Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime
-
@darian errrr what?
-
@phaethonas you may have too much time on your hands sir.
I am really not sure what ur point is but it appears YOU also don't like the game and want it changed to meet your specifications or you just enjoy stirring the pot.
-
@phaethonas said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
Sure, but think about it. It is one thing to give your feedback within the lines of a specific project (in this case an MMO) and it is entirely different to say; "You project sucks, make something else which will be entirely different". Which is what you are doing.
I don't think I'm doing it but we could gentle ask @Prometheus if am I doing it?
No, the devs want to make a game with identity. Sure, they want it to be successful and they want it to be played by many people, but primarily, they want to make a game with identity and not a GW2 clone.
None is trying to make a clone of GW2. A game were I spent few hours till level hummm 8 maybe.
You have your priorities backwards (when compared to Fractured's devs).
I have my wishes but at the same time I have 2 good eyes to see what players likes on MMO (high populated).
No, that is not the definition of a niche game.
You have your and I have mine. It's a subjective thing.
If it was me, I would have wanted and I would have expressed an interest to change the game, I don't want to change the game. You have expressed your disagreement with many and key concepts of the game.
You have no clue about PvE and PvErs, I'm just giving the right feedback to let the PvE experience happen.
And pvp/pve thing aside, you even want this game to have instances!!
I have never said to add Instance on Tartaros that's the PvP planet. Instance are cool both dungeons and battleground where people can really prove their skill. If you are scared that people could end in Instance instead of open world it's your problem. If a thing like that would happen means that players prefer that than open world. I have never said to remove open world for only instanced things. But giving both option could make everyone happy.
- Instanced Dungoens and raids are PvE and players can really focus it.
- Instanced Battlegrounds aka arenas/capture the flag and so on are PvP skill based.
- Open world Dungeons and Raids are mixed PvE and PvE but in the end is PvP cause you have to fight players so you will focus more on that.
- Open world PvP is ganking or spam. For sure I'm looking forward to see the siege mechaninc.
I'm suggesting to add features not to remove. This is a big difference tho.
How am I failing hard, because the devs want the game to be for both PvPers and PvErs? You think that I want a pvp game and I came here?
I don't know the first reason and I don't care but for sure for what I see you are here for PvP and I'm pretty sure that the main purpose is gank and steal.
Why would I do that when there are a couple of pure pvp games in the making? As a matter of fact I have already said that came here to pve and not to pvp, because I intend to pvp at Camelot Unchained, which is a pure pvp game.
I don't know you could tell me (us). If you really come here for PvE you should give feedback for the PvE side. You are not supporting the PvE side. Biggest part are care bears that like dungeons, some professions and maybe housing. You are talking every time about PvP.
And I will repeat once more, that according to you, games like WoW, GW2, ESO are successful and that Fractured's devs should go down that route.
They are succesfull for some reasons so taking good things from there it is a good way to make Fractured succed.
Niche games are a failure according to you. You have suggested instances because they will attract more people, when the devs don't want instances and they want to revolutionize the sandbox (a niche) MMO genre.
I have suggested Instanced cause PvE players prefer do a dungeon without having others ninja taggin mobs/ sharing loot/ or have to manage pvp fight when you only wanted to kill some mobs and boss. Devs have not planned it but that does not mean that they could not implent it or they will never do it.
You couldn't have expressed more clearly how much you disagree with what the devs want.
I don't and as I said before I like the new spotlight ruleset. I'm wondering if devs think the same about me like this guy :thinking:. Maybe @Prometheus could solve this enigma.
are not what I want (e.g. it will have p2w) I lose interest on the game and move with my life.You have no clue about PvE. and talking only about PvP. Unlike me that I'm giving my point of view for the PvE side and sometimes for PvP (but PvP does not really need more players to give tips atm). They said that's a game for both. As a pver I say what is really good for a pver nothing wrong with it and I think it could be usefull to not fail that side.
I have never said that Fractured should be a purely pvp game, as a matter of fact I have numerous times have said the opposite and I have given feedback accordingly. You on the other hand, want a different game. And you disagree with key concepts of Fractured on more things than one.
PvP full loot everywhere is not friendly to PvErs. But I have never asked to make 3 planets without pvp.
Sure, you wanna be the guy who says; "your project sucks, no-one plays sandbox games, make a theme-park" or "your project sucks, no-one likes open world games, you must have instances". OK, be that guy. I won't have a problem with that.
