I feel this is a great solution to potential pvp heavy syndesia. It even still gives pvp players the option of camping/stalking boss spawn points and kill stealing the boss when neutral players summon it.
So it's not like they -cant- get the kill and benefits, it just makes it more -challenging-
The benefits of playing in a group need not be more than those inherent in playing in a group.
Systems to aid finding, making, or encouraging groups -like a billboard request system or mission offering- are always great and will create more valuable player interactions and allow groups to naturally coalesce through these systems of focus than simply giving more benefits and locked content only accessible by groups. There will always be those in any case due to the nature of the game where numbers are power and you need numbers to do big things, like make and sustain a city.
I would encourage focus on billboard and player quest creation systems and less on mechanics that give additional special advantages to groups through mechanics and not just pure, normal, organization.
I presume this is about syndesia.
A1: I think that the current system of real hours spent in prison or cash bail is fine. I think it would work better if they increase the max to 48 hours. I do think that the gold coin cost for early bail could be increased if it does not seem like much of a disincentive, easy to balance that in game play tho.
A2: No.
Massive changes to stats, I anticipate that there will be similar massive changes to talents and will hold on further speculation until they are out as well. Good stuff, looking forward to testing em.
Cool changes to market quality of life !
Will there be a limit to the number of buy/sell orders any player can make to prevent rampant spamming? or will we just be relying on the automated 'buy low sell high' system to filter out the chaff?
I understand why you have given all banks global wallet powers - for testing- but would discourage making this the norm.
Providing a totally secure way to hide and transfer coins reduces the player interactions and risk of trading.
I acknowledge that some kind of floating wallet may be necessary for things like bounties.
But think that any money made from a market sale could just be deposited into the players market inventory where it was sold.
Removing the 'deposit' button would also be a good way to keep the utility of the global wallet without making it a bitcoin haven.
If the cities who develop the global wallet tech were to get a 5% tax on any coins deposited to the players global wallet (with maybe another 3% to just sink) that may give cities sufficient motivation to unlock the tech while also providing some cost to the magic money transfer system.
I anticipate lots of discouraged highway men should the global wallet be left as is. If that is the intent of the Devs, then great. If not, then perhaps consider some of the above suggestions.
Testing will tell.
The mail system is a very nice quality of life which will aid trading and communications without being forced to use Discord and hunt down various guild servers or players.
Thanks for the update!
This is an often revived topic, and there is no final answer.
The general stance of the devs seems to be that wads/controller movement creates the ability to move while casting/attacking which sets up kiting situations or ranged/melee jink duels where avatars look like they have turrets syndrome as the players dodge auto attacks, skill shots, and buff/harm zones.
They very much want skill shots and slower movement/combat.
They seem to have set on click to move/attack as the way to go on this as it is the easiest to implement.
It has been acknowledged that there are systems out there which would provide the desirable result and also allow wads/controller movement, but at this time the implementation / experimentation with such a system is low priority compared to the rest of the game.
We hope that once the foundations of the game are set and in that the devs will have time to consider more complex, but more user friendly, movement systems.
It is alpha and we test and work with what we have while holding trust in the devs.
Balance will be a long battle.
Groups with diverse builds who understand each others roles is fun but requires more work than the homogeneous melee builds which are just sooo effective and simple.
As with any group game, scheduling is the biggest hurdle.
Scheduling and organization is the greatest challenge for guilds and will provide the greatest rewards : prosperous cities, trade routes, active pve hunts, support.
As such finding (or making) a guild that understands and focuses on these two aspects is key (in my opinion) for an enjoyable PvE / RP experience in Fractured.
Playtesting in the alphas provides a great chance to check the fine details on each of the propositioning guilds and, perhaps, help alter their trajectory more toward you liking.
The PvE guilds who are planning on focusing on the PvE world are the most challenged right now but still putting forth effort and could use encouragement from players joining them in these alphas.
there is the bit about summon able boss monsters tho...
you -can- just grind them for KP tablets which are used or sold... or is there a limit there too?
That sounds a lot like EVE, which this has no intention of being.
Fractured does have trading of bulk resources with which teams use to build large things (walls, town buildings) which is probably as close as you'll get.
I was just reminded that fist mages were a thing and I can see that being cool if they got wraps or what not.
The 'base damage stacks with int' is not very pertinant as the rapiers damage (and many rapier abilities that might need channeling) stack with Dex. The point that one is melee and the other is ranged works better, but still weak as 'ranged' in Fractured is still only one jump / teleport / bind or slow casting animation away from melee. Giving mages an alternative melee only weapon that stacks with int and giving that magic resist penetration would be the closest comparison to the rapier equivalent. But such an item does not exist despite there being many very short range mage abilities and the note on slow casting animations/ time which often make 'ranged' mages into 'melee' mages thus greatly reducing the 'ranged' advantage. For comparison all of the archer abilities have very quick -or just toggled- abilities which allow them to not be stuck in one place long enough while acting to allow anyone to get to melee easily. If they had the same cast or activation times as many mage abilities they would very much loose their 'ranged' edge.
I have faith that this will be tested and balanced later in any case. Just my thoughts.
Please explain why you feel this is necessary. I , and probably others, do not see the need.
@spoletta
I strongly agree. The increased number of sockets is plenty of incentive and power boosting ability already.
