I'll have to stay involved just to see how the drama plays out.
Guild I used to belong to in early DAOC got it's start in UO. Was called the Shadow Clan who role played as a ravenous, xenophobic, naked fighting PVP "horde" which zerged their opponents into oblivion.
In DAOC we did the same, just wore appropriate gear for our race/class.
I feel like this highlights one of the things developers fail to realize.
A PK doesn't care if he dies alot - so if he can find a way to fight where he risks no capital (or next to none) then he'll do that. He's not enamored of your fancy gear if he can get a nekid buddy to help out.
In UO, the PKs I saw that got whacked usually had nothing on them. You'd spend more in reagents killing them then the value of the loot they carried.
This is why those games have totally rubbish pvp to me and are way too carebear. If you're going to have mmrpg pvp then there should be an xp hit for dying just like in pve. And de-leveling with potential stat loss penalties. If all a pk has to worry about is their gear then it isn't much of a pvp system to me.
I don't often take the sides of a PK but if you're going to allow it in a game it doesn't make sense to stat based punishments.
I'd rather that the game offer incentives for remaining lawful. For example, keeping karma with different shrines offers loot/exp/power bonuses. The unlawful cannot get to these shrines and therefore don't have the bonuses.
Why would a person play a PK if a little bit of network lag could cost them hours of work on stats? We should look to keep it fun for everyone.
Let me clarify. The penalties for death apply to everyone in pvp or pve, pk or not. I'm comparing and contrasting why PvP and especially pk pvp is only impactful if there are penalties for losing and in the case of PKs, characters specifically intended to engage other players in a hostile manner, adds risk to the reward. Without any penalties, there is no risk in PvP especially for PKs.
Karma systems make perfect sense. A higher karma and players don't drop loot or have a very low chance for it. A very low karma and they're guaranteed to drop at least one or more items. The XP penalty should really be the same regardless of karma.
More specific stuff like shrines and merchant and buff limitations really sound like very game specific balancing items. They could all be good, but it really depends on the rest of the system.
The point is there needs to be death penalties and consequences for actions, or the pvp is just a fun scrimmage match. Removing the consequence also removes organic role-based community building. Instead you get themepark rides like "caravans", for tokens to "level up" your town/caravan/character/horsey, whatever. Fun, but ultimately meaningless.
I'll have to stay involved just to see how the drama plays out.
Guild I used to belong to in early DAOC got it's start in UO. Was called the Shadow Clan who role played as a ravenous, xenophobic, naked fighting PVP "horde" which zerged their opponents into oblivion.
In DAOC we did the same, just wore appropriate gear for our race/class.
I feel like this highlights one of the things developers fail to realize.
A PK doesn't care if he dies alot - so if he can find a way to fight where he risks no capital (or next to none) then he'll do that. He's not enamored of your fancy gear if he can get a nekid buddy to help out.
In UO, the PKs I saw that got whacked usually had nothing on them. You'd spend more in reagents killing them then the value of the loot they carried.
This is why those games have totally rubbish pvp to me and are way too carebear. If you're going to have mmrpg pvp then there should be an xp hit for dying just like in pve. And de-leveling with potential stat loss penalties. If all a pk has to worry about is their gear then it isn't much of a pvp system to me.
I don't often take the sides of a PK but if you're going to allow it in a game it doesn't make sense to stat based punishments.
I'd rather that the game offer incentives for remaining lawful. For example, keeping karma with different shrines offers loot/exp/power bonuses. The unlawful cannot get to these shrines and therefore don't have the bonuses.
Why would a person play a PK if a little bit of network lag could cost them hours of work on stats? We should look to keep it fun for everyone.
There's a difference between PvPing and PKing. The first is mutually consensual, the second not.
All PKing is consensual.
A person grants consent when:
1: Buy a game that has PvP. 2: Log into the game. 3: Enter a PvP zone.
The claim that PKs are engaging in non-consent behavior is like loading up FFXIV and complaining about non-consensual PvE.
You've granted consent to play the game by the rules when you log into the game.
I'll have to stay involved just to see how the drama plays out.
Guild I used to belong to in early DAOC got it's start in UO. Was called the Shadow Clan who role played as a ravenous, xenophobic, naked fighting PVP "horde" which zerged their opponents into oblivion.
In DAOC we did the same, just wore appropriate gear for our race/class.
I feel like this highlights one of the things developers fail to realize.
