Best posts made by d3Sync

One of my favorite classes to build in games is a melee cleric. It started in Warhammer Online with the Warrior Priest. So I'm happy to see some of the heavier armors and weapons come in, as the class I want to build uses medium to heavy armor, and a 2 handed hammer. I'm pretty excited to see any new abilities to flesh out the magic support for the class too. Like some basic healing, magic protection, self and group buffs and any fire related spells. It's sort of like a paladin, but without the religious aspect, and instead of holy, more fire. So we'll see what the future holds. The next test will be my first, so I'm excited for that too!

I was going to post this as a response in the alpha discussion, but it grew a bit larger and more generalized than I anticipated. This seems more appropriate.

After a few days of playing and trying to consider the developers plans. I am also leaning into making solo play less restrictive. IIRC, the developers have said that they are designing their game to reduce the level gap between players. They have a few mechanics that appear to be running contrary to their stated goals.

Players are forced into cities in order to harvest materials. So I thought this wasn't a problem. But it actually destroys the solo harvester/crafting profession entirely. As you are forced into playing with other players. I feel that the length of time it takes one person to harvest and craft enough materials to be useful should be a severe enough restriction alone. If you are playing with a group, you are going to get things done far more quickly anyways. I do recognize that I don't know enough about the city mechanics to get into too much detail. But from limited experience trying to build my house, it might take me several days to finish building it. Hell, it might take a week, as there is only so much stone around and I've only finished half of my initial foundation. That's not even considering the work benches that I will need and things like gathering and refining. I don't mind it being time consuming and difficult. But it being impossible, not even being able to harvest. Well, that doesn't even make sense. Perhaps adding randomized harvesting nodes (Not just stone), in non-city areas would help solo crafters. Maybe adding MORE nodes in areas where it makes sense. Another idea is actually adding a location for said node. So outside of all of the random harvesting nodes in the world, the city node is actually a consolidated location nearby the city. IE, a mine, quarry, farm. It could include more nodes, in a much smaller area. That would make it clearly and visibly different from the 'free' nodes out in the world. And solo players could stick to their 'free nodes', that sometimes repawn as higher-tier nodes. The travelling crafter should be a viable option for solo players. I think a plan like this could potentially help both parties involved. Joining a free city and choosing not to play with them is an option that I recognize. However, I'd like to stop you there. I feel that the high tier cities with strong nodes will ultimately be cannibalized by strong guilds who will not allow their resources to be freely consumed by certain players.

The other mechanics that I'd like to mention is the new legends mechanic. I like having 'boss' or 'world' mobs out in the wild. I have to make that a point. However, I don't like the idea that developers are actively gating or locking character progression behind killing these mobs. The issue that is making this mechanic sloppy, is the knowledge system. Since killing creatures gives you knowledge points, and knowledge points are turned into talent points, this is where the problem lies. So again, it feels like that original goal of reducing the power gap between casual and hardcore players is being pushed further and further away. What this does, is it again forces solo players into groups, or guilds, in order to progress. In order for the knowledge system to stay consistent over the entire game, we have to make a concession here. Which is accepting that knowledge points will be earned by killing these mobs. We also understand that there may be some abilities that will be unlocked from these mobs as well. What I don't want to see are these mobs locking even more knowledge points behind gated content, with the tales mechanic. This hurts the solo player and it gates finishing your build behind higher level content. I get that some of this will have to be accepted, but I think the tales/lore, while regional, should be dropped by any mob in said region. Which would reduce the amount of knowledge points being locked behind high level content. The reward for group players is already strong. Which includes time to kill, resources from loot, knowledge points from kills, and unlocking abilities attached to the mob. Punishing solo players further should be avoided if possible. And I think this mechanic and the systems around it need to be further considered in the future.

I feel like, in the end, every casual solo player needs to be able to finish their character progression, build a home for themselves, and craft all items in the game. There is punishment alone that as a solo player, it will take a long time to get any of that done. It's punishment enough that the difficulty is quite high already for a solo player. Gating these players from even finishing their progression as a player is scary to me. Simply because the type of player this sort of game attracts is going to be quite disappointed that they can't even dream of competing. Even if it takes them much longer to get there, they should still be able to get there. And again, before I get hatred for this, I will likely be joining a guild and/or a city when this game releases to a state that won't be wiped in the future. But I do like to look out for the little guy, and the more little guys we can have in this game, the more the world is filled out and the more the cities are actually important. What I don't want for Fractured, is an empty world, with empty plots, and no economy. It's going to be a hard job, but developers must walk that tight rope in order to convince all types of players that this is the game for them. Easy to play, hard to master. Not hard to play, hard to master.

