Posts made by Logain

@prometheus said in Major Milestones Approaching! (Or: Why We've Been So Silent):

(...)That being said, won't be gentle with botters.

I'm going to be cautiously optimistic and wait for your explanations and details.

Congratulations to the winners!

Welcome to Fractured!

@prometheus said in Major Milestones Approaching! (Or: Why We've Been So Silent):

(...)First of all, I'm incredibly happy to announce that, after long negotiations, we're about to hit a major milestone in securing funding for Fractured. By "about to", I mean we're actually only a few days away!(...)

Good luck!

@prometheus said in Major Milestones Approaching! (Or: Why We've Been So Silent):

(...)Well, the next update, scheduled for next week, will finally give you all the answers! :slight_smile: (...)

That would be neat! I hope you're going into detail and include the incentives to chose a Demon, the possible side effects of 'save areas' for Beastman (read easy botting and that influence on the PvP community) and a rough description of difficulty (opening Stargate versus Debuffs), just to name a few.

@jetah said in Pre-Kickstarter Exclusives:

(...)I wouldn't put the pre-alpha or internal testing tiers under 1,000$-maybe under the 500$ mark. You don't want someone to 'play the game', not like it and want a refund.

@jetah said in Pre-Kickstarter Exclusives:

(...)@Dagimir that isn't bad. just putting pre-alpha or alpha in a 75$ tier will do more harm than good.

What we know is...
@prometheus said in New info coming?:

@logain said in New info coming?:

Some games go in the thousands, some in the hundreds

We definitely won't go in the thousands nor in the hundreds for Beta/Alpha access!

Welcome!

@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)There is a possible way around that maybe we increased value of resources from the PvP planet? Instead of costing 10 ores its only 3 as oppose to the none pvp.

Other games that face a similar dilemma continuously fail on balancing that. The most recent example, Shroud of the Avatar, tried to give 'PvP players' a 10% experience bonus, but very few people choose to PvP there, simply because, despite the bonus, the balance is still off and there's little incentive.
How much of an advantage is it if 'your three bots are gathering 24/7 in a save spot'? How much of a disadvantage is it if you have to always expect PvP while hunting, whereas others can easily focus on PvE and thus tackle 'bigger fish'? There's no easy answer to that.

@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)My question would also be if demons would be at such a disadvantage with a debuff why would they bother with Arboreus anyway? In the sense if disadvantage is the problem.

[.] Because that debuff is situational (the Demon can decide timing and duration, simply through when the Demon chooses to take the Stargate), whereas otherwise it is permanent.
[.] Because there is an additional value (you can extend to an area where you'd normally not have access) and there's a reasonable justification for the debuff (evening the odds of a fight, the competitive PvP player accepts being on equal terms, but not to be put at a disadvantage).

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)Bots is a must to balance nerds playing h24 and normal people(...)

I'm fully with @Miffi when he states:
@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)If the game was meant to be botted there would be an in game function for that.

If the design of a game forces you into an action that is prohibited by the ToS, that is bad design. If your design requires persistent player gathering, first try to design ways to avoid this and if that's not working, enable the feature for everybody.

@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)Why would people need to cheat? (...)Also, yes, your right to a certain degree but that was your choice? You chose the challenge of being at a 'disadvantage' even though your desire to PvP was what drove you to that race and planet? Im also not completely sure why they would need to bot? Are you saying because they would be invaded by the no pvp planet? Sure there will be some who do, but the mass majority who are on those planets arent interested in PvP so that doesnt really apply here.(....)

Why a PvP player would have to cheat ('bot') is exactly what I tried to explain with my question for savings book versus stocks. If both yield the same interest rate, the additional risk of stocks leaves them as a meaningless option. If there is a benefit in form of a higher interest rate for stocks compared to a savings book, there is a higher reward for a higher risk and they are a valid option (which is why they are designed that way). In terms of the gameplay design, if you want people to take a higher risk, you have to offer them a higher reward, else taking a higher risk is just plain stupid.
Yes, we have been told that the influence of gear is not going to be 'game breaking', but that still leaves a lot of potential influence on the outcome of a battle, so gear could be 'semi required for the competitive player'. If that is the case, consider how much of a disadvantage it is to a player who is 'farming/gathering' in a PvP environment compared to a non-PvP environment. If there wouldn't be such a disadvantage, other people in this thread wouldn't right out state they would be botting and hacking in order to gain that advantage. Quod erat demonstrandum.

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)I don't want to spend the whole life on gathering/crafting making money in the case I suck in pvp so botting is a good solution to grind and avoid the loss of the time(...)

My point is/was that designing a game mechanic that encourages people to break the rules the developers create for their game is a bad design choice. You should never encourage people to use bots, since that means everybody who plays honest and obeys the rules gets the short end.

@tulukaruk said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)even better let's scrap PvP all together and make all planets PvP free(...)

Yes, I've said that repeatedly in the thread, if you end up creating a bad PvP system, better scratch that and don't design PvP at all, but in that case, be upfront about it.

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

What have I done?

