Posts made by Phaethonas

@muker said in Pre-Alpha:

@omega555 Hello, and I'm not a bot.

That's debatable

Kickstarter June 1st!

Well, somehow I have missed that. The last piece of information I had was that the kickstarter would take place some time during this summer.

Good to know.

Daily post.

@gothix said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

@phaethonas said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

Your idea is not in line with the open world, sandbox concepts exactly because there will be no incentive to play what you describe, as well as there will be no repercussions regardless if you win or lose. As a matter of fact at instanced CtF you would have a leaderboard, now you won't even have that, or even if you have some kind of leaderboard it won't use an ELO system ...

Do you understand a concept of FUN, between 2 guilds playing a game? I guess not, lol.

There needs to be no leader boards, metrics or ELO system. People would play this for FUN...

(I guess you would ban all RPers then too right? Because there is "no incentive"...)

__

And as I wrote, OPTIONALLY guilds could place A BET and play for some money from guild treasury. That is more than enough. Not everything has to have a leader board...

The concept of this game is sandbox / fun / interesting activities. And this fits perfectly.

__

And the fact that this is a fun activity between 2 guilds, sandbox rules can fix any deviations.

• Someone exploits by taking flag to unreachable location? Guild kicks that player, and restarts the event.
• The whole guild supports their members "cheating"? No one plays with that guild ever again. (Remember, this event is started between 2 guilds by UI, it is not some random instanced game where you have no choice who you play against.)

__

Again, FUN as a concept. Not leader boards.

What you fail to understand is that in order to have fun while playing an open world, sandbox MMO, you need to have some sort of connectivity between the various elements. Otherwise you end up having [X], [Y] and [Z], that are not connected with each other, but you have them regardless because they are "fun", in which case, you end up having a themepark.

Your idea is horrible, as far as an open world, sandbox game is concerned, and I have nothing more to say to a person who just wants random things added to a game, just because "they are fun"

@gothix said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

@phaethonas said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

Your idea, won't work and is in direct contrast with what the devs want to do.

This idea would work quite nicely, and it's not in contrast with devs open world philosophy at all.

I clearly described (in details) how it would work, and there is not a single reason why it wouldn't (even you agreed that It could be played like that in your reply).

--

So you are basically just saying that, in your mind, it would not look well played in open world, apparently stating your personal dislike of seeing people running around open world with flags.

But contrary to your personal dislike of seeing people playing CtF in open world, many other players WOULD enjoy that quite much.

--

(You still haven't described a SINGLE particular reason as to why it wouldn't fit into open world. You just wrote "it doesn't fit..." but not a single concrete reason about why. So if you plan to write more replies, please DO write a specific reason for why you think it wouldn't fit.)

(let me help you) Examples: you wouldn't like to see people with flags running through open world because it would be aesthetically unpleasing for you, OR you think that ALL open world games should include randoms and that not a single open world game should in your opinion be only between guilds. (Stuff like that.)

Do not just say "it doesn't fit, it won't work, it's not how devs see it..." those are not arguments at all.

I told you why it wouldn't fit. What you describe is not integrated into the open world concept. Running around with flags is not open world gameplay, just because it is in the open world. Basically you treat open world like a huge instance.

You want me to mansplain it to you? I wanted to avoid doing that, but it seems you are asking for it, so eagerly.

Instanced gameplay has no repercussions, outside of the instance. The greater repercussion there can be is some sort of leaderboard. That aside, winning or losing means absolutely nothing. Open world gameplay on the other hand, is dynamic, more diverse and its separate parts are affecting each other.

Your idea is not in line with the open world, sandbox concepts exactly because there will be no incentive to play what you describe, as well as there will be no repercussions regardless if you win or lose. As a matter of fact at instanced CtF you would have a leaderboard, now you won't even have that, or even if you have some kind of leaderboard it won't use an ELO system (like seen in many instanced pvp games) but it will use other metrics, like territory owned, materials owning etc. None of these metrics (that are seen in open world pvp MMOs) have anything to do with how many times you captured a stupid flag.