To reiterate, this isn't me complaining. It's me pointing out what I think 'could' be flaws in the system. This is an alpha, and I think this is the perfect place for this kind of feedback. If you agree fully, partially, or not at all, that's fine. But this isn't meant for you guys. It's meant for the developers. My hope is that they can continue to carry this balanced mindset throughout their entire game if possible.

@Xzait said in First Impressions on the new City System:

I reckon having the harbours detached from cities is a very smart move. I never used them last major test, because 3/4 of them were dead and the 1/4 that remained (for the first half of the test at least) were far too expensive, with the cities that controlled them maxing out the tax rate, except for maybe 1 city. Yes, the rates for harbours were reduced later... but having them detached from cities means that player greed won't have an effect on them, reguardless of where you go. It will be fair for everyone. I probably still won't use them, as I am not a gold gathering sort of player for the most part... but at least now, I will have the option to do so if I want, wherever I might want to go.

@d3Sync commented "Harbors being able to be used on day one makes little sense to me as a benefit, as no one will have the resources to move people around on day one."

you are definately wrong in assuming this. Some members in my guild had over 2k gold by the end of the first day of the last major test. It is more than enough to pay for a harbour fee. Just because you don't farm gold like it matters... doesn't mean other players won't. I am sure some players will farm some monsters after they leave the starting town and use a harbour if the town they will settle is far away from either starting town. They could spawn at west starting town and farm goblins for a bit, gathering some useful materials as they do, to take to their town and put in the safe when it is built.

I guess I'm just against using a bad mechanic, just because I can. I know that's just my opinion, but I never really liked fast travel all that much in games. The more fast travel you have, the less likely people will meet each other traveling in the wild. Which really hurts a great sandbox staple, emergent game play. And to be honest, it also ruins all the good hard work that the world designers put into the project. However, for the sake of getting people around the map in order to test, I could understand the change. But not as a permanent change. If a harbor fee is too expensive, too bad. That's how I look at it. If a city doesn't want to make any money from people using their harbor, then that is their loss.

I just hope that they recognize that they shouldn't commit to these changes, as the ghost towns had more to do with the game being in alpha, and less to do with it being hard to run a city. And again, if it was just for testing, then I'd agree, it's smart. I just wish I could get confirmation.

@Gibbx said in Spell Tomes/Books?:

@GamerSeuss Yes despite your long posts you still seem to be missing the point: Its a freaking cool idea. It opens up lots of game play/role play possibilities. It would be sweet if you could turn your obvious gaming experience to exploring how something like this could work in game, rather than list all the ways why it shouldn't.

I agree. I was hoping to have a more balanced discussion. It's theory crafting. I enjoy having these discussions, and rather than crapping on the idea, maybe offering suggestions as to how it could work. Maybe we come up with something completely different? That's the fun in doing something like this.

I'll settle for a dev update..

@Nekrage I've watched a few of your Youtube videos. Some good stuff there! Yeah, I really like more aggressive melee builds that have some utility. It's a great style of class for solo and group play alike. Everyone loves healers! I'm hoping this hits that UO itch that I've had since I left that game in the early 2000's.

@WaterMerchant said in Spell Tomes/Books?:

@d3Sync
First this would fall into the category of scope creep. Adding new professions and features when the game isn't even out yet isn't going to be "all positives". Second the con is what you literally just said, "Removing the exploration factor of finding the spell yourself". You might disagree but not everyone wants the need to explore to be removed because 1 high level character already explored everything and is now selling skill books.

I never once implied that if it were to be implemented, that it needed to be done now.

I do recognize that something like this would affect exploration to a degree. But again, this would only offer you the ability to unlock the base spell. All upgrade requirements and monster secrets would still need to be unlocked to make it the most viable. The impact would be minimal.

I do think that the option of buying a spell may be beneficial to a lot of people. Also keep in mind that buying a spell has a monetary cost attached to it. That player would actually have to have gathered enough gold to make a purchase. And in addition, the spell would have to be available to be purchased. Since cost is player defined, I think it's likely that it will be hard for any solo player or even small group of players to purchase all of the spells in the game. Imagine the gold cost in doing something like that. It's not feasible. Especially if we're looking at hundreds of spells down the road. This would be a supplement to game play. Not a primary means of game play.

If this were to be a 'post-launch' game mechanic, like a DLC, then most players would have gotten most of their abilities to begin with. Perhaps they just can't get to Tartaros or Arboreus in order to get that one spell.

Every mechanic has a 'con'. It's just determining how impactful that 'con' would be, and if the list of 'pros' would overshadow it. In this case, I think it could.

@Diablo said in New Armors and weapons, how do you think will effect the gameplay and your build?:

I just looked again at the Kickstarter Trailer video, i know it's far from the state of the game now, but i wondered if we will see a different kind of road blueprints. Now they are only square, it's a big part of constructing the city itself. Maybe it's too early for decorating stuff.

