@PeachMcD there will however, always be people that just started playing the game, and, particularly for this game, where guilds/parties/cities are so important, these people will need something to go on as to how to find those, and not everyone wants to just ask a question of the entire world, some people like to know things without having to ask, so perhaps a guild register or something in the starting cities, that the tutorial directs you to when you finish it? or something like the militias? i dont actually know how those work, do you need to go to the starter cities to join them? or can you join anywhere?
"Better a little doll, maybe, than no memory of Faery at all."
Smith of Wootton Major
Best posts made by Mirgannel12
RE: Guilds and new players
Is the travel instantaneous? are ships controllable like the wagons? or is it a scripted passage? do you have to stop? are there storms? currents? pirates? winds? can you travel directly from a harbour on one side of the continent to the other side, or do you need to stop at the ports on the way?
If anyone has played mount and blade viking conquest, in that game it is often most economical to buy materials in a particular port, and travel to the port most suited for selling at a profit, but also to buy and sell lesser amounts for less of a profit at ports on the way, this results in a 'scheduled' journey where certain stops are made and others bypassed. If merchants do something similar in fractured, which seems likely, might passengers seek transport even if the ship would not be going directly to their desired port? Skyrim allows a player to travel directly to a location, which seems uneconomical; simply taking a single passenger directly to a single location, so it would be nice to have passenger ships that would need to wait for enough passengers, and would make stops along the way, or merchant ships that trade as they go, rather than the usual instant and direct travel
The city of many names
Due to the changes made to the requirements for cities, most importantly the requirement of 20 citizens to claim a city, many smaller guilds, such as my guild, Mythopoeia, will no longer be able to claim a city for themselves.
Some guilds will likely take up residence in or around the city of a larger guild, and not mind much how that city is run, but I am sure there are other guilds, or even solo players, who would like to have the things a city can offer, but to also have a more weighty say in the affairs of that city than a mere squatter would have.
My suggestion is that some of the smaller guilds band together in a democratic union of guilds to appoint a governor and claim a city.
My first thought was that guilds of like interest might do this, but it occurred to me that such a union might in fact be better served from guilds with different, but not opposing, focuses; namely that one guild might primarily be in charge of farming, or crafting or PVE or PVP, and the other guilds prioritise the others, which would allow all guilds involved to pursue their foremost purpose, but be able to engage in the other aspects of the game at any time, as the other guilds have 'set them up'
I really think, and I've said this before, that there needs to be a way for people to join guild/party/settler groups, well, perhaps not settler groups, but certainly the other two, without direct contact.
Couldn't there be a place in the starting cities that, like the citizen 'book' allows players to request membership of a guild or settler group?
Otherwise the only real recruitment methods are through the forum, discord or by someone seeing a player in game with a guild name above their head.
RE: New Layout
@PeachMcD (I dont know how to do the thing you people do where you put the quote you are referencing in its own little spot)
Are these land parcels as of the new city layout? or the old one?
I did come across a few such habitations myself, and was likewise grateful, which does bring up another point; unlike 'real life', where a band of adventurers might happen on a hermits dwelling (hypothetically) avail themselves of fire and shelter, and be on their way either after destroying the place or doing some chores and tidying up after themselves, depending on what sort of adventurers they are, the hermit, upon returning home, assuming he had not been there at the time, would notice something, and realise people had been there, in the game however, aside from destroying the place, which i assume will be possible, there is no way for the hermit to know anyone had been there, or for a weary traveller to express their thanks, other than leaving some gift which might be taken by another adventurer.
I do like your idea of 'give a little take a little' but am likewise sceptical, then again, Fractured does have a criminal system that might be able to make it work; the main problem is that in games, unlike real life, there is little or no reason NOT to just take stuff, kill people etc. and players tend to do things they would never do in real life, or even if other players were around, and it doesn't look like the criminal system will be able to counter that
Then again, because items are all(?) player made in Fractured, and there is a criminal system, perhaps items could be 'tagged' as belonging to a certain player? so if an item is stolen, it might be tracked down.
