When red players are killed, they should not be allowed to suicide for around 10 seconds or so, or maybe they should not be allowed to suicide at all?
This is because it's counter intuitive, where they can workaround getting jailed by just committing suicide.
Sheriffs would then become essentially useless.
Hey all,
With the recent changes to the city, each city now has a residential area in which nothing changes to the residents even when a city changes hands.
Take note that this means that when a new guild takes over an established city, the new guild may not have enough residential spots to take, and will be forced to settle elsewhere ( unless they choose to reduce their already small city size by building new housing plots, which could involve removing existing city buildings already upgraded by the previous owners ).
What this means is that essentially a new guild would be owning a city where their previous owners have a base of operations much closer to the city than they do, which is pretty weird, and not optimal at all for a game where travel time matters.
So we have two problems here that we need to address :
i) Guilds that take over a city have no place in the city to stay
ii) We don't want to have a system that forces all residents to lose everything they have in their residential plot every time a city gets taken over, this will be a huge loss to players, and is not conducive at all.
This is where our proposal system comes in, to address both of these problems.
Basically whenever a city gets taken over, the new governor can choose selected residents to evict at a cost. The residents chosen have to move out, and when they are evicted out, they will get a "refugee" status.
The Eviction System :
Governors need to pay a cost for every resident they want to evict. The cost can be higher the more resources spent to build up the plot of land that the governor is evicting the resident from. This allows new guildies to move in - but at a cost, but due to the high cost, they will not choose to evict random neutral players that were not part of the conflict, they would most likely only choose to evict the enemy guild members that they took the city from.
Governor can then have an approval system on who gets to live in the evicted plots, that last for a certain amount of time, if nobody new comes to live in the plot, than anybody can live there, even the evicted person. ( Logically if you evict someone out of the plot, it would be for a guild member to take it, if your guild members or friends dont come and apply to live there, then anyone can live there, even the previously evicted person. )
This then solves both the problems where, the conquerors have no place to live in, and also random and casual players not part of the conflict will most likely not be evicted and can continue living in the residential area as usual.
This would of course increase the cost of sieging, but that's fine, there should always be a cost to sieging anyway.
The Refugee System :
Players who get evicted out of their plots get a "refugee" status. The refugee status means that they cannot be attacked or attack other players. This means no players can cast spells/skills/attack them, and they cannot cast skills/spells/attack anyone else.
If a player wants to remove their refugee status, they can either manually choose to do so, or wait for the refugee timer status to run out.
The refugee system is there to protect players who get evicted. We don't want to run into a situation where an evicted person gets paid their compensation, and grabs all their items to move, only to get ganked by the guild who paid them in the first place.
And there you have it folks, many thanks to @spoletta and @LonelyCookie for coming up with the solution together.
TL;DR
When a guild conquers a city, it can evict existing residents for a price, evicted residents have a "refugee immunity" status for a time period to be protected so that they can move their stuff.
@GamerSeuss said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
Yes, there is a good chance that many of the Residential spots will be taken up by Guildies of the first guild running the town, and their Allies, but several spots will also be taken by Solo'ists looking for a plot of their own, free from the fallout of Sieges. They are still affected, because when the new 'Owners' of a City come in, they may end up tearing down the one crafting station you mainly used the town for, necessitating you taking your goods further afield to get them finished. That's the breaks, you take that bad with the good of not having to lose your house when a Siege is decided. The Governors don't control the Residential district, period. They get a passive tax on building/upgrading, and that's it. They can't say who gets to stay or go, that was made quite clear by the Devs, and thus no amount of money should change that. The city is owned by the Governor and his Guild, the Residential plots are not, so if there aren't enough plots for a new Guild who takes over, they get to decide what City buildings stay and which ones must go to make room for residences.
The city area is much smaller now, so wanting to move a bunch of your guildies and allies in is going to severely weaken your city's productiveness.
The current system is not going to appease to new players 1-2 years after Fractured is release. A potential new guild would look at the systems in the game, realize they cant move in to a city which is already well established, and simply choose to move on to a different game where they can actually move in to a city that they essentially take over.
The Fractured system right now is just plain weird. You can take over a city, but you may not necessarily be able to live there. That line itself has so many things wrong with it, I'm really not sure how people seem to be okay with that.
A good portion of Fractured's gameplay loop is going to be about cities. Sieges are a big part of that. Preventing people from being able to live in the cities they take over is a huge turn off to the whole mechanic. People will not want to go through such a hassle to take over a city if they cant even live in the city they've taken over without destroying your cities productivity and efficiency, while having the previous city owners all live in comfort in your city's residence. It just does not make sense period.
