Posts made by Bardikens

As the King and ruler of Meridian, I approve this message.

@Gothix said in Bardikens' Compendium of Suggestions Part 4: Gear and Crafting:

Nice post.

I would just add that in horizontal progression game, crafting effort isn't actually on crafting the gear (which was already stated it will be quick and easy), but on customizing it horizontally.

The more horizontal modifications you wish to apply to your gear (fit it more for exactly specific type of monster you will go hunt, for example) the more effort should it take.

So players will have easily obtainable gear, so they will never be "naked" for long even if they lost everything, but will still need to put in the effort to obtain highly customized gear, designed to be highly efficient for very specific purposes.

That's a fair point. The emphasis on modifying gear to fit a situation didn't cross my mind at the time.

Following towns and cities, I want to discuss another thing that is very important to me in sandbox games. This time we will discuss gear and crafting and what I think it should look like.

As usual, you can find the full document here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qrD2MwlirFeuFF3U88XVUcvPa3yVbbslkbImYow0XJk/edit?usp=drivesdk

Gear in a Sandbox

What should gear look like in a sandbox?

This is a good question and I have to say: it depends. Just like any other genre, the sandbox MMO can choose to focus on many different styles of play and methods of customization and improvement. Some sandboxes tend to take the traditional route of vertical gear progression through “tiers” or some other conceit that places the highest level of gear at a significant advantage and making it the focus of the progression of the game. Some games take a hybrid approach, or a diagonal progression, which mixes soft tiers and caps alongside skill mechanics that could “potentially” even the gear deficit. The other games favor a more “horizontal” progression of gear, where the difference in gear power from the lowest to the highest may mirror something more realistic. A bronze sword, for example, may be able to cut through cloth and leather as well as a steel sword, but if you hack the bronze sword into something made of steel, it is possible for it to break much easier. Since there is a smaller gap between gear, theoretically the emphasis on progression is placed on the player, their abilities, or whatever aim is made the primary goal of the game.

What should gear look like in Fractured?

This one is easy and doesn’t require me to develop my opinion much because the developers have already stated that the gear progression in Fractured will be horizontal with a main focus on player skill, accompanied by creativity from the combination of skills that can be put on a single hot bar. That said, I could list some things that I would be interested in seeing for gear that wouldn’t change it from horizontal, but would still give it a proper feel.

• Gear shouldn’t represent specializations arbitrarily, but should reflect their real life counterparts to an extent. Cloth, leather, and heavier armors should all effect maximum run speed and defenses organically (though nominally since this game has magic and such).

• Gear progression should affect durability and each material should have traits. For example, bronze is simple to make and requires little skill, but breaks much easier over time. Steel is quite useful, but it takes a lot of iron, fuel, and an exceedingly hot fire to smelt it. It won’t break as fast, but is much more expensive.

Why?

To put it simply, gear is both important and not important in a sandbox. It is important to have it and to make it meaningful, but I think that gear TIER shouldn’t be the only consideration to make when deciding the outcome of a battle. If you want to make gear matter, there are plenty of ways of doing it rather than just saying “Super steel, 700% better, you one shot him.” I think Fractured is staying away from these gear tiers per se, so I don’t see an issue here and don’t have too much to add in this regard. If I were making my own game, I probably would change gear a bit more, but I digress.

Crafting in a Sandbox

What does crafting look like in a Sandbox

Like mentioned earlier, crafting in sandbox games is in a unique position to be both meaningful to the player and meaningful to the game. It helps the economy in the game, it provides a niche for players who like to craft, and it helps facilitate wars, more crafting, and especially the need for logistics after items are created.

What should crafting look like in Fractured?

In my opinion, crafting should be one of the most crucial roles to fill in the game so long as items are damaged and lost and people need more over time. It should be a key money maker, though I would caution the devs not to force EVERYONE to be crafters to meet this end as so often is the case in these games.

• Ideally, crafting will be a large niche to fill and will be developed to the point that people can fill the niche as their sole career.

• Crafting should take time and resources and one crafter shouldn’t be able to master all crafting in the game.

• Ideally, guilds would be able to designate guild crafters who could live in the NPC crafting houses (perhaps on a second floor) who are in charge of and can maintain crafting buy and sell orders for resources and finished goods. Perhaps they could work with the town’s chief financier, or head of trade.

• Crafting should be the main, if not only, source for high end gear (even in a horizontal gear game), which gives crafting meaning and purpose.

Why?

In games like this, especially those that tend to throw in survival elements too, crafting is the foundation for the game. Gathering materials, crafting them into the needed elements to fund whatever venture you or your guild is doing, trade the surplus, rinse and repeat. One sign of a healthy sandbox mmo is how active its crafting scene is. I’ll also reiterate what I said earlier: Though crafting is important and some people should decide to go the crafting route, I very much hope that not everyone is forced to go that route to make enough money to survive, as it would be much more immersive seeing people fill whichever niche they like in the game and actively do that.

@PeachMcD

Thanks, I appreciate it!

@Gothix said in Bardikens' Compendium of Suggestions Part 3: Towns/Cities:

@Bardikens said in Bardikens' Compendium of Suggestions Part 3: Towns/Cities:

What would you like to see in terms of bribery?

I haven't given it a detailed thought, but perhaps some housing locations would be off limits for "regular citizens" and only available for VIPs, and VIP status you can either get by doing stuff for the city and getting rep with the city, or bribing current NPC major (expensive), which may also fail, and you get consequences in that city, your rep getting a drop.

Stuff like that. Something that would have bonuses if done well, or drawbacks if it fails. Perhaps chance of bribe working could also depend on your current city rep.

Hmm that could be interesting for NPC cities. I like the idea of a Star Citizen style rating system for things like requisitions and public quests where you could rate people who do things for your town (non citizens especially), and perhaps you could set minimum ratings to use things such as crafting buildings with lower fees, taxes or what have you.

I'd like to take a moment to welcome @LilCassiopeia as the second governor to grace the Principality of Meridian.

We look forward to working and growing with you.

@PeachMcD said in Bardikens' Compendium of Suggestions Part 3: Towns/Cities:

again

I esp like the idea of a 'laws checklist' that simplifies setting up a town's constitution and enables players to avoid reinventing the wheel - but that checklist would need to be pretty exhaustive AND open to input from player community.

Agreed. I was thinking a checklist like you see in most city building games lime SimCity or Cities: Skylines where you can set rates and laws and such. In this case, it would probably be more simplistic, but the list should be quite exhaustive as you said.

@Gothix

@Bardikens what do you think about possibility of bribery mechanics when it comes to NPC cities? With player run cities that possibility is already given.

What would you like to see in terms of bribery? I think an Elder Scrolls style persuasion system might be cool, but to what end? What would it do and how would it benefit people or be detrimental if they fail?

Now that is has been a few days, let's take a look at a prominent feature of Fractured: towns and cities.

As usual the link to the full document can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qrD2MwlirFeuFF3U88XVUcvPa3yVbbslkbImYow0XJk/edit?usp=drivesdk

Towns and Cities in a Sandbox

What should towns and cities look like in a Sandbox?

Player owned houses, towns and cities have been a fascination for video game players for a very long time. I still remember when I first rented my own house in Tibia and the excitement of having a room in a guild hall. Many different games have offered differing views on what a town or city should look like and many of them have done a pretty good job of making them viable, even if they fail in the customization department or are forced to be instanced. Ideally in a sandbox you would have non-instanced houses, towns, and cities that have a purpose that reflects the goal of your game and encourages players to use them to that end.

What should towns and cities look like in Fractured?

I think Fractured has a very robust housing/city system that incorporates both NPCs and player owned sections.

• Towns and cities should be able to employ people to do jobs with wages that are held in escrow from the treasury until cancellation or completion of the job.

• Guilds and guild towns should be able to delegate nearly every aspect of responsibility to encourage guilds to utilize complex bureaucracies and teamwork to fulfill logistical needs

• Guilds and towns should be allowed to host mercenary guilds, merchant guilds, Etc. so long as they pay rent for the plots they are using. This should count for the population.

• Towns and cities should have laws that are determined by the local guild, government, or people depending on what is being used. These laws can just be a large checklist of options that determine what is and isn't a crime in that sphere of influence.

• Republic cities and towns should not just vote for Governor (who can do all of the things in the town), but also for individual magistrates that make up some of the major power options of the town (city planning, building, laws, etc.). This could be at the discretion of the town.

Why?

Towns and cities are going to be one of the main features in Fractured. The consequences of having cities and towns with in-depth mechanics, then, are obvious. It should be a system that promotes personalities that enjoy bureaucracy or otherwise delegating tasks while also allowing for pretty much anyone who is interested to get a taste of what it will be like.

