They really do not want a system where a player can move -and- attack at the same time... Auto run would create that without complex coding...
There is a group that want WADS movement, but same issue...
I think that it could be done in that any attack action or ability casting would freeze the character in place but can understand that this might create compications for coding...
It is a city tech option.
The vice or Governor needs to pick it as a city tech for the citizens and residents to get access to the higer tech level materials and equipment (like full plate armor).
It looks like this:
I am very happy to hear about the changes, the new system, and see the colored horses.
Sadly I feel that this update is a 'for Governors only' thing as only they may initiate sieges from a town.
I encourage the developers to make it so that Vice-Governors can initiate sieges for at least the remainder of this alpha as the number of Governors who are actually active is very small to non existent and as such town vs town sieges will not happen or be tested.
Yes, thanks to the requirements and cost reductions five active people -could- abandon their current towns, form a temporary raid force, and test the system. However according to the information above they could not use catapults or attack towns with walls, just villages. And all they could really test there is how long it takes to destroy the single flag protecting the village...yay...
So unless I am very wrong -which is possible- I encourage @Prometheus to make it so Vice-Governors can initiate sieges for the rest of this test.
Otherwise it would seem that just about all of the people currently in the alpha can only do armchair testing by theorizing and picking over the described systems.
From my expierence and testing the enchant goes to the higher tier options.
Talking about the bonus from the 3 researches.
I have watched my odds of crafting at those and my home tables not change as we gained and lost those 3 researches.
The only crafting tables that seem effected at all are the ones within the specialized buildings.
Presence of tools like this made by players is an indicator of where the devs could make major quality of life improvements in the game for players.
Things like this are going to exist and be necessities for a quality gaming experience, so why not include them as part of the game?
Thank you Tajger for making this beautiful user friendly version of a tool that exists in many forms in other places.
bumping for visibility, and daily post XD
My anticipation is that the pvp worlds will have less materials avalible because all the fighting and looting will be harder on equipment while also reducing the access to resources as harvesting teams will be attacked. The PvE worlds will have to deal with higher passive agressive competition for resources as it is a safer place to farm, but the transfer of goods between worlds should be hard enough and rare enough that the PvE world should not be feeding base goods to the pvp world, just high value finished goods or maybe some special enchanting components.
I would be shocked and disapointed if there were trading of base goods, like food, between the pvp and pve world instead of the pvp world just using diplomacy and alliances to manage that.
They are really busy with getting the siege mecanics implemented. I have faith that someone will see this before the next alpha, if nothing happens a week after this one ends i'll bump it.
I can not be sure what the system is to calculate the yield but there is a definite pattern of lower nutrient yields producing more crop than expected.
The numbers make me think that the system has a serious bug in it, in any case the current numbers remove the whole point of the reducing nutrient system and crop rotations.
More data points:
Crop Nutrient %, Projected yield %, Fertility %, Harvested Yield
ordered by crop nutrient levels.
Wheat: Water never below 70%
120%, 142%, 150%, 357
115%, 135%, 150%, 338
75%, 149%, 150%, 374
54%, 156%, 150%, 392
49%, 156%, 150%, 392
49%, 149%, 150%, yield 374
39%, 164, 150, 411
39, 149, 150, 373
24, 164, 150, 410
24, 164, 150, 410
Rice: Water never below 77%
100%,100%,100%, 50
120, 159, 150, 80
115%, 176%, 150%, 88
110, 177, 150, 89
110, 179, 150, 90
105%, 176%, 150%, 88
105%, 156%, 150%, 78
95%, 146%, 150%, 73
95, 178, 150, 89
90, 178, 150, 89
85, 178, 150, 89
85, 178, 150, 89
44, 175, 150, 88
Beans Notes:
110, 150, 150, 75
105%, 150%, 150%, 75
100%,100%,100%, 50
95, 149, 150, 75
95, 150, 150, 75
90, 149, 150, 75
The intention was to loose the ability or benefits from the tech, this is not what they intended. A city degraded to rank 1 should not have all the tech it unlocked when it was rank 15.
There is something like this in D&D online and it seems to separate players with the power creep making a bigger difference between starting players and 'end game' players making the environment not all that welcoming to new players.
The idea of having a relatively even playing field and low power distance is one of the main premises -and for me selling points- of Fractured.
Because of the low power distance here I can gift a friend equipment and they can start working on their skills and talents without a discouraging gap knowing that a max talent player is only going to have 2 more stat points in any given stat (10%-20% difference) and only up to twice as many secondary skill points (fortitude, willpower, etc) allowing them to easily quantify their progress and differences allowing them to look forward to grinding for a known bright future instead of feeling they -have to- grind in order to even participate in the game content.
We had the massive mage spell rebalancing because they had too little reliance on equipment, meaning the devs want there to be reliance on equipment (expendable resource) more than talents (renewable resource). As such It would seem that the devs want the tallent tree to be the flavor of a character (determined by talent tree end abilities and the neat things between trees) but equipment and enchanting to be the meat.
