The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Farlander said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:

    I seem to remember a time when this forum community argued hard against the game steering toward large groups that dominated the landscape. It would seem logical to me that to combat that idea encouraging solo play or even small group play would be beneficial toward this end. I highly feel that solo play should not be a detriment to the point someone gets frustrated and quits the game.

    Agreed. Solo players should be able to do a lot of things, but they should never be able to do everything... and they will need to rely on others for some things. If a player wants to travel between cities as a traveling merchant, let them... but they will need to pay the costs for doing so as well. Just as there are costs for creating cities and all the valuable assets they have.

    Let there be cities that are open so they can have their areas, but let the Governor decide that. Let the governor decide who can be in a territory and what it will cost them to do so. It is no different than what it is in real life, and this will keep from having a territory undermined from the its weak foundation.


  • Content Creator

    @Ostaff Yes, because most of those games encouraged the Large Group mentality, even if the player base didn't always want it. They ended up joining Guilds out of necessity, and that's really not the reason I would want to join a guild in the first place. Most Solo-centric players join a game, and explore as much of the solo content as they can solo, while feeling out some of the people around them so that they can make short term alliances that may eventually lead to joining a more open minded guild. I mean, we all know that End Game content, certain bosses for instance, usually require more than just one person to take them down. Alliances of the moment, repeated a few times, sometimes leads to guild formation and all is good then, but the Solo player shouldn't feel like the majority of the game is forcing them in that direction, because the fact of the matter is, there are a whole bunch of people out there who play these games mostly to kill time by themselves or in small groups of circumstance...others who play to join up with friends and family for a few hours on a rotating basis, maybe Bob plays with his sister Jenny on Mondays, has a couple co-workers who might ask him to hit a Raid on the weekend, and the rest of the week, he mostly works on his own things, mainly being Skilling and Exploring. These are the players the game wants to target and encourage to keep coming back. It's just like Micro-Transactions vs Pay to play, sure, pay to play gets a bigger chunk of money guaranteed each month, and a big group comes together and all puts a bigger chunk of money/time/etc... in the game compared to the little groups and solos, however, just like how hitting players with a free game, but micro-transactions to get little things like boosts and stuff, often end up making the money made from the game skyrocket, so having a ton of Solo/Small group players coming back day in and day out will profit the game overall more than the big groups., or at least has the potential to do so...when you figure you might have 10 guilds playing, each with say an average of 100 players, that's 1000 players invested in the game...but for each of those sets of 10 guilds, you may have 5,000+ solo/small group players...sure, they may not even ever do the boss raids and end game content, but the Devs care about players logged in more than if they are consuming every inch of content, AND those solo'ists often will find all kinds of little things in the lower level parts of the game that the big boys ignore in their rapid rise to power.


  • TF#6 - DIPLOMAT

    @LonelyCookie I like your approach best. It lets the governors actually govern, and keeps some semblance of peace instead of KoS all day erry day. I expect that on Tartaros, but it shouldn't be that way on Sindesia.

    One point I haven't seen yet, how would this play out on the Beastman planet? The "if you don't want them there, kill them" mechanic flat out is disabled there, no? You'd be completely at the mercy of anyone who wanted to leech.



  • @LonelyCookie said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:

    Allow us to set how open our territory is. Closed - Selective - Open.

    I have to agree with this. The idea that all cities are safe zones and usable even by your enemies just feels terrible.



  • This is going to cause a lot of headaches, i appreciate the fact that solo players have it a certain way, but causing a guild to have no choice in who is in a city is asking for trouble. i think a good compromise would be to let governor's set if they want non guildies in a city and/or have a green/block list/ permissions etc.



  • Allow governors to set tax rates and mode of expected payment (cap it so it's not something ungodly) to people in their city region. I can't see any governor with half a brain cell abusing that to members of neutral or allied guilds (if they applied one at all) who are actual productive members since more foot traffic and trade is good for everyone.

    Allow for a status to be declared towards another guild like allied, friendly, trade partner, and war. Allow any member of a guild at war with the guild controlling the city to be PvP hot in the city. If they want to leech, make them earn every drop of blood.

    This not only fixes enemy guilds from abusing other guilds who actually took the time to install logistics and maintenance plans, but it also STRONGLY encourages guild diplomacy and politics.....which leads to HEATED wars. It also places just as much value on the player leaning more towards PvE and trade as it does the player who likes to wtfown people and build an empire.

    More importantly.....it avoids a MAJOR avenue for griefing. Because a small handful of players can use this open city/territory system as a way to put all trade and lvl'ing in that area to a grinding halt doing basic hit and runs from the safety of their housing. I assure anyone who thinks this is a good idea....under this system I could make you rage quit inside a week tops.


  • TF#7 - AMBASSADOR

    I'm so tired of seeing heated arguments between hostile babies over trifles like who gets to make a game all about them.

    "Playing solo" in an MMO is not the same thing as playing a single player game. It simply means that players are not obligated into contracts or duties to a party or guild. They absolutely retain the option of selectively trading with or otherwise engaging other players and this should always be encouraged (not enforced) or else it isn't an MMO.

    There is not one single reason that any player should be forced to persistently play in a group in an MMO, especially one that limits its gameplay for the sake of lore or immersion like Fractured. It is unrealistic that every single person has to be in a group to accomplish the slightest thing and there should never be an invisible ghost barring you from doing basic things like "Sorry, you can't put this crafting station in your solo house, only in a city."