The system that I propose is basically the fine line that balances solo play and group play. Solo players wont be affected by city take overs still because it's costly to remove neutral players out of your residence ( you also want solo players to be in your residence to be able to rank up ), but you are able to evict enemy players from your city so that you can move in. This system is basically the "between" that @Logain mentioned.
But yes, like what @LonelyCookie mentioned, this system is hard to test, the scenarios that I describe would only come about after cities are fully developed and lived in after all.
Remove jail time. You should never "punish" people by disallowing them from playing the game.
Rather force people to pay. Balance the jail system by the bounty payments.
When people get jailed, they either :
i) Payout their bail by themselves
ii) Wait for friend to pay the bail
iii) Get out of jail and collect money to pay the bail. When they choose the 3rd option, they basically have an unremovable "Prisoner" or "Debtor" status where they cannot engage in any sorts of pvp until they collect enough money to pay their bail. Similar to young player status
Reproduction scenario :
Memorized a talent preset with blademaster and relentless.
Equip long sword
As a control, I also tested it by equipping primimitve handaxe.
There are no arctic wolves around the arctic wolf legend, which would be contradicting the statement whereby legend summon materials can be found nearby the altar.
@Farlander The point is to also make it costly to evict people. A casual player who owns a residential plot in a city is most likely not going to get evicted because the conquering guild is already going to pay a large amount of money to evict the previous guild members who stay in the city.
Also, evicting cost gets more expensive the more stuff you have built on your plot, so if the casual player has a lot of stuff on his plot, the cost will just not be worth it.
@GamerSeuss In your example, then yes, some of the solo's will get evicted to make space for the new city's guild members, but I think in certain cases like the example you put out, this just cannot be avoided to maintain a functional system.
A functional system is one where in residential plots change hands depending on who owns the city, and not a static system where residential plots are based on first come first serve.
Which system do you think promotes a better health of the game? A game where residential plots are not static - where new players have a chance to fight for spots ( even casual players who want to own a residential plot can then join a guild and then work together to fight for plots in an existing city ) And most importantly - evicted players get a safe period to safely remove their stuff so none of their items get lost.
Or a static system where once a plot gets claimed, it's claimed forever. No new players have a chance to fight for it, city takeovers dont get a chance to fight for it, nobody can fight over plots, leading well established cities to hold it's dominance forever and putting off any new players from trying to join in the gameplay loop.
Think about all the emergent gameplay systems that can arise from a healthy eviction system, versus how much restrictions are created due to a static system like the one currently.
The eviction system is not a deterrent to the solo'ist playstyle. It is only promoting the solo-ist to be more inclusive in it's gameplay loop systems. We cannot exclude anyone who lives in the residential area from entering the political system of a city take over because the residential area is so tightly coupled into the fight for the city.
And sure, in your scenario solo's have to move, but they are paid compensation, and they can move safely. In short, they lose little. But a scenario where a guild cannot move in to the residential area of their city will hurt the guild a lot more than a solo needing to leave the city to settle elsewhere safely and with little to no loss.
@GamerSeuss said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
But later game, the Solo'ist, who fought to earn enough to get a plot early and claimed a spot, now may not have any spots available as a solo'ist and must join a Guild in order to own property again as all solo plots are taken. This is completely unacceptable. Nothing should force a solo'ist into joining a guild. Late game joiners may not get any plots at all, and that's true of Guild members as well as solo'ists, which only encourages the Devs to create new continents and new Residential/City areas late game during expansions periodically, which IS a good growth system. The game starts with 3 planets and 3 continents per planet, and a fixed number of cities per continent, but as new releases come out, that can be expanded upon. 'Lost Continents' and even Underground Cities can be discovered and claimed.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree with this. Early players already get loads of advantage with city, equipment, skills, etc etc. They definitely do not need a free permanent spot that can never be taken as well, this makes large guilds who come first have well established cities that people have almost 0 incentives to take over.
Creating 10-20 homes in your city by destroying existing buildings is not going to be feasible anyhow, so the argument to make homes in the buildable area of your city is a pretty bad one. Why play a game which has you taking over a city only to need to massively lose it's efficiency and productivity to have an even standing with people you've already beaten who get to freely live near your city and continue to harass you with ease, while you have to sacrifice your city buildings to be able to live there. Makes zero gameplay sense. This system is a huge detriment to the city siege gameplay loop and has to change, hence my suggestion.
