Posts made by Alexian

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

As I see it, you're arguing that because griefing can't be eliminated, there's no reason to not have friendly fire (or collisions). That's an all-or-nothing argument.

Between statements like these and your refusal to acknowledge SBI's explicit admission that Albion's alliance system is widely criticized and the biggest topic of feedback, you "see" a lot of strange things. You may need your prescription adjusted!

My point here is that since griefing is inevitable regardless of whether or not friendly fire and collision mechanics are enabled, their inclusion should absolutely be considered if we can find workarounds for the most egregious griefing abuses.

But simply dismissing these features out of hand "because griefing" is inappropriate.

Simply saying, however, that griefing can't be eliminated is irrelevant to my argument. Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and you'll spend the first 30% of your time solving 70% of the problem, and the remaining 70% of your time solving the remaining 30% of the problem.

Friendly fire and collisions are low-hanging fruit. They're in the first 70% of the problem, and not using them eliminates a great deal of potential griefing (as well as development time and cost).

Again, this is risk management basics.

The fly in your proverbial soup is that you've both arbitrarily and unilaterally constrained the goal. We agree that "perfect" is impossible and "good enough" is both desirable and attainable...

...And it may be possible to achieve "good enough" by enabling friendly fire and collision mechanics to preserve a hardcore sandbox element while also encoding mechanics into the game that heavily deter untrammeled griefing.

In other words, you're potentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The only way citing "griefing" as a reason to not enable friendly fire and collision mechanics is justified is if the developers and community establish that these goals are mutually exclusive, which has not yet been proven.

Now, as regards your spat with @Gothix, I’m sorry to say he’s right: no one on OUR side of the debate has insisted that their “rules” apply to all three planets. I share his respect for various play styles and also don’t want to impose my views of PvP onto Arboreus.

I reject your premise; at best, it's an assumption and a strawman. I'm planning to PvP on Syndesia and Tartaros (and Arboreus if need be), and I'm arguing for what I want to see in PvP.

Farlander and I have just as much right as you to do that.

Trying to manipulate us into the perception of being "PvE-only players wanting to impose PvE everywhere", well, let's just say, that's not true. I hope that wasn't deliberate.

Well, actually, no:

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Gothix said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Wow, way to twist what Farlander said! You've definitely lost rep with me.

What else to say to a person that's demanding an entire game to be made how he likes? All 3 planets. Completely disregarding (may as well say disrespecting) all other players that want to play this game.

Dude, that's -you-. If his posts are a demand to make the entire game his way, so are yours.

Rather, I just see another player with an opinion, to which he is entitled. In no way do I see his posts as you see them.

Right here, you insist that @Gothix - not you or @Farlander - is the one demanding "an entire game to be made his way."

That's either a poor attempt at revisionist history or you're deeply confused about the flow of conversation.

Gothix, @Bardikens, and myself recognize that Fractured will feature three different planets designed for three different styles of play. We have all three repeatedly stated we don't care what happens to Arboreus and that our proposals don't apply to it, because we recognize some players wouldn't enjoy the mechanics we're endorsing. What we're recommending is for arguably Syndesia and certainly Tartaros. We're trying to accomodate as many different people as possible.

You are insisting that your personal preferences be applied to all three planets because you want to PvP on both, despite the fact that all three planets were designed conceptually with three different play styles in mind.

Your argument in this thread and your argument alone offers no regard for the play style of others and accommodates only those players who think like you.

And I'll happily refer you to back to your own quotes to remind you.

One of the many selling points of Fractured conceptually is that it has thus far avoided the p2w model.

In-game currency is so far not slated to be part of DynaMight game store and I hope it stays that way forever.

If they ever do that, it’ll set the game up for failure.

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

That's an all-or-nothing argument, but this is a question of risk management. Friendly fire and collisions represent mechanics at high risk for griefing in an MMO.

Personally, I don't believe the cost is worth any benefit they might provide.

It’s not an “all or nothing argument” lol. It’s merely a fact.

There is absolutely no way to completely prevent griefing as long as Fractured is multiplayer and includes PvP content.

So any player has to accept the fact that griefing is inevitable. Two questions follow. First: how much griefing is tolerable? Second: what systems and mechanics can the devs program into the game to deter untrammeled griefing?

