First Impressions on the new City System
-
@GamerSeuss said in First Impressions on the new City System:
The detaching of Harbors from Cities was made as a decision so that they didn't have to worry about a bunch of harbors going unbuilt/repaired. This way, harbors are usable from the beginning and are independent of whether the city invests in them or not.
I don't really understand the logic behind it, still.
I would compare what you told me, with the decision to significantly reduce the amount of cities. To reduce ghost towns. Wouldn't reducing the amount of city plots potentially solve the issue, as there are now less harbors? So either it was done for a reason that you have not described, or the developers made a very short sighted adjustment. It's certainly not a change based in logic, as harbors don't just operate on their own in real life. So it must be a change based on game play balancing, and your suggestion doesn't seem to fit. If cities do not value the harbors, then the developers need to make them more valuable. Not just remove the need for upkeep.
It would be nice if a developer could add some insight to this.
-
I don't see that as an issue, but if you do then disallow the "lazy" members from using the crafting stations.
-
@d3Sync you're forgetting that Cities needs must be claimed and built up first. Resources need to be allocated to all kinds of buildings, and even if a Harbor is a priority, Town Hall, the Bank, and the Tavern are still the first 3 buildings needing to be established in a city.
With the currently proposed method, Harbors are available day 1, as soon as a group gets sufficient funds to utilize them. This means if your city is over on the North coast, not really close to many Humanoids that drop gold, you can send your characters over to another area where such mobs are more prolific, build up your actual Gold store, then pay a Harbor near there to jump back to your city and utilize this gold in the building and maintaining of the city near the harbor, and solo players can also use the harbor to safely avoid the thick of things in the middle of the continents without having to run wide around the parameter of the map to get anywhere. All Harbors are thus open, all the time, not vulnerable during a siege, not dependent on the city being claimed and built just to get up and operational.
YES, a city would value their harbors, that goes without saying, but ultimately, the harbors are an open resource, not meant to be attached to or dependent upon a city. It might be a little more gamey than the rest of how Fractured works, but it makes perfect sense and its a reasonable compromise.
-
@GamerSeuss said in First Impressions on the new City System:
@d3Sync you're forgetting that Cities needs must be claimed and built up first. Resources need to be allocated to all kinds of buildings, and even if a Harbor is a priority, Town Hall, the Bank, and the Tavern are still the first 3 buildings needing to be established in a city.
With the currently proposed method, Harbors are available day 1, as soon as a group gets sufficient funds to utilize them. This means if your city is over on the North coast, not really close to many Humanoids that drop gold, you can send your characters over to another area where such mobs are more prolific, build up your actual Gold store, then pay a Harbor near there to jump back to your city and utilize this gold in the building and maintaining of the city near the harbor, and solo players can also use the harbor to safely avoid the thick of things in the middle of the continents without having to run wide around the parameter of the map to get anywhere. All Harbors are thus open, all the time, not vulnerable during a siege, not dependent on the city being claimed and built just to get up and operational.
YES, a city would value their harbors, that goes without saying, but ultimately, the harbors are an open resource, not meant to be attached to or dependent upon a city. It might be a little more gamey than the rest of how Fractured works, but it makes perfect sense and its a reasonable compromise.
Yeah, then I guess I just disagree. I wouldn't say that I'm forgetting anything. I'm just trying to learn more.
It's not very different than one city going high in a tech tree in one area, and another going high in the tech tree in another. It's a balance, based on what the owners of the city require. Harbors being able to be used on day one makes little sense to me as a benefit, as no one will have the resources to move people around on day one. Perhaps, instead of relying on harbors to be the only way to fast travel, they could add ancient portals to the continent. There could be 6-8 of them in specific locations, spaced out across the map. It would potentially bring PvP to the area in some cases. It would require certain reagents or items in order to pass through, but everyone could use them as long as they could pay the cost. Then, harbors could be re-attached to the city infrastructure. So if city management decided that they didn't want to spec into harbors, then they didn't have to. It could be a strategic move by them.
It seems like they are forcing harbors onto everyone because they didn't like that no one was using them. My suggestion would fix both problems. Being able to fast travel via portals and not forcing a game-y mechanic down everyone's throats.
What do you think about that?
-
@d3Sync said in First Impressions on the new City System:
harbor, and solo players can also use the harbor to safely avoid the thick of things in the middle of the continents without having to run wide around the parameter of the map to get anywhere. All Harbors are thus o
I think having harbors pre-made for the alphas is totally fine. In fact, I would like to have a lot of things already pre-made for alphas as they are only for a short amount of time and having to re-do the same things over and over that are time laborious kinda keeps us from actually testing the new features of the alpha.
