
    I have already suggested it to other game and you can watch this video on my channel with english subs where I describe it in every detail.
    here is link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh7LbmS2uUc
    But i can tell you if you dont wanna watch or watched and didnt get a thing.

    Basicaly if evey city will have own currency then each city wuill have their own one. Yes people can ally and have one currency, but others will ally too. So it will be like a fraction but no fraction. It will be like a guild but not a guild. So as u know currecy is an indicator of economy of some social group. Cities, States, Alinces. So money will simply be stucked to activity of players. Not the activity of killing skelletons and goblins who magicaly have some golden cons and governor dont. NO. However goblins can have a golden naggets, which then governor smelt into his own coins.

    you can always make your own money be valueble cos you can c choose to sell only for your currency and to have your currency they had to sell to you something you want and get it. So all merchants will be interested in collecting it to trade with you.

    yes, players can keep multiplying guilds and cyties under one agenda, but with this mechanic who will need this? Yes there will be (maybe) one hegemon, you r right, BUT nobody need to cover whole map. I give real life example. America is heremon and it force the world to use dollars (economicly force). But everything is produced in China nower days. And chana becomes a superpower sstronger then America. Back to game. So if you will cover whole map then who will work then? Somebody has to work. U cant just make people work withing the system, there gotta by more economic system representing a labour. And it truely gotta be a diffrent sytem with different control power.

    Well yes, you can cover whole map tho with one currency disregard of what have said previously. But first of all this is more like beastman scenario, and if u r humans then demons can come and destroy some city, and empty a gap for new power to come. In other words, you will never be able to cover whole world cos the desire of having that power will live in many hearts and everyone will want to have that feeling of KING OF THE WORLD by printing one valuble currency for all. That why you will never succeed and thats why there will be many superpowers. And thats why there will be even single cities with one little but very strong currency if they work well.


Log in to reply
 

Copyright Β© 2020 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured