Posts made by GamerSeuss

@Vialli

I'm a PvE player, and even I know this theory is erroneous, and here's why:

They need to get the actual mix of PvP on Syndesia balanced, and thus, a major thrust of the Alpha Testing is on that very principal. You don't ever run an Alpha test purely to make the game appear fun for a group of players...that is never the goal. Too many people are treating the Alpha as just some early access to the game, and considering it by that standard because they have no idea what it means to Alpha test a game in the first place.

In the Alpha Stage, that's when you make the hard choices for the majority of the playerbase. This is when you try and discard ideas that will either make or break the game, and as such, you cannot coddle your playerbase in the process. If people are leaving the Alpha test, that only goes to show they aren't Alpha Testers. The truth of the matter is, testers are not going to be the ones who want to be coddled, they are the ones who are going to want to exactly what you just mentioned, travel 20-60 mins across the continent to a Hot Spot, Battle in said Hot Spot for an hour or so, then Attempt to bring back their loot safely through PvP infested waters as it were. They are going to want to see how creative they can get to avoid the PvPers, they are going to want to test the limitations of their builds in defending themselves, or getting themselves to the Quick Teleportation Harbors and thus to safety.

Testing is done through adversity. When the game fully launches, we already know there will be the Beast World where no PvP is possible, and thus the purely PvE who don't even want the possibility of PKing will stick to that world, just as the Pure PvP players will go to the Demon world where it will be a giant King of the Hill battle constantly with every other player group in the area.

Then we have Syndesia. For Syndesia to be the best it can possibly be. To be that ultimate middle ground where both PvE and PvP players can play together, not exactly in harmony, but with a mix of Risk and safety, they have to make the hard choices right now and test test test and re-test until they get the rules for Syndesia balanced correctly.

Alpha testing, surprisingly enough, is also NOT the period when player recruitment and retention is a focal point. You in fact don't want to worry about that much at all in the Alpha stage, because you don't want your players falling in love with a Testing phase that's just going to change when the game goes into Beta and into final release, you want them to be involved with the decision making processes along the way. That is the appeal of being an Alpha tester.

If we want this game to be the best possible game it can be, we have to let the game go through its growing pains, and not worry about fluffy clouds and rainbows, per se. They will sprinkle the tests with non PvP content, of course, so there are things the PvEers can fight to try to do unharrassed, and so they can also get these elements right, but now that the PvP testing has started in earnest, just flat opting out of PvP will only be an option if that ends up being one of the paths they consider making available in the final game, after testing all other permutations. Right now, that option is set aside for the Beast World.

@Quantum

If by bosses, you mean the Legends, I think they are fine tuning them right now, and pretty much drop what they are meant to drop. Rarer materials, Gold and Gems possibly, and Lost Tales, which are both big chunks of Knowledge points, and also snippets of game lore for those of the more Role-play mindset to collect and read/experience. There may end up being some Boss Exclusive Skills that you would want to Max out your attacks against them to obtain100% knowledge for as well in the future..

The real 'Bosses' and massive game events are planned to be the Asteroids. Now, we have yet to see what those are going to entail, but we can assume these will be those kind of threats that mandate a larger group raid format to take on, so that small groups/solos don't feel obligated to join in raids if they don't want to, as they are happening outside the main worlds, and they won't put the big and small groups in direct opposition for their gameplay. You can't exactly farm an Asteroid event for PvP, not knowing what the PvP rules will be on a given asteroid, how long it will be available, and what size of group will be mandated to clear one.

@r6G4596Y7G9AwD0TzJTxFSZx not sure what games your counting as MMOs in your claim.

I know some said Neverwinter Nights was an MMO, but it really wasn't. The number of players it could handle in a session was finite, and definitely didn't count as 'Massive.' I did love the game and beta-tested it before it came out, but it wasn't an MMO.

MUDs were the precursors to MMOs, and could handle far more simultaneous players than NWN, but they were not really MMOs either. I must admit to never having played or seen M59, but it came out in 1996 going into 1997, and Ultima came out in 1997, so I have to assume your counting either MUDs or NWN in your claim. That's fine, different people hold up different criteria for what they Count, but in the established gaming world, the first Official MMO was Ultima Online, followed by EverQuest. I played a little of UO, but it wasn't until EQ that I found a game that really spoke to me as an MMO.

regardless, I think you may be mistaken as far as how successful Fractured can be based on the current changes. I think a lot of those changes will appeal, and as some have pointed out, there will be the All PvP world for those who want Rampant PvP, and there will be the No-PvP world for those who don't want even a chance at being ganked by other players. Syndesia is meant to be that middle ground for those who want there to be a chance, but also want to mostly play PvE, accepting the risks involved, as long as they feel the risks have been mitigated sufficiently to keep the game fun.

@OlivePit I think the actual intent was for Luck to have an affect on the RNG, and I agree, things like Luck and Skill are important to mitigate RNG results. A Master Chef shouldn't burn the soup every time she makes it, and a luckless buffoon shouldn't be making Perfect crafts every time they sit down to craft.

I think there needs to be both a Luck affect on skill usage as far as an RNG goes, AND a Talent branch dedicated to focusing your luck towards certain avenues...One branch has your Luck go towards Crafting, another towards Finding more materials, and a Third towards Combat.

@OlivePit I'm ready to wait and see the results of the changes, but like OlivePit, I do see some changes in incentives based on this new system.

Also, for me, having an RNG factor involved in crafting was a plus. I like the gamey element of having a failure chance, or a chance to craft a better item than average. This is the dice-rolling mechanic in crafting that makes it as much a game as the RNG factor in combat. Even the best Fighter/Chef/Tailor/Thief/etc... has a chance once in awhile to shine above even their excellent abilities, and also a chance to flub up their project. I (like most people out there) have a range of skills in my real life, some I'm considered very very good at (Cooking, Computers, Sales, Game Design, Dance, Swimming) and some I'm more on the average side of (Martial Arts, Electrician, Camping, Truck Driving) and yet, there are times that I can make a truly inspired electronic fix on something (only an Average skill) and there are times when I burn dinner (when cooking is an advanced skill of mine) so I see real value in inclusion of an RNG system over a pay to be better gold-based system for item quality.

@RedIO The fact is, they want to deincentivize Evil on Syndesia.

They don't want to give the 'Evil' aligned players easy ways to bypass the rest of the game by just being evil, like gaining KP from victims, or being able to assess your opponents before attacking. In fact, the last is completely the wrong way to go even if you wanted Evil to thrive, because the one check and balance that has been available for anti-griefing has always been the risk involved with attacking a seemingly helpless victim only to find that victim can take you out, or attacking what appears to be a fat merchant only to waste your time on someone with no lootable gear/inventory worth the trouble.

They definitely don't want to make it so that a PvPer can solely progress in the game through PvP play. PvP play is outside of the progression system, as that is their main incentivized system to explore as much of the world(s) as possible.

@Alexian As much as I personally agree with punitive damages for those who grief all the time, I can see the point that many PvPers have made, and why this would affect the Dev's decision making processes to take such penalties away or lighten them extremely.

The ONE thing you don't necessarily want to do in a game is encourage your player base to NOT play the game for any length of time. Yes, as a world punishment, it is the kind of real punishment that could have an impact and lessen griefing in the extreme, BUT it could also drive these highly lucrative players away from the game and send them packing to another game entirely. This is a net loss in revenue for the Devs, and thus bad for the community. Sure, there are some who would stick to it, or play on alt characters and such, but most of those who are hard griefers are not exactly the understanding, reasonable types and I could see a lot of rage-quitting because of this.

The new rules and limitations, I think, are a good compromise in this regard and will keep people playing the game overall.

@Hathos I think discouraging evil is a good overall choice. Yes, you can be evil, but as evil is a 'disruptive playstyle' for the majority of the population, it only makes sense to incentivize Good and Neutral play over Evil play, making it so that the player(s) have to try to balance their 'negative actions' in such a way as to keep themselves in the Neutral category for the most gains, quickly trying to leave the Evil moniker behind when it is attained so as to reap more rewards.

@grofire

1. As all players start with a roster of perfectly acceptable skills based on their archetype, New players can compete on an even keel with older, experienced players just as they promised. You mainly just get variety with experience.
2. Now, the Talent tree does in fact improve the character, but as you said, it is in small enough steps that it doesn't really break horizontal goals.