Maybe road upgrades. I had the same thought a few days ago about the square roads. I'd be curious if they could curve the road automatically if you created a 90 degree turn. That could help a little?

I agree with the OP here. I think the graphics of Fractured is okay. From the videos I've seen, it seems as though the graphics seem a bit washed out. In many different biomes, I feel like there is a lack of contrast that really makes some of the environments pop out at you. I feel like they could go back into some of these biome sets and re-evaluate some things. There can be very little variation between the colors of the ground textures, grass, plants, and trees. And it makes the area look bland. Also, I would love to see some environmental effects, such as weather. Rain, snow, dust, ash, wind, fog, etc. The lighting and shadows can use some work as well. But, from what I've seen, a potato can play the game pretty well. Which is ultimately the most important thing. A game can look amazing, but play terribly. And that's never a good thing. I've asked in discord about future plans for graphics and have been met with silence for the last few days. I think it's a reasonable question to ask to be quite honest, and should be met at face value without the implication being set that graphics aren't important.

Losing your gear on death is a great mechanic in the right system. Any time you play a game like this, you should prepare to die before you ever have a chance to. I was a UO veteran, and it was something that you learned very quickly. If you take everything you worked for out of town, you deserved to lose it. There don't seem to be many games anymore that truly punish players for making mistakes. I can certainly understand the frustration new players have to this genre when they first experience the harsh lash of death. It's a learning experience. It's best to take heed of the advice being offered. Complaining about it won't fix a thing.

@PeachMcD I'm not sure the OP is necessarily interested in glowing icons, flashy notifications and the like. A lot of people here seem to be keying into the idea that graphics require more resources. And they wouldn't be wrong, but are missing the point. My personal gripe with some areas looking flat and bland have nothing to do with improvements in graphics. But variety and contrast in terrain and objects. Just a re-evaluation in some of these biomes would only require tweaking. Ultimately, I'd hope that they would continue to look at this over the course of development. Perhaps they already have plans to, but just haven't gotten around to it because they are working on the pillars of development, to steal a phrase from Chris Roberts (Star Citizen). It seems like this game is pretty easy to run as is. When it's released, the 4000 series could be out. I think it's reasonable to consider upgrades to the game at some point. I'm curious in this thread mostly because I haven't seen much information on this topic from developers. Granted, I'm pretty new here.

I'd have to 100% disagree with FibS. Alpha or pre-alpha are the two best phases to give an opinion. In development, it is already too late when the game gets the beta. Games rarely ever change significantly from that point on.

I think we might have to know more about how developing this works for them. Perhaps they have considered this as well, but they feel that it would be easier to start with too many, rather than not enough.

Logically, that would make sense to me. This is probably an issue that we'll have to revisit after the game launches officially. Or much, much further into development.

So, after I hit send. I knew there was about a 99% chance that you would ignore what I said and respond negatively in a desperate attempt to cover ones own backside. Seems I was right.

You are what we call "a poorly researched consumer".

Here is one of your assumptions. You do not know how much I researched. Where my sources came from. Though I did respond to this already.

The mere fact that you don't understand what stages mean says more than enough already but if you think that "I spent money, therefore I should have a "proper state" to test it". is indeed an indicator that you have never researched or tried to understand what happens during test phases.

You might think you are being logical in your answer. That's the issue with illogical people. They don't realize they are illogical. I said, specifically, "if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test." This has nothing to do with my understanding of the correct categorization of a development state. What I consider a proper state for testing a game has nothing to do with your assumption of my lack of knowledge. Keep in mind, you've offered little to prove your claim that I haven't done research or know little about development. You've simply made the claim, thus it should be so?

As for the other pointers that supports my case that you don't do any research before jumping in to an Alpha test game.

I will reiterate, that I've watched nearly every Youtube video that I could get my hands on. I'm here on the forums, engaging in civil discourse (from my perspective, at least), I have watched all of the Q&A videos, I am an active member of the Fractured discord. I have decades of experience in testing. If that isn't research, then you clearly have a seriously unreasonable expectation of what 'research' means.

1. You haven't played Fractured yet you think it should be in beta already. -- I mean do you even know how much content is missing to call it a beta? On second thought, do you even know what "BETA TEST" means?

Yes. I know what a beta test means. This is one of those instances of you lying. I never said that I think it should be in beta. Quote me. You can't, because that doesn't exist. What I did say however, is this : "I haven't tested Fractured yet, but based on a lack of NDA and what I've seen. It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta. Requires more content, but isn't riddled with bugs and easily playable for hours on end." Falls closer to a category of beta is not the same as saying beta. It is also not the same as saying finished. Another lie that you imposed upon me. Claiming that I think this game should be finished if I pay for the game in an alpha state. That is a clear insertion of false information on your part.