    Solo players are already inherently punished by the nature of playing solo. Groups drastically cut the time taken for build projects or resource farming, and are able to specialize each member to produce a flawless team. They can also have someone on in a wide set of time zones. Solo players on the other hand require hours to build anything permanent, are only available in one time zone, and (unless the game is a scrub game) can only be good at one thing with glaring weaknesses. Of course, if a hostile group finds a solo player, they will easily floor them assuming all characters are roughly equal in strength, as Fractured fancies itself to promote.

    That said, it is ridiculous to force all player cities to be usable by all players. That simply doesn't make any sense from either a gameplay or a logical standpoint. As brought up earlier in the thread, it lessens the reward from building or controlling a city (which is a large investment) and can even benefit enemies. Besides, if cities are meant to be guild-controlled city-states, why would they inherently be available to the general public? Would this apply to Tartaros as well, where there is no global society and everyone is everyone's enemy?

    This problem could be rendered moot by simply allowing solo players to do full crafting in their own solo homes, rather than forcing them to do it in a city for no apparent reason. Otherwise, there is no point to solo homes, as they are objectively wastes of time and resources since you can't convert any of it to a city.

    Fractured is too concerned with looking like it's different from other MMOs and not concerned enough with a solid design and good experience. If it works, do it. If it doesn't, don't.

    EDIT: Apparently, solo players can build any crafting station in their homes that their closest city has researched. This makes no sense, but okay.


  • Content Creator

    @FibS said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:

    EDIT: Apparently, solo players can build any crafting station in their homes that their closest city has researched. This makes no sense, but okay.

    Yup. Don't see myself playing Fractured in release with the current design CHANGE that we are now seeing.

    This is not how Fractured was advertised and we are seeing a completely different game begin to appear. This marks the turning point.


  • TF#7 - AMBASSADOR

    And here is the link to the forum post for the Q&A thread


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Nekrage said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:

    This is not how Fractured was advertised and we are seeing a completely different game begin to appear. This marks the turning point.

    stop with this BS lie! this game was advertise as a game with all gameplay accepted.
    i do not know when you joined the game, but i joined from its first year, in no point this game was advertised as a PVP game or guild only game.
    its finally got back to its roots.


  • Content Creator

    @grofire Ohh ya? How about you take your BS and go find me a post or advertisement that says "Enemy players and guilds will benefit from your guilds hard work" or something along those lines. I will wait.

    Because what I see is this.

    "Looking for a new home? Find a suitable location and start a settlement with your guild. As a governor, you’ll be able to guide its development into a social, trading, or military hub. Beware, though: the rise to power of your city won’t go unnoticed, so get ready to protect it from hostile raids and sieges!"

    Now where does it say "watch as enemy players and guilds craft loot from your guild's city while you can do nothing about it!"?


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Nekrage no one got into that resolution at the first year, but as i said before, it was said all game play are accepted and welcome.
    in no point, until people like you showed up, this game was considered guild only game.


  • Content Creator

    @grofire NO ONE said the game should be "guild only". Try your strawman argument with someone else because it won't work with me.

    My issue is this.

    Watching enemies sitting in your city completely safe while using YOUR guild's structures to gear up and kill your members will be the final straw for me with Fractured.

    I won't be around much longer depending on how this Q & A goes. I'm not going to support a game going to casual route. Won't have it again. Too many MMOs cater to the casuals and this is starting to go that way.



  • I'm inclined to agree with Nekrage here. I have no problem with casuals and solo's having their place in the world, such as the beastmen lands etc, but when peoples cities are ALL turned into safe zones, it's changing the direction of the game significantly. I'd argue too much.

    I would be happy with a compromise such as say......3/4 NPC cities across map which are classed as safe zones, and then player towns are restricted to the actual guilds (with obvious benefits over NPC cities).



  • @Farlander said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:

    I seem to remember a time when this forum community argued hard against the game steering toward large groups that dominated the landscape. It would seem logical to me that to combat that idea encouraging solo play or even small group play would be beneficial toward this end. I highly feel that solo play should not be a detriment to the point someone gets frustrated and quits the game.

    As I told you before, I will tell you again. The people who are active on the forums, especially in the very early stages, will not be the majority at release. Established guilds will show up close to release and usually, people use their internal chat a lot more than forums so, with few exceptions, you won't hear their opinions. However, they will still gank weaker people, steal their resources, and use alts to bypass game limitations. The very same thing happened to Albion and there's pretty much nothing the devs can do about it.

    PS: I agree with OP. Governors/building owners should be able to decide if the town is safe or not (like completely disable guards if they want to, or set them to only defend a certain group), the groups* that can use their buildings and how much tax each pays for doing so.

    *nobody, friends, guild, ally, everyone


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Nekrage you might not said you want guild only game, but that was the situation in the last tests.
    if your guild is so small that you can't kill your enemy before they go inside your city or after, then you need this rules more then anyone else.


  • Content Creator

    @grofire said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:

    if your guild is so small that you can't kill your enemy before they go inside your city or after, then you need this rules more then anyone else.

    What you just said is one of the most idiotic things I have seen on these forums.

    It's almost like you haven't even played the game or have no idea what you are talking about.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @grofire @Nekrage How about you two ladies stop derailing the thread that was pretty productive until you two showed up and started barking insults at each other? 😂


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Nekrage ya ya, your so hardcore gamer, that you fear rival guild will come to your territory, and you will not able to kill them before or after they go inside the city. LMAO.


  • Content Creator

    @grofire said in The decision for public vs citizens-only crafting stations should be made by Governors, not Dynamight:

    you will not able to kill them before or after they go inside the city

    Proof right here you have absolutely no goddamn idea what you are talking about.

    This is the entire issue. The game literally STOPS YOU FROM KILLING PEOPLE IN YOUR CITY.

    Can you not understand that?


Log in to reply
 

Copyright © 2022 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured