They Just Murdered Factured Online

Wargfoot

The roadmap they just released has announced the following:

• The option to be a good player and never be subjected to PvP.
• A new fresh start server that will split the population. (10 players, sheesh)

I don't blame the developers for trying but their sheriff system was absolutely the best thing I've seen in these types of game in a very long time and they just threw it all away.  A loud contingent of WIPE THE SERVER AND WE'LL COME BACK boneheads means I'll lose millions (hundreds of hours of work).

The good news is summer is just starting so I can go outside, do some yard work, and do something else.

I gambled a few hundred on an indie team, had fun for a bit, but ultimately lost.
That's gaming.

vonryan123

Sorry to say I saw this coming. They haven't handled anything well since release.

Wargfoot

vonryan123 said:

Sorry to say I saw this coming. They haven't handled anything well since release.

I was hoping it was a mis-step here or there, but it is closer to "falling down a flight of stairs".

Wargfoot

Does anyone know of an early access title where the developers promise the moon but barely scrape by, something I can throw a few hundred at, blow hundreds of hours in, all to have it wiped?

*begins to shake*

AAAMEOW

Have you tried legned of aria?  Think there is a bunch of problem with that game too.  

cheyane

I don't understand didn't Fractured Online already start with a PvE island where you could not be killed in PvP? There was also a full PvP island and one that was in the middle of these two. 3 islands in all. So what happened to cause this change? Did they really lose players to PvP?

Scot

I just won't get involved in a game before the proper launch and reviews, gaming is one of my main hobbies and this sort of thing is soul destroying. You could end up not wanting to play.

Wargfoot

cheyane said:

I don't understand didn't Fractured Online already start with a PvE island where you could not be killed in PvP? There was also a full PvP island and one that was in the middle of these two. 3 islands in all. So what happened to cause this change? Did they really lose players to PvP?

So much to say here:

• Correct, you start on a PvE island.
• Correct, there is a PvE planet and a PvP planet.

Addtionally,

• You get 40 hr. new player protection.
• The sheriff system had reds complaining and was punitive enough to drive all but the decent ones away.
• You could get to full rank 50 (level 50) without ever doing PvP.
• Even if you did PvP, as a good you couldn't lose your gear.

Even with that forgiving ruleset I know several players that pooped themselves upon dying once and ran off in a huff.

In hundreds of hours of play over 6 months I was murdered 3 times and lost next to nothing.  In UO, murdered 3 times was known as 45 minutes of playtime on a friday night.

Wargfoot

AAAMEOW said:

Have you tried legned of aria?  Think there is a bunch of problem with that game too.  

I did, and yeah, it has problems.
I'm probably done with gaming... had enough of the developers.

Wargfoot

I do think this is a cautionary tale for AoC.

I don't think there is a comparison between the budgets/dev teams/scope, rather, the desire to mix PvP with PvE is alarming.  I'm starting to think a system so punitive to keep the reds in check means they won't play, and anything else will drive away PvE players.  

The fact is the PvP community for the most part doesn't want to mess around with rules/grind/justice systems that interfere with PvP activities; the PvE crowd doesn't want to die even once - the majority of players in these communities, is what I mean.

I tried to show PvE players how to play risk free in FO but they didn't want to hear it.

This is what every developer misses:

It isn't about the loot, it is about logging into a game to be a hero and getting mugged.  They keep addressing the lost pixels (gear) but don't have a solution for feeling like a victim in a game where one was supposed to be the hero.

You can wave your hand at that observation and claim people need to be more emotionally mature (true) or learn it is just a game (true), but the reality is they just leave in droves.

Scot

Wargfoot said:

AAAMEOW said:

Have you tried legned of aria?  Think there is a bunch of problem with that game too.  

I did, and yeah, it has problems.
I'm probably done with gaming... had enough of the developers.

This is what I was talking about, it must put players of. My advice, take a few months break if need be and come back to gaming for a properly released solo title. This engagement by the devs to get money during development is not healthy for the hobby.

kitarad

You say they left in droves but didn't they know what type of game it was when they bought and played it. They knew about the PvP and they still left after dying to it. Somehow I have difficulty with that. I mean if you get killed a few times it is fine. Were they camped and killed over and over, was there a mechanic that allowed for people to never let up from killing them.

People don't simply leave after one death it is only when you're repeatedly killed that people leave. I am more inclined to believe it is not as simple as what you have written here.

Look I know some players get upset even if they die even once but leaving in droves underlines a more pressing issue than simply dying once to PvP in a game where they never hid the fact that there were places you could be killed by another player.

I think there were other issues that let to the downfall of the game. Like perhaps a lack of content or bugs. From what I recall this game never really took off. It was always quite borderline and not having played it I cannot comment on its game play.

Slapshot1188

I didn't even know they had packages that cost a few hundred...
That's a tough hit.

But maybe the way to look at it is more of a Hail Mary.  They likely would have just folded if they didn't try this.  Maybe they make some money and somewhere down the line you get a throwback ruleset you like.

Cogohi

Wargfoot said:

... the PvE crowd doesn't want to die even once ...

Death is just as much a part of PvE.  The PvE players I know simply don't want their time wasted by some other player trying to get their jollies off.  

Given a large enough population somebody will figure out how to get around whatever "protections" exist.  Consequently even the mere hint of mixed PvE and PvP is enough to drive away PvE players.

It's not that the PvE crowd doesn't want to die, it's the business side sayin' we're not making as much money as we thought we would.

Wargfoot

kitarad said:

Look I know some players get upset even if they die even once but leaving in droves underlines a more pressing issue than simply dying once to PvP in a game where they never hid the fact that there were places you could be killed by another player.

When there were murderers and I needed to go to PvP land I'd wear cheap gear and I wouldn't loot anything off my kills.  If someone killed me, I'd have literally 1gp on me just to troll them.  I was there just to get knowledge points of the mobs, that's the only goal and I literally could lose nothing.

I'd tell the PvE players in my guild how this was done - that there was a path to getting to rank 50 without losing a single gold piece - and a guild of 100+ players dwindled to 3 people in 6 weeks, largely over PvP issues.

Because it isn't about the gear, or the dying, but the humiliation of some other guy killing you and taking that 1gp.

Other factor you mentioned played a part, sure, but the PvP was the one that was told to me by those that left.   One death and out.

kitarad

I see well I can understand now that you have explained it but I skimmed through Reddit and it also mentioned the PvP players leaving because of the stiff penalties of being evil. So from there I gleaned that it was a combination of PvP and PvE players leaving over the severity of the punishment for being red or existence of being looted that tipped this game.

I feel games always make a mistake of trying to mix PvE and PvP players and can never satisfy either camp. Albion online seems to have the formula down though so there is hope.

Wargfoot

Slapshot1188 said:

I didn't even know they had packages that cost a few hundred...
That's a tough hit.

But maybe the way to look at it is more of a Hail Mary.  They likely would have just folded if they didn't try this.  Maybe they make some money and somewhere down the line you get a throwback ruleset you like.

The money I spent was well spent, IMHO.
It gave me that old UO vibe I've been wanting for a very long time.

I just wanted to play for 10 years and not just 6 months.

kitarad

I am sorry that you're losing a game you enjoyed.

olepi

I'd say take it philosophically, you put hundreds of hours into the game and had fun during that time. That's about all you can expect from a game. I put years of effort into Ryzom, and DAOC, and had fun. I don't play them anymore though. 

Was that time a waste? Isn't all time gaming really just a waste? Or, if you had fun doing it, was it really wasted?

If you spent hundreds of real dollars, then that is on you. I would never spend anything like that on any game. (Disclaimer: actually, I bought the lifetime sub of LoTRO when it first came out for $250, and recently chipped in another $100 just to support the game.) Again, if you spent hundreds and got hundreds of hours of fun, that was cheap entertainment really.

This is why I always wait 6 months to a year after a game has released before spending much time in it. And I never pay to play in an alpha. Alpha games are probably going to change radically before they finally get fully baked.

Wargfoot

olepi said:

I'd say take it philosophically, you put hundreds of hours into the game and had fun during that time. That's about all you can expect from a game. I put years of effort into Ryzom, and DAOC, and had fun. I don't play them anymore though. 

Was that time a waste? Isn't all time gaming really just a waste? Or, if you had fun doing it, was it really wasted?

If you spent hundreds of real dollars, then that is on you. I would never spend anything like that on any game. (Disclaimer: actually, I bought the lifetime sub of LoTRO when it first came out for $250, and recently chipped in another $100 just to support the game.) Again, if you spent hundreds and got hundreds of hours of fun, that was cheap entertainment really.

This is why I always wait 6 months to a year after a game has released before spending much time in it. And I never pay to play in an alpha. Alpha games are probably going to change radically before they finally get fully baked.

You're not wrong.

I gave the money I did on purpose (knowing it could fail) because I wanted to support a set of design goals that I found interesting. It was my way to give someone a shot at making something good.

Gaming will always be one of the best values in entertainment.

Wargfoot

kitarad said:

I see well I can understand now that you have explained it but I skimmed through Reddit and it also mentioned the PvP players leaving because of the stiff penalties of being evil. So from there I gleaned that it was a combination of PvP and PvE players leaving over the severity of the punishment for being red or existence of being looted that tipped this game.

I feel games always make a mistake of trying to mix PvE and PvP players and can never satisfy either camp. Albion online seems to have the formula down though so there is hope.

Many of the PvP players that left over the penalties were the UO '98 wannabes that were griefers.  Let me be clear: Many that left were first class assholes - who hunted in noob areas and got ganked themselves by sheriffs.  They literally couldn't take the PvP they've been claiming for years they wanted.

We had some really cool reds that stayed behind though, and they didn't have much issue with the ruleset.  Some tweaks, sure, but they were okay with it.

Sovrath

Wargfoot said:

Does anyone know of an early access title where the developers promise the moon but barely scrape by, something I can throw a few hundred at, blow hundreds of hours in, all to have it wiped?

*begins to shake*

So, not to hit the hornet’s nest but aren’t early access games always subject to changes and wipes?

Baldur’s Gate 3 certainly had changes that invalidated saves and people had to start over.

Wargfoot

Sovrath said:

Wargfoot said:

Does anyone know of an early access title where the developers promise the moon but barely scrape by, something I can throw a few hundred at, blow hundreds of hours in, all to have it wiped?

*begins to shake*

So, not to hit the hornet’s nest but aren’t early access games always subject to changes and wipes?

Baldur’s Gate 3 certainly had changes that invalidated saves and people had to start over.

Yes, early access has that possibility baked into the thing.
A risk that I certainly accepted upon buying the game.

The problem I have with it is this:

• The developers said "no wipes" early on - that "no wipes" was a goal, but not a promise.  Okay, I can live with that.  Sometimes there is a good reason for a wipe, but alas...
• The reason for the wipes is that there are lots of players that say they'll come back if the game has a fresh start.  So, the daily players for the past 6 months are getting wiped in favor of people who already left.
• It isn't really a wipe; they're opening a fresh start server and leaving all the vets on the old server.  So, they're putting me in the position of staying on dying server or starting over.
  

The stated reason for the wipe isn't technical, as in a database change or something else, but rather that there are supposedly lots of players that want to come back but cannot handle the fact I already have lots of gold.  Those players refuse to come back until everything is reset.

So I ask the obvious questions:

• How does deleting my bank box improve the game play for these returning players?
• Six months after relaunch you'll have new players joining the game for the first time - in a game full of rich vets, are you gonna wipe for those guys too?  This isn't a long-term fix for any problem at all.

It is a bad reason for a wipe.

Theocritus

Cogohi said:

Wargfoot said:

... the PvE crowd doesn't want to die even once ...

Death is just as much a part of PvE.  The PvE players I know simply don't want their time wasted by some other player trying to get their jollies off.  

Given a large enough population somebody will figure out how to get around whatever "protections" exist.  Consequently even the mere hint of mixed PvE and PvP is enough to drive away PvE players.

It's not that the PvE crowd doesn't want to die, it's the business side sayin' we're not making as much money as we thought we would.

The problem is that too many games try to please both crowds.....Really they should make the game one way or the other and not split the population.

Slapshot1188

Theocritus said:

Cogohi said:

Wargfoot said:

... the PvE crowd doesn't want to die even once ...

Death is just as much a part of PvE.  The PvE players I know simply don't want their time wasted by some other player trying to get their jollies off.  

Given a large enough population somebody will figure out how to get around whatever "protections" exist.  Consequently even the mere hint of mixed PvE and PvP is enough to drive away PvE players.

It's not that the PvE crowd doesn't want to die, it's the business side sayin' we're not making as much money as we thought we would.

The problem is that too many games try to please both crowds.....Really they should make the game one way or the other and not split the population.

I agree but I think the problem here is that people SAID they wanted one thing, but then bailed out. 

Some day the AI will make it so you cannot tell the difference between PvE and PvP.  Will be interesting to see what happens.

Wargfoot

Slapshot1188 said:

Theocritus said:

Cogohi said:

Wargfoot said:

... the PvE crowd doesn't want to die even once ...

Death is just as much a part of PvE.  The PvE players I know simply don't want their time wasted by some other player trying to get their jollies off.  

Given a large enough population somebody will figure out how to get around whatever "protections" exist.  Consequently even the mere hint of mixed PvE and PvP is enough to drive away PvE players.

It's not that the PvE crowd doesn't want to die, it's the business side sayin' we're not making as much money as we thought we would.

The problem is that too many games try to please both crowds.....Really they should make the game one way or the other and not split the population.

I agree but I think the problem here is that people SAID they wanted one thing, but then bailed out. 

Some day the AI will make it so you cannot tell the difference between PvE and PvP.  Will be interesting to see what happens.

To be fair the PvP crowd offers an additional wrinkle.
They often live-stream the humiliation of the people they're killing.

So out of the 3 times I died I got to have a short video of one instance posted on the public forums for everyone to see.  That didn't bother me because I got along with the other player in this case, but I do see the potential for bullying.