On the other hand, what @Zwiterion described has the open world paradigm in mind, exactly because what he described (a movable orb), would give some sort of buff. For example it would give to all guild members +10 at a stat, which would make the said guild more powerful at their conquests. It could give a x2 speed at crafting or gathering and so on.

This would create an incentive for other guilds to attack the place/temple/keep/guild hall at which the orb is housed, and try to steal it and move it to their place/temple/keep/guild hall. Also, this would have repercussions. The former guild would have lost the +10 stat buff (or whatever) and now another guild would have it, which means that the former guild is in danger of losing territory. This could result at two guilds forming an alliance in order to attack one guild, and so many other things seen at open world sandbox MMOs.

What you describe lacks all of the above and anything similar to the above. What you describe is just a stupid, boring, repetitive CtF game, that instead of being played in an instance it will be played at the open world, lacking any connectivity with the open world! The devs would be insane to make something like you describe, since they want to make a game that will revolutionize the sandbox genre.

What is next? Adding a last man standing, PUBG, gameplay? Well, I'd rather have that, than your idea. At the very least, the "last man standing" gameplay is very popular these days.

You don't want to accept that your idea is bad for an open world sandbox MMO, and that it may even not work? Fine. Don't accept reality, that would be your problem, and no-one else's.

surprisingly, far better than expected

@gothix said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

@phaethonas said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

@gothix said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

@phaethonas said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

You are describing instanced gameplay in the open world. Just because you moved it in the open world, doesn't make it any less "instanced gameplay".

I am now quite sure you haven't read my post at all. o.O

If you go and actually read it, you will see guild settlements proposed as flag starting points, and ending points (opposite guilds settlement). You will also see that event starts when guild (their leaders) activate it (similar to activating guild war).

Everything else remains like in CtF, with just a notion that guilds must be aware that it's open world out there, so others might interfere, but it's sandbox, so that's ok.

I read it and I explained why it doesn't fit the open world mechanics/concept. What you propose is not intergrated into the open world.

And how exactly it's not?

Guild settlements - ARE in open world (they can be used as flag points) (for example, flag posts placed in middle of guild settlement)
Players - ARE able to run through open world with flags
Players - ARE able to drop flags in open world (to ground as item) and other players ARE able to click on that flag and re pick it or return it to base (same like in instanced CtF, no difference there)
Score - CAN be calculated, same like score from guild wars can be calculated
CtF event - CAN be started from same UI that guild wars are started from

So there isn't a single reason why CtF wouldn't be able to run in open world.

The fact that YOU (personally) wouldn't enjoy playing this in open world (where other people might interfere) is another issue. It does not mean that CtF can't be placed in open world, it just means that YOU yourself wouldn't enjoy it being played like that (which is again not a problem for anyone else, not everyone has to like everything).

I, on other hand, would enjoy it very much. CtF being in open world, with extra danger from other random players interfering, would bring me a lots of fun and enjoyment. I love PvP, and open world CtF (with all the extra danger involved) sounds awesome to me.

So instead of saying that CtF in open world can't be played, rather say what you really mean, that YOU (personally) wouldn't enjoy playing CtF in open world (with extra risk involved). I myself, and many others, would enjoy playing it like that very much.

I never said that CtF in open world can't be played. As a matter of fact I have said the opposite. I have said that there was another proposition with which you will get the CtF gameplay in open world properly.

Still, I expressed my considerations about it (specifically the possibility of exploitations), but these can be countered.

What you are proposing though, is not integrated into the open world concept. You just took the CtF concept as it is in an instance and moved it in the open world. Regardless how many times you describe the same thing, over and over again, it doesn't matter. You just took the CtF concept/gameplay and put it in the open world. That won't work.

The other member took some time to apply the concept into the open world and his idea is great, despite me fearing that it is possible to exploit a number of things. Your idea on the other hand, will just not work.

So, either support ideas like the one made by @Zwiterion, create one like it, or go play a game with instanced CtF and be done with it.

Your idea, won't work and is in direct contrast with what the devs want to do.

@target said in Game Idea : Relic War (PVP) and other game mode:

@phaethonas said in Game Idea : Relic War (PVP) and other game mode:

Having a transfarable item, like an "an orb", exerting that effect, may cause some problems. For example a guild may put it behind their unsiegable castle, or may promote meta-gaming, with one traitor getting the orb and giving it to his/her new guild.

There are limitations you can set up to prevent most exploiting. Relics need to be housed in a temple to give their buffs. Timers on relics when they're being moved so that hiding it somewhere indefinitely isn't a thing, maybe even showing the relic on the map as it's being moved. To prevent traitors, relics can be locked into their temples and removing them aggros guards, or be like Aika where there were 3 bosslike guardians that had to be killed before the relic could even be moved.

Yes, there are ways to counter exploits I said that myself initially. Still, prefer the concept without the relics being movable objects

@gothix said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

@phaethonas said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

You are describing instanced gameplay in the open world. Just because you moved it in the open world, doesn't make it any less "instanced gameplay".

I am now quite sure you haven't read my post at all. o.O

If you go and actually read it, you will see guild settlements proposed as flag starting points, and ending points (opposite guilds settlement). You will also see that event starts when guild (their leaders) activate it (similar to activating guild war).

Everything else remains like in CtF, with just a notion that guilds must be aware that it's open world out there, so others might interfere, but it's sandbox, so that's ok.

I read it and I explained why it doesn't fit the open world mechanics/concept. What you propose is not intergrated into the open world.

@zwiterion said in Game Idea : Relic War (PVP) and other game mode:

@phaethonas

In my initial idea temple would be put in place in the world by game dev, those temple could be claim by a guild (or order) and then once they are able to acquire keep a relic in the temple the buff would apply.

Also relic wont be easy to move since they should be lock in place until a specific time and maybe nobody except a leader could remove a relic once its in a temple of the same order. Or maybe the npc guard would prevent player to just steal it and give it to another guild.

I still favor the idea of the "temple" more than the one that includes the transferable relic. I see some potential abuse in the second case.

@gothix said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

@phaethonas said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

I think that your suggestion is not on par with the game's philosophy.

You know, one should really write some arguments why he thinks this way in a discussion.

Just saying, I think X, without any arguments whatsoever is not very constructive.

You are describing instanced gameplay in the open world. Just because you moved it in the open world, doesn't make it any less "instanced gameplay".

For example, there is another proposition that takes open world gameplay and dynamics into account.

What you are describing completely lacks the notion of the open world. You just want that (instanced/CtF) kind of gameplay, you can't have it at an instance, so you just move it, at its entirety, to the open world. Something like that not only is not on par with the philosophy of the game, but also, ultimately, will not work. You have to take the notion of open world and sandbox into account in order to make something that is like a CtF, to work, and to have it be on par with the game's philosophy.

The aforementioned, other proposition, for example, suggests something that can be seen as marrying the CtF gameplay and open world. The OP suggested to have some sort of item that will exert some sort of advantage (e.g. a buff at gathering) for the guild that owns the item. This item will be possible to be moved from one place to another (e.g. from one guild hall to another).

Although, I wouldn't like that variation (for reasons explained at the other post), that variation combines the CtF concept with the open world concept. Your suggestion did not.

@zwiterion said in Game Idea : Relic War (PVP):

Hi,

I have been looking for a game with a relic war concept for a while but sadly I couldn't find one. Then i find this game with its portal concept and thought with this mechanic already in place it could be easy to implant a relic war mechanic.

But what would it be exactly?

First, the relics would be some kind of artefact that would give buff to player of a certain zone or planet or guild. Those relics could give for example a slight attack buff, a gathering buff, a def buff etc.

How to determine which nation/planet have the relic?