1. You insist that people who spent money on an alpha game are guaranteed a game at the end of the project tells me that you have not researched the fail rate of games on its alpha state, let alone how it can potentially deviate from its 'original plans'.

This is exactly what I was talking about. So again. Quote me. Show me that I said that. You can't. I have never said that. I have never even thought that in private. It is the opposite of my position. You are shoving words into my mouth and you obviously are under the foolish impression that I will allow you to get away with it.

1. You compare games with another game that was obviously 'mislabelled' on its state.

I never mentioned another game. Here is another lie. There is nowhere in this thread where you will see me mention any other game title other than Fractured. What I did was make a statement of fact about development. I will further clarify. In the age of Indie development, with so many titles that are allowing access to alpha through a payment gateway, there is a vast range of development state. One game is a scam. The other untestable. The next is enough to test. Then you'll see a game that is close to beta, and completely able to be tested. Because of this, it is difficult to blame the consumer about what to expect. I've seen quite a lot of blame thrown around. I think it's unwarranted and I think it hurts the community.

1. Have you even bothered reading the alpha test section of the forum and how much bugs we've experienced? or what delayed the last test by about a week because a game breaking bug was found hours before an open alpha test was about to launch?

I've answered this. But yes, I have. A week or two is almost an insignificant delay. I wouldn't knock Fractured for that.

1. Do you even know the average play time of people who joined the alpha test last time to claim that it's "easily playable for hours on end".

I've answered this too. Go on Youtube and pay attention to the video lengths. You will find many streams that lasted an upwards of three to five hours. A lot of these streams are over a year old as well. So based on the lack of bugs, It's reasonable to believe that the overall primary game play is actually quite playable. Quite able to test.

You honestly need to research what you're saying and i'm not talking about going down the rabbit hole of Youtubers who have the same level of research skills as you.
and the reason why you guys fall for 'scammy' games on its so called "alpha" is because of your inability to conduct research so you're easily goaded into forking out your money.

You may be aware of the risks but you fail to understand the minute nuances behind development stages so you rely on your gut feelings to make a decision instead of dissecting and assessing what is being presented to you objectively.

You are legit what scammers want; poorly researched, gullible people.

I will lump all of these responses together. As it is quite clearly the rambling of someone trying to scramble to not lose the upper hand. I understand the desperation in your comments and I don't particularly blame you for them. It's only natural. But at some point you have to recognize that perhaps, through self reflection or being beaten into submission by real 'logic', that you may have made a huge mistake on who you decided to interact with here. All of these inane comments did nothing to prove to me, or anyone else reading this, how I am poorly researched. You've just made claims. No proof. No evidence. Just proclamations.

the mere fact that you sounded so confident about your opinions without having tested the game is just ridiculous. "~in my opinion, the game should be in its... early beta."

I am confident. I am right. It's easy to be confident when that is the case. I've never made an opinion on the current state of the game, outside of what I thought the state of the game might be. I made it clear that I haven't tested. I didn't hide it.

You may be wondering why my tone is so heavy and thats because people like you are legit one of the biggest reasons why games fail.

Desperation. Yes. And now you are blaming me for the failure of video game development now? This ought to be real interesting.

Poorly researched people ready to complain about things that they don't understand, because they dont understand development process they expect, push and demand for developers to reach certain milestones and rush production cause if theres 2 thousand other poorly researched consumers like you pitch in their poorly researched opinions, chances are other not so bright individuals like you will feel encouraged to start moaning about how much they dont understand in developmental stages.
Do you see where im getting at? idiotic statements needs to be corrected asap otherwise it'll propagate into a larger idiotic statement that will eventually cause problems for the development of the project.

No. What I see is a poster who has extreme difficulty disagreeing with people. And when that disagreement happens, you get incredibly defensive to the point of lying about people.

I was speaking in generalities. I'm not sure why you feel that attacking me is the right course of action. I know exactly what these stages mean, as I've been playing and testing games since the mid 90's. I've done more than my share of research, and I've been around long enough to see development practices change over time. That doesn't change the fact that new consumers will not understand what to expect simply due to there now being thousands of games in a stage of early access, and all thousand of them are unique and in various stages of development. Not talking about what label is slapped on it. I'm talking about an alpha game, being in near beta development. Then the next alpha game is more of a pre-alpha game, as it's nearly unplayable. The relatively new practice of pay to play alpha's has muddied the waters of what you should expect.

This has nothing to do with Fractured and has nothing to do with whether I've played the game or not. It has to do with my decades worth of experience in testing.

I did not say, anywhere in my response, that an alpha is a promise to a fully finished game. I would challenge you to quote me. You are just upset, and you are making things up to try and support your argument. But here, I'm not going to let you lie. I simply said that in an alpha, if you are a developer, you should provide a build of the game that is playable and testable. Nowhere did I say finished, complete, or full release.

