Like in the couple other threads I'm still opposed to the idea, simply because feature creep is a real problem with software development. As soon as they have a solid firm grip on the minimal viable product, sure, but until then, there's a plethora of problems and stuff that could go wrong that is bound to delay the launch of the game enough without further stretch goals.
@Jetah said in Summon Fellow Demon Players Ability:
(...)you're expecting a human to summon a demon to be skipping an invasion. which it isnt(...)
No, I wanted to point out that the concept completely devalues the rare experience that visiting other planets would be if the only means are through the portals.
It's a bit like finding a gold nugget compared to finding sand, the simple fact that there's hardly any effort involved in finding sand and that it is such a frequent occurrence makes it worthless.
@Tuoni said in Stretch Goals:
And the reason for delays has been stretch goals?
A mixture of feature creep, perfectionism and an absurd amount of confidence in a team.
The idea is quite simple, people are willing to spend x amount on a game (a little more if you can nickle and dime them into pay to win). If you can use that funding to develop the main product, you can 'ease out some bumps and roadblocks along the way' and thus have a better chance to deliver and within a reasonable time-frame.
@Jetah said in Next test phase:
(...)people will start to think they were scammed.
I only just recently had to 'relearn' the lesson that these kind of assumptions can be way off on today's market. Best example, Chronicle of Elyria's Kickstarterversary earned them more than $650000 in 2 weeks with not even an Alpha released after more than 3 years of development and the umpteenth time they delayed something.
@Jetah said in Stretch Goals:
what do you think stretch goals are?
I think the difference he meant to point out is the fact that most every MMORPG actually keeps 'developing/adding new features' after release in order to provide new content and keep the game 'alive'. That is usually done without explicit 'stretch goal funding'.
@Jetah said in Rhykker Mention of "Pay for Convenience":
(...)Add in some great way for cosmetic skins to drop from game content then add a way to trade items for dynamite gold and it can be a great monetization system. They dont have to sell convenience at all.
The problem is that it's usually the 'easiest' and 'short term most profitable' route and hence such an huge issue with plenty a game. Let's hope the developers can handle this well in Fractured.
Again, thanks for bringing this up Jetah!
@Jetah said in How many channels will there be if implemented?:
I'd guess they have access to x blade servers under contract but because most centers aren't 100% full they can expand to 1-5 more.
That's not how cloud computing works. You aren't dedicated a fixed amount of blades, but instead you rent a specific amount of CPU time/traffic/...
It's a bit like taxi versus rented car. If you call a taxi, you aren't getting a specific car, you're simply paying to be taken from A to B, but don't have to bother how that's being done.
@Jetah said in Rhykker Mention of "Pay for Convenience":
(...) I'm not sure they have time. Actually another spotlight is due! the last spotlight was july 2018...
I'd much rather they focus on development right now. The recent conversion was a massive step for them, but one that threw their schedule out of the window.
@Jetah said in [How many channels will there be if implemented?]
(...)i would have thought it would have been part of the same hardware. instead of using 5% over 25 servers they'd use 90% over 2. this way the power usage is lower.
No, it would use more power. The reason is as simple as you trying to fit the most baggage into a car when going on a ride with friends. You would rather try to squeeze some small bits into free spaces instead of driving with a second car.
Cloud computing relies on the same mathematics as assurance companies and banks. Not all of a customers resources are used at all times, so you can take what is not used and hand it off to another customer in the meanwhile.
Actually, you can even try it out yourself if you're curious Google's cloud has a 'free tier' 
@Basileus said in Rhykker Mention of "Pay for Convenience":
(...)If we define P2W as "Pay to Win"(...)
We could as well discuss pay to get a statistically significant advantage in a local or global competitive situation (P2GSSAL/GCS), but I'd wager most people are too lazy to actually type that and would rather just use "P2W" instead, if they are already too lazy to type out pay to win 
@Jetah said in How many channels will there be if implemented?:
at least with using 2 of 10 you could turn off 5 of them and save that power until your 4-ish are at 80%.
I think you misunderstood what I intended to explain.
In a traditional concept, where, like you mentioned before, a customer is warranted a certain number of blades, it doesn't matter if these blades run at 0, 1, 5, 10, 50 or 100%, they have to run. That is what you paid for as a customer and if you're not getting it, it's fraudulent. Since, as a company, you likely have high and low times for customer access (you see these spikes when looking at almost any game over 24 hours), you need to plan for the high end usage and most your hardware runs idle during the low end usage phase.