Now, upon release, then I would agree with you and harbours should be put back into the city infrastructure, as during that time we won't have "ghost" towns like we do in the alphas. If we do, then it basically means the game died and the developers have a lot bigger problem on their hands than harbours not being used.
-
@Ostaff said in First Impressions on the new City System:
@d3Sync said in First Impressions on the new City System:
harbor, and solo players can also use the harbor to safely avoid the thick of things in the middle of the continents without having to run wide around the parameter of the map to get anywhere. All Harbors are thus o
I think having harbors pre-made for the alphas is totally fine. In fact, I would like to have a lot of things already pre-made for alphas as they are only for a short amount of time and having to re-do the same things over and over that are time laborious kinda keeps us from actually testing the new features of the alpha.
Now, upon release, then I would agree with you and harbours should be put back into the city infrastructure, as during that time we won't have "ghost" towns like we do in the alphas. If we do, then it basically means the game died and the developers have a lot bigger problem on their hands than harbours not being used.
Fair point.
I wasn't considering that it was potentially a change meant specifically for alpha testing.
-
@Ostaff said in First Impressions on the new City System:
(...)I think having harbors pre-made for the alphas is totally fine(...)
Do we have any indication or source that could verify that's actually the plan (doing this in Alpha, but not at Release)? As far as I understood the move, it was planned as actual gameplay mechanic.
-
@Logain said in First Impressions on the new City System:
have any indication or source that could verify that's actually the plan (doing this in Alpha, but not at Release)? As far as I understood the move, it was planned as actua
No there is no source, this was all my conjecture as I stated "I think having harbors" and "Now, upon release, then I would agree with you". With that said, however, I think it is very probable that this will be the case as Jacobo said in the live stream that the reason they did it was to "eliminate" the problem of those cities being ghost towns and making all those harbours useless. They made that switch without any pre-warning, and I am sure they will do the same upon release in putting the system back to how they originally had it. It just makes sense.
-
I reckon having the harbours detached from cities is a very smart move. I never used them last major test, because 3/4 of them were dead and the 1/4 that remained (for the first half of the test at least) were far too expensive, with the cities that controlled them maxing out the tax rate, except for maybe 1 city. Yes, the rates for harbours were reduced later... but having them detached from cities means that player greed won't have an effect on them, reguardless of where you go. It will be fair for everyone. I probably still won't use them, as I am not a gold gathering sort of player for the most part... but at least now, I will have the option to do so if I want, wherever I might want to go.
@d3Sync commented "Harbors being able to be used on day one makes little sense to me as a benefit, as no one will have the resources to move people around on day one."
you are definately wrong in assuming this. Some members in my guild had over 2k gold by the end of the first day of the last major test. It is more than enough to pay for a harbour fee. Just because you don't farm gold like it matters... doesn't mean other players won't. I am sure some players will farm some monsters after they leave the starting town and use a harbour if the town they will settle is far away from either starting town. They could spawn at west starting town and farm goblins for a bit, gathering some useful materials as they do, to take to their town and put in the safe when it is built.
-
@Xzait said in First Impressions on the new City System:
I reckon having the harbours detached from cities is a very smart move. I never used them last major test, because 3/4 of them were dead and the 1/4 that remained (for the first half of the test at least) were far too expensive, with the cities that controlled them maxing out the tax rate, except for maybe 1 city. Yes, the rates for harbours were reduced later... but having them detached from cities means that player greed won't have an effect on them, reguardless of where you go. It will be fair for everyone. I probably still won't use them, as I am not a gold gathering sort of player for the most part... but at least now, I will have the option to do so if I want, wherever I might want to go.
@d3Sync commented "Harbors being able to be used on day one makes little sense to me as a benefit, as no one will have the resources to move people around on day one."
you are definately wrong in assuming this. Some members in my guild had over 2k gold by the end of the first day of the last major test. It is more than enough to pay for a harbour fee. Just because you don't farm gold like it matters... doesn't mean other players won't. I am sure some players will farm some monsters after they leave the starting town and use a harbour if the town they will settle is far away from either starting town. They could spawn at west starting town and farm goblins for a bit, gathering some useful materials as they do, to take to their town and put in the safe when it is built.