A PK doesn't care if he dies alot - so if he can find a way to fight where he risks no capital (or next to none) then he'll do that. He's not enamored of your fancy gear if he can get a nekid buddy to help out.
In UO, the PKs I saw that got whacked usually had nothing on them. You'd spend more in reagents killing them then the value of the loot they carried.
This is why those games have totally rubbish pvp to me and are way too carebear. If you're going to have mmrpg pvp then there should be an xp hit for dying just like in pve. And de-leveling with potential stat loss penalties. If all a pk has to worry about is their gear then it isn't much of a pvp system to me.
I don't often take the sides of a PK but if you're going to allow it in a game it doesn't make sense to stat based punishments.
I'd rather that the game offer incentives for remaining lawful. For example, keeping karma with different shrines offers loot/exp/power bonuses. The unlawful cannot get to these shrines and therefore don't have the bonuses.
Why would a person play a PK if a little bit of network lag could cost them hours of work on stats? We should look to keep it fun for everyone.
There's a difference between PvPing and PKing. The first is mutually consensual, the second not.
All PKing is consensual.
A person grants consent when:
1: Buy a game that has PvP. 2: Log into the game. 3: Enter a PvP zone.
The claim that PKs are engaging in non-consent behavior is like loading up FFXIV and complaining about non-consensual PvE.
You've granted consent to play the game by the rules when you log into the game.
Sorry, but no. However the game is designed, it has no bearing on what "PKing" is. Just because a game allows PKing, it doesn't make that act any more consensual than it is.
This might be semantics. It depends on perspective. But as far as game design and player reactions/acceptance after-the-fact, it's an important factor.
Sorry, but no. However the game is designed, it has no bearing on what "PKing" is. Just because a game allows PKing, it doesn't make that act any more consensual than it is.
This might be semantics. It depends on perspective. But as far as game design and player reactions/acceptance after-the-fact, it's an important factor.
I'm sorry, but words matter.
A game that allows PKs has that built into the game as part of the world. You consent (in any meaningful sense of the word) the moment you log into the game.
Logging into a game that has PKs, and going to an area where they can attack you is no different than stepping into an arena. It is exactly that same thing and yes, you've given consent to be attacked.
What is the alternative here?
The PK rides up and asks if it is okay to attack?
He doesn't have to ask because, by being there, you've given consent.
I'll have to stay involved just to see how the drama plays out.
Guild I used to belong to in early DAOC got it's start in UO. Was called the Shadow Clan who role played as a ravenous, xenophobic, naked fighting PVP "horde" which zerged their opponents into oblivion.
In DAOC we did the same, just wore appropriate gear for our race/class.
I feel like this highlights one of the things developers fail to realize.
A PK doesn't care if he dies alot - so if he can find a way to fight where he risks no capital (or next to none) then he'll do that. He's not enamored of your fancy gear if he can get a nekid buddy to help out.
In UO, the PKs I saw that got whacked usually had nothing on them. You'd spend more in reagents killing them then the value of the loot they carried.
This is why those games have totally rubbish pvp to me and are way too carebear. If you're going to have mmrpg pvp then there should be an xp hit for dying just like in pve. And de-leveling with potential stat loss penalties. If all a pk has to worry about is their gear then it isn't much of a pvp system to me.
I don't often take the sides of a PK but if you're going to allow it in a game it doesn't make sense to stat based punishments.
I'd rather that the game offer incentives for remaining lawful. For example, keeping karma with different shrines offers loot/exp/power bonuses. The unlawful cannot get to these shrines and therefore don't have the bonuses.
Why would a person play a PK if a little bit of network lag could cost them hours of work on stats? We should look to keep it fun for everyone.
There's a difference between PvPing and PKing. The first is mutually consensual, the second not.
All PKing is consensual.
A person grants consent when:
1: Buy a game that has PvP. 2: Log into the game. 3: Enter a PvP zone.
The claim that PKs are engaging in non-consent behavior is like loading up FFXIV and complaining about non-consensual PvE.
You've granted consent to play the game by the rules when you log into the game.
This is just dumb. Are you just trying to win a point and not have a discussion, especially after your karma system comments? Or did you just not think it through all the way? In a good karma system, it isn't consensual pvp unless the target fights back.
In a normal scenario, player A attacks player B. If player B defends and returns fire, then both players have chosen to engage in the battle. If player B loses, player A gets no karma hit. In fact no one get s a karma hit, and if the game is really well designed no one attacking either player will get a karma hit because both player A and B have chosen an active pvp state.