RE: Non-Forum Players
I guess, and I'm not saying that guilds would let randoms in un-checked, but, particularly with a small guild, if the members of that guild aren't on very often, and all at more or less the same time, then firstly, they have zero recruiting power with non-forum players, because they would have to be seen by prospective members, and secondly a player wanting to join them would have to wait and hope that they came on at the same time. I mean, there isn't even a chat 'log' is there?
my point is; there is zero in-game communication between players that log in at different times, and in an online game like this any group of players, city, guild whatever, that intend to protect a community need to have players on, ideally a substantial amount at all times.
What about Guild Halls?
Latest posts made by Mirgannel12
RE: Neutral alignment
@GamerSeuss I suppose the Knowledge itself is neutral, though can you really apply an alignment to it? even if that alignment is no alignment? I was referring more to the pursuit of knowledge not being neutral.
I'm glad to have come across someone else who knows of Michael Moorcock, unfortunately I haven't read any of his works, I have Stormbringer and Mother London? I think it is? but neither are the first book, so I haven't read them yet. ( I found The Wyrd of the White Wolf, but I hadn't heard of him at the time and I thought is was some modern ripoff of The Witcher books, oh the foolishness of youth )
Does Moorcock also have Neutrality?
It's interesting that Neutrality is an alignment, because as I understand it, neutrality, rather than being a state between two extremes, is a state outside of the scale; as in a neutral country, rather than being part of the war and allied with neither side, is a country that is not a part of the war, rather than taking neither part, it is taking no part.
Neutral in a car is NO gear, not in any gear.
The word itself; Neut, as in not, nothing, suggests that Neutrality does not actually exist, but is merely a concept whereby the thing has no part in the issue, and given that, I would argue, having no part entirely is impossible, Neutrality does not exist.
If Neutrality is assumed to be something outside the scale, not in fact existing inside the 'system', and if knowledge itself is neutral, then, does knowledge intended for neither Good nor Evil, in fact exist?
Good would see Neutral as Evil, because it is not Good, and vice versa. Neutral is Lawful if it obeys any laws, and Chaotic if it disobeys any law, so if it cannot be neither, either it doesn't exist, or it is not taking no part, but rather taking both parts, to some degree.
Or at least this is the kind of 'Neutrality' I ascribe to, at least on the Law/Chaos scale; whereby I take some part in both.
Is there a word for a combination neutrality? as opposed to 'Neither' Neutrality.
Of course, I have a very poor understanding of the Law/Chaos scale, does it refer to legality or 'divine law'?
Disobeying a written law in pursuit of a higher law would be lawful or chaotic depending on which it is.
RE: Neutral alignment
@GamerSeuss as to the second part, there are those who desire knowledge for good, and some for evil, so there is no inherent neutrality about it, except that it is usually easier to pursue 'good' knowledge if you are not 'evil', and 'evil' knowledge if you are not 'good; if you are no-ones enemy, you have access to knowledge that would be denied their enemies, not to mention scruples...
But my main point was that the Knowledge System specifically is equally important to all alignments, so...
Planet alignment would make some sense, but would still have problems: what about visitors? are all legends summonable on all planets? etc.
I have previously asked about a way to learn abilities and gain knowledge without killing creatures, and one of my suggestions was a passive learning system, where just being in proximity to the creature let you learn. Someone replied that this would promote passive play, allowing players to gain knowledge without doing any 'work', and while I dont really understand why anyone would want to just sit there instead of fighting the thing, I agree there would be problems.
My new suggestion is that there could be action skills/abilities that work like the combat skills in that you have to 'engage' the creature and actively use skills while they attack you, only that these skills don't harm the creature, perhaps it could be that you 'tame' or 'capture' that particular creature rather than kill it to receive your knowledge.