I have never said that. Neither that I dislike Open World. I only said that usually a PvEr player prefers choose when PvE safely and when go for PvP. Thats all.
Demons will team up and will circumvent the restrictions we so far know (and work at the individual level). If more restriction are applied (at the group level), Tartaros will just be empty and the game will have failed.
Why should Tartaros be empty? to me looks silly to say that. Tartaros should be like an giant Open Wolrd Arena. All PvPers should play there.
You need balance. You need compromises.
Wondering if you want balance between playstyle. I care to make happy more players as possible.
No please don't. It is clear now why you want Fractured to be something else.
Only beacuse I haven't done open PvP on WoW as main activity? Battlegrounds were pvp and way more funny. But I joined alot city defending action especially the assoults on Orgrimmar and Crossroads. I was not a player that were logging only to clear a raid and then log off plus as I said I played other games tho.
I won't even bother with you anymore. Reply if you want, I won't. It is clear now that you neither are paying attention to what is being told to you and that you not only dislike but maybe even hate key concepts of Fractured (e.g. open world, sandbox and balance of pvp/pve).
Luckly.
- I never siad I hate open world cause I accept it.
- Sandbox means no quest, no path to follow, freedom! Dunno what you think a sandbox means.
- About the balance between pve and pvp well there is no balance if there is not a safe kind end game for pvers. If the end game means that you are always forced to pvp everywhere for everything it's just pvp.
You want to support financially Fractured when KS starts? OK, so much better for the game and so much worse for you. The game will get its money and you won't get the game you want.
Do I have to cry? I burned money on Albion Online (2 accounts) and alot on CF. I don't know how will be the game for sure I will play it if I will like it.
My only hope/wish is for the devs not to listen to you, and anyone else like you for that matter, that clearly and explicitly have expressed their dislike for key concepts they (the devs) are trying to push.
Devs should listen the community not only me neither only you. Devs are smart and you should stop talk like they are sheeps making a game.
for all again.@Finland: I'm just curious to see how those things will work effectively. Until we can test the game I limit myself to hypothesizing the mechanisms because nobody can really judge something that we do not know how it really works. I love to talk about my point of view, give suggestions and feedback. Someone may like those and others not but never tell me to go away just because of my ideas, netiher to not say things that does not suit your point of view.
If Devs does not want me to talk about my wishes/point of view they would have said that. For sure our debate is getting annoying more and more, day after day.
-
@finland said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@phaethonas said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
You have your priorities backwards (when compared to Fractured's devs).
I have my wishes but at the same time I have 2 good eyes to see what players likes on MMO (high populated).
And I will tell you for the Nth time, that Fractured's devs don't want to make a game for everyone. They are making a niche game, a sandbox game. So take your advice to someone else, to someone who will want to make games like you are describing.
No, that is not the definition of a niche game.
You have your and I have mine. It's a subjective thing.
No, it is not a subjective thing. Words have objective meaning.
And pvp/pve thing aside, you even want this game to have instances!!
I have never said to add Instance on Tartaros that's the PvP planet. Instance are cool both dungeons and battleground where people can really prove their skill. If you are scared that people could end in Instance instead of open world it's your problem. If a thing like that would happen means that players prefer that than open world. I have never said to remove open world for only instanced things. But giving both option could make everyone happy.
- Instanced Dungoens and raids are PvE and players can really focus it.
- Instanced Battlegrounds aka arenas/capture the flag and so on are PvP skill based.
- Open world Dungeons and Raids are mixed PvE and PvE but in the end is PvP cause you have to fight players so you will focus more on that.
- Open world PvP is ganking or spam. For sure I'm looking forward to see the siege mechaninc.
I'm suggesting to add features not to remove. This is a big difference tho.
Once more, these devs want to make an open world game not a game with instances. As such take your advices elsewhere.
And it is neither a matter of where you put these instances (e.g. not at Tartaros) neither if you add features or remove them. An open world, sandbox MMO is the exact opposite of a game with arenas and instanced raids.
So when you are told that "hey I am making an open world MMO that wants to revolutionize the sandbox genre" and your advice is "add instances" then you are not giving constructive feedback.