Now, if player B decides to escape and player A stops and ends them, then that isn't consensual and player A takes the karma hit.
This system is pretty great because it encourages impromptu larger scale battles and group tactics. Say player A looks weak and attacks what looks like a much stronger player, so player B returns blows. This was a trap though and player A had two guildies nearby hiding/cloaked/invisible ready to jump in and stomp player B. Turns out player B is really and calls for backup in guild or group chat. More people show up and things really get out of hand. That is awesome dynamic group based pvp.
Another scenario, player B runs and pA gives chase. Player B calls for backup in chat and leads player A into an ambush. Players C and D commence to put a wallop on pA who loses and drops some shiny gear item.
If it's all "consensual" because "people logged on the server" and there is no harsh consequence for losing, none of those interesting situations will happen. One of the two will lose. One of the two will drop some gear, the other will brag about their skill on a forum like this, and the loser will go buy some gold to get another +6 shield. ZZZZzzzzzzz
This might be semantics. It depends on perspective. But as far as game design and player reactions/acceptance after-the-fact, it's an important factor.
For crafters vs. PKs this is important for game design. Has nothing to do with consent.
If you're voluntarily in a PvP game you can't bitch when PvP happens. The term isn't "Fair PvP", it's just "PvP". If people can't handle it they shouldn't be there in the first place. Note I'm not a PvP player in online games, I'm too old to find it entertaining these days, but if I started playing one, I know fully what I'm letting myself in for.
I'll have to stay involved just to see how the drama plays out.
Guild I used to belong to in early DAOC got it's start in UO. Was called the Shadow Clan who role played as a ravenous, xenophobic, naked fighting PVP "horde" which zerged their opponents into oblivion.
In DAOC we did the same, just wore appropriate gear for our race/class.
I feel like this highlights one of the things developers fail to realize.
A PK doesn't care if he dies alot - so if he can find a way to fight where he risks no capital (or next to none) then he'll do that. He's not enamored of your fancy gear if he can get a nekid buddy to help out.
In UO, the PKs I saw that got whacked usually had nothing on them. You'd spend more in reagents killing them then the value of the loot they carried.
This is why those games have totally rubbish pvp to me and are way too carebear. If you're going to have mmrpg pvp then there should be an xp hit for dying just like in pve. And de-leveling with potential stat loss penalties. If all a pk has to worry about is their gear then it isn't much of a pvp system to me.
I don't often take the sides of a PK but if you're going to allow it in a game it doesn't make sense to stat based punishments.
I'd rather that the game offer incentives for remaining lawful. For example, keeping karma with different shrines offers loot/exp/power bonuses. The unlawful cannot get to these shrines and therefore don't have the bonuses.
Why would a person play a PK if a little bit of network lag could cost them hours of work on stats? We should look to keep it fun for everyone.
There's a difference between PvPing and PKing. The first is mutually consensual, the second not.
All PKing is consensual.
A person grants consent when:
1: Buy a game that has PvP. 2: Log into the game. 3: Enter a PvP zone.
The claim that PKs are engaging in non-consent behavior is like loading up FFXIV and complaining about non-consensual PvE.
You've granted consent to play the game by the rules when you log into the game.
This is just dumb. Are you just trying to win a point and not have a discussion, especially after your karma system comments? Or did you just not think it through all the way? In a good karma system, it isn't consensual pvp unless the target fights back.
I may see the disconnect.
If by 'consent' you mean something like agreeing to a duel as a means of bypassing negative karma (or other in game punishment) that makes sense.
However, for a very long-time people critical of PKs have used the term as in the player (person behind keyboard) didn't give consent to be part of a PK encounter.
There is a history here where the term consent has been used, and unfortunately compared to rape, where anti-PK forum warriors have tried to make people playing by the rules of the game appear as sociopaths and criminals.
So when approached by a PK and attacked, if you're in the game you've given consent (you the player); however, the game may also have a dueling mechanic where the character you're playing can give consent for PvP and turn off the in-game law mechanic.
I've been playing quite a bit and I'm encouraged to see the developers taking the servers down for quick patches every here and again. While it would be better if patches weren't necessary, I'm glad to see the activity.
Sorry, but no. However the game is designed, it has no bearing on what "PKing" is. Just because a game allows PKing, it doesn't make that act any more consensual than it is.