The goal of this game is to encourage that kind of even playing field, where you play for customization and variety, but not power level. Gear is easily acquired, and not too difficult to enchant once you garner the reagents, some rarer than others, AND all gear has a durability that prevents a player from just finding their optimal build and set it/forget it, because they will have to acquire several sets of that favorite gear throughout their play history, and with the slight variance in crafting results added in, there is no guarantee they will quickly amass that perfect set in sufficient quantity to remain able to maintain their full optimal regalia all the time.

This may not be what you signed on to the game for, but I do believe the #1 hyped feature of this game since the very beginning is that it is attempting to be as horizontally progressive as possible. That combined with the ability to equally cater to different styles of play are the two main selling points most of us signed up for.

wonders how many times this question is going to be asked

If you read through the forums before asking, you'll find several threads dedicated to this exact same question, and mostly getting the exact same answer:

There is no exact date, and also, rarely if ever do they give an exact date for a test start until it is almost upon us. The only thing we do know is that it is no longer the Summer Alpha, it is now the Fall Alpha

Best they can say so far is Summer 2021, but stretching things that could go til the end of Sept if we're pushing it.

asking for a key most likely won't get you one.

Watch some of our Content Creators stream during the testing and some of them will have keys to give out.

Also, participate in the forums, you never know when a contest to give away a key might come about, we've had a few.

Also, participate in Free Play sessions when they happen, as often those will have some kind of chance to win a free key.

Asking/begging for a key is more likely to get people to ignore you, or worse, exempt you from possibly winning a key. There are sometimes people who will post on the forum that they will give a key away if you write them a compelling reason why you need/deserve the key.

Not as of yet. There's been some delays, COVID and all, so we're still in Alpha testing. Most likely earliest release will be 2023

He can, but it is unprofessional to provide any update he wants any way he likes. I have worked in Publishing and Game Design, and I do have a business as an Editor, and one of the major issues we saw that kept a lot of Kickstarter campaigns and the like from getting funded was posting things without editing considerations and/or in an unprofessional manner. This kind of behavior makes serious investors lose faith in a company as a viable option. Now that the Devs have new financial backers added into the mix, we have no idea what requirements those backers may or may not have instilled into the company, but a general expectation of professionalism is almost certainly something that is mentioned.

again, without having a community liaison on their team as of yet, it takes away from development and organizational requirements everytime one of the Developers tries to make an update for us.

Quick updates, like a discord post, hold no 'official' obligations, they are just heads up, and as such, can be done really quickly sometimes, if a developer has a few minutes to spare, and that's great and helps keep us informed in broad strokes.

This being said, the Discord updates can't just be copied and pasted as NEWS or Kickstarter updates, because these carry a level of official obligation to them that requires that the be professionally formatted, edited, and scrutinized prior to release for public consumption. Where a discord post might be done in 5 mins, by 1 developer, a decent NEWS or Kickstarter update can take several hours to become suitable for release, and generally involves a minimum of 2 sets of eyes, if not more go over it to make sure they aren't making promises or predictions they have no intention of keeping. No matter how good a writer a single Developer might be, nothing official should EVER go out to the public without having been gone over bare minimum by a separate editor. (One cannot truly edit their own writing, because we have a tendency to self-correct in our head, so errors aren't actually seen). In addition to that Developer writing an initial official update, and at least 1 editor going over that update for professionalism, grammar, spelling, etc..., the Developers in charge need to come together and review such a release and agree on its relative accuracy at the time of posting. Different Devs have different things on their plates, different schedules when they might be free to read over and comment on such a post, so it is generally something that now takes a dedicated meeting, at least 1-3 revisions, and a final overview check before it can be published as official. That 5 minute possible 'keep us in the know' that we ask for in design terms is potentially costing several developers anywhere from 2 hrs ot 8 hrs each in actual time away from their own contributions to the game development and organizational situation of the project.

This is why a community liaison is generally hired (when it can be afforded into their budget, that is.) Such a person would go to each Developer on the Dev's schedules, and get regular progress reports, do a professional level write-up of a NEWS article/Kickstarter update, go to the Head Dev(s) for approval of the content, then submit it to editing for final posting. This is a full time job for the liaison and at least a part time commitment for an editor.