@PeachMcD said in Bardikens' Compendium of Suggestions Part 2: Logistics/Economy:

ooooh! this is giving me lots of ideas. My Beastling Pack guild might decide to specialize in helping players move their goods safely across Arboreus. Humans from off-world might not know the mobs as well as we will, and a mix of beastling PCs could ensure that there were talents to meet every need. That would allow for the joy of travel, PvE adventures, and a bit of the hauled goods to live on. Sounds like way more fun to me than trying to build a city.

This is an excellent idea and I hope that everyone is willing to foster the growth of such activities. I hope even more that it is a viable path for guilds and I personally would like to see these niches filled and have a place in the world while also being rewarding.

@Alexian said in Bardikens' Compendium of Suggestions Part 2: Logistics/Economy:

I think it's fantastic that you decided to proceed with this. There are a lot of great suggestions and insightful commentary in this compendium, folks!

Thanks!

Completely agreed here. I'm happy that Fractured is employing a relatively realistic system for large item movement and transportation. It is, as you say, "tedious but rewarding."

And that's okay so long as there are rewards. Look what people do in other games.

100% agreed here. Fractured's vision for gathering, construction, trade, and logistics will hopefully be so realistic that it will inspire some guilds and groups to pursue filling this niche.

I'd love to see a group of traders come together and, instead of wasting time trying to claim territory and build up their own cities, organize into a merchant guild that purchases or rents chapter houses/offices in other cities. You could also have mercenary groups who specialize as hired security forces for trade caravans.

Fractured should not simply be comprised of guilds striving to be conquerors and empires. We should see guilds of various types across all three planets that serve a particular and lucrative niche. This is something that distinguishes Fractured's vision from games like Albion Online, where such things are possible but not encouraged and far from necessary.

Hopefully we see the growth and development of many different types of guilds that will work with one another in some way, shape or form. If a guild wants to be a trading guild, perhaps they should have a presence in many areas inside of other people's guild towns.

Economics isn't my forte.

That said, I'm pleased that Fractured plans to have job boards/notice boards. Hopefully, in conjunction with player quests, this will facilitate your suggestion.

I think they go hand in hand and provide that much more for players and leaders alike to do.

As mentioned in the first part, which can be found in @Alexian 's Alliance thread, I will be breaking my compendium of suggestions into different groupings of talking points. Last time we looked at Guilds and Alliances. This time we will change gears a bit and look at Logistics and Economies in Sandboxes and how I feel they should play out in Fractured. Please note that I'm not an expert in economics and as such I will be attacking this topic from a more... perhaps ideal lens. Feel free to contradict me, but I ask that the discussion be lively and productive.

(As usual, you can find the whole document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qrD2MwlirFeuFF3U88XVUcvPa3yVbbslkbImYow0XJk/edit?usp=sharing)

Logistics in a Sandbox MMO

What is logistics in a sandbox?

This is another area of a sandbox that is far more unique than most games. While most themeparks require logistics in the form of raid prep, pvp practice, and gearing, the sandbox goes a step further by requiring the movement of items and gear and the creation of said gear usually being a part played by the player.

The movement of these items are often done via tedious, though rewarding, activities such as hauling them across the world, or by organizing them within storage areas akin to warehouses. Some games choose to make this process less tedious by allowing fast travel, carry limits that are absurdly high, or by linking auction houses so that you can obtain the same resources without the opportunity cost of moving them. I think these are the wrong way to go about logistics in a sandbox.

What should logistics look like in Fractured:

Logistics in Fractured needs to exploit the large mass of land provided in game. Since the worlds are so big, consideration should be taken when having to move goods across it. Whether it be through hiring third party groups who specialize in caravans, or through moving your own goods across the world, it should take time, effort, and be open to exploitation by people who are looking to disrupt your logistical flow.

Logistics, therefore, should be a niche that someone with acuity for organization should be able to fill while having a fulfilling time playing the game running these networks, much like fighting appeals to some people and governing to others.

• Trade caravans should be necessary for the movement of mass amounts of resources across the continents/planets. They should be able to be intra-guild or hopefully niches will exist for people to carry out these caravans and be paid for doing so, taking the place of auction houses by actually BEING in game, rather than magicked away.

• When passing through friendly territory, perhaps there should be some way to hire NPC guards (as well as players), who will be paid upon completion of a contract automatically (similar to quests in other games and beacons in something like Star Citizen).