This would ensure that any player not specifically intent on not killing, would simply fight it the normal way, as the end result is the same (except for the livelihood of the creature) and killing it will allow you to loot it, not to mention it would probably be faster and you would take less damage.
Additional to this, I Would like to ask about something I am sure I read, but naturally can't find any more, something about creature reaction to players being affected by previous interaction with them; ie: if you dont kill bears, eventually they wont attack you, or something.
I would like to ask if this is still planned? and if not, perhaps it could be the final result of my suggested Non-combat system: once a player has fully learned about a creature, without killing them, that creature type will only attack that player if the player attacks them. Obviously this would only apply to some types; 'beasts' like bears, spiders and so on as well as intelligent creatures/ elementals like goblins, trolls, treants etc.
Of course, part of the difficulty of certain areas is fighting your way to them, so this might still seem like cheating if you can just run past enemies, but I know a lot of players do that anyway to reach the harder areas they are going to, and most of the time players have done everything they want to do in an area long before they have gained full knowledge of a creature.
The Undead are obviously out of this idea, and the Legends are presumably not interested in being friends with such tiny pests as we are, and potentially, for example, shadow goblins are too 'monstrous', and so on.
Elementals perhaps could be aggroed by doing whatever they don't like, for example, a Treant seeing you cut down a tree will attack you, or really any primordial/elemental will take exception to the 'despoiling' of the land.
"Being under the patronage of Galvanos, the god of Knowledge, Neutral characters are now the only ones able to summon Legends and receive Lost Tales when defeating them."
I really like the idea of there being a game mechanic relating to the Legends; like the summoning and fighting of them is a real full on Endeavour; I'm picturing a party of adventurers making their way across the land with banners waving proclaiming to all that the seek battle with a Legend, and they have some sort of truce because of their quest (though a Legend hunting truce would have it's own problems) but I don't see this working, wouldn't it mean that evil players can't summon legends?
I understand that Galvanos is the god of knowledge, but considering how integral the knowledge system is to the game, for all players, not just neutral players, it doesn't seem quite right for him to have such an important role, and isn't Galvanos still technically 'Good'?
I can see Galvanos providing his devotees with some sort of knowledge related bonus, particularly for crafting and technology trees etc. but it would have to be something that the other gods could balance out, so that you don't have players who wouldn't normally be followers of that kind of deity choosing him because of the perks.
Maybe Galvanos does the magic side and tyros does the melee side?
Will the other axis of the alignment scale be implemented at some point? (Chaotic-Lawful as opposed to Good-Evil) I always though Galvanos was more Neutral Good than True Neutral
RE: Senatus Populesque
Considering that Fractured is an MMORPG, the entire game is essentially a social construct, and while solo play is technically possible, well, was, and might be again if they re-introduce single land plots, it would not allow a complete game experience, as the higher technology equipment will only be available in cities, speaking of which, if only syndesian cities will have a tech tree, how will alloys and higher technologies work on the other worlds?
Assuming then that any play style involving advanced technologies requires interaction with other players, which a solo player couldn't avoid anyway, and assuming that anything multiple players can do will generally be done by guilds, my suggestion is that there be game mechanics to facilitate guild activity.
I agree that guild membership should not be required to play any aspect of the game, but guilds will be the main framework of all social aspects, ie: most of the game, so if you want to solo play, but also want the best equipment, you will need to work with guilds, even if only buying and selling.
Guilds do provide their own benefits, but it would both easier and more immersive if there were mechanics to use; yes, you could just give money to a guild member, or you could give him a position that generates income. Yes you could give your guild members free/cheaper equipment, or you could have an armoury/guild rates at markets. And so on.
RE: Senatus Populesque
@GamerSeuss This is exactly the point I failed to make that there should be some sort of 'politics' to give dedicated players, citizens and guild members a 'reward' of some sort that wouldn't be much in terms of actually playing the game, more of a social thing.
