Posts made by Mirgannel12

@GamerSeuss fair enough, but the current hero profile on the forum does have the 9 alignments.

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

@GamerSeuss
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.

Question; what exactly is the deal with the militias? I've never joined one, are they just sort of 'NPC Guilds'
?

@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.

1: Citizenship

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.

2: Voting

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.

P.S.
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.

3: Guilds

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.

4: Commerce

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.

P.S.
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.

@Yitra sorry, still not seeing anything about hostile zones on Arboreus, it mentions areas that can't have PvP, but I didn't see anything about PvP specific areas, can you find me a quote?

P.S how do you do that thing with the little quote at the end of your posts and the link to your guild?

@spoletta ok, but is there a way to tell if an evil player has PvP mode enabled? or is it permanently activated for evil players?

@spoletta but isn't there a hostile setting? I think the button is P? there's a little symbol somewhere on the screen with crossed swords or something, are evil players permanently in that state?

@spoletta Then what is the indication of evil alignment? my understanding was that a red name meant evil alignment.

@Yitra I'm not sure what you mean by invasions in Arboreus and hostile zones, did I miss something?
In the completed game there will be reasons not to attack people, and if you do, not to kill them/ loot them, unless you are going for a full-negative-karma build, in which case there will be (hopefully) some sort of law enforcement you will have to match wits and steel with.

I frankly can only make a guess at what "full loot PvP game means" but expecting gentlemanly behaviour is exactly my point: Players are people; you would not, or at least should not, act in real life the way it is the norm to act in games:
Even when intending to do something in real life that will inconvenience or harm a person, whatever the reason (I'm talking like; police enforcing laws, and I mean in general, I am not commenting on any current events. Or being in a hurry driving to work so you overtake someone not exactly safely, or cut in front of someone. I'm trying to think of something that causes inconvenience but isn't mean, but all I can think of are crimes )

My point is: even if you were going to do, whatever the real life equivalent of killing someone in a game is, you wouldn't be rude about it like people are in games, even though it's mostly the games inadequacy to blame. Yes, you might be polite to their face while you did, whatever it is, and then complain about it later, but you would at least be polite to their face. In a game, you just kill them and take their stuff, because it's a game and that's what the game's about.

as to dealing with syndesia 'as is', it is currently testing phase, and perhaps people could act like it, there is no need to do what would be in character and acceptable in a game, during a testing phase. We have established that killing people works and you can take their stuff, now test other things.

@darwinjay all things being equal, two strangers meeting in a game have less to work with than two strangers meeting in real life, considering facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, etc. and while I can't say I've ever met a serial killer, I would like to think I could more easily figure it out in person than in game, even if only when he actually pulls out the chainsaw.

I am glad that my posts haven't been too subtle, I am indeed hoping people notice me.

My posts in which I have discussed evil alignment with Nekrage, who I wont tag this time may address this somewhat, but please consider that gamers are people too, and considering that this is not purely a PvP game, it cannot be said that all players, by playing the game, know what they're signing up for as it were.

What I am trying to impress is that there are likely to be a lot of players, not only in Fractured, that are new to the game, or bad at PvP, or just don't want to fight every player they come across that wants to fight them.

In the completed game, there will be mechanics to separate players of different interests, for the most part, and the times when they do interact they should be able to prepare for it. Until then, while all players are in one place, and the mechanics are not, I am suggesting that players can act like this is actually a test, and that people are entitled to test the things they want to test.
So, if you, being a red player, encounter a guy called 'falling leaf' or something like that, and he doesn't immediately come at you swinging, maybe he doesn't want to fight you, so ask him, or 'leaf' (lol) him alone.
And if you do defeat someone, considering it's a test, is it really necessary to actually kill him? Do you really need his loot?

@Hathos true, dark souls does have many ways to deceive, though if you play the game enough the chameleon spell doesn't work on you, you know where everything is, I found an invader that way once, he didnt realise he invaded someone who knew where every vase and lectern was supposed to be (I didn't realise the untrue white ring worked if you were already a phantom, I thought it only worked if you were the host, so that invaders didn't prioritise you actually, that doesn't really make sense, why would anyone be fooled by a red phantom pretending to be white? you would hope the host would remember they didn't summon that person/ there is a big flashing sign that says you just got invaded... unless there is lag)
As to betraying hosts, well then, you are exactly the type of player I had in mind when I wrote this.

