Posts made by Mirgannel12

There is of course an issue with giving only governors and vice governors all the control, which is a problem even now (though there will I believe be ways of replacing these people by voting or siege etc.) Namely; what if the people with the power to do all these things happen to be offline for whatever reason? Time zones also come into it; what of the players that are on when all the governors are asleep?
I suppose that the main thing is citizenship, which a player might have to wait for, but that shouldn't be an issue, are there other things that require direct access to a governor? I'm beginning to think that this is much less of a problem than I thought

Still, what if a governor stops playing completely? and are there powers that vice governors don't have? All I can think of is the power to promote someone to governor

@Tuoni Ok, Thats what I thought, but I really hope that the Angels and Abominations are categorised as wildfolk and demons respectively in regards to planetary freedoms and restrictions

Tartaros is a dedicated PVP world, everyone knows that, Arboreus is PVE, so players starting in those worlds will be primarily doing whichever the world they chose is specialised for.

So, Syndesia, being a world that allows both, needs to allow both, but not only that, to encourage both. PvE still exists in Tartaros, and PVP in Arboreus, so simply allowing both isn't enough.

Even having neutral, good and evil 'regions' (which are likely to develop, and usually seem to in the tests) isn't the final solution. Evil regions wont be entirely PvPers, or vice-versa, so, while there will be a natural progression towards various factions and alliances and so on; who is at war with who and who is neutral, who are to be attacked and who not etc. Including more systems and mechanics to facilitate communication between players and factions would allow the players to work things out as they go, instead of everyone trying to settle on mechanics that everyone agrees with.

P.S.
How will demon/wildkin travel and stay on syndesia work? is it still time limited? or can they remain there indefinately? and is duration of stay on Arboreus/Tartaros determined by race or alignment?

I ask because many players will want to explore other worlds as the 'wrong' race, and I'm sure this has already been settled, but I can't quite remember and race should certainly be, if not separate from alignment, at least separate-able.

At first I was thinking that, yes, Syndesia and humans are 'Neutral' but they are, at least nominally, more good than evil, in that they have more in common with good than evil as a rule.
However, adding in the post by @Rife about neutral alignment, there is a point to be made for changing Syndesia and what it means to be 'Neutral'
This would have to also take into account the discrepancy with loot drops for different alignments.

If Tartaros is evil, and any good players there have only a short stay, debuffs(?) and the entire population after their heads, with Arboreus being the opposite, then why not make Syndesia truly, if not neutral, then at least equal?

Give good players in Tartaros the same problems as evil players in Arboreus, with full loot drop if you like, but equal if opposite, and give good and evil players the same legal penalties on Syndesia.

Make it so that in the same way that good players can hunt down and imprison evil players, evil players can do the same to good players. Since there will be evil aligned cities and regions anyway, then this way neither alignment can complain about unfair treatment.

Neutral players on the other hand, should have both greater and less protection; on the one hand, while good players in evil zones will likely be attacked on site, and vice versa, though every player will react differently, then Neutral players in either good or evil zones could be viewed as untouchable, being attached to neither side; enemies, because they are not allies; spies, traders, whatever the situation calls for.
Neutral players should be able to be attacked by any, because they refuse the security of either side, but potentially be attacked by neither for the same reason. They should be able to attack any (though not steal I would say, crimes aside from murder should be kept solely for evil alignment, only because there is no other way to protect against theft than to have the one side incapable and the other side visible as potential criminals, if there could be another way to register criminal activity that would be good, but as it is...) but karma would still be affected normally (there is a point where negative karma forces alignment change to evil isn't there?)

@Vortech It would be cool to have different arrow types and stats for different materials, but that would of course be something that non-archers don't have.
Personally I dislike that games need to 'balance' weapons; even if you suck with a bow, there is no disadvantage to taking a few shots at the guy before he gets into melee range, and even the worst archer can kill the best warrior, archery is inherently unbalanced.
I like the idea of having different weapons as situational/strategic, where you can start with a long ranged weapon, then go to melee, but thats starting to get off topic.

