Best posts made by Tuoni

@Gothix I thought you were against restrictions in sandbox games..

@Bramibal said in Details on inter-planetery travel for each race:

I've been reading on the topic of de drawbacks and benefits of traveling to other planets for each race but I seem to be not able to find any concrete details.

Are they already known and have I been reading over it or isn't it published yet?

Here is few articles which gives you some information how the planets works and how the travel between them are planned to be implemented:

Feature Spotlight #6

Feature Spotlight #2

Feature Spotlight #1

Beastman is a real english word and not something what Fractured developers has created. We have in every language these old traditional words, which are referring to specific genders. Even we are currently living in much more equality times than past, it is still important to not go too far and not over react too much. What it comes to word man, it does not just mean gender, it also means human, human being or person. So with that logic we would need to invent new word for human too.. should I as a father hurt my feelings of words like earth mother or mother language? No I do not.

@Gothix said in Concerns related to the attributes:

Active skills are easy to observe, yeah. Especially through recording.

But passives are much harder to read, especially if they don't come with visible effects. It all depends how game is designed.

Hmmm... I was wondering, that what would be such passives that would even need inspection? I am not saying there could not be any but from my experience it is enough to see what others wear and what abilities they use. Passives does not usually offer anything game changing and you can expect your enemy to use the best ones (meta wise) anyway.

Personally, I would love if game came without (or with "opt in" gear inspection).
Default: inspect off, and it is only available if you click allow for your gear to be inspected.

Personally, I do not even care, inspection or not I am totally fine by that. I do not inspect much other players anyway so I guess without inspection would support better my personal play style. However, I am not sure what would be best from the game point of view...

Customable ranks and permissions are really nice to have. Guild bank system is really important to implement well and maybe something what guilds can upgrade with time. It will need several customable tabs with permissions. One very important tool is logs, which tolds who took out/put in what and when. Albion did not have any of these guild QoL features at the time of release and it was a nightmare to try management the item economy. It burned some officers pretty fast, when placing one chest for every member in different guild islands and then creating a map from that and keep it also updated just to keep track who has contributed..

@dj35 said in Attacks on settlements by NPCs:

i think the pve world is moRe like farming and stuff not really attacking anything besides animals/monsters the human world is more that style

PvE does not equal to farm in peace. It is true that in Arboreus lifeskills and RPG elements are highlighted but that planet is also about cooperation so it should offer players meaningful group oriented PvE content like killing world bosses, or running dungeons and raids. A lot of people likes to play challenging PvE games which offer competitive and hardcore content. Therefore, because Arboreus will be huge (the biggest one) it would be reasonable to have a different kind of continents which can offer different level content. Some of continents can be peaceful and super casual, and some in other hand can offer hardcore PvE activities. There can be some middle ground as well, but my point is that the game can easily offer different kind content for wide PvE audience if they just want to.

I just leave this article here..

"Dynamight Studios is a financially stable company. Careful business planning, coupled with backing from the three founders and private investors, make us feel safe about the future of the project. Moreover, we already have open channels with a few large game publishers that have shown interest in Fractured."

Kickstarter page

@Razvan said in Is being a Demon all around negative?:

@Gothix said in Is being a Demon all around negative?:

Being a human will give you access to technology.

Did they ever explain this idea in more detail? "Access to technology" can mean a lot of things. Also, should anyone who lives on Syndesia have access to this perk or just human? Do humans who live on furries planet or demon planet have access to this perk?

There is not much details but a year ago we little bit played with the theme: Steampunk Technology

The idea of technology is to shorten the power gap between humans and demons/beastmen which have special bonuses and abilities from the start. Therefore, I personally expect to see bionic parts (enchant like stat bonuses) which can be attached to the gear, but perhaps on top of that the technology can offer special abilities like the ones demons and beastmen have.

My guess is that we start naked or at least with clothes which has no armor value or any other benefits. As long as I get those red underpants with small white hearts, I am fine.

I guess that as long as there are counters, it does not matter even if the resistances goes over 100% and starts to absorb damage.

@Basileus Well P2W is not that simple or black and white. Paying for getting any kind of advantage can be considered as P2W as well. Depends of the game and the context.

@Vidrik said in Camping?:

So you’re not full lootable unless you’re a criminal? Any idea what isn’t lootable?

I suggest to read this article, it explains how the PvP is meant to happen in different planets and how different alignments works with the full loot system.