PS
I am answering only to those subjects where you "pushed my buttons", especially since you said that words have a subjective meaning! lol
-
NIce Info
-
How will targeted/consistent ganking like what "Code", praise James 315, from Eve does to miners and bot aspirants be handled? Will it be punishable outside of the in game systems?
-
I've pondered if I should respond to the thread again, since the decision has already been taken when the developers wrote the spotlight, so the argument is moot, but given that people happily keep beating the already buried horse, I'm just going to shrug and try to explain my points.
@vengu said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
(...)There are plenty of PvE MMOs where botters get punished(...)
@prometheus said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
(...)By "not being gentle" I meant we'll run both scripted and manual controls, systematically. We'll get as sophisticated as we can(...)
My point was not that the botting accounts wouldn't receive a punishment, but that the benefit of botting would be far more valuable than the drawback of potentially loosing the account at a point in time where there is a net gain. That's the reason you have 'gold sellers' in that kind of games after all, they make a profit (else they wouldn't be taking that business venture), because it takes a considerable amount of time till the limited resources of the game development company can detect and act on the bot (it's a simple 'brute force'-problem, that can only be tackled through applying an equally high amount of resources and there is only one such amount of cheap resources in an MMORPG, players). The idea I was 'promoting' is not that of punishing bot accounts for the sake of punishment or justice, but to prevent them from turning in profit, because that is the only way to stop a business, making it unprofitable.
@prometheus said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
(...)It has a better grasp of Arboreus-specific resources, which are different from the ones of Syndesia and Tartaros :slight_smile: Since there's no hostile PvP on Arboreus, I don't get what you mean by "easy retreat" - if you're doing PvP on Syndesia with a Beastman you have no advantage compared to Demons and Humans. If you're doing it on Tartaros, you're heavily penalized compared to Demons and quite penalized compared to Humans. Last but not least, you're cut off town conquest. I'd definitely say Beastman is the worst race if you want to PvP, as it's meant to be :slight_smile:
@finland said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
(...)Why should Tartaros be empty? to me looks silly to say that. Tartaros should be like an giant Open Wolrd Arena. All PvPers should play there(...)
That's a very complex topic, I'm going to try and tackle it in little steps.
First assumption, PvP players are likely to be competitive.
Second assumption, competitive players usually prefer to be at an advantage (or equal), but try to avoid being at a disadvantage when it comes to meta-gaming.
Third assumption, there's plenty of games on the market that specifically carter to and design for the competitive PvP player (MOBAs, FPS, RTS), so you have to provide unique incentive if you want them to play your game. Just telling them 'PvP for the sake of PvP' ain't going to convince them to pay for your product, why should it?
Forth assumption, playing at a constant risk of being killed and looted is a lot more 'difficult' then playing without that risk, both because you can specifically target a specific set of counter-abilities/equipment in PvE and you never have to worry about overextending, so you can easily generate a better productivity for your invested time by reducing the traveling back and forth overhead. (If that would not be the case, the 'PvE only people' wouldn't complain about PvP to begin with)
-
@logain
The idea I was 'promoting' is not that of punishing bot accounts for the sake of punishment or justice, but to prevent them from turning in profit, because that is the only way to stop a business, making it unprofitable.This way you will not stop players selling golds or items/gear for real money.
-
@finland said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
(...)This way you will not stop players selling golds or items/gear for real money.
Certainly not and I would never claim so! You can drastically reduce the amount of traded goods though and provide a better experience for the people who are annoyed by trying to compete with bots on gathering.
-
@phaethonas i think you misunderstand what Open World means. Open World Definition
It doesn't have anything to do with instances. Single player Open World games are basically whole single instance games
-
@logain i hate sellers more than botters. I had many players in my first Albion guild buying and/or selling (accounts, golds and silver after, equips, consumables, mount and cosmetics) for real money and none was a botter.
About me I've been a botter long time ago on WoW but was just to grind consumables for the raids (I doubt that we ll get raids like WoW in Fractured). Way different than botting for a certain income.
-
@tulukaruk said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@phaethonas i think you misunderstand what Open World means. Open World Definition
It doesn't have anything to do with instances. Single player Open World games are basically whole single instance games
So you wanna tell me that a game that will have instances (as instanced pvp and instanced pve) will be a game in which
a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives
I find that hard to believe.
I suppose you may say that they are not mutually exclusive, which I suppose that in theory it is true. In practice though it is impossible to have both.