• Moving resources to attack another power should also thusly be difficult. If you need to siege a town, you should either have to carry the tools to do so, or scavenge them from the area.

• Trade should NOT be conducive to fast travel, with the exception of moving between planets.

Why?

The point of having almost everything exist in the game and be exploited by groups in the game is to allow for complex interactions to take place between players who want to fill niches other than the ones provided by standard games. Someone should want to be a caravaneer and should be encouraged to set up contracts and quests. People who want to protect these guys should want to go along and escort in order to receive a bit of money through, hopefully, little effort. Ultimately what this does is encourages different niches for players of different abilities to fill. Not everyone wants to play the no-nonsense warrior out to kill every foe. Some people might want to be tradesmen, merchants, or mail carriers. This would help them live their dreams and could also spawn guilds that aren’t focused on being land-owning empires so much as merchant republics, artisan guilds, or even mercenaries for hire.

Logistics should be difficult and should be thought out and properly organized by the people wishing to take advantage of the game mechanics. It doesn’t have to be 1:1 real life, but there should be an incentive for people to play these roles too.

Part 5: The Economy in a Sandbox

What does the economy of a sandbox mmo look like?

The hallmark of sandbox games are their dynamic economies. Items and gold go into the economy mostly via the player and they also leave the economy via the player through taxes, item degradation and destruction, and costs associated with utilizing NPC features of the game. The difference between a sandbox and a themepark in regards to economy usually stems from the removal of items from the game, thereby hopefully limiting inflation. Themeparks usually utilize higher commodity fees and taxes to stem inflation, but over time it still usually happens as quests give higher rewards and there are fewer penalties for making certain mistakes (WoW being a good example of inflation).

What should the economy look like in Fractured?

I won't depart from most hardcore sandbox games in this regard as there is no perfect solution and often these things must be adjust over time.

I personally think the economy of Fractured should consist of money coming in via various tasks (or by giving dynamic value to goods that can then be bartered in lieu of coinage) as normal. As more money enters the economy, there will need to be outlets that make money leave the economy.

On top of this, I agree with most hardcore games that markets should spring up around the player as much as possible, so banks, markets, and player markets should all be local to the area they are in.

• Purchases can contain small fees that delete a small percentage of currency from the game per transaction. These should be done via player stores AND npc stores, however trading and the like would be exempt as normal.

• Auction houses should be player ran as much as possible and tied to local towns only. This gives incentive for there to be a niche that can be filled and these players must also carry and move stock and inventory.
  If that isn't feasible, then local auction houses should be built and paid for by the town with an upkeep that deletes money from the economy.

• Towns should have job boards that can be posted on that hold money in escrow until tasks are accepted and (within a time limit) completed at which time the person who completes it will be paid.

• Job boards should also allow people to post buy orders for quantities of resources and goods and keep these separated from the auction house (see quests).

• Items should have a chance to be permanently lost on death or after too many repairs.

• Item degradation should slowly deteriorate a weapon's maximum durability over time (with horizontal gear, this shouldn't be too awful). This will also play into crafting later.

Why?

Economies in games are one of the signs of the health of the game itself and this is doubly so regarding hardcore sandboxes where the economy of the game stems directly from player input and output, far more so than themeparks, where npc content often adds more to the economy outside of cash flow and resources they can be obtained elsewhere.

It is a precarious balance that always has to be maintained. When new items enter the game, when new cash flows are introduced, something has to become a cash sink or item sink so that inflation isn't out of hand.

There’s probably a lot more that I could say on economy, but I am no expert here for sure.

A Compendium of Suggestions Part 1

By: Bardikens

Guys, over the past two weeks I have been working on a list of suggestions of things that I'd like to see in Fractured or in sandbox MMOs in general. This is basically a compendium of sorts that contains suggestions and ideas for some (not all) aspects of the game. The first couple of sections are about guilds and alliances, so I've decided to post them here so as to not double post in the forums. Each post will be divided by similar topic groupings and will have a link to the Google Doc with the entire document. This is only meant for discussion.

(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qrD2MwlirFeuFF3U88XVUcvPa3yVbbslkbImYow0XJk/edit?usp=sharing)

(We are skipping the introduction piece which can be read in the full doc.)

Guilds in Sandbox MMO

What makes a guild?