@spoletta
I am thinking that mages will want to enchant their items a lot if just to get more sockets with which to add modifiers to their spells, like reduced cast time, increased spell effect, increased mana regen, or elemental resistances to counter player and mob spells.
The last alpha the mage spell / item rebalancing was not finished as many mobs who relied on spells became jokes (black widows for example) . I expect more spell balancing to happen as the game progresses.
Good changes to the multi use stations, increasing the resource cost of 'imbuing', and giving people more to do with coins.
I am concerned about enchanting being only coin based and not including other material costs.
I bet you could do something similar like the socketing station where you take the item you want to enchant, add a duplicate item base (like a second unenchanted/socketed weapon of same type and material) and then pay a coin cost to combine the two to produce a 'upgraded' version of the first.
If you allowed people to use damaged versions of items in this process then you could also create a sink or market for used items. But I can understand if they do not want to encourage this as they already wont let you put used items in the market.
I am a little concerned about being able to spend 15k and get an item that is 2x as good with 3x as many sockets which could easily make the item 4x as good as the base. But testing will tell.
I noticed that the rapier gives armor penetration as well as spell channeling while the staves just give spell channeling... As such why would anyone use a stave instead of a rapier? If the argument is that 'they get to use int for weapon damage and spell damage' then I would counter that the rogues will be getting to use Dex for weapon and spell damage on top of their additional bonus of getting armor penetration... So I would like to see staves get -something- in addition to spell channeling since it is not unique to staves.
Good stuff, looking forward to testing, sad that I wont be able to test much due to the alpha timing.
The question of ballance re: cant move and attack at same time. which would be possible or more common should movement be wads thus freeing the mouse for attacks, has been addressed by many other games which simply freeze your character in place once you hit the ability and holds you there for a period after. This could work for pbaoe or target self abilities but would still suffer from aim issues if a targeted attack. The common answer to this is 'auto aiming or aim assist' but that is distinctly -not- what the devs or many players want.
Even if the game supported dual stick controller (one for movement, one for aim) with character freezing you still would be dealing with a movement advantage vs click to move and a aim disadvantage vs mouse targeting attacks. This becomes all advantage when playing a melee character with cone area of affect melee attacks, player based buffs/heals, self buffs, etc... making the controller melee monster the one with the clear mechanical advantage when compared to ranged archetypes. This then starts rounds of nerfing / buffing due to the imballance which only is present due to the controllers or wads movement option - meaning those who choose not to play that way -or cant due to disability- feel the nerfs/buffs are arbitrary and unjustified.
This is a hard thing to ballance or decide on. Right or wrong the devs have chosen click to move and as alpha testers our role is to say what we do and do not like about click to move. Comparing it to other systems is not helpful. It is not the system we have to work with. If we make clear statements like 'I do not like click to move because I want to be able to move and attack at the same time' then the devs can say ' noted, however we do not want you to be able to move and attack at the same time so your response means it is functioning as intended, do you have any other issues with click to move that are not part of our intended results from having chosen click to move as the mode of movement?' presumably if we have an observation that has nothing to do with their intentions then they will look into it.
TL:DR-
They are serving pizza, if you would rather have pasta, go have pasta, pizza is what is served here. If you have comments on the toppings used on the pizza, they may be agreeable to changing that.
@Jetah
Bad new then- you can only have one house per world per account. So even if you have 6 human alts you still only can claim one house plot.
Symbols in space.
Unread.
A tribute to time and its passing.
I agree that sinks need to be robust to keep player engagement.
I would like to do some testing to see how fast armor/equipment degrades normally in pvp activity.
If, say, by the time you shoot me down your bow has lost 1/10th of its durability and my armor has lost 1/10th (from damage taken) then that may be considered a slow degradation rate and may be warranted to be increased -shrug-
Having equipment that a player was using become unuseable at death sounds like a tricky thing especially if there are different ratios if a player dies to mobs or pvp. You could see pvp and train activity combined to 'farm' players more effectively.
But not giving some reward to the pvp er -other than removing the opponent from the immediate area- is going to be a sticking point as well.
I agree that this is an important ballancing act and that your idea certainaly has merit.
I would like to see, and do, more testing and data acquisition to help find that sweet spot.
At the moment I pve farm with 8 items - 4 armor, 1 shield, 2 weapons, 1 tool. I generally use lower quality materials in these than in my 'top' set but still enchant them. I hope to gather/farm/hunt the materials to replace them by the time the pieces are at 2/3 durability as that way I should be able to produce a surplus of materials with which to trade or benefit my guild. Sadly I did not keep track of this data last alpha : / . Having 1/4 of my items lost (through drop and proposed breakage) should not be a huge issue as I still have a net gain -if smaller-. Loosing 4 times (50%) would he a huge loss -but- if the above ratio is still sound then I would still be making a net gain on the long run -just much less and possibly frustrating which might encourage me to go hunting/gathering/farming with guards or friends = playing scheduling roulette.
I like the idea, lets test what the system currently is in the new alpha, pretend we are loosing the proposed amount, and see how it affects the economy ballance.
this again, all in anticipation of real news and discussion.
This thread is the record of how long people have been patiently waiting for the game while showing support and interest in it at the same time.
The point of item degradation is to have a drain on the economy to encourage and reward players to create new items.
If there is no drain then you get to your 'best' gear and just stop doing any of the content around making gear, and that kind of stagnation is not desired.