I'm all for getting updates, and it is good to keep the community on board with what's happening, however, I'm also for sacrificing some of that updating if it means the Developers can get more progress done on the game itself.

As to the concept of "stop worrying about adding more to the next alpha, and release a smaller release now while we wait," remember, when they go to release any kind of Alpha test, all Development stops for as long as it takes to migrate what they currently have onto the test servers for us to work on, the Developers closing any holes that remain because they were still 'works in progress' so that it is a playable test. Each time they stop to do that, in other words, they halt work on the overall progress of the game. I'm not one for wanting an alpha test to come out everytime a new T is crossed or I is dotted in the overall scheme of things. As they are only running quarterly (roughly) Alphas right now, it is important that each Alpha has enough new content to really justify launching the test series.

most kickstarter rewards won't be available until game launch

I don't know about Titanreach, but RuneScape was a reverse engineered version of Ultima Online, and even then, it took until the 2nd iteration before they really struck gold. RuneScape 2, aka Old School RuneScape is probably one of the single most popular games out, partly because of nostalgia, and partly because of their skill foci.

@Jacenson The promise from the Devs was to make the game equally appealing and balanced for both Group and Solo players

First off, you are starting with a misconception...MMORPGs aren't Multiplayer games, they are Multiplayer Worlds, there is a difference.

The very first graphical MMORPG, Ultima Online, was mainly played solo by its playerbase, as was the second, EverQuest. That doesn't mean people never came together and played, that was, afterall, one of the joys of the genre, the ability to play in a world where you weren't stuck just soloing if you wanted to interact with other live players, but not on a fixed screen multiplayer platform, like old 2 player arcade games.

MMORPGs are in fact, and always have been multiplayer community games that are supposed to be playable both as a solo player, and in groups both big and small.

The real reason that you may find more solo players than people willing to group is one of the joys of the game, and that's the ongoing world that progresses, whether a single player is logged in or not, BUT you are free to log in on your own schedule, do what you like, and log out, independent of the schedule of other players, unless you choose otherwise for certain short or long-term goals.

I love exploring where the quests don't take you, and I always read the cut scene dialogue (or listen to it) the first time I go through a quest line, because like you, I don't want to skip the story. I also play my game suboptimally in most people's minds, because I play the games like I used to play them, before there was internet legions giving away all the secret guides to the games. Shoot, I wrote one of the Plat Guides for EverQuest back in the day, doesn't mean I went and bought/downloaded everyone else's guide to figure out how to do something. I was, and am perfectly happy to grind away at the low to mid-levels if I can't find the time or mixed focus it takes to group raid the big raid bosses needed to really accelerate higher level play.

The game has always had a huge Solo following, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 'new' way of the gamer...it is just that different groups have always had different approaches. However, I will say that you are right in a couple respects, first the toxic community of ganking griefers is one thing that makes some want to just go back to playing by themselves, or only relying on very close, offline friends or long-term guildies to play with, and second, those internet gaming gurus out there that think they should tell other people how to play the game, and get all frustrated when you play the game your way, for the enjoyment are another toxic syndrome that kills the fun of the game, solo or group, but is even more likely to kill group play, as you have these gurus traveling with you for a quest-line/raid who are backseat mouse-captains and joystick jockeys trying to rush you through the dialogue, and are constantly trying to influence how you play the game....No, you have to do THIS quest first, and as a _______, you MUST be wearing THIS set of gear by THIS level or you just suck types.

Have fun in the game, for yourself. If you like to group primarily, the easiest thing for people to do is to in fact join a megaguild within the games you like to play, especially those megaguilds that span multiple games, OR get a group of close friends in real time to meet up with you and play along together with them, like your home tabletop group or the guys from work, etc...

@OldMule and the offered 'prize' as I stated, has a marketable value of zero, and is therefore not considered a 'material' product or offer. AND as I also stated, in such at will, no cost entry sweepstakes, especially those with multiole categories, it is considered an at-will that the provider can cancel any category for lack of participation, generally quantified at a minimum of 3 entries.

[edit] The assigned value of an Alpha key is zero, it is a perk included in certain backer levels, but is not sold seperately and has no value