This might be semantics. It depends on perspective. But as far as game design and player reactions/acceptance after-the-fact, it's an important factor.
I'm sorry, but words matter.
A game that allows PKs has that built into the game as part of the world. You consent (in any meaningful sense of the word) the moment you log into the game.
Logging into a game that has PKs, and going to an area where they can attack you is no different than stepping into an arena. It is exactly that same thing and yes, you've given consent to be attacked.
What is the alternative here?
The PK rides up and asks if it is okay to attack?
He doesn't have to ask because, by being there, you've given consent.
I'm playing FFXIV and Fractured Online at the same time. Some observations:
FFXIV: I don't care for the gameplay loop in FFXIV as there is a mind numbing amount of message delivery and I don't get a good sense of the lay of the land or feel like I'm participating in a world. I feel like an actor on a stage where the set changes frequently. I've no desire to explore because I don't think there is anything to find.
FFXIV: Has a beautiful world, maybe the best graphics I've seen in an MMORPG and the UI is so polished, in fact, the entire game has a pristine level of polish. There also seems to be a great deal going on and the population centers can have hundreds of players milling about.
FFXIV: I died once by jumping off a cliff but other than that I've not even been close to dying and usually don't feel any threat whatsoever, even during 'boss' battles. An enormous 20ft. tall creature can stomp on me and I'll take a tiny tick of damage.
FRACTURED: I've died more times than I can count and I'm awake and engaged during all battles.
FRACTURED: I find myself exploring quite a bit, roaming the map, and attacking bandit/lizard man camps as I find them. This is a gamplay loop I enjoy.
FRACTURED: Is not now, nor will it ever be as polished as FFXIV but it doesn't need to be either.
Guys, you don't log into Battlefield expecting to do some PvE. If a MMO has PvP and is set up in such a way that certain areas or activates are going to be PvP that's not forced.
Now I am going to be forced to have some chicken soup which the label on the tin said was chicken soup but where is my choice? I am not a consumer I am a free man!
I've a nice little loop going where I run around gathering, but run into bandit camps, and tame horses. I sell the horses on the market and any items I craft that I don't need. The game has more depth than my initial impression suggested.
Sorry, but no. However the game is designed, it has no bearing on what "PKing" is. Just because a game allows PKing, it doesn't make that act any more consensual than it is.
This might be semantics. It depends on perspective. But as far as game design and player reactions/acceptance after-the-fact, it's an important factor.
I'm sorry, but words matter.
A game that allows PKs has that built into the game as part of the world. You consent (in any meaningful sense of the word) the moment you log into the game.
Logging into a game that has PKs, and going to an area where they can attack you is no different than stepping into an arena. It is exactly that same thing and yes, you've given consent to be attacked.
What is the alternative here?
The PK rides up and asks if it is okay to attack?
He doesn't have to ask because, by being there, you've given consent.
Context matters even more.
There's PKing, which players should expect in games which permit it, then there is "griefing" which even if the developers permit it is still a choice which reflects on a players's character.
There's something inherently broken inside players who enjoy WTF stomping other weaker or even totally helpless opponents, especially if done simply to cause the other person pain.
I often congratulated other players who stomped me in EVE, because the game was designed to give me a more than better chance to avoid it through smart playing.
Contrast that to Vanguard when I played on a PVP server where douchebags would camp respawn points, killing players over and over who were just trying to recover their corpse.
Those griefers earned my harshest rebuke and there is no way I believe they aren't assholes in real life to someone at least, even if they've managed to stay out of jail.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Doing a little research, I see things I like and things I don't like. I like the idea of learning specific things from combatting specific MOBs. I think the advancement system is needlessly complicated, but it's hard to tell. I really hate the idea that a character can learn all things in the game, although it seems like your stats will limit your capability in those abilities, so that leaves me wondering.
Again, hard to tell, but everything other than strategizing your advancement seems shallow. Way too early to get a good feel, I'm thinking.
There doesn't seem to me to be enough incentive to prevent it from turning into a gank fest of typical sorts, and causing a decline in populations down the core zerg guilds.
Overall, lots that I'm unsure of. The complications make it hard to see how it all plays out. I'll revisit it later, but it's not grabbing me right now.
Doing a little research, I see things I like and things I don't like. I like the idea of learning specific things from combatting specific MOBs. I think the advancement system is needlessly complicated, but it's hard to tell. I really hate the idea that a character can learn all things in the game, although it seems like your stats will limit your capability in those abilities, so that leaves me wondering.
