Posts made by Alexian

@GamerSeuss said in Markets and Merchant Guilds - A Reimagining of the Current System:

@BitterLoD Exactly. I've been a Solo player 99.9% of the time since the late 90s when MMOs came out, and if anything, that's the main draw that keeps getting handicapped by MMOs as new expansions and games came out.

I was a member of a Guild in EverQuest with one of my characters. They were fun folks, and from all over the globe...shoot, we even met up in Florida for a Camp-out and picnic experience one weekend with people coming from as far away as Germany. That being said, that is more like the exception to my experience, not the be all, end all of it.

To be very clear in case there's any confusion, no one in this thread is advocating for a system that requires or compels you to join a guild. That would be lazy and unimaginative.

Rather, what we're advocating is a system that compels participation in a community... even peripherally. Solo players should have to interact to some degree with local cities, local markets, and local politics in order to thrive in the game. A solo player should not be able to essentially be a One-Man-Civilization unto himself.

I do not expect nor do I want everyone to have to sign up for a guild and sit in that guild's Discord server when they'd rather explore the world by themselves and only come into town when they need to purchase or sell their wares or participate in that town's defense.

Fractured has already taken great steps in this respect by decoupling cities from guilds. A player can be a guild member or not, a city resident or not, a city citizen or not, or any combination thereof. You don't have to own, lead, or be part of a guild to claim or conquer a city. It's a nuanced system with potential for even more nuance.

It is precisely because I want to avoid the boring, stagnant dynamic of GUILDS ONLY that I endorse the mechanic @Bardikens has proposed here. It adds another layer to the socioeconomic and political onion by distinguishing the standard citizen and group from merchants. As a bonus, it would allow Fractured to actually employ the term "guild" as it is correctly defined if merchants wished to band together.

Without systems to incentivize actual merchanting, actual merchants effectively won't exist.

(And to clarify, when I say "merchant," I don't mean someone who is merely a purchaser or seller of goods (as all or most players would qualify). I refer to someone whose primary role in the game is to peddle wares and make purchases of scale to further the economy. A niche roleplay loop.)

@GamerSeuss said in Markets and Merchant Guilds - A Reimagining of the Current System:

@Alexian Just because I don't interpret what you say directly how you mean it doesn't mean I don't read it.

When your "interpretation" of my words differs wildly from the plain meaning of them, the most charitable conclusion I can offer you is that you didn't read my words in the first place.

The less-charitable but perhaps more accurate conclusion is that you're deliberately misrepresenting my words in bad faith.

For any kind of charter system to work, they would need to limit the number of charters a city would have available. That's just a fact of the matter. Otherwise, every city would try to sign up everyone they could. Now, granted, in your interpretation, it is the Guild/Group that is limited on how many they can accept, and that would create some competition for charters, with the Cities trying to sign the biggest and most prolific guilds out there before anyone else fills up their quota. Again, ,Solo'ists would become an afterthought. They would get the few remaining places, maybe, but would have a hard time to compete.That is if they can even get a response in from the city Governors so focused on landing the big guilds.

The bold, italicized text is crucial. I'm delighted after many days' worth of exchanges, you finally decided to acknowledge the plain reading of mine and @Bardikens' words. It's about damn time, frankly.

He proposed and I endorsed a cap for city charters to merchants so merchants/groups of merchants/merchant empires would be effectively unable to monopolize continental economies and foster competition. Cities themselves may indeed need to be capped as well, but merchant caps and city caps needn't be the same.

You could create a system that allows cities to offer more charters to merchants than individual merchant entities (e.g. solo merchants, small merchant groups, sprawling merchant empires) can themselves accept. A system where, hypothetically and for easy numbers, cities can offer up to 15 separate charters but each merchant entity may only accept 5 charters total.

This could indeed create a system where cities have room to offer merchant players their own charters without necessarily forgoing more lucrative relationships with other, bigger merchant groups, because they'd have plenty of charter room to share. And the fact that merchants of any size would be limited in the number of charters they can accept means that those entities would be unable to compete for every city's patronage.

The big thing is, this system still would incentivize Guilds. Big Guilds become so much more attractive for Cities to sign charters with. Solo'ists become afterthoughts. Sure, they can sign as many solo'ists as they want, but it really won't help them compete in that kind of market.

Those big guilds would be limited in the number of charters they could accept for cities. Meaning even if many cities sought charters with those big guilds, those big guilds would be limited in what they could accept and thus cities would have to look elsewhere to grant charters.