I do see what you mean about 'crafting progression' stones are heavier but dont require anything to aquire, where bones are lighter and you can carry more for future arrows, once you manage to kill something to get them (though I believe the stone/bone arrow heads weighed the same?) and without different stats its really not so interesting.
That being said, and this could be applied to lots of other things in the game; if done correctly weight can be a very good balancing mechanic; more powerful but heavier and more expensive VS lighter, less powerful but cheaper (Morrowind did this brilliantly)

After hearing all these ideas and opinions, I'm leaning away from auto targeting/attacking.
My initial suggestion was mainly to deal with problems hitting your target, not so much targeting itself, so if those issues are fixed, auto systems wont be needed. (Can anyone say what specific circumstances lead to arrows missing at close range? I can't remember if it was specifically targeting, because I know that often, when trees are in the way and such, aiming before or after the target in the correct line rather than actually having the cursor on the target can fix targeting problems)

@GamerSeuss In the system I mentioned where it is only ordinary attacks that are automatic, you would have a hard time winning on autopilot because for most fights you still need to use skills. I was also assuming that clicking anywhere else with the mouse would disable the automatic systems. you would still need to select your next target as well.

Torchlight had a real problem with ranged combat because you had to click on the target for every single attack, and with enemy movement that was hard enough, when you add other enemies that you don't want to target yet (prioritising targets) that makes it even harder, and you cant move while attacking, so a miss is very bad. Add lag to the mix and you have an un-playable game (no lag in Torchlight because it's single-player, but Fractured has lag)

The Fractured system is better because you can hold right button to attack and then hold left to run, so kiting is not too bad, but with any lag you might as well logout; you wont hit, you cant time skills, nothing. At least with melee you can still just swing your weapon around and hope. Also, objects; if the enemy is behind a tree ( which is often) you can't hit them with ranged, but you can with melee (Does toggling combat mode fix this? I keep forgetting to use it :/)

All this system would do is give ranged combat the same ability that melee has; namely to hit your enemy (with ordinary attacks) I get that ranged has an advantage in that it can hit without being hit, but (I believe) that the damage is already adjusted to compensate for that, and the view distance is incredibly limited anyway.

My main issue is arrows not hitting at close range, and I do actually like that the main 'difficulty setting' in Fractured is your own personal learning of what works when and how to use what you have to best advantage.

@spoletta That would still put archers that spend a lot of time running away at a disadvantage

@spoletta considering that skills/abilities/spells (the things that you use to kill things that cost mana, whatever the name is) are also used by monsters, perhaps, and I know it would be a lot more work, but the system could be based on what is done by, rather than what is done to ie: every time a player uses a skill, or attacks with a weapon (potential problem there, what about accidental attacks, practice swings, missfires etc?) or an attack/skill is used by an enemy and hits, the wear is applied based on the skill/attack.
So every weapon would have a 'wear per attack' value, as would all skills whether player or mob controlled.

I don't like time based, I tend to use the slow and steady approach so...

@spoletta So maybe they should change the wear system? percentage of wear to all equipped gear based on knowledge gain from enemy defeated?

@spoletta

@spoletta was there a particular reason? melee doesn't require aiming, at least not specific targeting, and even arrows only require that the arrows path intersects with the creatures hitbox, all it really means is that now you fail to actually fire the arrow when the mini-map gets in the road. I guess it would be important for PvP though. perhaps targetting doesnt work on players? but npcs run straigh at you anyway, so aiming as a necessary skill isn't the issue, its just the annoying HUD bits and trees and other creatures and close range issues that affect targeting, none of which melee has to worry about.
and as I said, targeting at close range with a bow often sends the arrow over their head, which could just be a bug?

The reds on arboreus I was referring to were invaders yes. I knew you can't change to evil alignment on Arboreus, but are you saying you can't go there as evil? I thought it was just access to areas and time limit that alignment affected? so yes, not in a day to day sense like on syndesia, but people on Arboreus would encounter reds from time to time, at which point they will likely attack or flee, assuming them to be enemies, which was what I was getting at.

I think that once the entire game is finished and put together, the visibilty that reds get will frankly be enough penalty on Syndesia; most of syndesia is likely to be good or neutral aligned, where being evil will often make you an instant target, but there will still be some regions where players are mostly evil where it will be the reverse, which is exactly the dynamic that Syndesia is supposed to have.

Good players will (hopefully) have the protection of the majority and 'social justice' in most of Syndesia, where evil players risk their loot just entering, while bounty hunters and parties of good players will be a threat even in the 'red zones'.
Evil is it's own penalty.
Ideally anyway, besides, evil players will have to deal with other evil players as well...

I haven't used higher tier gear so far, so I don't know the wear rates, but I think most players will have enough to worry about with the ordinary wear, don't forget, not all evil characters will be players that are always PKing; there will also be those that suck at PvP that just want to try it out. Not to mention that whatever systems are put in place to penalise the dedicated griefers, will almost certainly be counteracted by them in some way; make it harder for them to do it and they will just form bigger gangs or use dirtier tricks.