Again, hard to tell, but everything other than strategizing your advancement seems shallow. Way too early to get a good feel, I'm thinking.
There doesn't seem to me to be enough incentive to prevent it from turning into a gank fest of typical sorts, and causing a decline in populations down the core zerg guilds.
Overall, lots that I'm unsure of. The complications make it hard to see how it all plays out. I'll revisit it later, but it's not grabbing me right now.
"Doing a little research, I see things I like and things I don't like."
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the servers being down this morning. I know you've worked hard to inconvenience all the players and give grief to the developers who are just trying to craft a nice game. The sacrifices you've made, like taking a break from drowning kittens and making indecent videos with the neighbors Shetland pony, have not gone unnoticed.
We have this wonderful invention, online gaming, that brings thousands of people together in something truly special and you've expended endless effort to spoil it. Not to join and have fun with the rest of us, but you had to find a way to ruin it for everyone else.
I hope you receive your just reward: that the last few seconds of your life are spent pinned underneath a burning sofa.
I'd say that FFXIV is probably the opposite of Fractured Online.
In FFXIV I tried to go off course and it simply wasn't possible. I never feel in actual danger (level 18) and there is no fear, as of yet, of losing anything. I've never died in an encounter - and some of the boss battles, I didn't even get to 90% health. I have failed at some dungeons, because a NPC companion died - which I guess is an interesting way to introduce failure without the player getting whacked.
Even then, upon failure, you're given the option to adjust the difficulty level which is nonsense - but I could see how that would be a nice feature for disabled players who may not be able to handle the harder setting. Kudos to FFXIV for that. (1)
In FFXIV, the game does a good job of making you feel important. It is very much "you are the hero" feel, even tying you to part of the world's history. I get that appeal.
In Fractured I had absolutely no idea what to do (past the tutorial) and since there are no level indicators on the MOBS I've found myself running and screaming through the woods way too many times. I've wandered into areas that I had no business being there and had to sulk back out again, tail between my legs.
In Fractured you aren't important. There are no NPCs (other than MOBS) to curtsy when you enter town.
NOTES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1: Yeah, I can feel the rage of the l33t raid bois from here. Go jump off a cliff, loser.
Well, I was on the fence about this game and hearing about hackers bringing servers down was disheartening but, incredibly, there does seems# to be some substance to the reports that player cities have been deleted. This is just one of several reports made in the last few hours... https://mmofallout.com/2023/11/19/fractured-online-hacked-cities-deleted/
Maybe they can fix this, but to what extent? Maybe they can't fix it at all? It's anyone's guess right now. Well, time to forget about this game, at least for me.
Guys, you don't log into Battlefield expecting to do some PvE. If a MMO has PvP and is set up in such a way that certain areas or activates are going to be PvP that's not forced.
Now I am going to be forced to have some chicken soup which the label on the tin said was chicken soup but where is my choice? I am not a consumer I am a free man!
A lot depends on the type of game. Uncharted Waters Online, for example, has much of the world as open PVP, but if you don't look like a botter, you might get attacked once every 50-100 hours of sailing around in such zones. And if you're paying attention, you're likely to escape from the attack unscathed. It's a game with PVP, but very few of its players are there for the PVP.
Guys, you don't log into Battlefield expecting to do some PvE. If a MMO has PvP and is set up in such a way that certain areas or activates are going to be PvP that's not forced.
Now I am going to be forced to have some chicken soup which the label on the tin said was chicken soup but where is my choice? I am not a consumer I am a free man!
A lot depends on the type of game. Uncharted Waters Online, for example, has much of the world as open PVP, but if you don't look like a botter, you might get attacked once every 50-100 hours of sailing around in such zones. And if you're paying attention, you're likely to escape from the attack unscathed. It's a game with PVP, but very few of its players are there for the PVP.
Part of me is hanging out just to see how this game develops. I'm curious how they'll handle the PvP growing pains.
Comments
A person grants consent when:
1: Buy a game that has PvP.
2: Log into the game.
3: Enter a PvP zone.
The claim that PKs are engaging in non-consent behavior is like loading up FFXIV and complaining about non-consensual PvE.
You've granted consent to play the game by the rules when you log into the game.
This might be semantics. It depends on perspective. But as far as game design and player reactions/acceptance after-the-fact, it's an important factor.
Once upon a time....
A game that allows PKs has that built into the game as part of the world.