@StormBug said in The Eviction/Refugee system ( Residential area solution for city takeovers ):
Or the conquering guild could bribe people to leave. Give me enough money and a day to transport goods and I would likely relocate.
This is precisely the system I am advocating for, where when a city gets taken over, the new city owners have a period in which they can evict players from the residential area, but at a cost - you would need to pay to evict people, and the payment value depends on how much well built the plot of land is.
The evicted person would then become a refugee, where he has a safe status and can't be attacked or killed for a time period so that he/she can safely move.
@Snark said in Server War PvP Feedback:
Stuff to change;
- skill changes/nerfs; 'insect swarm' - 'mind strike' - 'split earth' - 'crystal shackles(increase cooldown)'
- straight up remove possibility to enchant physical or magical reflection into your gear
- add some sort of root immunity for god's sake (to battle constant rerooting)
- give us more base health (increase skill 'second wind' cooldown)
I agree with 1 -> 3, but not the second part of 4. Second wind is already borderline OP with how much it can heal for CON users.
I agree that we do need cc immunity.
Especially when people can chain lock you with different kind of ccs as well. Like stun -> Silence -> Confuse -> Stun ....
Basically make's the combat feel not engaging at all
When red players are killed, they should not be allowed to suicide for around 10 seconds or so, or maybe they should not be allowed to suicide at all?
This is because it's counter intuitive, where they can workaround getting jailed by just committing suicide.
Sheriffs would then become essentially useless.
Also, it's been ages, but it makes literally ZERO sense that mages get to craft staffs and mage clothes INSTANTLY while heavy armor and medium armors requires incredibly long processing times.
Light armors NEED processing times too, as well as Wood ( staves, bows, shields that use wood )
P.S I'm a mage using light armor and staff.
There are no arctic wolves around the arctic wolf legend, which would be contradicting the statement whereby legend summon materials can be found nearby the altar.
@Logain said in Legends need to change:
Wouldn't the incentive be the content of PvP?
You have little to loose as neutral player (backpack items), but supposedly plenty to gain (content wise). If you need items/in-game gain as incentive for PvP, isn't that a sign that PvP content is lacking? There's no/little permanent item gain in MOBAs like LoL and DotA2, the joy's the match, not what you keep after the match.
If I wanted to have PvP have no consequence of gains/losses, I'd be playing MOBAs instead of MMORPGs where PvP can be more meaningful. You probably don't understand the competitive mindset - when we're doing PvE, we're after a certain set of objectives, either to get materials or to get kp. We'd always choose the most "optimal" route to get that, and since there is nothing to gain, but everything to lose when you're farming as neutral, the most optimal choice would be to farm as blue.
Of course, when we're doing leisure farming and are itching for pvp, we'd be farming as Neutrals, but the point is, competitive PvP players would always choose optimal routes of doing things - if the optimal way to farm is to farm as blue, then that is what we/they'll be doing.
@Logain said in Legends need to change:
So, how many of them stated that they would return if Legends would be announced in advance?
Your prediction with raids has been off, couldn't your prediction with Legends be off as well?
Just making the changes I mentioned for legends is definitely not going to suddenly bring in an influx of players - but it's definitely going to lead to the legends being more utilized and will bring more engagements and player activity back.
@Logain said in Legends need to change:
The disadvantage is, there's a risk to your suggestions. If these don't manage to get a large quantity of new/old PvP players, but scare off the few remaining PvE players, there's serious financial consequences for the studio/game.
Remaining few PvE players? You mean the <10 PvE players that don't even do legends? Not sure why they would be scared off. Nobody is even doing legends right now.
Now is in fact the perfect time to make drastic changes considering that there is basically nothing to lose, but everything to gain, considering the lack of a playerbase.
@Logain said in Legends need to change:
Didn't they all start playing at the beginning of the beta, like the thousand(s) PvE player that did?
Yeah, thousands of PvP players did too.
@Logain said in Legends need to change:
They didn't stay.
Nobody did. Was it a surprise? They removed the viability of being reds once players have t2 armors, raids and sieges were bugged, nobody likes the current recipe and equipment progression and not to mention the other tons of bugs they had.
@Logain said in Legends need to change:
So if PvP players can find PvE players to engage with, but they can not find PvP players to engage with, and both inhabit the same space, wouldn't that imply a difference in numbers for both populations?
I found more PvP players than I did PvE players, but any smart player, be it PvP or PvE, would be flagged blue when they're doing serious PvE, because there is simply no incentive to be neutral/red when doing PvE.
@Logain said in Legends need to change:
Like raids on cities? That are enabled now and would be a set time and a set place?
They should classify as everything you've advertised would draw PvPers back in.
How many people have participated on how many raids this week?
I was startled too, I honestly expected way more people back. When I started talking to players though I understood why they didn't. They just lost trust in the game. When the patch said they enabled raids - they had no mention on the bugs they fixed regarding the raids, almost all players I talked to said they weren't coming back because they expected a ton of bugs on the raids still, considering that lots of them also lost their stuff from houses that decayed, they were simply not willing to put in more time to build up characters to play on raids they feel would be bugged as hell.
@Logain said in Legends need to change:
Since announcing legends on summon doesn't change anything on the gameplay mechanics, the conclusion would be that PvP isn't lacking in mechanics, but in availability/odds of happening.
If this was the case, the PvP crowd could easily fix this by itself through flagging neutral and keeping flagged neutral, which is basically the same as playing as a Demon on Tartaros.
If there is a massive PvP crowd (as you claim), all of which are flagged neutral, you have high PvP availability/high odds to encounter a PvP fight. In which case, you don't need additional circumstances to advertise PvP, because PvP is the content anyway.
Which means that one or more of your axioms has to be wrong.
Your arguments sadly are missing a key point. While there is a massive PvP crowd, it is illogical to think that they will all suddenly start playing at the same time. You first need to draw them in, and when they stay, more of them will start trickling in.
The problem right now is that while you can flag as neutral, you have no idea where the other neutral players are - the world itself is big, so roaming for a long time just in the hopes of finding pvp will make your game less of a choice compared to games where players know where to go to get into the action. This is why legends should be announced at start - this allows people to know where the action is, and where to go to find pvp.
So no, my axioms aren't wrong, you just have the mistaken belief that the entire PvP population would suddenly start playing at the same time.
Also players roaming around in neutral status versus fighting over the legend is two completely different things - one is just purely PvP, while the other is PvPvE, in fact, you can say that fighting over legends is akin to fighting over resources, which is something people would have more incentives to fight over, instead of just roaming around for pvp.
@GamerSeuss said in Legends need to change:
- Fractured is exactly the kind of game that PvEers like myself enjoy, and studies have shown that PvE players far outnumber PvPers in all MMORPGs.
"Studies"? Could you please link to me such studies? Because based on past examples like New world, this certainly does not seem to be the case at all.
As to why you have to have a Neutral with you to summon a Legend, it's because they want to encourage Neutral play on the Neutral planet, and include the RISK, not the certainty of PvP play, which is why announcements were moved to on death, not on summons.
There is almost no risk when the announcement is on death. In this case, they might as well allow blues to do legends as well.
In fact we can clearly see that the current legend mechanics is just not fun - players are not doing them as often as they should be, and the current mechanic does not seem to give players any sort of engagement.
Heavy PvP tends to drive more players away than it pulls players in. You want to build and encourage population, you make the game attractive to PvEers first, and make sure you make the graphics and mechanics they like.
Engaging Pvp drives more players in than it pulls players away, especially in a sandbox game like Fractured.
Also, Fractured's graphics is mediocre when you compare it to the other PvE story driven mmorpgs that PvE players actually go for.
If Legends were not meant to be PvPvE content, there would be no use requiring us to turn Neutral to do it. Even blues should be able to summon legends then.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this misconception of PvP being the smallest population overall versus PvE players?
It seems like alot of people have this growing misconception that PvP players are a minority and that the PvE players are a much bigger fanbase, and the game should cater to these "PvE" players to increase population count.
Sorry to say, but history already proved this to be untrue. Look at New World, they removed the hardcore sandbox pvp elements in the game, and did their best to make it casual and PvE friendly. Did that draw in the "massive" PvE player base that you guys seem to keep alluding to? Well no, it didnt, the game kept losing population until it is where it is now.
You need to understand, that the "giant PvE casual" playerbase only goes after a very certain type of game - that is, one with beautiful graphics, engaging story, and a third person game. They are not going to be playing an isometric game with mediocre graphics where you have to use mouse clicks to move.
A game like Fractured which prioritizes sandbox gameplay elements over graphics and story/quests will draw in just as much, if not more sandbox pvp players than your "casual PvErs". So please, this argument of PvE players exceeding PvP players does not work on a game like Fractured.