With cloud computing, you are not guaranteed a specific number of blades, but instead a specific amount of resource (per time). Where and how you're getting these resources is abstracted from you (black box). Your game company still has high and low usage times, but now, you can just pay for more during the high and less during the low times. And in the back end the cloud hosting company can mix and match you with other customers, without you ever noticing. That way, while you have a low time, you are paired with others that have a high time. In the end, you just share one physical blade, where in a traditional scenario, you'd be on two blades one running at maybe 25% and the other at 75%.
@Pluto said in Rhykker Mention of "Pay for Convenience":
I don't follow (...)Battles will be won with (...) numbers(...)
That's the point I was trying to highlight that you do not seem to understand. I am not talking about the 10% knowledge gain benefit, but about any 'time saving', because saving time ALWAYS means that you can gather more resources faster than somebody who doesn't have the 'time saving benefit'. Which means you can send more players back onto the battlefield fully equipped. Which means you have a higher number of players. Which (as you agreed on) is a determining factor on winning a guild versus guild conflict.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
I'd rather the developers focus and spend their time developing the game right now
Later down the road, I'm sure they are going to revisit the Foundation system again.
@Yitra said in Rhykker Mention of "Pay for Convenience":
(...)or do not want to spend it expect to be on par with people who do spend money(...)
I already spent money to purchase the game. Have you ever considered that it's not about people being opposed to spending some money, but about people that don't like continuously having to spend ridiculous amounts of money to be on par with their opponents? Remember we are talking about people spending tens of thousands of dollars on a game.
I'd like to be a competitive player, but keep a reasonable money spent on a game ratio.
@Bryserker said in Races and playstyles:
"if you're doing PvP on Syndesia with a Beastman you have no advantage compared to Demons and Humans. If you're doing it on Tartaros, you're heavily penalized compared to Demons and quite penalized compared to Humans."
Prometheus was talking about the 'base race', whereas Gothix was referring to an 'advanced stage', so to say.
Starting out, yes, Beastman are probably your worst choice to PvP (though they can still find it if they actively go looking for it) and Demons/Humans are a better choice (personally, I'm going to claim that Human is best for PvP but that's an old debate between me and Prometheus, only the final game is going to show who was right in the end ).
That said, as Gothix mentioned, Beastman can turn into Abdomination and Demons into Angles (through a series of actions and quests), which kind of 'turn the race into the opposite).
PvP is also determined by alignment. It's a bit complex as you can already guess.
@Jetah said in Give us Attribute Resets please:
(...)that point you're trying to make is pointless(...)
The point I was trying to make is that there's two possible routes suggested in the thread so far. One, completely free attribute resets, the other 'somewhat expansive attribte resets, possibly over time'. Both of these suggestions are a result of the desire to avoid having to create additional characters once the player chooses to try a different 'build'. However, with races and their impact, you would still have to create multiple characters if the race you choose doesn't suite your desired experience. Hence, the question, if the effect isn't as desired, why not leave the situation as is?
(...)some games can be quite playable even those are at alpha state. Albion for example was very playable in alpha(...)
That's what I meant to point out. A game is in beta when it is playable, simply because alpha means that it is not feature complete.
@Razvan said in New spell Ideas:
Coop combos is a neat idea and adds a lot to the gameplay.
Isn't it a bit early to discuss this though? There's still a lot of functionality missing in the game that has to be finished first before there's any spare amount of resources to dedicated on additions. Feature creep is a very real threat in game development.
You might want to check the roadmap from alpha to release, but keep in mind that these are estimates. As you can see, they are a bit behind schedule, but not in a concerning completely off way. You should always add a year to any release date that is further then 2 years in the future, just to be sure
Counter-question, if you're going to to put a picture on a wall, do you shop nails, or do you first search for iron ore, refine it to iron, forge a nail and then use it?
Whenever you can cut corners in software development, you do, that saves time and money and allows you to deliver a cheaper product of higher quality faster.
Now that doesn't mean you should use bad assets, but as long as the quality suits your standards, there is no harm in doing so, just benefits.
As to why the stress test revealed issues under load, that is what a test is meant for, it was rather successful in that regards. If you expect a flawless experience from a test two and a half year before the product launches, you might want to reconsider your exposure to early production stages.