I'm aware of some of the slight delays of Fractured, and I don't consider that to be an issue. I've also watched about every single Youtube video that I could find. Which is probably over 50 hours of unedited gameplay. Based on my experience, there seems to be very few actual gamebreaking bugs. However, it does seem to be missing some content. Which is exactly how I described Fractured. I did not try and hide my lack of actual gameplay experience, but I believe there are many things that my eyes alone can glean from all of that gameplay that would lead me to a reasonable expectation of what Fractured will provide. You appear to be too upset to recognize that fact though. From many streamers and content creators, they have said that they played for hours. And if you just look at the time stamps, you'd see that many of these people played for multiple hours. Sometimes up to 3-4 hours or more.

I feel that this is a perfect example of unreasonable fans of a game. Nothing I said was an attack on the game. But you viewed my generality as one. You then became so distraught by your incorrect perception of what I actually said, that you started filling in the gaps with things you've made up to make me seem worse than I actually am. You need to step back and re-read people's comments before you go and attack them for things they didn't actually do or say.

Not only does it make you look bad, but it makes the entire community look bad.

Note: I will leave this re-quote here so that everyone who hasn't, can read what I've said in full context. That way, they will understand how unreasonable you are being right now.

Are you capable of reading and responding to what anyone has said to you at all or are you just going to keep adding on whatever you felt like?

Explain.

I've addressed your points on your main response in a logical and thoughtful manner yet you did not respond to anything that i've stated at all but merely deflected them.

How have I deflected? Seems as though I have and am responding to you directly.

"I was speaking of generalities" when we're talking about a specific situation?

Am I supposed to respond only in the way you deem appropriate? Oh wait, that's a silly question.

again let's go back to these points.

Yes. Let's revisit how you're wrong. Where is that shovel?

You haven't played Fractured yet you think it should be in beta already. -- I mean do you even know how much content is missing to call it a beta? On second thought, do you even know what "BETA TEST" means?

I haven't tested Fractured yet ....It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta.

You insist that people who spent money on an alpha game are guaranteed a game at the end of the project tells me that you have not researched the fail rate of games on its alpha state, let alone how it can potentially deviate from its 'original plans'.

But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test. (test* but doesnt even know what Alpha or Beta is in terms of testing.)

You compare games with another game that was obviously 'mislabelled' on its state.

Some alpha projects... Some are playable...

Have you even bothered reading the alpha test section of the forum and how much bugs we've experienced? or what delayed the last test by about a week because a game breaking bug was found hours before an open alpha test was about to launch?

Do you even know the average play time of people who joined the alpha test last time to claim that it's "easily playable for hours on end".re fact that you think 'research' is just "watching hours of gameplay" and looking at their timestamps brings me back to my point; "You honestly need to research what you're saying and i'm not talking about going down the rabbit hole of Youtubers who have the same level of research skills as you."

Yes, here we go. Everyone still with me?

Seeing as you've "tested games since the 90's" then I wonder why you seem to struggle to understand some of the very basic concepts of development stages, and even claim that "speaking in general" this game is "early beta" when it's nowhere near beta?

now you feel attacked when someone points out your flaws? toughen up, not everyone is going to sugar coat the hard pills to swallow for you.

Oh no. Not feel attacked. Am attacked. Big difference. Kind of like what you are about to do again a few lines below this. By the way. I wonder how content creators who frequent these boards would feel about you insulting them as well. Like Oxfurd and Nekrage.

Know what's actually bad for the community?
People who spouts out their opinion without any actual experience that encourages other half wits like them to spout out more stupid things.

Really? But people who are so distraught by dissenting opinions, who insult and lie about community members while providing absolutely zero evidence to support your claims is good for the community? I wonder how many people actually agree with you here.

"I feel that this is a perfect example of unreasonable fans of a game"
Your feelings have very little weight when people are dealing with facts and logic.

But thanks for your "feelings". Tell me again who's being an "unreasonable" fan.
The one that logically and rationally elaborated their thought process, or the one that jumped into conclusion?

"You then became so distraught by your incorrect perception of what I actually said..."
The only one distraught here is the person making assumptions about something they have very little knowledge of and are know being called out for it.

Address what i've said to you, not how you feel cause clearly your feelings mean very little to me.

edit:

"This has nothing to do with Fractured and has nothing to do with whether I've played the game or not. It has to do with my decades worth of experience in testing."

". You are just upset, and you are making things up to try and support your argument."

lmfao

what else did i say, not say and made up?
since you're the expert on feelings here, why dont you got ahead and tell me more about how i feel, particularly about the situation.

dont play that bs where you try and deflect or try to talk without specificities in fear of being called out. Remember, everything that you've said is written, we can always just scroll back up.

anyway, this brings me back to my previous point of why im so heavy handed on people like you.