A feeling of suspense is all well and good, when you are playing PvP and are near a bonfire, but when you're in a hard place to retrieve your souls, it's nice to know who your friends are.

I'm getting a bit off track now, but what I meant by showing your intentions was more in terms of what you don't do, like backstabbing the guy.
In Dark Souls, and Fractured, though the visual setup of Fractured makes it a little more difficult, you can show, by keeping your distance, where you stand, whether you help them fight their enemies (here I'm thinking more of Dark Souls 1 and being a blue phantom, where you can help the host you invaded kill red phantoms) stuff like that, whether you want to help them, fight them as the game intends, nothing personal, or if you are just a guy that goes around killing people in the middle of difficult areas because you're good at the game and their not and you find it funny.

there is a fine line between boredom and frustration, and defining that line is exactly what I am interested in doing.

@spoletta Is there a way to tell if someone is hostile? I thought the red name was just evil alignment...

One of the great problems with online games, particularly games that have strangers engaging in PvP, is lack of accurate communication.
In real life you can (usually) tell when someone is joking, or show that you are joking; body language, tone of voice etc. but in a game it is not so easy.
It's one thing to just attack another player on sight, but what you might view as a legitimate provocation might be taken as simple brutality, and ruin the game for that player.
It is often hard to tell what exactly is intended; do they want a friendly duel? are you trespassing? and so on, particularly when lag comes into play.

To use an example of a different game with challenging combat communication problem: Dark Souls.
Dark Souls has four communication systems:
1: Messages allow a player to give general information, but is too slow and too vague to be used in combat
2: Carvings allow a player to 'speak' one or two words, which, if skilfully used can be quite versatile, but a player will only have them equipped if they are currently focusing on PvP.
3: Gestures are a brilliant means of combat communication between players, though they can be cumbersome to select.
4: Action. Dark Souls is a third person game which makes it remarkably easy to show by your characters movements how you are thinking and what you intend: Are you a noble duelist? are you willing to back off and give them a breather? are you taking every advantage you can get? are you just a jerk? etc.

While I do not suggest any of the communication systems used in Dark Souls be integrated, or even think it would be possible, I would be very happy if someone could think of a more ergonomic way to determine or express exactly how you/they view PvP, because while Fractured does have an available chat, it is almost impossible to use while in combat.

Another related point; while I initially thought that combat in Fractured was simply a matter of activating skills and hoping you win, I was pleasantly surprised, once I figured it out, how much strategy you can apply to the game, beyond just having particular attack and defence types against certain enemies, you can use different skills to compliment others, or interfere with your opponents skills, etc.

However, I do feel that the fast pace of the combat, particularly PvP, is at best difficult for beginners.

On reflection, I must thank you @Nekrage, and apologise once again.
While I still think that The OranThul goes about PvP too aggressively, and that you bear some responsibility, as guild master, for the actions of your members, and I suggest that you might find people are more like to take you at your word and not write "salty threads" if your guild members actions are more in line with your own, I am indebted to you for helping me realise that a players actions are what others will remember about them, and not their alignment or associates.

which brings me to a point that I will address in a separate post because it deserves its own title
https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/topic/14097/in-communicado

I do hope that this is received in the spirit it is intended; I don't want to be a wet blanket or a prude, and I do sincerely thank you, you have greatly helped me to 'grow as a person' as they say but I don't want anyone to think I condone what I do not, which, again, I will address elsewhere.

I'll try not to tag you in anymore posts

Hello, I am (Technically) the leader of a guild, which currently consists of three other people, only one of which actually has the game as yet.
The name of the guild is The Beleaguered Fools, from a line in the poem Mythopoeia, written by J.R.R.Tolkien (The poem provides a sort of guide to the general 'ness' of the guild concept.)