Solo players will never have the appeal of big guilds in any context in any sandbox MMO. But this system certainly won't make that lack of appeal worse..

@GamerSeuss said in Markets and Merchant Guilds - A Reimagining of the Current System:

@Alexian said in Markets and Merchant Guilds - A Reimagining of the Current System:

And such players could be eligible for a city charter as well.

Mayhaps eligible for one, but hardly likely to be offered one. It was talked about limiting the number of charters that a town can have. With that being the case (and it pretty much would have to be for the system to work) any town would be insane to offer charters to solo'ists over groups. Groups give them several merchants to partner with for only 1 charter slot, as opposed to a 1 for 1 exchange with a solo'ist. This, thus, incentivizes Guilds/Groups over Solo'ists again, over and above the natural advantages they already have.

You say below you always read every post before commenting on it... and yet...

The only limits/caps that have been suggested have been for merchant guilds/companies, not cities.

Read it again. Carefully.

Additional perks/systems that favor Guilds are not needed. What would work better is to come up with a couple perks that would favor the Solo'ist. I, however, can already hear the outcry if the Merchant Charters were only made available to Solo'ists, and not to Guilds.

Governors of cities would have the discretion to award charters to whomever they please. A skilled solo merchant, a small group of merchants, a sprawling commercial empire? Charters to each? Up to the Governor.

[Edit]I always read every word of a post before commenting on it. You never know if there might be a kernel of worth in even the worst posts, or a phrase that invalidates some good idea, so you have to take them in, in their entirety.

Evidently not.

@GamerSeuss said in Markets and Merchant Guilds - A Reimagining of the Current System:

@Alexian But Solo'ists should NOT be at a comparative disadvantage. The only disadvantages they should get are those that naturally come from grouping over solo'ing. Solo'ists can't take on the larger mobs, Guilds/Groups can. Solo'ists have no-one watching their backs, Guilds/Groups do. You do not need, and really shouldn't add any extra advantages for Guilds/Groups that widen that already reasonable gap.

Those are indeed the advantages to which I refer. Have you considered reading mine and @Bardikens' posts in their entirety before responding?

Merchants, if anything, is a niche that I think should be mostly filled with Solo'ists. It won't be, but that's the fact of the matter. Solo'ists could come together to form caravans for long treks and safety in numbers, and hire guards, but each merchant should for the most part be a free agent, going where the whims of trade take them.

And such players could be eligible for a city charter as well.

@GamerSeuss said in Markets and Merchant Guilds - A Reimagining of the Current System:

Also, one thing the Devs said they definitely don't want to do, is allow players to bypass the exploration aspect of the game. Even if you want to primarily be a merchant or a city builder, they want you to have to go out and explore, killing some mobs, and gathering some resources, if for nothing else but to fill up your knowledge points. This means they aren't going to want to put in a system that generally allows a player to bypass exploration, especially when they are already having a hard time coming up with End-Game content to keep everyone interested.

At this point, my suspicion is you're not actually reading my posts, since yours address strawmen. Nowhere in this thread or in any other have @Bardikens or I advocated for system mechanics that would discourage, let alone prevent, merchant-minded players from engaging in gameplay exploration.

The only thing Bardikens' proposed system would do is incentivize and reward a gameplay niche for those players who want to spend more time merchanting and directly engaging in economic activities than in other gameplay aspects; this would not allow players to bypass exploration.

I am definitely with @spoletta in that I think we should see how the current system works before we try to fix it. I'm not a huge fan of the Global Wallet, and I'm not 100% on searching other markets (although I would chalk that up to hanging at a marketplace and listening to the merchants gossip about where they've been kinda information from a RP standpoint)

Then revisit this thread after the test?

As to the concept of "if you don't want to participate in community stuff, go play a non-MMO/singleplayer game...that's not the point at all. There's a reason solo'ists want to play in MMOs, and it is not just to complain about Guildies. MMOs were always meant for both types of players. Players want the real world possibility of running into a friend in game. They want the chance, on rare occasions to go on a big raid, or group up, but don't want to be locked into having to do it. There is a difference. CHOICE. I've been playing MMOs since they came out too, and MUDs, MUCKs, MUSHes, and MOOs before that. The games have Multiplayer in their title because of the possibility, not the mandate that you should play in groups and join guilds. Guilds are an option. Some want it, some don't, but the Devs have said they want to try to level the playing field between Solos and Guilders all along.

This is yet another strawman. I said that solo players should be at a comparative disadvantage to communities in an MMO, not that they should be barred from solo play if that's what they choose.