You spout out things you dont understand and fail to be objective, but rely on their emotions to make a decision for them "you are upset waaah waaaah waaaaahhhh"

and if you think that ..."I've also watched about every single Youtube video that I could find." is research, i've got some bad news for you pal.

And all of this above is your attempt to push onto me what you can't handle yourself. By claiming I'm the one in the wrong. I've now called out your inane rabble in a very specific way. You asked. You've received. I suspect that you won't learn from this though. Your unreasonable and malicious nature is now directly in front of everyone. I hope you enjoyed this. I certainly didn't.

This will be the last time I post here. I have no interest in furthering this discussion. You can take it as a 'win' if you'd like Zori. I'm sure you will anyways.

@Stacy555 said in How will work the repair system?:

I may be overstating or even partly missing the mark, but this feels to me that Lvl grinding has been replaced by resource grinding.

I'm not 100% certain of the direction they will take it. But my experience with Ultima Online tells me that item sinks are good. If you want a system where players have control over the economy, items having durability is hugely important in making that happen. I don't believe items should be repaired indefinitely though. I'd like to see something similar to Escape From Tarkov, where the max durability is reduced every time you repair the item. And at a certain point, it will no longer be as effective as an item, requiring your to replace it entirely. Perhaps, that can be extended to the enchantments on the item as well.

I think people look at grinding as a negative thing far too often. A game must keep our interests, especially so in a MMO. And not just keeping our interests short term, but for long periods of time. There should be some grind in any game that you play. If you are able to replace your gear with ease, no consequence, then why even have that system at all? With a city siege system as well, losing must have consequences. Being choked of your resources should be viable. I'd even argue that with the absence of a level system. There is even less to do. So grinding will likely be inherently more prevalent.

@Manaia said in Power Gap Struggles:

@d3Sync said in Power Gap Struggles:

I think you can let go to that tiny piece of pie. You don't need it. It won't affect the game negatively if you do. I'm only suggesting small concessions. Not the whole pie.

If we're using a pie analogy, look at it this way:
The nodes are wholesale
The city trade post is a retail store
Solo players are consumers

Consumers don't buy directly from wholesale, they buy from retail. They can't go to wholesale stores that provide to WalMart and buy their product for cheaper than WalMart sells it for. They go to WalMart.

The items ARE available for you, the wholesale and raw material isn't.
So yes, you can buy your pie. You can't buy your wheat, apples, and sugar though.

If we are going to continue the analogy in real world. One person could ideally go take a pickaxe and smack on a rock and find minerals. They could then take those back home and refine them on a small scale and sell them on etsy. They can't even purchase those materials at a cheaper cost from a market and make it themselves because the only place-able benches don't include making armor or weapons. In the real world, people can make real weapons at home with equipment that is affordable. So logically, and realistically, the system is flawed and nonsensical in Fractured. It's a gamey system for one, and it turns a whole player set away too. Unnecessarily I think.

Crafting takes longer. Harvesting takes longer. Refining takes longer. One person has significantly less money than a city. Everything is already stacked against them. Allow them to make some things. Toss them a bone. They will never be able to compete on the market with a city. But they can make a few coins for the work that they can achieve. It's a supplement to the economy. And ultimately, it's a choice. A chance. Give me the downside of it. I've given multiple reasons to consider it. I don't think the city game play will be changed because of it. You could even restrict a solo craft to one profession. So you'd have to specialize to craft a work bench at home. But the option doesn't exist. Give those people an option. That's all I'm saying.

@vedran625 said in Power Gap Struggles:

I couldnt post this yesterday the forums went down but here it is.

@d3Sync

Ok to start of i think it is important to understand that we are in an alpha, we are here to test the game and not to "play" as it were. I get it that everyone wants to MAXIMISE everything but i spend most of my time messing around with stuff trying to see if i can break it in some way. Or checking how things interact with each-other. With that in mind i think the current player experience is night and day of what I expect it to be in a released state.

Now to go over what you said. I actually dont think i misconstrued what you said rather im questioning what you define as progression and reaching end game. What people consider progress, and how they set goals is different from player to player. In fact i think that we can both agree that cities need to be more accessible to randoms and newcomers, and this is exactly what i wanted to highlight with the need for more permission options in cities.
Again i think that making work benches available to the public for a fee (some amount of gold or maybe a barter of some kind) would be a great way for towns to attract more people.

To look at the stuff you specifically highlighted:

A reasonable path to 80% of character abilities. Which may include access to most base abilities, outside of special mobs that are too difficult for a small group.

Im pretty sure you can already do this, unless you are determined to play a certain spec and never change your spells any creature can be countered at the current time. I can see some problems maybe with some tougher ones but 80% should be doable even then.