I guess I'm just against using a bad mechanic, just because I can. I know that's just my opinion, but I never really liked fast travel all that much in games. The more fast travel you have, the less likely people will meet each other traveling in the wild. Which really hurts a great sandbox staple, emergent game play. And to be honest, it also ruins all the good hard work that the world designers put into the project. However, for the sake of getting people around the map in order to test, I could understand the change. But not as a permanent change. If a harbor fee is too expensive, too bad. That's how I look at it. If a city doesn't want to make any money from people using their harbor, then that is their loss.
I just hope that they recognize that they shouldn't commit to these changes, as the ghost towns had more to do with the game being in alpha, and less to do with it being hard to run a city. And again, if it was just for testing, then I'd agree, it's smart. I just wish I could get confirmation.
-
@d3Sync You also have to realize that they are trying to balance the wants and needs of quite a few different types of players.
Harbors were initially brought in because there was an outcry that there wasn't ANY fast travel in the game, and where, like you, I agree that the whole game could go without fast travel whatsoever and I'd be happy, there are just those others who want to see more and more convenient fast travel options.
Enter the Harbors...
Now, they only work near costal towns (and see many other posts where people are also trying to get portals in the more inland areas for more fast travel options) and can have a large associated gold cost applied to them. With you and I, and those like us that barely want fast travel at all, we see this as a great compromise, if its quite limited, but again, the other factions out there are saying its not enough fast travel, and too hard to utilize, so the Developers have to weigh out what are they willing to compromise, themselves on, and what will please the most of their player base at the same time.
I never used the Harbors, in fact, I was never even tempted...might have been if I'd died with a corpse left far far from home, I guess, but I was always careful to rest at every Tavern I passed by, so I was closer to my corpse than my home base most of the time...and the city I was attached to was in fact a port town with a full harbor...just didn't use it.
Always remember, though, what is ideal for one group is sub-par for another, and a game-breaker for even more.
-
I completely agree @GamerSeuss. I, myself will probably never use harbours as well, not just because of the cost, but also because they don't interest me all that much. I play skyrim with fast travel disabled through mods, but I feel that for those that wanna get everything done ASAP, having the option to fast travel at a fee, is very much a good thing in a game as expansive as Fractured. I hope to see harbours stay there, as it WILL draw in more players, even if I am not one of them that care to use them, like you or @d3Sync.
-
@d3Sync said in First Impressions on the new City System:
@Xzait said in First Impressions on the new City System:
I reckon having the harbours detached from cities is a very smart move. I never used them last major test, because 3/4 of them were dead and the 1/4 that remained (for the first half of the test at least) were far too expensive, with the cities that controlled them maxing out the tax rate, except for maybe 1 city. Yes, the rates for harbours were reduced later... but having them detached from cities means that player greed won't have an effect on them, reguardless of where you go. It will be fair for everyone. I probably still won't use them, as I am not a gold gathering sort of player for the most part... but at least now, I will have the option to do so if I want, wherever I might want to go.
@d3Sync commented "Harbors being able to be used on day one makes little sense to me as a benefit, as no one will have the resources to move people around on day one."
you are definately wrong in assuming this. Some members in my guild had over 2k gold by the end of the first day of the last major test. It is more than enough to pay for a harbour fee. Just because you don't farm gold like it matters... doesn't mean other players won't. I am sure some players will farm some monsters after they leave the starting town and use a harbour if the town they will settle is far away from either starting town. They could spawn at west starting town and farm goblins for a bit, gathering some useful materials as they do, to take to their town and put in the safe when it is built.
I guess I'm just against using a bad mechanic, just because I can. I know that's just my opinion, but I never really liked fast travel all that much in games. The more fast travel you have, the less likely people will meet each other traveling in the wild.
I would have to disaggree with this statement. When there are more than just a handful of players playing Fractured (because it is Alpha), I can see groups of people meeting at the harbours themselves, because they are useful. Someone might wait at a harbour to see if anyone appears and might want to go on a raid with them. Someone might have a friend on the opposite side of the island, and can wait for them there, instead of having to wait potentially 2-4h (or more) longer, waiting for their friend to walk all the way over.
-
@Xzait said in First Impressions on the new City System:
@d3Sync said in First Impressions on the new City System:
@Xzait said in First Impressions on the new City System:
I reckon having the harbours detached from cities is a very smart move. I never used them last major test, because 3/4 of them were dead and the 1/4 that remained (for the first half of the test at least) were far too expensive, with the cities that controlled them maxing out the tax rate, except for maybe 1 city. Yes, the rates for harbours were reduced later... but having them detached from cities means that player greed won't have an effect on them, reguardless of where you go. It will be fair for everyone. I probably still won't use them, as I am not a gold gathering sort of player for the most part... but at least now, I will have the option to do so if I want, wherever I might want to go.