Feature Spotlight #6

@Basileus Sure the meaning has changed within years (and it is also very regional), but I guess we should talk about the current version, because it is the one which actually matters. It is quite common attitude, especially in west, that people want gaming be as equal as possible without any kind of paid advantages. There is no rule why pay to win should only mean superiour powers and items, and what you can only buy with real money. People uses P2W nowadays more widely than before, but there is not much what we can do about it. It is very hard to say, that those millions of people are wrong. Anyhow, if we leave the etymology behind and examine the current form of P2W, the general message behind it is very clear, no advantages with real money.

@Razvan said in Is there planned any "CD reduction" in case of spell saved?:

@Tuoni said in Is there planned any "CD reduction" in case of spell saved?:

I am actually more concerned about melee damage dealers and how they will perform in ZvZ fights. There are few things which might cause some serious balance issues between melee and ranged, friendly fire and player collision.

That's actually a very good point I haven't thought about. This is more interesting when you weight in that evil characters have FF on, while neutral+ characters don't. I hope they rethink this.

I think that is anyway something which cannot be decided and carved in the stone before wider testing. I guess having FF with evil characters is meant to make neutral and especially good players life easier in the open world, but I am not sure if that is the best way to do this. Actually SBI wanted to implement FF for Albion, but they needed to drop that because they did not manage to balance that system between melee and ranged. I am not saying that FF cannot be done, but it can easily cause serious balance issues, especially when there is player collision involved as well. On paper it sounds like ranged life is much more easier and safe when you do not need to worry about AoEs from allies.

@Yitra said in Rhykker Mention of "Pay for Convenience":

To me, the whole P2W discussion is about people who don't have the money or do not want to spend it expect to be on par with people who do spend money.

I am not personally going to play a game where skill can be replaced with real money. The whole gaming experience takes a hit if someone can buy his way to the top. I also hate the base idea behind this, to milk money out of the players as much as possible, without doing anything good to the game itself, just harm.

Why would I spend money on things that don't give me anything useful?

Many gaming companies do a good amount of money with cosmetics, so I guess most people are fine to buy atleast something, even those won't give any advantages. However, you can do this a pretty shit way too, like in BDO, most of the ingame armors (even the best ones) makes you look like a clown or beggar, and that way pushes you to buy armor cosmetics from cash shop..

Everything can be OP if wanted but balancing is the hard part, especially when taking consider different kind of combat situations. If you make melee more tanky so they will be viable in ZvZ fights that makes them OP in smaller scale fights and especially in 1v1 situations. That is the challenge what FF and player collision will create, it effects more on melee than ranged.

@Gothix said in Rhykker Mention of "Pay for Convenience":

I just hope multibox will not be allowed.

WoW classic has a lot multi boxers atm. People pay for 5 subs, then control 5 chars simultaneously and farm at 5x rate, which is a clear pay to win, and I don't see Blizzard doing much about it.

Some people even converted multibox to multibox BOTs and are letting BOTs run at night while GMs are at sleep...

They might allow the multiboxing, but botting is still illegal and will lead to ban if get caught. Imo the multiboxing should not be allowed at first place, but gaming companies sees these as extra income and that is why those are allowed in many cases. If I remember right, in Albion Online multiboxing was also allowed, but your characters were not allowed to interact with each other any way.. Well that is better than nothing.

@Jetah said in Question about builds:

@Ostaff said in Question about builds:

@Vindictus

Don't know if that particular part is still true, though it probably is I would think. what I do know, is that you really really really do NOT want your INT to be below 10. Since the power level and number of skills you are able to use are based off of INT, it will be important even for a dumb brute build.

that's one creative decision i dont like. a group of abilities should have a primary attribute that needs to be x digit or higher. IE a rogue playstyle/archtype should need dex (example) to slot all of their skills. a barbaria archtype should need strength. and etc. maybe have a few that requires two attributes.

putting it all into INT only strengthens casters.

I do not like that plan either. It kind of drives players to assign points for INT even they do not need INT for anything else. These kind of solutions are more like annoying rather than giving anything good for the game.

@Razvan I agree that dividing mounts to under different main categories would be the best solution. That system could be spiced up even more with passive and active mount abilities and perhaps also with item slots (maybe one ability and item slot is enough). It would be nice to have a animal breeder as profession option and other crafters having a possibility to craft mount items e.g. saddlebags, horseshoes..

@Gothix said in Question about builds:

I wrote about this loooong time ago. I remember it brought some heated discussions as well.

But yes, as I wrote before, i still feel that different school knowledge point gaining should not all be tied to INT, but to a particular different stat fitting for that school.

For example hunter skill learning efficiency tied to DEX.

Entire learning tied to INT does indeed benefit spellcasters more.

I like this idea that learning would be tied to attributes and which attribute the specific ability presents. This would make so much more sense.