On the one hand, players should be able to play solo, but on the other hand, there should be something to being part of a guild besides merely being in a group.
I imagined a scene where a player could live out in the sticks on their own terms, owing neither money nor allegiance, but receiving none of the technological or social benefits that a city would offer.
Or , they could settle somewhere there was fertile ground or mineral deposits, somewhere that they could be with other people, but not in a commercial center, where they could live and work, but where they would have to pay a little tax for the use of the 'crowns' land.
Alternatively, they could live inside a city, where rent was higher, but they were close to markets, technologies, etc.
This is all solo. But then, they could be a member of a guild. I don't know what would work, given the current game, as 'guild benefits' or what could be added to the game, but there should be some aspect of the game that allows a guild to gain something that a single player couldn't, I mean, a group of solo players could kill monsters just as well as a guild, so...
As to money, perhaps it could be worked that there is a set amount of money in the game; if no money leaves the players, then there doesn't really need to be 'new' money does there?
Just an idea, but, there is supposed to be weapon repair at some point right? what if metal ores were lessened, respawn set a lot slower, and players could 're-cycle' metal from weapons and armour?
A player could smelt his gold armour into money, or his money into armour.
This might also make players more likely to purchase equipment rather than make it themselves, which I think most people are doing, or at least getting it from associates, I haven't personally seen any armour or weapons in the markets.
Not to mention players would actually have to buy and sell to get money, rather than just farming it, and new players have to fight with primitive equipment anyway, so getting money to buy land would be the same, except that new players wouldn't absolutely have to kill monsters to get money, they could just sell flowers.
I have been thinking about the setup of cities; the 'tiers of power', Citizens and Residents etc. and one thing that I noticed is, despite all the focus on getting a group of settlers to claim a city, electing a Governor, determining Vice-governors, applying for citizenship, claiming residency and so on,
and despite the discussions about how guilds ought to work in cities; whether the Governors guild should have complete control or whether all represented guilds should have equal say, there isn't really much for anyone to have a say in.
I'm not sure how the alliance/siege aspects of the game work, but I assume they are determined by the Governors, in the same way that the cities tech tree is (I think?) and while the Governor will generally act in accordance with the populations interests, or at least justify their action to them, governors are basically the only politically active players in the game.
What I am interested in doing is finding some sort of way to increase the political dynamic of the game, particularly considering that Fractured is set to be purely player driven, perhaps there should be something for the players to drive.
While I'm not really sure what would work, I have a few ideas that might be worth thinking about.
Currently, there are four ranks of citizenship: Governor, vice-governor, citizen and resident.
Governors and Vice-Governors have all the power, with the only difference being Governors can demote and Vice Governors can't promote Vice-Governors.
Citizens have access to city owned property and residents have to build their own (for some things) however, they both have to pay for property.
I think that the current setup feels unbalanced somehow; the difference between the ranks is too much in some places and not enough in others.
I'm not sure if the election process is implemented yet, but I assume that citizens will get voting rights and residents won't, but I will address voting later.
I suggest integrating two more tiers of citizenship: 'Hermit' for want of a better name, which would be the re-introduction of single land parcels in the wilderness. This would not require payment, but can only support primitive technologies/crafting stations.
And 'Guild citizenship', which might work better as a parallel citizen rank; where members of the ruling/Governors guild would be highest, members of a Vice-Governors guild next and so on.
As to how this would work, see the Voting and Guild sections.
I have mentioned in a previous post the idea of a trial for criminals, which would be one of the things that voting would affect.
I imagine a lot of players will be thinking that anything to do with voting will be: un-wieldy, make the game too complicated, boring etc.
I admit it probably would end up that way, however I still think it worth consideration.
One of my personal problems with a lot of games is the pacing; you get on and yes there are mechanics that allow you to craft, to farm, to sleep, mini games and so on, but they don't really make that much difference, so you end up running from quest to quest without stopping and the atmosphere of the game is brushed aside because there is no real reason not to run from place to place and do the things that 'the game is all about', any attempt by the game to add 'realistic' features just get boring or frustrating and you do them impatiently when you do them at all.
I don't doubt that anything I suggest, were it implemented, would end up the same, however, here is my idea:
Based on the citizen ranking above, players would have voting power to match their rank; from the Governor, to Vice-Governors of the ruling guild, to the Vice-Governors of other guilds, to ruling-guild citizens to non-guild citizens, residents, 'hermits' etc.
This would encourage political activity within a city/region, so that guilds vie to become the ruling guild, non-citizens have a real reason to become citizens, rather than having a stagnant city that only changes hands when it is conquered or the Governor gets sick of the game and leaves.
This voting system would work by percentage of votes made, not by relying on every player to vote.
Voting would also affect commerce which I will discuss in it's own place.
As I understand it, I may be wrong, and there may also be un-announced plans, but as it is now, I believe that there is nothing that guild actually affects, except owner-ship and property rights.
I once posted a concept for a 'Messenger guild' which is an idea I still love, but would require the game to be very different, however, it is an example of what I am suggesting here: namely, that membership of a guild affect the game mechanics and not just inter-player dynamics.
Things like assigning a guild, based on either a vote, bribe or taxes, to have a monopoly on an aspect of the game, or paying less rent, getting things cheaper at markets, cheaper transport etc.
I will explain more about this in the Commerce section.
Basically, I would like guilds to have the power as a unit that they have as individuals; a guild is a group of players, which naturally means that its members will act towards the same goal, but as it is, they have to do it individually, member by member.
It would be more impressive if a guild-master could say: "(Insert guild name) stands with/against you!" and have the guild, at least statistically, then do so, rather than each member have to personally have his say for every matter.
There should be some reason for players to join or leave a guild, something that will cause there to be an ebb and flow.
There are many commercial aspects of the game that involve 'The Game' as a participant in the transaction; I believe that buying property, rent, and harbour fees, I'm not sure about markets, all involve the player paying money, some of which goes to 'The City' and some of which goes to 'The Game'.
Also, the market system feels incredibly impersonal, which is the one thing a market should not be.
If Fractured is to be a player driven game, let the players be the only participants.
There could be Harbour masters, who get some of the fee, and the City gets the rest.
There could be Market keepers who get paid to buy and sell, with a tax by the city.
There could be Property managers who get commission and the city gets the rest.
I don't know how this could really work, but even if the player who had the job didn't actually do anything, and just had the title and pay-check, at least the money would still be in circulation,
and it would be particularly unrealistic anyway
As to markets however, while I understand why it is done in the way it is; players don't want to spend all their time trying to sell stuff, particularly when other players actually have to be online at the same time,
but I really do think it should be less mechanical somehow, I mean, I really like the atmosphere that the picture on the website gives, the one with the Chadra buying a sword.
As I mentioned above, there could be city-assigned 'discounts' to certain players/guilds where the difference, in terms of the market where the money goes straight to the player, would be made up by the city.
On a side note, in the post where I discussed the idea of criminals being punished only for the crimes they commit, requiring discovery of the crime, apprehension of the criminal and determination of their guilt, and one of the things I mentioned was that items could have a 'ownership' system, whereby if an item is made, bought, or given, it shows that it belongs to that character, but if it is stolen or looted unlawfully, it would then be tagged as stolen, perhaps even with the criminals name, so that the criminals guilt would be proven. Of course there are problems with this system,
but it is an example of ways to convict criminals even if no other players are actually on to see it, which brings me to my point:
If there were no 'magical' safe zones in cities, there would be more crime, but if there was a way to determine the specifics of that crime by players who weren't there, then that could be another dynamic to the game.
Perhaps only bounty hunters could 'see the signs' that point out the criminal.