A reasonable path to 80% of possible knowledge points. This should be everything outside of special mobs that are too difficult for a small group, which includes city content.

Again much like the previouse point this is completely doable ... frankly i would say that at the moment anyone solo or otherwise can achieve both a 100% in skills and knowledge points. It will take you a while, and you will need to create setups to combat the different abilities the creatures have but its doable.
The thing everyone is concerned about here is the Legends, but i think things like this need to exist to keep everyone interested not just the solos/small groups.

Now for the part where i have to disagree.

The ability to craft every basic armor set in the game. Meaning, the base armor set of light, medium and heavy. Which would require the ability to craft work benches at your home.

The ability to harvest anything, outside of nodes. This would require !rare! high level harvest-able nodes in the open world. City nodes would still be incredibly important.

I do not think that an individual should be able to craft anything past the basics in their own home. The way the game is structured right now there are very few armor sets to craft, and the complexity comes down to the material you want to craft them out of. Thinking about it I would like to know what exactly you would want to be able to craft in your home in the current build. Where do you draw the line and why !? Should everyone be able to craft weapons and armor from some basic material (one that gives +0 bonuses) ... maybe but then the materials come in question.

When you speak about the harvesting outside of nodes I guess you are specifically speaking about the ore at the moment. Since there is not really any resource that you cant harvest outside a node apart from those at the moment. This is where I have to heavily disagree with you because if these "rare" were so rare that the big groups were not concerned about them it means that it would be an incredible grind to pile up enough of them as a solo, and on the other hand if they were not SO rare then the big companies would themselves camp those resources to pad their own numbers.

To finish of i would like to again say that there needs to be a focus on pulling everyone into cities, and in order for that to be a thing there needs to be more permission options (and probably a detailed log of what is going on in the city, who is taking things out of smelters/storage and who is crafting what etc).

Alright. So when thinking about this, as a solo player, you need to consider the mindset of one. They don't like anyone carrying them along. Often times, these people only have a friend or two that play. Or they don't have any. So I feel that they need a reason to interact, as it's just not in their nature.

Currently, the only thing they can do is create charcoal, harvest stone and plants, and create hide. The problem is that only one of those things is actually valuable to a city. Well, for the most part, it's enchanting resources. I'm worried that eventually, even that profession will be taken away from the solo player, as I've heard that tanning tubs once were place-able in housing plots, but no longer are. Perhaps leather working table as well? Not sure.

What is the incentive to go to a city? Game mechanic? I feel like that's a very poor way to design a game, when you're trying to convince people to play AND stay. There must be a way to give solo's more of a natural progression to push them towards city life in a way that doesn't feel forced. Where simply playing the game as it is, would naturally guide the player to cities.

Solo players have no bridge in my opinion. They can't become group players. The gap is too large. Their natural play sessions will be short. The life of their desired path is shallow. It includes the tutorial, some exploration to find a horse, grinding 1000 gold to buy a plot, and building their home. Then, they are left wondering what they could possibly do. Perhaps joining a city or guild is too much of a leap for them. At least right now. So how do you nudge these people in the right direction? This is definitely an alpha. And there will be a few other activities that could prolong this. But not many in my opinion, and not for long. A lot of them are group based. And the issues that most affect solo players will still remain.

Not allowing them to craft anything valuable. Not allowing them to harvest anything valuable, outside of enchantment reagents. Not allowing them to refine anything valuable. So what is the draw to cities? Hell, what is the point of a house? Just extra storage and a place to respec? No vendors, and will there even be any long term? This isn't even so much as a cry for representation for solo players. It's a highlight to a very shallow early game that forces players into decisions artificially.

I'll try and define my idea of basic materials. One step above primitive clothing that is done in your inventory. Not just hide and cloth. It would also include refining basic leathers and crafting basic leather armors. Refining basic alloys and crafting basic metal armors. So in terms of workbenches, I'd propose that non-citizens could have a basic smithy and smelter. A basic tanning tub and leatherwork bench. So on and so forth. The cities would have access to advanced workbenches. They would make all of the special alloys and leathers. Similarly, enchanting tables would stay, but not advanced ones. They would be in cities. That's the sort of way I'd like to see things play out. If you do that, you'd give these players the natural reason to take the crafts they've made into the cities for trade. Right now, the only reason is because the game tells you that you have to, or you can't progress. Or, you must grind your heart away to purchase gear to make your character more powerful. Which is fine. That's part of the economy. But it shouldn't be the sole reason. I believe this anti-solo mindset is creating a gate to content that isn't necessary.