You consent (in any meaningful sense of the word) the moment you log into the game.
Logging into a game that has PKs, and going to an area where they can attack you is no different than stepping into an arena. It is exactly that same thing and yes, you've given consent to be attacked.
What is the alternative here?
The PK rides up and asks if it is okay to attack?
He doesn't have to ask because, by being there, you've given consent.
Has nothing to do with consent.
If by 'consent' you mean something like agreeing to a duel as a means of bypassing negative karma (or other in game punishment) that makes sense.
However, for a very long-time people critical of PKs have used the term as in the player (person behind keyboard) didn't give consent to be part of a PK encounter.
There is a history here where the term consent has been used, and unfortunately compared to rape, where anti-PK forum warriors have tried to make people playing by the rules of the game appear as sociopaths and criminals.
So when approached by a PK and attacked, if you're in the game you've given consent (you the player); however, the game may also have a dueling mechanic where the character you're playing can give consent for PvP and turn off the in-game law mechanic.
I joined a clan that has almost 200 members.
Once upon a time....
Some observations:
Now I am going to be forced to have some chicken soup which the label on the tin said was chicken soup but where is my choice? I am not a consumer I am a free man!
There's something inherently broken inside players who enjoy WTF stomping other weaker or even totally helpless opponents, especially if done simply to cause the other person pain.
I often congratulated other players who stomped me in EVE, because the game was designed to give me a more than better chance to avoid it through smart playing.
Contrast that to Vanguard when I played on a PVP server where douchebags would camp respawn points, killing players over and over who were just trying to recover their corpse.
Those griefers earned my harshest rebuke and there is no way I believe they aren't assholes in real life to someone at least, even if they've managed to stay out of jail.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I like the idea of learning specific things from combatting specific MOBs.
I think the advancement system is needlessly complicated, but it's hard to tell.
I really hate the idea that a character can learn all things in the game, although it seems like your stats will limit your capability in those abilities, so that leaves me wondering.
Again, hard to tell, but everything other than strategizing your advancement seems shallow.
Way too early to get a good feel, I'm thinking.
There doesn't seem to me to be enough incentive to prevent it from turning into a gank fest of typical sorts, and causing a decline in populations down the core zerg guilds.
Overall, lots that I'm unsure of. The complications make it hard to see how it all plays out.
I'll revisit it later, but it's not grabbing me right now.
Once upon a time....
This has been the story of my life.
I was hoping to get in on taming horses early, but then this:
Greetings Hacker(s):
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the servers being down this morning. I know you've worked hard to inconvenience all the players and give grief to the developers who are just trying to craft a nice game. The sacrifices you've made, like taking a break from drowning kittens and making indecent videos with the neighbors Shetland pony, have not gone unnoticed.
We have this wonderful invention, online gaming, that brings thousands of people together in something truly special and you've expended endless effort to spoil it. Not to join and have fun with the rest of us, but you had to find a way to ruin it for everyone else.
I hope you receive your just reward: that the last few seconds of your life are spent pinned underneath a burning sofa.
With sincere affection,
-Wargfoot
In FFXIV I tried to go off course and it simply wasn't possible. I never feel in actual danger (level 18) and there is no fear, as of yet, of losing anything. I've never died in an encounter - and some of the boss battles, I didn't even get to 90% health. I have failed at some dungeons, because a NPC companion died - which I guess is an interesting way to introduce failure without the player getting whacked.
Even then, upon failure, you're given the option to adjust the difficulty level which is nonsense - but I could see how that would be a nice feature for disabled players who may not be able to handle the harder setting. Kudos to FFXIV for that. (1)
In FFXIV, the game does a good job of making you feel important. It is very much "you are the hero" feel, even tying you to part of the world's history. I get that appeal.
In Fractured I had absolutely no idea what to do (past the tutorial) and since there are no level indicators on the MOBS I've found myself running and screaming through the woods way too many times. I've wandered into areas that I had no business being there and had to sulk back out again, tail between my legs.
In Fractured you aren't important. There are no NPCs (other than MOBS) to curtsy when you enter town.
NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Yeah, I can feel the rage of the l33t raid bois from here. Go jump off a cliff, loser.
Not from an official source.
Wow.
Maybe they can fix this, but to what extent? Maybe they can't fix it at all? It's anyone's guess right now. Well, time to forget about this game, at least for me.
I'm curious how they'll handle the PvP growing pains.