Those are valid questions worth asking and worth debating. But the premise, that griefing is inevitable, is beyond dispute.

You’re free to disagree, challenge, or improve upon the suggestions I and others have made, of course.

Now, as regards your spat with @Gothix, I’m sorry to say he’s right: no one on OUR side of the debate has insisted that their “rules” apply to all three planets. I share his respect for various play styles and also don’t want to impose my views of PvP onto Arboreus.

The other side of the debate, however....

@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want to see friendly fire and collision. There are too many ways to exploit those game mechanics to grief. I haven't seen much in the way of resolving those problems other than "deal with it this is a hardcore game not meant for carebears". I will push back as well until I see the final product has ruled it out in the release as long as others argue for it.

The argument that I need to go play some single player game is the same argument used by players for decades in mmos when they want the ability to kill other players willy nilly I will throw this at you, if you want to go grief and kill players at your heart's content go play a free server where like minded players have set up those rulesets for you. I'd suggest UO Outlands. They actually promote reds/greys or at the very least don't impost harsh penalties. I've paid for this game just like everyone. I have as much a right to try to mold it to my liking as anyone else.

I also don't want to see some 13 yr old decide to go on a town killing spree because he's bored and jeopardize an alliance. Some of you are arguing against alliances and I do agree they can be no fun on the receiving end. I'd rather see caps than rules that make alliances near impossible to maintain.

I want to clarify: no one here has said you “need” to play single player games. No one here even advised that you do so.

What was said is that the only way to eliminate griefing or the possibility of griefing is to play games that don’t involve interaction with other players or allow PvP, which is indeed a fact.

We both agree that griefing should be highly deterred by game mechanics. Where we differ is that I think the game should attempt to do this in a way that doesn’t needlessly betray its sandbox premise.

You absolutely have the right to advocate for whatever changes you think would make Fractured a better game. No one is trying to suggest otherwise.

But in fact, it was you who tried to prevent me from suggesting changes to the game:

“Everyone is so worried about these large alliances taking over everything. If this is a problem for you just join one. Most large guilds don't have very strict rules. They can't because it is too hard to control and enforce them. Most just say "have fun". It's a source for grouping and finding others to do things with. If you don't like one group move to another. If you want to be in one with your friends only then make an alliance with a neighboring large guild.”

That’s what you told me on the previous page in your first post in this thread.

I respect your right to suggest changes or additions to the game even if I don’t agree with them. Please do the same for me.

It's time to blow the dust off this thing and bring it back to the fore.

And as an eternal friend to House Pythias, I'm glad to have the honor!

Welcome!

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

They already can. Leaving the alliance at a critical time will do exactly that.

That shouldn't be your only recourse and requires the presence of someone with the UI permissions to drop out of the alliance at the appointed time.

Imagine, if you will, at the Red Wedding - arguably the ultimate betrayal/false flag in contemporary fiction - Walder Frey had to put "The Rains of Castamere" on loop because he had to unfriend Robb Stark from Facebook, change his banners, and get written permission to shank him first.

No, the whole point about alliances is that they should be tenuous if you don't put in the work and that even then there's no guarantee of anything.

The problem I see is that you're thinking tactically, not strategically, about friendly fire and betrayal.

How so?

Maintain, I can see that, negotiate, definitely not. That is, negotiation should be entirely up to the players; the game shouldn't intrude on that process. Once an alliance has been agreed upon, however, I want the game to enforce it (include any appropriate maintenance).

Yes, that's precisely what I mean: the players should be able to negotiate the style and nature of the alliance. AO treats "alliances" like one-size-fits-all empires with lord-vassal relationships.

I agree.

You say that... and yet disabling friendly fire will make it much, much easier for alliances to gain and retain control. They won't have to worry much about battlefield tactics and positioning; critical betrayals by allies will be telegraphed and much harder to pull off.

Absolutely. Disabling friendly fire in no way hurts that. Again, the kind of friendly fire you're talking about is minor, and suited mostly for griefing.

Not at all. Enabled friendly fire will compel guild and alliance military leaders to consider positioning and tactics much more carefully than OMG SWARM 'EM AND DROP AOEs HAHAHAHAHAHA KEEP CLICKIN TIL THEY'RE DEAD. They'll also have to wonder if their ostensible allies can and will betray them at a crucial point in the battle.

It would hurt -far- more if I were depending on Ally A to guard my back from Enemy B in a protracted war while I fought Enemy A on a different front, and Ally A decided to join my enemies. Friendly fire is entirely irrelevant to that level of betrayal.

They dovetail.

In your scenario, imagine Ally A has the option to actively attack you during the battle because of secret negotiations and arrangements with Enemy A. But, irony of ironies, unbeknownst to them you have negotiated a clandestine truce with Enemy B, who's tired of Enemy A's shenanigans, and they come to your defense when you're betrayed by Ally A!

And lo, no one has to pause to drop out of an alliance UI and telegraph the damn thing in advance. My suggestion only enhances your scenario.

I started with F2P, and my journey through Albion thus far has been quite interesting. I haven't felt choked at all by the alliance system, and I've seen all kinds of dynamic and exciting political culture.

I started when the game launched in July 2017.

And you may not be choked because your philosophy has been, by your own admission, to join bigger alliances for endgame content.

Speaking of...

I don't have a problem with smaller guilds joining alliances to experience endgame content. I actually like how easy Albion's system makes it for a new guild to get in on the action and start learning.

I don't have a problem with that either. But smaller guilds shouldn't feel compelled to do so because it's impossible to dislodge the "big dogs" due to the game's mechanics.

You do understand that that's how TBI, our mutual alliance, was formed, correct? Members of SUN, one of the most powerful guilds in AO, specifically formed a guild and alliance because it wasn't really feasible for most guilds to get a taste of endgame content under the extant system. TBI was sponsored and patronized by SUN's leader, Franksinatra, until the others got it up and running.

And even then, they had to pay a mercenary GvG team to gain any traction. When that team bounced, TBI was screwed.

I see this as the developers attempting to improve the game, while keeping accessibility to large alliances intact for players and guilds. That's their decision, and I can understand it.

That's a heck of a spin!

These updates occurred because AO's system made it virtually impossible to challenge and dislodge big alliances. Per AO's own staff:

The Future of Guilds, Alliances and Outlands
The most universal feedback we received focussed on limiting the influence of large alliances and the ability of new guilds to compete in the territory ownership gameplay in the Outlands.

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Dude, I feel like you're crediting the Albion alliance system with far too much innovation. I really don't understand your fixation with it!

Because Albion is the most immediate and relevant reference for the kind of system I’d like to avoid. I never claimed they invented it.

To me, the basic functionality of a game-supported alliance is the following:

• You can't attack allies

Additional functionality would be:

• Ally NPC guards will support you
• You can enter alliance-controlled areas
• You gain access to a central alliance chat

Nothing innovative or complicated there, and that's basically how alliances in Wurm Online worked, for instance. No limit I ever found on alliances, either; Wurm Online simply didn't have enough population to create the problems Albion Online has faced.

Albion’s system, among other problems, has enabled a painfully small handful of organizations to rigidly control the game since it launched in July 2017.

This is indisputably bad. It’s not good. It doesn’t promote a dynamic and exciting political culture for aspiring guilds and alliances. It is the very definition of, “you can’t beat ‘em, better join ‘em!”

It suggests to ambitious but smaller guilds that they need to join the problem rather than fight it in order to, borrowing your phrase, “experience endgame content.”

No guild or alliance or coalition should ever be so powerful or secure that devs have to impose GvG seasons and territory resets to wipe the board clean every month, or double the size of conquerable land and create hideouts for smaller guilds specifically to allow smaller guilds a chance for glory.

That’s what happened with AO lol. I’m not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the problems and the desperate corrective efforts that SBI has gone through to try to fix things.

The irony is that if AO were truly that unpopular, the alliance system wouldn't be a problem. AO is a victim of its own success; I suspect its alliance system would do just fine with a significantly lower population. I see it as a scaling issue, not a fundamental flaw.

In short, "No one plays Albion Online any more, it's too crowded!"

Respectfully, that’s a spurious argument!

Albion Online saw major freefalls in player population multiple times throughout its 2 year run. It went F2P in April in order to bolster an exceedingly low player population.

The fact that the game is relatively populated now doesn’t refute the fact that its alliance system is highly criticized by many players and guild leaders, is a subject of two major threads in the developer statements subforum, and has prompted many conciliatory gestures by SBI.

So again I reiterate: alliances in a Fractured should be difficult to maintain. There should always be the viable threat of betrayal and intrigue and deception. Conquering and maintaining sweeping territory should be exceedingly difficult and grueling and prompt major considerations by alliance leaders, “is this worth it?”

That’s what happened with empires and coalitions in the real world and so should it be here. It should be virtually impossible for zerg guilds and alliances to rule the game as they do in AO.

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

I'm planning to play on all three planets, and I definitely hope the developers rule out friendly fire. In a game like Fractured, I can only see it as a huge mess, and I think it would destroy the game.

Granted, I've played games with well-done friendly fire and player collisions, like World of Tanks, but I can't see that success translating into Fractured.

Fair enough. Then we’re definitely gonna be at long term odds.

I’ll continue to push back on suggestions that Fractured mimic Albion Online’s wildly unpopular and game killing alliance system that has incited major criticism and required aggressive corrective attempts by their developers.

@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Alexian I would like you to explain to me how friendly fire will keep other players from griefing players in allied guilds?

Well first, if I had it my way, in game alliance mechanics and UI would be very minimal. Alliances are relationships and would be treated that way. So if an alliance member attacked you
in proximity of your guild town, the guard would come to your defense because it doesn’t matter if your attacker is an “ally” on paper: he’s a player attacking a guild member in a zone protected by the guild’s guards.

We’re told Governors will be able to adjust guard permissions for defense and patrol; designating who guards attack and who they defend should be among those customizable commands.

You can either do damage to friendly players or not all the time. Unless the game has instanced battle fields where that ruleset is turned on it is on all the time. So you can be walking in town and some dickhead allied player who decided he was bored with the game can come up and kill you unexpectedly. Guards won't do anything because he is your ally. So let's hear your fix for this problem.

You just did. Allies shouldn’t be “protected” from other allies because alliances should be carefully considered, negotiated, and maintained relationships between a number of guilds. If an ally tries to shiv or grief you in proximity of your guild’s NPC guards, your ally’s ass should be on the line and not magically protected.

Boxing in (collisions) is the oldest play in the book for blue killing. Are you ok with a group of griefers going around just boxing in people for the hell of it?

If you’re in a world or zone with unrestricted PvP and you’re surrounded by a number of hostiles without any allies, yes, you’re fair game.

There are many players whose only fun is making others not have fun. These players don't get banned because they are playing with the rules of the game. I'd like the rules to stop this behavior. If you want to call me a snowflake go ahead. I'd then suspect youi are one of those players that enjoys making others upset

First, I haven’t called you a “snowflake,” so settle down.

Fractured has three worlds that ostensibly cater to three gamer archetypes. From the tenor of your suggestions, your play style is more inclined for Arboreus. Again, I repeat: none of my suggestions have anything to do with Arboreus, where PvP is minimal and highly restricted.

I agree with you that the devs should impose protections and restrictions to prevent untrammeled griefing on Syndesia. As I have already said, you rightly point out that while in the “real world,” societal protections heavily deter the equivalent of real world “griefer,”, those protections don’t quite exist in a video game.

However, the only real way to completely remove griefing is to play a single player game. As long as Fractured is massively multiplayer and include PvP, there will always be means by which people can grief other players.

So the conversation should be about how to creatively allow for as free of a sandbox experience as possible while also coming up with ways to deter griefing without blowing away the sand.

Allies should be able to betray and kill allies. Alliances should be difficult to negotiate and maintain. It should be very difficult to conquer and maintain large empires. Diplomacy, battlefield tactics, political strategy, subterfuge, espionage, betrayal, economic leverage should all be viable tools in the player’s toolkit, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. This game should not be allowed to get lazy or boring.

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Hmm. Maybe I'm just used to Wurm Online! "Grinding" equals "hardcore" to a lot of people, and Fractured is supposed to have a -lot- less grinding (if any).

That's one of the main reasons it intrigued me.

At any rate, I remain staunchly opposed to friendly fire in any form. I'm also opposed to unlimited alliance sizes (I like Gothix's suggestion).

I’m happy for you to be staunchly opposed to friendly fire... on Arboreus where it won’t effect you.

Please don’t try to rule it out for the other two planets, which are more hardcore and could benefit from it.

@Roccandil said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

@Alexian said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

Fractured purports itself to be a hardcore sandbox game that avoids many of the conveniences and shortcuts of other “sandbox/sandpark” MMOs.

What are you basing this on? My impression was that the developers were designing a range of experiences. So, sure, Tartaros is hardcore, but I wouldn't class Syndesia and especially Arboreus as hardcore:

• Tartaros: hardcore free-for-all
• Syndesia: structured, lawful empire/warfare
• Arboreus: peaceful PvE

Honestly, I could see alliances working differently on all three planets. Since Arboreus players can't attack each other anyhow, I imagine alliances there would primarily be defense or trade related.

Since Tartaros is a free-for-all, maybe only the most simplistic alliances are possible there (suzerain/vassal).

On Syndesia, I'd love to see guilds able to negotiate guild-to-guild treaties and alliances with other guilds, as equals, more like real diplomacy. Interlocking webs of treaties could then be a thing.

I'm happy to clarify that I'm not and haven't been referring to Arboreus at all in any of my posts. I'm sure @Bardikens would be happy to say the same.

Arboreus is predominantly PvE and thus the PvP/guild warfare aspects will be much more limited than on Syndesia and Tartaros. So I'm fine if friendly fire is disabled on Arboreus and alliance rules are much more "carebear" in nature.

That said, I'm basing my assessment of Fractured as "hardcore" based on the various mechanics and limitations the devs are imposing on players. You won't be able to carry many heavy objects without a wagon and have to physically pick up and move lumber and stone. It currently takes 16 hours to cure a handful of leather pieces. City management entails more than merely staving off would-be conquerors and requires you to do more than give X gold to a random NPC, who does all of the upkeep for you. Talents and gear are more horizontal, emphasizing player skill and experience over vertical progression. Fast travel is minimal to non-existent.

In short, the emphasis on consequences and exploration and skill and management and overall effort as opposed to convenience and safety in 2 out of the 3 planets is what motivates me to call Fractured a "hardcore game."

This ain't RuneScape.

@Eurav said in Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia:

@Alexian said in Idea: fiefdoms on Syndesia:

Suppose a larger, more powerful guild successfully sieges a smaller, weaker guild city (which we know will happen). It would be cool if the victorious guild can give the defeated guild an option: we can either forcibly remove your town from you... or you can keep it and serve as our vassals and pay us tribute.
It allows defeated guilds and governors to retain their holdings to a degree rather than be automatically ousted.

It was already said that when you lose a siege battle you will only lose the governship if you are unable to pay some fine / tribute to the winning guild. Sadly not a lot is known about sieges yet, so let´s hope we can get a Feature Spotlight on it sometime soon

And also... what does that have to do with the original topic ( since you said "Suppose" I would assume this is your example on how it could be handled correctly in your optionon, but I don´t see the need for plots giving free gold to the guild for such a system) ?

Correct, I was just saying it would be cool for conquering guilds to have the option of creating vassals and fiefs from their defeated foes instead of just taking the territory from them.

Even though I support imposing restrictions on large alliances to prevent them from outright controlling and chilling the game as has happened in other MMOs... I’m actually OK with this suggestion if executed properly.

Suppose a larger, more powerful guild successfully sieges a smaller, weaker guild city (which we know will happen). It would be cool if the victorious guild can give the defeated guild an option: we can either forcibly remove your town from you... or you can keep it and serve as our vassals and pay us tribute.

It allows defeated guilds and governors to retain their holdings to a degree rather than be automatically ousted.

@Farlander said in What challenges should guild alliances face?:

I don't want friendly fire and I don't want collision with friendly players. I don't care if the game is mimicking real life. I play the game because it isn't real life. I've been in too many games where griefers just ruin them. They use the rules to their advantage to make the lives of other players miserably. Rules that were not intended to be used in the manner they use them. Then devs have to find work arounds because no one wants griefers in their games.

Fractured purports itself to be a hardcore sandbox game that avoids many of the conveniences and shortcuts of other “sandbox/sandpark” MMOs.

In this regard, friendly fire and unit collision should NOT be out of the question.

In real life a griefer would face consequences. They would be put in jail or even put to death. Devs can ban but rarely do players get banned for griefing because they were only using a loophole. If there is friendly fire dickheads will just go around killing their "friends" until they get booted from their guild/alliance. Then they will just hop around until someone catches on to their game. Even one incident can jeopardize an entire guild/alliance and ruin the fun for even more than the person they griefed.