@spoletta but weren't there metal arrowheads? craftable at forges? I'm sure I remember seeing them at one point...

First point is about general combat; could there be an 'auto-attack' function added? In conjunction with an 'auto-target' function, specifically for ranged combat, but I don't think it would hurt melee.
AdventureQuest Worlds has a system whereby you initiate combat with a monster and you automatically auto-attack and target that creature until it is dead, but your skills can be used to replace your auto-attacks whenever you choose to activate them.
I have noticed that in melee range, arrows fly over the heads of enemies, and targeting is difficult, even if there is only you and one enemy, let alone multiple targets.
Having these automatic systems would also help kiting as you could run when needed and allow the auto's to kick in when you stop.

Second point is about the criminal system
It will be interesting to see what happens on Tartaros, where almost everyone will be evil; will there be chaos? everyone stealing and killing like, well, demons? how would you know who stole your stuff? anyway, time will tell.
Arboreus will likely be a case of; see red, kill red, while Syndesia on the other hand will likely have regions as 'home-base' for good or evil players, and where one enters the others territory, the outcome will depend on the people involved.
But even so, the good regions will likely be patrolled (to some degree) by bounty hunters, and so, particularly for Syndesia, which relies on a give and take between these forces of good and evil, both sides must then be equal.

I refer to looting, and I think I have a solution to the issue of looting differences between alignments.

Firstly, all players can be looted equally.
Secondly, no EQUIPED items can be looted.
Thirdly, value of items looted could be the determining factor for karma loss/gain. Perhaps the karma difference between the players? the more evil/good a player is, the more karma is gained/lost by killing/looting them.
I still don't like that a good player will gain karma by killing evil players, and not lose it by looting them. I understand it from a game point of view, but still; killing the bad guy and taking his stuff makes you a better person?

This way players can still lose their backup gear, their gold, their precious materials and so on, but they at least still have the means to get them back. Given the wear on armour and weapons, and the time and effort required to acquire high end gear, I don't think players need the added loss of the things they have at least managed to make. Players can still lose the materials for their next set of gear, their gear for specific fights, and so on, which frankly is bad enough, but to lose your everyday gear that you maybe just finally finished making...

I like what they've done with temperature and insulation and all that, though the stacks have no effect until 100? (outside combat) so... Also, getting 60 stacks of warmth(?) just from wearing fur armour is interesting, I don't know whether in a good way or bad yet, I just equipped it for the first time (with temp) and watched the stacks build up with slight concern, I didn't realise why there were building up at first (I went from wearing cloth to fur)

@spoletta Did metal arrow heads make more powerful arrows? were they intended to? I seem to remember that they still only made stone arrows...

@DarthJafo I meant ones that didn't need to be paid for, and to counterbalance that, they have very limited crafting available. But the hunting lodge idea is good, and basically the end result I was looking for.

@GamerSeuss what do you mean by unattached to the city system? as in just outside the city walls?
Considering that they would be as well as the large cities, I don't see a problem. anything your city can't make, you can buy, but at least you have a place for yourself and friends.

This isn't exactly my preference, just a suggestion.

Small cities would exist as an intermediate; places that involve the smaller groups of players, to insure growth and movement, because players can't achieve everything they want in those places, so they will have to move somewhere else at some point.
In the same way that large cities will be settled, decay, be attacked and taken, all of those dynamics, the smaller ones will as well, but on a smaller scale, so that players who can't be on for the big battles can do those things as well.
Small cities could fill the spaces between large cities in the same way that local governments fill the spaces between state governments and so on.
I think it would just give more depth to the system; instead of just having big cities or nothing, (land plots are still tied to cities technology tree) adding more degrees could make it more personalise-able, rather than joining a large city straight away that might not be advancing in the areas you want, you could join a small one, or help build one, then move later on when your options are exhausted. Smaller cities would also experience sieges more often because of the smaller number of players required (I have no idea how sieges work)

Not to mention, with a required 20 players, how many players will never get to actually help build a city? the only way for small groups to even be part of a city is to join one that is probably already built by then and, being run by larger guilds will probably never decay, even if it changes hands. The current system allows for solo (sort of) and large groups, but not for small groups.

After having finally managed to get in game for a bit yesterday, I really don't care about arrows anymore