Botting to gain resources to stay competitive, see:

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)the other time the bot was grinding money for you. I hate only those who use bots in pve or pvp content but if they use bots for gathering I have nothing to say cause I did too(...)

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

If splells will be strong and competitive enough I'll play naked.

In which case it's even less reason to root for a non-PvP planet. If a player loses nothing, why does it bother the player?

@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

But there would be interaction

That's exactly the point I was trying to highlight. Like I said, the concept works if there is NO interaction, but soon as you allow that interaction the design breaks and you force people into cheating (which frankly, no game should, since that's strange and poor design).

@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)What I dont understand is why its such a big deal to kill beastkin?
(...)Also which mechanic are you referring to specifically?

If there is any way where resources can be exchanged between a completely PvP on and a completely PvP off area, every competitive PvP player 'has to' break the rules and run bots in order to keep a steady influx on equipment, otherwise the players that come from the PvP off into the PvP on area for timed and planned PvP are always going to have an edge. Finland even mentioned he had been doing that himself in another game earlier in the thread. Which means every honest PVP player that does not break the rules gets screwed.
Is that good design? If so, why even have equipment?

Edit:
@evolgrinz said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

Question is, if something like that can be done for the worlds here, as they are just 3 worlds while EVE has a lot of systems.

It could be done, since you can always fragment a planet into smaller 'areas'. But a 'difficult and still possible' is not what the 'no PvP at all on Arboreus'-crowd wants. That's the problem the developers are facing.

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

Anyway who invented the "sandbox full loot" was prolly a fan of "gank and steal". A "new" trend of niche dead games.

No,

in it's first weeks.

Edit:
@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)Your desire to kill them just makes no sense. They want to be left alone, so leave them alone lol. If they want to pvp they will go to one of TWO planets that have it.

The fact that you cant see that does show a bully mentality. Thats the issue they have with you guys.

The issue is that these same people don't understand designing game features is a bit like a cog wheel. If you change one, it influences (plenty of) others. If there is no interaction and exchange between planets, then you'd be completely right, but that's not the case.

~posts a daily message~

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

@logain well if you don0t like to risk just play safe like care bears.. none is forcing you to play risky and none wants to force others to play risky.

Now you went from argumentum ad hominem to a straw man.
In case that you're interested in a discussion with refuting and counterarguments, answer my previous questions to let me know. If you're simply up to fallacy, I see no point in responding any further (no harsh feelings, I'm just not up for that kind of conversation).

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

You can get your loot in Tartaros and Syndesia. So I don't accept the excuse I can't get a reward.

There might be a misunderstanding here. Maybe I can try to explain this better through asking a simple (non rhetorical) question. If you have $10000 and should invest that, which option would you take, a savings book, where your money is 100% safe and you get 1% interest, or stocks in a company, where you can lose the invested $10000 and get 1% interest?
(And please explain your choice)

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)Dunno I play MOBA to win the match and scale up the MMR stats/ranking.

I've got to say that most MOBA players seem to enjoy scoring a kill, judging from what feelings are displayed verbally and visually in streams/videos.

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)PvPers should enjoy the risk(...)

They do, as long as there's a reward to the risk. People wouldn't 'gamble' (poker/betting/...) for money if they could lose money, but never win any and they wouldn't invest in stocks if they could go broke, but never turn in a profit. Being risk adverse doesn't mean you don't want a return.

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...) Well you can suggest something and we can discuss.

I did. I stated that beastman can play in absolute safety (under the currently suggested rule-set of difficult, but possible PvP on Arboreus) if they are willing to rally up and repel any invasion right away. In this thread, it has often been pointed out how easy and unfair a battle of unbalanced numbers (many vs few) would be and that there's a vastly greater number of PvE players compared to PvP players. If that is correct, Bestman can 'gank' Demons right at the Stargate can stay in absolute safety.

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...) I don't see why demons can't not go out on Tartaros and keeps killing like a deathmatch FPS. It's time to tell us your benefit thingy.

I was arguing your proposed rule-set, which hampers competitive players. The one thing competitive players dislike is being at a disadvantage, when the only reason for that disadvantage is that they like to be competitive (one wouldn't see an athlete racing at the Olympic games with weights?). With your proposed rule-set, things would be fair and work if there's no interaction and no exchange between the worlds (completely separate servers with no means to switch). That is not about 'benefit', but about fair terms.

@finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)Will be hard and not on the whole planet but let's wait for the next spotlight.

Again, I was arguing your proposed rule-set that suggested demons could not kill enemies on Arboreus at all ('Arboreus. PvP off.')
That's rather different from restricted and difficult. But I fully and wholeheartedly concur with you, I'm eagerly awaiting the spotlight which hopefully should detail out the developers vision and design choice.

@tulukaruk said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)Why trying to make the 3rd one least PvP possible is that bad of an idea in a game that's advertised as both PvP and PvE oriented?

I was arguing the rule-set @Finland proposed earlier in the thread, namely 'Arboreus. PvP off.'
I am fine with PvP possible but difficult.

@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

Well, you getting to PvP anyone and anything you see if your choice and your reward.

I repeat, I was arguing a proposed rule-set and under that rule-set ('Arboreus. PvP off.'), no, I can not PvP anyone and anything I see.

@miffi said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)But let them have their non pvp planet just like you have your pvp planet. And if you're just worried about them not risking much as you well have a debuff for beastkin on tartaros just as you have one for evil aligned on Arborus.

If there is no exchange between worlds, I'm completely fine with a PvE only-non PvP server, just like it's done with a lot of games.

(at)finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)The purpose of the moba is to win the match and destroy the core. It's not a rush on who get's more kills.

So, a kill in a MOBA is not rewarding? My point was, the PvP enthusiast would get the same and a better (more) reward, which leaves a lacking experience in your rule-set PvP Fractured and hence likely no Demons (they'd play different games instead, or give them a reason not to?).

(at)finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)A Demon can kill demons. If you need resources just go on arboreus grind your resources get your gear and then get back on Tartaros.

That still doesn't display any benefit of choosing to play as demon in your Fracture rule-set? Every other of your suggested races can do the same, but with less risk involved?

(at)finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)i'm suggesting solution for both sides

I don't see the solution you're offering for competitive, risk-vs-reward PvP players, that's what I'm trying to point out.

(at)finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)None of the PvPers suggested something to let PvErs play safely

That entirely depends on what you consider a viable, valid solution. If all Beastman team up and instantly repel any Demon attack, then all Beastman can play safely. The difference is that they have to work for an achievement. And that said, PvE doesn't automatically include absolute PvP safety (I know it does for some people, but not for every 'PvE player'). For a lot of them it's enough if PvP is tricky and infrequent in their 'PvE environment'.

(at)finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)@tulukaruk said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

Because just as @Finland said if the game isn't fun for PvE crowd we'll have at least one empty planet and the game will die quickly.

That's a fair point. But if the game isn't fun for the PvP crowd, you have at least one empty planet as well and I dare not take any forecast on the game's long-term financial stability, since a small indie team has a hard time competing with the triple A companies content and graphic-wise. My point was more like, if you set up rules so that playing a Demon only has drawbacks and no benefits, wouldn't it be better to not have Demons at all and focus on the other content instead?

@vengu said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)Do you really think a Demon is going to chase a Beastman ganker all the way to Arboreus?

I certainly would (try). It's a difficult challenge, so if I accomplish that, I get all the 'bragging rights'? A wise man once said, if everybody's a hero, then nobody is. Or in other terms, if you don't have the chance to do something out of the standard, then there's no room for really great experience and story that is going to be remembered (I don't recall how I killed my thousandths dragon, but I certainly recall how I lured a group of murderers into a one way with a point of no return, where they found themselves confronted with a group of people).

@vengu said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)I doubt that's something that's going to happen frequently.

The point is that it is possible. The difference between unlikely/difficult and flat out impossible can make a world.

(at)finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...) Your reward is the kill(...)

But a Beastman, a human, a MOBA player and a FPS player get that reward as well, don't they?
What's the unique selling proposition that the other's don't have?

(at)finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...) Anyway I got what kind of player you are.

Could you please stop the personal attacks (argumentum ad hominem) and focus on the subject instead?
That said, no, I doubt that. I enjoy the thrill of a real strategic environment. I am usually not the predator (though I do attack people if they misbehave towards me in order to 'moderate through the community'), but the prey.

(at)finland said in The PvE vs PvP Thread:

(...)offer every kind of gameplay, like:

• Tartaros. PvP on full time
• Syndesya. PvP on but restricted by rulset. (The only PvP allowed is during wars/siege)
• Arboreus. PvP off. You can flag PvP and kill flagged.
  (...)travels will be allowed but restricted by the planet law (...)That is how I would have managed it to make everyone happy.

Ok, let's assume I'm stumbling upon your advertising of Fractured with your rule-set and I think the game's generally interesting/appealing to me, how would you pitch the PvP aspect of your rule-set, so I'd bail in and pledge on the Kickstarter?
I, as a hypothetical PvP-player, seem to be getting the short end of the stick in this rule-set just about everywhere, despite being the most competitive sort of player.
As a demon on Tartaros, I take the full risk but have no reward, everybody (Demons, Humans and Beastman) can come and kill me on sight, but I, on the other hand, can not even take my revenge on the Beastman. This means, I am hard pressed to keep my equipment and all of my competition can enjoy regaining any loss in their save spot quick and easy, which leads to a downwards spiral for me (I keep loosing they keep gaining 'progress').
I have to be on my toes and 'account' for hostile activities whenever I go to hunt, leading to a slower progress (or a higher risk of loss), whereas the Beastman/Human can Min-Max their PvE skill/equipment time, leading to an even bigger gap.
Even worse, a group of Beastman could come, kill me, go back to Arboreus and taunt me with no possible means for me to defend myself from their evil words.

It seems I'd be better off playing a MOBA or FPS, where PvP is a main selling point and there's a reward for any risk I'm taking, then to pledge for PvP in your rule-set of Fractured, where I have all risk and no reward? What am I missing that would make me happy?