Traditionally, a guild consists of groups of people banding together to do activities that would be challenging or impossible alone. They haven’t always been given status in games, but almost all games nowadays have methods to discern guild-mates from regular players, as we as game mechanics or UIs tied to being within a guild itself. In essence, these groups come to form the political groups of the game, the various polities that vie for control of some resource, race to be the top on the server, or exist solely for community benefit.

What should a guild look like in Fractured?

I think guilds in Fractured can follow the main curve of games in this respect. Guilds should be represented in the UI and should definitely come with benefits that outpace and incentivise the solo player to take part.

I would personally like to see:

• Members lists - Common in games to show who exists and who is online in your guild.

• Membership logs - Who joins and leaves within a certain period of time (24-48h is fine).

• Ranks/titles that, even if they are for flavor only, can be fully customized.

• If there is a centralized monetary fund of some sort (a la the guild UI in Albion), then dedicated auditing logs as well.

• Perhaps a system that allows guilds to choose what type of guild they are, allowing for special rules or bonuses (trade guild, nation, etc.)

Why?

I think guilds in the hardcore sandbox MMO are the lynch-pin to success and what set hardcore sandboxes awayfrom other sandbox games and even from themeparks. Guilds in sandboxes are in the unique position to alter the political landscape of the game, so much so that developers often have to make changes to baseline game design in order to shift the game towards or away from ends that guilds have forced their hands on. One problem unique to guilds in all video games is having to keep up with each individual member and what they can do in your guild.

If you have a guild with 50 members, 10 ranks, and each rank can do different things or are expected to do different things and, say, 2 towns, or even 1 town with many different buildings, that is a lot of micromanaging for the guild leader or the governor. While keeping it difficult to manage multiple towns or polities should be the goal, there should also be some way, while maintaining overall logistical difficulty, to take stock of what is going on in a particular guild or town. Most games do this, and I see no reason to change. The more customization in ranks, titles, and their powers the better in a sandbox adhering to some realism without selling the farm.

Alliances in a Sandbox MMO

What is an Alliance in a sandbox?

Sandboxes, like with guilds, are in a unique position to make politics a viable form of gameplay and empires a viable, yet difficult, goal. An alliance in a sandbox is basically two or more guilds who decide to band together, whilest remaining individual political powers, and sign non-aggression pacts, trade clauses and usually military alliances that see the pooling of resources for the greater good. Unlike in a themepark, the sharing of resources in a sandbox is paramount to the success of an alliance, as well as the furthering of a fledgling empire. This can cause some political drama and issues and in some cases, outright betrayal.

What should an Alliance look like in Fractured?

I think alliances in Fractured should be a prominent, but difficult to maintain force. There should be alliances, and they should have some representation in the UI. However, I think that it must stop in the UI. Other than perhaps noting who is in your alliance as you see them, there really shouldn’t be any in game benefit to having an alliance member standing right next to you.

What I would like to see:

• Treaties of different value: Non-aggression pacts, trade contracts, defensive alliances, military alliances, and Military Access pacts, client-states and vassals(similar to the Total-War games). These should be noted in the UI, but are non-binding in game, i.e. the players aren’t FORCED to adhere to these rules, opening up the floor for political intrigue and scrutiny towards who is allowed to be in an alliance.

• The ability to carry Alliance banners alongside guild banners on towns and in battle providing some small morale boost to nearby members.

• The ability for individual members of alliances to betray their alliance at any time, necessitating good communication, subterfuge, and trust between all members.

• The ability for vassals and client-states to be taxed by their vassal liege.

• Alliance members who ARE NOT vassals of a guild are on equal political standing.

• Alliance members SHOULD NOT be immune to friendly fire.

Why?

Alliances are political powers in sandbox games. Too often, though, they are not real alliances, but a vassal-liege relationship where one guild forms an empire of smaller guilds who pay tribute. This is usually enforced in game via immunity to friendly fire, allowing larger guilds and alliances to paste massive hordes together that, while choreographed, usually end with the bigger army crushing the smaller one.

In reality, alliance members are usually politically equal in terms unless some other deal has been made. In this sense, there shouldn’t be a “LEADER” of an alliance de jure, but obviously there will be de facto. What they agree upon is what decides their position in the alliance and those terms can change on a whim if either side is uncomfortable or find themselves facing greener pastures.

With regards to friendly fire, I think it is okay to leave guild members immune if necessary, but do not extend that protection to alliance members. This will force alliance members to strategize about how they will participate in a battle, and hopefully force alliance leaders to strategize and react in ways that are different than the typical “dog-piling” we see with modern zergs.