To be active relic would have to be keep in a location, for example temple. Those temples would be protected by player, but also by NPC (ex: guard) and traps.

We could also consider implanting an upgrade system that would allow the player or faction that lead the temple to upgrade relic (for better buff) or temple for better protection.

But where is the pvp war?

Player will of different planet or guild would have to organize raid to take down temple and steal a relic. Then they would have to escort it until it reaches a temple controlled by their team.

Soo, this was my tough about a relic war concept that could be implemented in this game. What do you think about it? would it be possible?

I am not so sure about the "escort" part, but I would totally support and like if there were structures in the world (at Syndesia and Tartaros), like the "temple" you describe. The "temple" would be defended by neutral guards at day 1. At day 10 a guild takes the "temple" and the "temple" gives a buff (of sorts) that can be linked with the game's lore (see gods). Then the other guilds/alliances would covet the buff, and this would initiate guild wars and the like. For that to happen though, the buff needs to be significant.

Having a transfarable item, like an "an orb", exerting that effect, may cause some problems. For example a guild may put it behind their unsiegable castle, or may promote meta-gaming, with one traitor getting the orb and giving it to his/her new guild.

Instead, "the temple" solution can be more controlled by the devs, who will make sure that the feature/mechanic is not being exploited.

But generally, I think it is a good idea.

@gothix said in "Capture The Flag" GvG contest in Open World:

So, seeing that we likely will not have instanced battlegrounds (mini games), I spent some time thinking about how it would be possible to implement some of fun events in to the open world, and still stay in line with Fractured mechanics and philosophy.
[...]

What do you think about this?

I think that your suggestion is not on par with the game's philosophy.

@zopek said in Is it going to be F2P, B2P or P2W?:

Find one just one publisher who use "P2W" for is own game lol.....

These devs grind my gears! A LOT!

Crowfall, Dual Universe, EVE to name a few.

@jetah said in Is it going to be F2P, B2P or P2W?:

@vezin

name 2 games that have released as b2p with sub and have maintained that in the last 5 years. I know FFXIV but i haven't see any others (at least well known games). All the other sub based games have turned f2p or hybrid.

The last five years (and some years before that) were years of experimenting with alternative payment models. All have failed, at sustaining a good game -not to be confused with a game making profit-.

Pure B2P and pay2play (sub) are the only valid options. This includes the following four alternative; a) b2p once (e.g. Fractured), b) b2p initial game and b2p expansions (e.g. GW2 -for the most part-), c) just subscription, with no initial game purchase (e.g. Ashes of Creation), d) subscription with initial game purchase (e.g. Camelot Unchained).

Any other form of payment model, including having a subscription token that can be traded in-game, assuming a player driven economy (e.g. DU, EVE, Crowfall and not WoW) have either failed or lead to p2w, or failed because they lead to p2w.

From the four options the sub model seems the best.

Take Fractured for example. The initial purchase of the game (b2p) will cover the expenses for making the game. New content will be required though in the form of new pve content, despite Fractured being a sandbox game, something, which if I recall correnctly, you pointed out. For Fractured this revenue will come from the cosmetic cash shop, which will have to sustain; a) the servers, b) the new pve content, c) the new cosmetic cash shop content.

If Fractured was having a b2p model for its pve expansions then the cosmetic cash shop would need to cover only; a) the servers, b) the new cosmetic cash shop content.

There is a conflict of interest, of sorts, when the source of income (e.g. the cosmetic cash shop in Fractured's case) will have to sustain another type of content, that is not generating income (e.g. the pve content of this example).

Although GW2 has succeeded at something similar, GW2's case is the exception and not the rule, not to mention that Fractured won't have b2p expansions, making things more difficult.

That said, I consider WoW's paradigm, that had an initial game purchace, has subscription and b2p expansions, over the board. The purchasing of the expansions could be ditched and could be free when purchasing sub time.

Although in the past I was supporting alternative payment models, now I am a purist.