Could you be more specific as to the area of the game play that you feel needs more 'fine tuning' that is not possible with talents + enchants + material bonusses?
When a town (rank 5) drops to village (rank 4) the tech only available to towns is properly greyed out and unselect able and Tech points are reduced appropriately.
However the functionality of tech previously chosen is still enacted.
We can still craft T4 materials, enchant, and use the marketplace.
Just FYI
That is basically what my original post was suggesting while also giving power to the city technology unlocks and bonusses from specialized crafting buildings.
Crafting at home can have the much higher cost but crafting at the specialized city crafting building keeps an advantage.
FF 14's system where the more modified an item is the lower its durability is could be applied to fractured.
The more enchants and the higher power of enchants put on an item the more it reduces the items durability.
This would mean that you -can- have that mage armor with 3 tier 2 enchantments, but it will have 60% less durability. Thus you get the extra power and effect at a cost of being able to use the item for a shorter time.
In high activity pvp this also may be desirable as you really want the best equip you can have and are not very concerned about its durability as you are going to loose it if you die and wont be running out with your highly enchanted but also fragile equipment on daily grinds, but for special occasions. Players can choose to spend the extra time and resources to constantly wear top tier paper thin equipment, but that is a choice and will help drive the economy should it be a popular one.
It would -however- reduce the rewards of pvp some. But with you only able to put items of 100% durability for sale in the market it's not like there is a black market for stolen/looted goods anyway. (I think there should be one tho)
@GamerSeuss
Following your assertion that the majority of players like RNG in their crafting I have done a cursory review of the most popular MMO games and their crafting systems to see which have RNG attached to the quality of goods created or have the possibility of having goods destroyed.
WoW- 2.2 million players - crafting RNG? -no- Crafting is money by another name and find the recipe with grind.
Loss of item possible due to enchanting? -no-
WoW classic- 1.1 million players. as above.
FF 14- 2.4 million players- crafting RNG? yes - Higher quality materials increase probablity of higer quality gear.
Loss of item possible due to crafting/enchanting? only if player decides to push it to that point.
Ability to change RNG to make it more probable to get higher gear or extend destruction point? Yes and multiple.
Old School Runescape - 1.4 million players. Crafting RNG? no- Crafting is money by another name
RNG enchanting item loss? no-
Elder scrolls online - 1 million players. Crafting RNG? no - crafting is money by another name.
Enchanting item loss ? no
Do I need to go on?
Of the top 5 MMO games - by population- only 1 has a crafting system similar to the one in fractured and even that one still has far more safeties built into it than fractured does and has many ways to continuously improve your odds.
So by population 5.7 million out of 8.1 million - or 70%- of gamers seem to prefer crafting systems with no RNG and all of them do not have systems of arbitrary item loss during the process.
I could continue my data collection but feel no need until you put forward some effort beyond just declaring you are right.
If you have some other, relevant, and referenced, data to provide in counter to this to back your assertion that RNG crafting is in the majority then please bring it out.
Otherwise it would appear that your opinion is in the minority of MMO gamers. Not the majority as you have repeatedly asserted with no backing.
Data on populations: https://mmo-population.com/
Data on crafting systems from each of the individual games wiki pages.
Back to the actual topic.
Here is an interesting site comparing different crafting systems pros and cons:
https://gamedevelopment.tutsplus.com/articles/5-approaches-to-crafting-systems-in-games-and-where-to-use-them--cms-22628
Working under the assumption that the devs included item loss and random chance to get excellent gear to increase the drain on resources for high quality/enchanted gear then surely a system that gives the desired results while at the same time producing the same -or greater- drain on crafting/enchanting resources would maintain the status quo.
Do people think that this is not the reason for having RNG in item creation and Item loss in enchanting?
Or do people think that my proposed ratios and exchange rate is not high enough to guarantee equivalent item scarcity?
I acknowledge your point Jacenson however at the moment one of the few ways you can reduce the odds of item destruction when enchanting is to use higher quality equipment -excellent- which makes it kind of a requirement if you intend to do any enchanting beyond one enchantment.
If the odds of loosing an item to enchanting destruction were not tied to quality or had some other way to help mitigate then the good quality items would see more value.
I made this post under the impression that the Devs wanted to limit the amount of RNG headaches players would encounter and wanted to pose possible alternatives.
Dismissing the discussion because it is a 'minority opinion' is not helpful and ads nothing to the discussion.
The devs have already made investigations and adjustments to the RNG system in order to alliviate RNG headaches, the biggest point of evidence of this is the melee combat ability that removes RNG from melee damage instead just giving the user max damage on the range.
@GamerSeuss
If you have no constructive feedback then please keep it to your self.
What other options might those who feel this is something worth talking about have?
On a related note certain buildings take up different amounts of space depending on their orientation. and roads cannot be offset which further breaks down the grid into larger blocks. so the 169 x 169 becomes effectively a 30x30 area with large buildings taking up 6x6 blocks, small buildings taking up 3x3, and roads fixed in a grid and taking up 2x2 with little to no option to offset.