Ultimately, an alliance should be rewarding as long as the powers are playing their part. It should not, however, be automatically rewarding without great care taken by the heads of each of the guilds involved and should be the vehicle that drives the political intrigue that so many games lack.

@Xzoviac said in Opinion on Monsters after the alpha:

@Jetah said in Opinion on Monsters after the alpha:

@Xzoviac

the point of animals is crafting materials which is the point of most of the NPCs.

in my mind the whole point of the survival and crafting system is for pvp. Having recently started Black Desert Online, I'm starting to see the similarities between Fractured and BDO. If you've played BDO then think of it with a static camera and 3 planets.

beastmen are gonna get bored fast if the only point in killing monsters is for pvping later ....
BDO , monsters drop loot , killing monsters lets you learn about them, the more you kill said monster eventually you learn how much hp it has and hit it harder , you can pickup quests and get knowledge the more you kill certain monsters and earn reputation with certain NPC's In BDO there is even a beastery saying your Rank for killing said monster

Good ideas!

In a game like this, the PVE really needs to be dynamic to be fun. Bosses should be difficult and require teams, they should threaten NPC (and perhaps player) polities, and the PVE landscape should shift based on the players succeeding or failing versus certain groups. The devs shouldn't be afraid to allow enemy NPCs to build towns and cities and have people destroy them for coinage and rare resources perhaps.

Bestiary is also a fantastic idea. Monsters should also be dynamic and rewarding. If a dragon burns down an NPC town and your team kills it, maybe you can be recognized by a local NPC faction with a one of a kind title or other rewards.

The ideas are really limitless if you forgo the traditional splattering of animals in the wild for a mixture of that and more dynamic options.

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

@Roccandil

with how elements react with other elements, i dont see how full FF would work.

if we're fighting something in water and i use an electric spell then you're taking damage as well as the mob/player. if i'm near melee range while you're swinging then i'm taking melee damage while attack the mob/player.

i dont see full FF working.

I think some extensions of protections can be made. People were floating ideas of party immunity and/or guild immunity (as long as these are capped). This would still allow for reasonable exceptions while forcing a larger emphasis on deployment strategy/resource usage.

Perhaps it should be experimented with just to see what happens, but I don't think this is contrary to at least what I was suggesting previously.

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

I never said that griefing was going to be completely eliminated. I've played online games long enough to know that jerks are going to find a way to be jerks. If I see ways to prevent griefing I'm going to voice my opinions. I've not demanded that the game be my way or no way. I've asked that two game mechanics not be implemented. I've expressed my reasons why. And yes I was told by Gothix on several occasions to go ahead and quit Fractured to play solo games. He's been rude as hell in alot of his posts. He's that typical pvper that wants everything his way and will attack anyone that disagrees with him.

As someone who was traditionally called "carebear" in the past, I truly get how you feel about griefing. It is a pain in the buttocks and causes stress to those who aren't traditionally in the same boat in terms of attitude. No one will argue with that, and we are open to debate over what can help prevent it. We tend to just disagree with the assessment that we should START with everything disabled. If we START at the more hardcore end of the aisle, at the very least we can work backwards into a happy medium, especially considering there are 3 different planets with presumably 3 majorly different rule sets in play for different styles of players.

If friendly fire is turned on it will in fact affect all planets unless it is turned on in certain situations and places. Unless I have missed that point in the many posts then I apologize. The only solution I have seen is to allow sneaking past people. That in it's very nature means death in alot of situations. Speed is important escaping an attack.

I don't think it has explicitly been said, but I do think it would be simple to allow for varying degrees of friendly fire. The sneaking comment was in regards to unit collision, I believe, though to be fair if 20 people surround you in a wilderness, you should most likely be dead no matter what (assuming no magic in play)

As for the 3 planets, I think variations of the rules can be used. No FF at all on ARB, for example. Perhaps a combo on Synd. FFA Everyone ded on Tart. Assuming each planet has its own coding, I'm sure something like friendly fire in that regard could be nothing more than a slider set at different points for each planet.

So to clarify when do you see friendly fire being turned on? Where? If it is on all the time then someone could very easily go around towns spamming their AOE to kill everyone. The fact you say friendly fire means they are not going to flag as criminal. Unless you are saying it will flag as an aggressive action. If so AOE attacks will be as useless as they are in Pathfinder Kingmaker. If they don't flag as aggressive then we have a problem because that now enables people to kill in the no pvp zones.