I intend to prioritise crafting and exploring, which so far requires PvE, and, as many people on this forum can tell you, PvP is not a big part of the plan.
My only personal interest in PvP is in things like defending a city during a siege, or a wagon train from bandits, etc.

My ideal, though it is having a very poor beginning, would be to have a sort of 'over-guild' structure, where there are smaller guilds as parts of a larger guild. The larger guild would exist in all three worlds, hopefully in multiple places, so that the smaller guilds would be able to find supplies and allies anywhere in the game, without losing the day-to-day intimacy of a small guild.

P.S. I am more writing this for other people who might be interested in joining me, I am trying to get as much publicity as possible, and am having very little success but from your description of what you are looking for in a guild it seems like you would fit in with The Moonshadow Dryads https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/topic/13280/the-moonshadow-dryads-arboreus-pve-guild-eu-na-aus?_=1619601580408, if they are still interested in new members, I think i might remember @Xzait saying something about including EU members.

@Nekrage I'm sure it is not really that difficult to understand how people might think that way.

@Xzait has made the same point in a post of mine, which you did in fact comment on, though perhaps did not fully peruse, else your comment here might be needless https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/topic/13516/mythopoeia-modified/7?_=1618554739823 and my response is also there. (@Stormbug I found it I remembered that it was the same post as the 'Squatter-King'

There is certainly prejudice against evil players, but, while often incorrect, such prejudice is not unfounded; if all you know about a player is that they have chosen an evil alignment, it makes less sense to assume that they are nice than to assume they are not.

I believe that most players do not act on this prejudice, and replace it with more accurate opinion of the player so aligned, as soon as the players actions justify or disqualify the original prejudice.

My remarks about association are partly in reference to this prejudice; considering that no one can have no opinion of a person, and that whatever opinion they do have is compounded of all their relevant knowledge, I have no interest in including in anyone's opinion of the names 'Niggle' or 'Ralph of Upmeads' the information that they have been at some time of an evil alignment.

I have in fact, during this test, created a character purely for the purpose of trialling an evil-aligned character; 'Bull Shock-Head', whom I have as of yet done little with because I have been focusing mainly on 'Ralph'.
As well as this, and the reason I have not been in-game lately, I am writing a short narrative providing some insight into my concept for the guild Mythopoeia/Beleaguered Fools, wherein I detail the guilds relationship and opinion of 'Evil' players.

As a 'Role-Player' I like to keep my characters 'in-character' as it where, and so I could not very well cause 'Ralph of Upmeads', Friend of The Well, and general Paragon of Virtue, to align himself with evil.

I do not, as a rule, wish to play as an evil aligned character, or to have my good aligned characters associated in ANY way with such alignment. It is, as they say, "a free country"

@Nekrage I believe I am entitled to decide with whom I am associated, and considering my personal experiences with The OranThul, I surely have the right to decline your invitation.
I would also appreciate it if you did not so grossly misquote me.

@Adawson1 Hello
It seems you have read the background information on the world and lore, such as there is, and I can say (as could others ) that I had the same initial concern https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/topic/13143/story?_=1618474585963

As explained to me, it seems that, while there will be events such as eclipses and passing meteors, as well as Legendary creatures to summon and defeat, a Labyrinth dungeon to conquer and probably other things I've forgotten, the 'storyline' will largely be generated by the players.

During the kickstarter phase, there were some players who paid a lot of money for the privilege of becoming monarchs of the three worlds, and others who paid less money for lesser positions of authority.
I imagine that, where some games have NPCs filling these roles and providing the ebb and flow of socio-political events, these players and the other lesser rulers, guildmasters etc. will determine general trade, wars, alliances and so on as the main framework for individual players to base the in-game lives around, whether they fight, mine, craft or explore.

I am hoping that there will be a sort of 'continuous development' whereby players and developers continue to introduce tailored events based around previous in-game 'lore', so that, as the game (hopefully) ages the actions of starting players become legend to new players and so on. (Most of what I'm saying here was said to me by @GamerSeuss )

As to how well this will work and whether (I am still hoping) the developers do introduce more lore based structure and storyline, only time (and the developers) can tell.