Systems should be created that incentivize and reward communities, be it small groups, guilds, or sprawling empires. To what extent a solo player wishes to engage with these variously scaled communities is entirely up to them, but they may very well (and indeed should) find that total disengagement results in certain inconveniences and disadvantages.

@spoletta said in Markets and Merchant Guilds - A Reimagining of the Current System:

No, during that test, there was very little trading actually happening.
Only minerals were being traded.
Minerals are only a small part of the intended trades, so that wasn't a working example.

I said "trade was comparatively quite active and vibrant"... which it was. The previous test had virtually no trade; the test before it, by comparison, had robust trade. This is a fact.

The additional fact that trade could/should have been even more robust does not change the fact that trade was discernibly better in the test before last than in the last test.

The actual reasons why trading didn't work in the previous test are multiple:

1. No one developed a market because they wanted the tech points of other techs. Now the marketplace is available by default.
2. Gold was mostly useless. Gold is now in high demand due to all the new gold sinks.
3. Cities were able to become almost self sufficient, and unlock all important techs. New tech tree prevents cities from having it all, they MUST trade to get all kinds of equip.
4. Enchants could not be traded. Now thanks to the imbuing system they can be traded.
5. Gems had no value except for rituals. Gems are now a really important resource.

I said "the foremost reason" trading didn't work during the previous test was because resource nodes were untethered from their regions, allowing anybody to come in and take them. You citing additional, perfectly valid reasons also doesn't change that fact.

As you can see, this test is aiming at removing all reasons for tradings not happening. It is very PVE/Crafting oriented.
I too do have many ideas on possible changes for the trading, but until I see how this set of rules shapes up, I'm keeping them for myself, since I know that I will necessarily miss something important.

Yes, this test is attempting to rectify the mistakes of the previous test which killed virtually all trading. I respect that and look forward to seeing how it works. However, I think @Bardikens was just throwing out a suggestion for long-term niche activity that would incentivize merchant players. Nothing wrong with that.

@spoletta The foremost reason that trading didn't work during the previous test (IMO) was because resources were untethered from cities/regions. This allowed guilds/players/cities to simply go out and collect the resources they desired without the need to trade or interact with other guilds/players/cities.

However, in the test before that, trade was comparatively quite active and vibrant despite the various bugs and primitive marketplaces because resource nodes were locked to specific cities/regions, systemically compelling people to trade with one another.

This generation of MMO gamer is relatively unsocial and min-maxy. If you give them the means to get the things they want completely independently, they will do so, even if it takes more time and effort.

@GamerSeuss I know @Bardikens responded to you at length and I don't wanna dogpile you, but I believe you misunderstood aspects of his proposal:

• Bardikens is an outspoken opponent of global markets and global wallets. The new mechanics that will be introduced in the Fall 2021 Alpha will allow users of local marketplaces to view wares on a global scale; Bardikens' proposal will dramatically reduce that feature by only allowing chartered merchant organizations to view wares on a higher scale... and even then, only in other markets where they share that charter.

• Solo players will still have the means and opportunity to avoid interacting with chartered merchant organizations if they wish. But they'll be [rightly] at certain disadvantages: they'll have to dedicate more effort of selling or purchasing their wares as well as accruing the risks of transportation.

• Fractured is a game that should allow solo players paths to success, but it doesn't (and shouldn't) "even the playing field" between a solo player and a community. A community should almost always have a decisive advantage over a solo player and the game should incentivize solo players to get at least peripherally involved with a community. If a solo player wants free reign of a game without challenges or comparative disadvantages, they should play a single player RPG instead of a massively-multiplayer one.

In preparation for the upcoming Fall 2021 Alpha test, @Bardikens has presented an intriguing proposal for niche players.

Check it out!

https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/topic/14286/markets-and-merchant-guilds-a-reimagining-of-the-current-system/1

In preparation for the upcoming Fall 2021 Alpha test, @Bardikens has presented an intriguing proposal for niche players.

Check it out!

https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/topic/14286/markets-and-merchant-guilds-a-reimagining-of-the-current-system/1

As we discussed, I freakin' love this idea and I look forward to the feedback from the community.

Everything in the video sounds good to me, with the following caveats:

• I don't like the integrated global coin wallet. To me, this radically reduces the challenges and risks associated with local economies, mercantilism, and trading. A player can now use the augmented marketplace in their home city to view sell orders in other cities, deposit the appropriate amount of gold in their local bank, and then withdraw the funds from their global wallet when they make it safely to the other city. There's virtually no risk to such a transaction. Also, as another user has pointed out... what does this do for the future of gold minting in cities?