Actual implementation of friendly fire can and should be debated. Will there be safe towns, safe harbors, all out brawls? I've seen them done every way from Tibia to MO. We assume friendly fire has the possibility of being in the game in some form (or at least had some plans to be last year), but the real argument comes from whether or not allies will be invincible towards each other here. In this case, we suggested having a war declaration feature that placed guilds in a permanent aggressive mode towards one another while the war declaration length lasted, removing consequences from murdering each other. We could debate how that would work and what would be involved and I'd be happy to hash it out.

As for collision mechanics it is an easy way to box players in. Normally when a creature is aggroed on a target they will not switch targets. So someone seeing you are low health just comes up and boxes you in. Happens all the time in games like UO. Again this is something that can happen in the nonpvp zone. I've not at one time talked about changing the pvp zones. I could care less what they do with the pvp planet.

We can make creatures not have collision detection, I'm sure. It used to happen in Tibia too. I'm not too particular on the PVE, as I think other things like difficult mechanics, or AI that group up and attack and siege, would be more interesting than collision against a wolf butt. Again, variations could be used for each planet if necessary. This one is probably more of an ON/OFF switch than a slider, though.

I'm going to have to agree with Alexian and Gothix on all of this so far. At the very least we should start as open and free as possible and without game-enforced alliances and such.

Friendly fire and collision can and SHOULD be played around with and tested for viability. We can leave Arb out of it, fine.

Alliances can and should be difficult to maintain and not be artifically enforced in the game outside of a few features in the UI to allow for diplomacy.

If none of this works, it can then be shifted fairly easily, especially friendly fire.

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

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

@Roccandil - you raise some good points about the considerations a zerg might make before the fight starts, but that doesn't quite refute @Bardikens' point that when the battle actually commences, it usually becomes a numbers and AOE game.

Take away AoE entirely, and it's still a numbers game. If I wanted to improve Albion's alliance system, the ability to mass numbers is where I'd hit it. I'd leave AoE/friendly fire alone.

It's a numbers game in the sense that numbers are the difference with all things being equal, but this obfuscates the fact that without AoE, things like hemming and bridge defenses and bottlenecking would be more than just initiation tactics. We know there will be AoE in the game, so we can't assume these fully, but making people consider unit positioning, movement, logistics and when and how to use reinforcements and their AoE abilities SHOULD be an important part of a hardcore game that is horizontal on the power scale.

Also, the more I do zergs, the more it looks like friendly-fire AoE would primarily affect tanks, since they have skills specifically designed for them to deliberately jump into piles of enemies to pull them together and lock them down for AoEs. (If your DPS or healers are in AoE range of your tanks, you're probably doing it wrong!)

This is really a fault in game design that revolves around mobas. While Fractured has an isometric perspective, it will utilize a more action-based combat and would hopefully negate the need for the traditional triad in that regard. There's nothing that i know of that says the game will focus heavily on CCs either, which is another gameplay flaw that mobas tend to over-utilize.

What we need in Fractured is more regimental style play that relies on lines and movement (since there may and SHOULD be unit collision) that mirror battles moreso from antiquity than a dogpiling mess where tanks can run through opposing lines with little thought to their own safety.

Friendly fire simply doesn't make sense to me in that context (all griefing aside). You'd need to rework the roles of tanks, which would have a cascading effect on the entire game balance.

And friendly fire is the only thing that makes sense to me. Ive played Albion since beta, played Archeage, played LoL, Smite, Heroes, etc., so I understand where you are coming from.

Albion is a good example here because it is forced to do what it does because of poor decisions made in development. Say what you will about their Alliance system, but their Alliance system is pretty much the sole reason why the game died twice, why the Outlands were expanded, and why seasons were implemented with catchup mechanics to help smaller guilds. Nothing else could break the monopolies and nothing still has to this day (though now new ones form in the expanded areas). You can enjoy the system and it is not wrong to do so, but it should stay faarrrrrr away from any other game that purports itself to be hardcore. Having an alliance should be hard. You should have to deal with people and ideas and tough decisions. It shouldn't always be a vassal relationship like it is in Albion. It shouldn't dictate who you can or can't kill or betray in-game arbitrarily (I'm willing to concede this up to the guild level, but no further).