Fractured's devs want to make an open world, sandbox game, that much is 100% sure and they have said so explicitly. If they add instances (either pve or pvp) it is argued that they will attract more people. Even if we assume that the two crowds/groups are completely seperate, and as such the open world gameplay doesn't affect negatively the population of the instanced gameplay and vice versa, the mechanics, features etc that are employed in each case are different. For example GW2's WvW (although not open world -enough- by many people's definition) is quite different than instanced pvp gameplay wise. As such different builds are considered "meta" for each case.
The problem that rises with that, is similar to a pve vs pvp problem. When a game has both pve and pvp then its classes (or otherwise for classless games) need to be balanced for both. Balancing all classes (or otherwise many/all builds for classless games) is a difficult task on its own, balancing them twice (once per pve and once for pvp) is at least two time difficult (if not more). This brings the whole whinning of one group complaining of "ruining" their class (or otherwise for classless games) because the other group needed the changes. For example; "you ruined my pve monk because the pvp monk was unbalanced". Developers are trying to solve or even circumvent entirely that problem either by introducing a pvp exclusive stat (e.g. expertise at SWTOR) or by having entirely different pvp abilities that share little when compared with the same classes' pve abilities.
So, if you want to cater to everyone and have everything (open world pvp, open world pve, instanced pve, instanced pvp) then you have to balance the ability system four times!!
So, not only will this mean that the devs will have to balance the ability system four times (and we are talking about an indie studio here and not Blizzard), but also the game will lose its identity.
Either your restaurant will have an identity (e.g. Chinese) or you will cater everything and your restaurant will not have an identity. Same goes for pretty much everything and most certainly it is true for MMOs.
Fractured's devs have made themselves clear. They want a game with identity. They are making a niche game. Their game will be open world and sandbox. If they add things; a) they will have made the making of the game many times more difficult, time consuming and expensive, b) the game will lose its intended identity.
My suggestion/advice to them is to stand on their ground and make the niche game they have envisioned. Sure, they will not attract WoW's numbers, not in the slightest. They will have made the game they desire though and I am sure some players will like their game (if they manage to deliver) and their game will be sustainable.
-
@phaethonas not to mention DS said they'd have 400 abilities, so they'd have to balance all combinations. or homanzied the damage so that 20 ability's are the 'same damage but GFX is different'.
-
@phaethonas with balancing you're making up problems. Balancing will be the same regardless of instancing or not. What difference does it make if the PvE is instanced or not? What difference does it make for PvP? Scale? But they have to balance it for small scale anyway.
I think there was mentioned somewhere between the many lines that there will be PvE dungeons for crafting mats. You cannot have PvE dungeon without instancing.
The game might turn out to be something that I won't like - because I don't enjoy PvP. But there are many aspects that are very interesting and that keep me interested in this game. That's why I'm wasting my time posting on this forum
-
@tulukaruk said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
You cannot have PvE dungeon without instancing.
yes you can. happened years before instances were created.
-
@tulukaruk said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
You cannot have PvE dungeon without instancing.
It's called open dungeon (to me does not look like a dungeon but ok) you have areas with mobs and boss to kill. The main problem is that you have that spot shared with everyone. Everyone could interfere there ninjing/stealing mobs but in most cases it is pvp. I also hate open dungeons cause usually bosses gets global cd respown instead instanced dungeons are locked to players.
-
Open dungeon works ONLY if there is no PvP. Otherwise you have PvP dungeon not PvE
-
@tulukaruk I was talking about dungeons in generl but about PvE I think the same if you can PvP there it's just a PvP not a PvE.
-
@tulukaruk said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@phaethonas with balancing you're making up problems. Balancing will be the same regardless of instancing or not. What difference does it make if the PvE is instanced or not? What difference does it make for PvP? Scale? But they have to balance it for small scale anyway.
Why are you arguing against reality? I already told you; At GW2 instanced pvp and WvW have different "meta" builds, because the gameplay is different.
I think there was mentioned somewhere between the many lines that there will be PvE dungeons for crafting mats. You cannot have PvE dungeon without instancing.
Fractured will not have PvE instanced dungeons. At the very least instanced pve dungeons are not planned at the moment.
-
@tulukaruk said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
Open dungeon works ONLY if there is no PvP. Otherwise you have PvP dungeon not PvE
Open world pve dungeons are planned for Arboreus not Tartaros. I am unsure of they will be present at Syndesia.