Then, obviously, if you're going to let players refine, then you must allow them to harvest. I'll toss out an easy number, for the sake of conversation. On average, every 10 stone nodes that you mine, you'll get a random non-stone block. Of those non-stone resources, they'll have varying chances to drop as well. Including gems. This would at least give these players a chance to get something of value. And while it may not supplement the economy in a meaningful way, in terms of city needs, it may just be another bridge to convince solo players to interact in a natural way, without feeling forced. It will give them something valuable to barter with, as rags won't cut it. Weave all of these basic materials into common items, such as housing decorations, non-combat clothing, trinkets, weapons and armor, capes, etc. It would create a sort of sub-economy with the average player that wouldn't particularly effect the city economies. It's that sort of complexity that keeps people playing the game. Being able to sell the things they find, because they have value. We already know that charcoal isn't going to cut it for higher level alloys anyways. So even if they needed coal for something, they likely can't craft it with a basic bench, and even if they could, they'd have to go barter for coal in order to get it anyways. But, maybe they'd find JUST enough in those rare drops occasionally to create something valuable.

I think there are too many people trying to defend the city life idea. And too little people actually considering the downside of neglecting an entire play-style. I'd love to think that you're right about the game playing completely differently when it is closer to full launch. But I don't have that information. I can only tell you what my experience has been sans group/city play. I was done in three days. And I've had people tell me that I'm slow. That should send alarm bells off in every direction for the community and the developers. There may be hundreds of hours of city/guild play to experience. But getting to that point is the issue here.

Unfortunately it simply isn't possible, unless it's an instanced area only involving two players.

No amount of mechanics and clever thinking can create a multiplayer open world, where you only ever encounter solo opponents. Not one that can't be exploited at least.

This is a group oriented game. You will have to be crafty as a solo player to take out multiple targets. Stay away from legends. Take the road less traveled. Learn how to run away, as you'll be doing a lot of it. Stay away from warring factions. Stay away from dungeons, when they are introduced. Stay out of Tartaros, when it's introduced. And if you must take a chance, do it on off-hours, or take a few friends. Learn how to manipulate chat, in order to pull people off your trail. And ultimately, expect to die. A lot.

@GamerSeuss said in First Impressions on the new City System:

@d3Sync you're forgetting that Cities needs must be claimed and built up first. Resources need to be allocated to all kinds of buildings, and even if a Harbor is a priority, Town Hall, the Bank, and the Tavern are still the first 3 buildings needing to be established in a city.

With the currently proposed method, Harbors are available day 1, as soon as a group gets sufficient funds to utilize them. This means if your city is over on the North coast, not really close to many Humanoids that drop gold, you can send your characters over to another area where such mobs are more prolific, build up your actual Gold store, then pay a Harbor near there to jump back to your city and utilize this gold in the building and maintaining of the city near the harbor, and solo players can also use the harbor to safely avoid the thick of things in the middle of the continents without having to run wide around the parameter of the map to get anywhere. All Harbors are thus open, all the time, not vulnerable during a siege, not dependent on the city being claimed and built just to get up and operational.

YES, a city would value their harbors, that goes without saying, but ultimately, the harbors are an open resource, not meant to be attached to or dependent upon a city. It might be a little more gamey than the rest of how Fractured works, but it makes perfect sense and its a reasonable compromise.

Yeah, then I guess I just disagree. I wouldn't say that I'm forgetting anything. I'm just trying to learn more.

It's not very different than one city going high in a tech tree in one area, and another going high in the tech tree in another. It's a balance, based on what the owners of the city require. Harbors being able to be used on day one makes little sense to me as a benefit, as no one will have the resources to move people around on day one. Perhaps, instead of relying on harbors to be the only way to fast travel, they could add ancient portals to the continent. There could be 6-8 of them in specific locations, spaced out across the map. It would potentially bring PvP to the area in some cases. It would require certain reagents or items in order to pass through, but everyone could use them as long as they could pay the cost. Then, harbors could be re-attached to the city infrastructure. So if city management decided that they didn't want to spec into harbors, then they didn't have to. It could be a strategic move by them.

It seems like they are forcing harbors onto everyone because they didn't like that no one was using them. My suggestion would fix both problems. Being able to fast travel via portals and not forcing a game-y mechanic down everyone's throats.

What do you think about that?

@Zephyron said in Upgrade Eternal Pack:

@GamerSeuss

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. Adding new features and then handing them out retroactively in no way devalues or "emotionally slaps" people who already paid for the pack though. No offense, but that's kind of silly. I highly doubt any eternal pack owners will be on here complaining over getting some extra goodies if that were to happen. All good either way though, I'm fine with the champ pack.

Especially considering that they just recently changed the value of the lower packs in order to give some of them access to the alpha tests. So Dynamite has already set a precedent of changing the values of pack rewards.

I think it's bad practice to lower values. But making them better on the other hand. There is nothing wrong with that.