Let me be clear: I, too, am interested in mitigating griefers. As you rightly point out, in real life, consequences are such that most people are compelled to behave in good faith. Trolls and griefers on the internet are less inclined to do so and thus a hardcore sandbox game should take that into consideration and try to design the system to deter griefing as much as possible.

That can be done while also enabling friendly fire and unit collision. These things are not inherently mutually exclusive. So let’s discuss ways to achieve both goals instead of unproductively dismissing the possibility out of hand.

Everyone is so worried about these large alliances taking over everything. If this is a problem for you just join one. Most large guilds don't have very strict rules. They can't because it is too hard to control and enforce them. Most just say "have fun". It's a source for grouping and finding others to do things with. If you don't like one group move to another. If you want to be in one with your friends only then make an alliance with a neighboring large guild.

I’m going to strongly push back on this part.

By your own logic, you should play one of the many games that allow large alliances to run unchallenged (like Albion!) instead of trying to make Fractured just like them.

Large alliances that are allowed to operate unfettered will chill games. That is a fact. That is why Albion Online’s devs were forced to implement GvG seasons, double the size of the Outlands, and proposed hideouts for smaller guilds... because large alliances were essentially invincible beyond the most extreme circumstances. If you go to AO’s forums, you’ll see that imposing restrictions on alliances is one of the most popular shared demands/requests from the game’s users.

Fractured is styling itself to be different and more hardcore and more thoughtful than games like AO. Fractured is a game that intends to make logistics, travel, distance, politics, and territory management and maintenance much more hands on and demanding than many of its peers. The reason for that is that it allows for more dynamic politics and keeps the game interesting instead of creating a system where a large zerg alliance/community can come into the game and own it forever.

So no, the solution should not be “you can’t beat them, better join them.” Large alliances and large guilds should be allowed to exist... but their problems and challenges should scale so as to keep them on their toes and allow meaningful possibility for them to be defeated.

Anything else is just a bad idea.

@Logain said in Trade caravans...?:

@Gothix said in Trade caravans...?:

(...)NPCs should never be able to beat human players on their own(...)

So, if NPCs are basically useless, that gets me back to my original question for @Alexian, what he expects from a 'Caravan', other than players driving wagons. Because players driving wagons are trivial to implement, and I'd doubt any game could 'fail to deliver on that'.

By a caravan, I mean what it means. A multitude of people, their mounts, and their wagons full of materials, crisscrossing the landscape to bring their items from one place to the next.

Those really aren’t a thing in Albion despite being a point of advertisement

@Gothix said in Trade caravans...?:

@Logain said in Trade caravans...?:

What would prevent me from taking two friends and killing your dozen veterans from a distance, one by one, retreating when in danger?

Another player attacking you alongside those merc NPCs.

NPCs should never be able to beat human players on their own. They should only be slight help so they can turn the tide if player forces are balanced against each other.

I don't think an NPC merc or NPC guard should be able to win a 1v1 against any decent player, but they should be formidable enough to give raiders and highwaymen a moment or two of pause.

@Psymantis said in Hello:

This is Clem Fandango. Can you hear me?

Just bought the basic pack so it'll be a while yet before I can play but hello anyway.

Hey! Welcome to Fractured.

Welcome @Helloween!

@Bardikens speaks troof. Albion's devs have had to do a lot of work in the desperate hope to upset an otherwise unyielding status quo. Their system sucks and SBI knows it.

As Fractured nears completion, it will draw attention from bigger gaming communities and multi-game guilds who will seek to do what they've done in Albion and other games like it.

Fractured has to be different in order to have different outcomes. Problems and challenges should scale. Coordinating zergs effectively should be much, much harder than coordinating 5-10 people. AOE attacks should not be the end all be all for combat, able to be spammed with impunity such that the group with the biggest number of AOE spells is the one who wins 99/100 times.

Alliances should be incredibly risky, requiring that participating guilds do their homework and make concerted effort to maintain positive diplomatic ties. Allies should be able to support you, ignore you, betray you, and attack you based on the strength of your relationship. They should not be de facto mega guilds that are invincible and can't be uprooted or challenged barring internal disintegration, as they are in AO.

This game sells itself on being a hardcore experience. Let's keep it that way!