@jetah said in Alpha Key and Steam:

@phaethonas said in Alpha Key and Steam:

@specter said in Alpha Key and Steam:

@weezerant It's too early to announce a release date. You can obtain a pre-alpha key through the foundation, alpha and beta keys can be bought through the opcoming Kickstarter. Fractured is not going to be on Steam anytime soon. The devs want to make sure the game is really polished before putting it there.

OK, let me rephrase that question.

1. Are the devs looking at an early access/soft launch, either at steam or otherwise?

2. Assuming that by 2022 (or whichever date) Fractured is ready (I am talking full launch here), are the devs looking into a steam release?

1. Alpha and beta buy in via Kickstarter

2. Not sure but Valve takes 30% cut for every sale. It might be on steam or it might not.

Alpha and beta can be an entirely different thing from early access. So, I'd rather have a specific and explicit answer, and hopefully, the answer will be; "no early access/soft launch".

@benseine said in GvG siege questions:

I'm sure there will be a whole spotlight about this somewhere down the road. But what is the basis of the GvG siege content you devs have in mind for Fractured?

10vs10? 50vs50? 100vs100? Unlimited? Instanced for better performance? Open world for the best sandbox experience? You must have some global picture you can give us, right?

First things first. Instances are out of the game. Even pve instances are unlikely. PvP instances are even more unlikely from my understanding.

This brings us to;

Open world for the best sandbox experience

as the devs aim to;

...innovate the world of Sandbox MMOs by opening it up to audiences that have been cut off from what we believe is the most exciting online game genre out there - and one with exceptional growth perspectives, too.

source

That aside, unlimited is impossible for technical reasons (yeah, I know that you were kidding, but still, clarifying, just in case). As for their limit? That is unknown and they haven't made any announcements at a goal, as far as I know.

Considering a number of things like; a) the top down perspective with no heavy graphics, b) Unity, c) SpatialOS, I'd say that they will manage 100-300 tops.

@specter said in Alpha Key and Steam:

@weezerant It's too early to announce a release date. You can obtain a pre-alpha key through the foundation, alpha and beta keys can be bought through the opcoming Kickstarter. Fractured is not going to be on Steam anytime soon. The devs want to make sure the game is really polished before putting it there.

OK, let me rephrase that question.

1. Are the devs looking at an early access/soft launch, either at steam or otherwise?

2. Assuming that by 2022 (or whichever date) Fractured is ready (I am talking full launch here), are the devs looking into a steam release?

@beetmymeet said in Is the game ready to download and play?:

I saw someone talking about this game on reddit and they said it's an isometric MMORPG so i immediately came and registered, but I don't see any download link. The game is not ready to play yet?

lol, the game isn't even in pre-alpha!

@mordekai135

It is b2p, although it is not clear (at least to me) if any expansions will be free or b2p.

The cash shop that will exist, will be purely cosmetic and on top of that, the items sold there won't be in-game items, but account/character unlocks. As such, RMT won't be possible with those either.

I am a purist when it comes to p2w, and I am coming to blows with many people about it. Even by my standards (which could be considered harsh by some), Fractured is not p2w, and, personally, I am not seeing any way for it at becoming/being exploited and turned into a p2w game, unless the devs reverse course to things they have explicitly declared.

@gothix said in PK punishment:

@benseine said in PK punishment:

@finland well then you have all asian mmorpgs at your disposal. they all have seperate zones for pvp and/or retarded karma system. so don't complain.

I was following Ashes of Creation so far with great interest, but recently I gave up on it. Then I came and joined to here.

AoC had great promise, but then they confirmed rock paper scissor system, that basically ruins all 1vs1 and small group PvP everywhere, and completely rekts 1vs1 arena.

In my opinion AoC never had much promise, just empty words/promises.

Regardless, I didn't know that AoC will try a rock, paper, scissor system. Such a system is difficult to make and AoC is full of incompetent fools. I can only laugh at them even trying such a system.