• I like the system mailbox that doesn't include the ability to send DMs to players. Messages should still be 90% local: Governors should be able to build multiple noticeboards in their cities that enable them and other citizens to notify the town of developments.

@Farlander said in Additional penalties on death for bounty hunters:

@GamerSeuss Yes but if you go into those zones you know to expect pvp. I know in SWG those zones were always deserted. As with most mmos pvp ranks low on the server population. If any of the past games I have played are an indication the vast majority of the players are mostly pve and those that would do pvp from that lot don't want to do it that often and want to do so at their choice, not having it forced upon them. I won't play on the human world if it is open pvp, period. That means two worlds I won't be able to explore. Once I start playing if that is inhibitive to my game progression then I will just drop from the game.

The developers' intention to include open world PvP on Syndesia has been known for some time. Unlike Tartaros, they are imposing a variety of mechanics on Syndesia to curtail excess ganking and griefing. Those mechanics need to be tested and refined so that they do their job properly... but the goal here is nothing new.

Hope everyone is well; Meridian looks forward to the Fall 2021 test!

As a reminder, solo players and other guilds who don't want the hassle of trying to claim a city of their own are welcome to become Zenith citizens and residents.

Hope everyone is well; Meridian looks forward to the Fall 2021 test.

@Farlander, I support the ability to hire NPC or player merchants to sell your goods, perhaps for a convenience fee.

@Clinion said in City Suggestion Megathread?:

As many people discussed in some other threads, the testing plan was not optimal and usually unnecessarily long with limited amount of content. Also the available content was not appealing to everybody, so people got bored very quickly and the world became empty in a very short time. Some people suggested shorter test intervals which provides all previous content directly to tester and leaves only the newly added parts for tester to test. This is a possible and a good solution in my opinion. However, some people like me might want long test periods as we like to play the game for a longer period of time while testing all possible aspects. The main demotivator here is the lack of "continuous" content.

Long story short, I have a proposal for future tests that might attract different types of players while providing relatively more "continuous" content.

This new magical idea is not my own but from a game called Ashes of Creation(AoC). The system in that game is called "caravan system" and I think, if implemented with slight variations, it would be a very nice addition to Fractured. Here is how it goes:

• Citizens within cities which have researched a trading tech has the option to create a "city caravan".
• City caravan is a bigger version of the normal wagon and has the ability to carry both heavy and normal materials in large amounts.
• City caravan should be either directly rentable by gold or a craftable tool like wagon.
  (So far this is a system for trading, crafting and maybe mob grinding oriented(PvE) players; but here comes the twist)
• The city caravan can only be driven by Neutral players.
• The caravan also has a health pool(like a horse) and when destroyed, all the items inside will be lootable by everyone.

I believe this system will attract both PvE and PvP oriented players while providing a continuous content. I also would like to hear your opinions

I also encourage Fractured to implement caravan events a la AoC. It generates content for cities, merchants, and criminals. Great suggestion!

@Farlander said in Roadmap To Fall Alpha 2021:

There are also other ways to grief without direct PvP. Blue killers were notorious in Trammel. The most used in UO was to lure spawn to players and then hide. Kill stealers, blue healers, I'm sure the list can go on for more examples. Point is how do you control griefing in its many forms? Evil players can hide behind any alignment.

The goal is/should be to deter griefing as much as possible, but there's no way to completely eliminate it. I have no idea how to control for assholes intentionally AGGROing mobs and luring them to you or you to them. Attacking and killing another player is much more straightforward, more easily identified as griefing, and therefore easier to combat.

@Clinion That would be very cool.

For some of us, myself included, the player cities/regions are the single most exciting and important aspect of Fractured.

Cities have transformed considerably over the course of Alpha testing, and will likely continue to do so, so there's no way to be certain what features will remain that were once originally promised.

What city-specific features/mechanics/systems do you want included in Fractured by the time of release? And why?

For example...

• Local noticeboards for announcements, updates, requisition orders, advertisements, etc. posted by the government and city residents. Discord and Guilded will always be used, but we should try to keep player eyes and attention in the game as much as possible. Including this functionality will be extremely helpful and immersive.

• NPC guards and vendors. Player citizens and residents should have to do the lion's share of the work, but NPC guards and residents would help meaningfully supplement the civic aspects of city life. The guards and vendors shouldn't be as effective as player guards and merchants, but they'll do in a pinch!