@d3Sync commented "Harbors being able to be used on day one makes little sense to me as a benefit, as no one will have the resources to move people around on day one."
you are definately wrong in assuming this. Some members in my guild had over 2k gold by the end of the first day of the last major test. It is more than enough to pay for a harbour fee. Just because you don't farm gold like it matters... doesn't mean other players won't. I am sure some players will farm some monsters after they leave the starting town and use a harbour if the town they will settle is far away from either starting town. They could spawn at west starting town and farm goblins for a bit, gathering some useful materials as they do, to take to their town and put in the safe when it is built.
I guess I'm just against using a bad mechanic, just because I can. I know that's just my opinion, but I never really liked fast travel all that much in games. The more fast travel you have, the less likely people will meet each other traveling in the wild.
I would have to disaggree with this statement. When there are more than just a handful of players playing Fractured (because it is Alpha), I can see groups of people meeting at the harbours themselves, because they are useful. Someone might wait at a harbour to see if anyone appears and might want to go on a raid with them. Someone might have a friend on the opposite side of the island, and can wait for them there, instead of having to wait potentially 2-4h (or more) longer, waiting for their friend to walk all the way over.
I'd caution you to not misquote or mischaracterize my argument.
I never said I didn't want harbors in the game, nor that I find no value in harbors. In fact, I think harbors should be more valuable.
To borrow your scenario of more people playing and less cities populating the continent, harbors should be more plentiful. And with other means of travel discussed here, like in-land portals.. I feel that would be more than enough fast travel for everyone involved. If you've read the greater discussion, you'd notice that I've hedged on my opinion of harbors not being city-bound for testing purposes.
-
The more fast travel options, the less risk for your goods toget stolen on travel. Fractured looses it's original meaning and becomes more of a "bunch of solo PvE players solo playing MMO in same server" type of game, which is extremely bad.
There should be less fast travel options, as little as possible. And neighter of those existing ones should allow bringing your goods with you. Only naked fast travel allowed (and as little fast travel options as possible).
-
@Gothix what is wrong with a 'a bunch of solo PVE players solo playing'? This game was meant to cater to many play styles including that of the soloist MMO enthusiast.
I agree that fast travel should be limited. I believe it was stated that using the harbor services would have a hefty gold charge? this seems reasonable. give a benefit, take a penalty seems fair. In other games i have played you couldn't unlock fast travel until you had visited a spot on foot already.
Also I agree that only the PC should be able to fast travel. Caravans should need to travel the old fashioned way.
Sweet mother of god I just agreed with @Gothix. ITS THE END TIMES! ")
-
Remember, too, that Harbors will more than likely be the main way to get from one continent on a world to another, with no land bridges joining them together.
In the case of intercontinental/interworld travel, I would allow a small amount of goods to travel with someone, with a hefty fee involved on top of the fee already charged for your own safe passage however. Of course, this would make sense even in game terms because intercontinental ships are larger and have more cargo space than coastal ships that just sail around near landfall.
-
@GamerSeuss said in First Impressions on the new City System:
Remember, too, that Harbors will more than likely be the main way to get from one continent on a world to another, with no land bridges joining them together.
In the case of intercontinental/interworld travel, I would allow a small amount of goods to travel with someone, with a hefty fee involved on top of the fee already charged for your own safe passage however. Of course, this would make sense even in game terms because intercontinental ships are larger and have more cargo space than coastal ships that just sail around near landfall.
Which should put immense value on harbors. Which means any city with a harbor will be stupid for not maintaining it. I'm hoping that's ultimately the plan, and my concerns aren't warranted.
Though I wouldn't be shocked if there were other means of inter-world travelling.
-
@Gibbx said in First Impressions on the new City System:
@Gothix what is wrong with a 'a bunch of solo PVE players solo playing'?(...)
Absolutely nothing!
The 'problem' is that it's a rather vocal group and that some of the (quality of life) features they 'request' for 'their playstyle' directly contradict what other groups require for their desired playstyle. The shift in design from harbors being built by and maintained by towns to independent fast travel hubs is an example of just that, it happened because of an outcry by that group, but it delves into a direction that contradicts the originally promoted design intentions.
That's why Gothix mentioned that there's other groups that want their voice to be heard as well, nothing more nothing less
-
It's why we have 3 planets, for different types of gameplay.
So when we talk about fast travel options, it would be good to note in our suggestion, for which planet are we giving our suggestion, rather than just suggesting it in general.