In conclusion, I feel that friendly fire is the only option, at least when it comes to alliance members (you could probably argue for protection in a group if the group had a fair cap). There's simply no need to copy a failed system and just see if it works when we can instead demand people to think harder, do more, and really fill the niche of field generals. This will both utilize your idea of limiting battle size by making people deploy their units strategically and have them ready (since allies cant just mob in) while also still allowing AoE to be a tool utilized by the groups (with more caution being exercised).

I think you had the better argument when you were discussing griefing, because at least then conceits and considerations would need to be made when implementing friendly fire adjustments.

And on a less serious note, I hope you are having a great start to your week.

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

@Bardikens

AoE griefing is a kind of double bind:

1. If there is no penalty for hitting friendlies with AoE damage, you can deliberately kill/damage otherwise protected players without penalty.

Making a war declaration could perhaps make both guilds aggressive parties while the declaration is active, making no one take penalties when fighting an opposing guild. Alliances could trigger options to bring in allies to war depending on the type of alliance they have, whether they are vassals or equals in said alliance.

1. If there is a penalty, you can stack penalties on innocent players by deliberately entering their AoEs to take damage.

This could be avoided by the above. There are no karmic penalties to attacking aggressive players. Bystanders trying to cash in would also have an equal opportunity and why not? They would be aggressive too, and it would lead to some interesting battles. You wouldn't be able to hit guild members, so I see no problem with this.

Admittedly, the difficulty lies in how you make bystanders become aggressive, whether it be distance to a battle or participation in a battle (both have their advantages and disadvantages). The outcome should be that there should truly be no innocents harmed, or if there were, they were marked aggressive long before they every saw the battle.

I also suspect that any serious penalty effects would be bypassable by creating temporary griefing alts (and that may be especially easy in Fractured).

Alts are a strong problem in hardcore games and should be HEAVILY discouraged. I agree there is the potential for some exploitation, but hopefully through the processes mentioned above it would be minimized.

Having said all that, I'm against friendly fire, and I think it's a superficial solution to a deeper issue.

I think you raise some good points, but without friendly fire what's to stop these battles from just becoming Albion Online battles?
Albion Online's version of fighting with an Alliance is a good example of the wrong way to go about doing it. While it is choreographed to some extent and positioning is still important, it will, in 99% of the cases, almost always be the vastly larger alliance that wins the battle and the actual fight is a 15fps mishmash of nonsense due to the screen full of AoEs splashing everywhere. At least with friendly fire, there would be a way to either minimize the number of people participating in a particular battle, or AoEs would not be thrown around nonchalantly without thought to how or when to use them without hurting people.

I think friendly fire is the only choice in sandbox hardcore games. The deeper problem lies with the fact that AoE exists in the game outside of siege weapons. This is the fault of magic and skills that are often put into these games for the cool factor, but also trap developers into situations where making decisions like these are difficult.

Ultimately, there are a million games out there that already utilize that sort of thing. I think it would be in poor taste to see the exact same type of battle copied and pasted here without at least considering the alternative.

-Note that I'm just engaging in a friendly debate here and ultimately our discussions are healthy and bring perspective to the developers, so please don't think I'm attacking your opinion or anything. I just happen to be on the more hardcore side of the debate with these things.-

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

Enabling friendly fire on Tartaros makes sense, since it's supposed to be the free-for-all planet, but due to the griefing possibilities it represents, I'd be much more leery of enabling it on Syndesia.

Which griefing possibilities are you referring to here? If someone is just sitting back and attacking your men over and over, he's either not trained, in which case you train him, or he's sabotaging, and you deal with him or his guild as necessary. The punishment for sabotaging is to remove someone from your alliance and thus not have to worry about thinking they are your friend anymore.

There is a difference between sabotaging and griefing.

A better example of griefing would be someone camping new player areas and just murdering them over and over again until they quit, or in the case of unfettered building, someone building a wall of something to trap players.

Of course, there will always be some trolls who live only to make people's lives miserable, but in these types of games, their names should be noted, blacklisted, and they shouldn't surprise anyone at that point (at least that's what we used to do).

Actually, what if friendly fire were up to the players? That is, you could have AoE stances: wild versus controlled. Wild AoE would do more damage, but damage everything, whereas controlled would do less damage, but only damage enemies.

Please note that I'm talking intra-alliance here. I'm perfectly willing to let guilds be immune to other guildies. I just don't think that alliances should be anything more than what the members inside make them with the exception of client-state and vassals, whom I think should be able to be charged taxes systematically.