| Author | Content | Date |
|---|---|---|
|
MY_UNICORN |
1. Concerns About Long-Term Build Identity and Progression
Before anyone dismisses this as another complaint thread, I want to be clear that this is not an attack on Finito or an argument against change. In fact, some parts of this update are things I have personally asked for over the years. More progression, a higher level cap, meaningful end-game goals, and reasons to keep playing are all positive ideas in principle. However, after reading the patch notes in full, I have some concerns about whether the update achieves what it claims to achieve. 2. Build Identity vs Unlimited Progression One of the main themes throughout the patch notes is reassurance that players will retain their build identity. We're told: * Your build is safe. * Your identity is safe. * Your advantage is safe. * Nothing you've done becomes meaningless. At the same time, the update removes many of the restrictions that previously defined builds. Players can now continue gaining stats at level cap. Progression no longer stops. Old dead zones are removed. Secondary stats can continue growing indefinitely. The notes also state: * More viable build paths. * Hybrids become more flexible. * Players won't all end up the same. My concern is not that everyone will instantly become identical. My concern is that over time, the weaknesses that helped define builds become increasingly trainable, and the distinction between builds becomes progressively less important. Previously, a large part of build identity came from decisions made during progression. Those decisions carried long-term consequences because opportunities to gain stats were limited. Under the new system, those limitations are significantly reduced. If hybrids become stronger, weaknesses become trainable indefinitely, and progression never fully stops, where does meaningful specialisation actually come from in the long term? If weaknesses can be gradually trained away over time, then the question becomes: What exactly preserves build identity in the long term? A pure build may still remain ahead, but the gap between strengths and weaknesses appears likely to narrow over time. 3. Preserving Effort vs Preserving Decisions The patch notes repeatedly state that past effort is preserved. I agree that nobody is losing stats. However, preserving effort and preserving the value of past decisions are not necessarily the same thing. Many players spent years optimising characters around the limitations of the old system. Those decisions mattered because the system imposed restrictions. If those restrictions are removed, then while the effort itself remains, some of the value of the optimisation may be reduced. That does not mean the update is automatically bad. It does mean that saying "nothing becomes meaningless" may be an oversimplification of a more complicated issue. 4. Multiple Characters and Build Diversity Another concern is how this affects the value of maintaining multiple characters. Historically, many players created multiple builds because different characters served different purposes. Different stat paths mattered. Different strengths and weaknesses mattered. Different choices had consequences. The new system promotes: * More flexibility. * More viable hybrids. * Safer experimentation. * Continued progression. All of those things sound positive individually. However, if one character can continually improve every aspect of itself over time, then what incentive remains to maintain several specialised characters? The patch notes argue that build diversity will improve. I am not convinced that more flexibility automatically creates more diversity. Sometimes limitations are exactly what create diversity in the first place. 5. Replacing One Optimisation Meta With Another The update argues that the old system punished levelling and forced players to optimise around avoiding experience gain. That criticism is fair. However, I am not sure the update removes optimisation as much as it shifts it somewhere else. Previously the optimisation question was: "Don't gain too much EXP." Under the new system it may become: "Train whichever stat currently gives the best return." or "Train the easiest secondary stat first." The update claims to remove optimisation traps, but it may simply replace one optimisation meta with another. In other words, the optimisation problem may not disappear. It may simply change form. 6. Monster Progression and World Progression The patch notes state: "You can always gain something from a monster." and "Nothing becomes permanently dead or worthless." On the surface this sounds positive. However, historically, monster progression helped create natural movement through the world. Players moved into increasingly difficult areas because easier monsters eventually stopped being worthwhile. If every monster remains relevant indefinitely, does that reduce the importance of progression through increasingly difficult content? I understand the desire to make older content useful again. However, part of progression has traditionally been moving through increasingly challenging areas and encounters. If every monster remains valuable forever, how much does that alter the intended progression path through the game world? 7. Does the Cap Problem Still Exist? One of the primary justifications for unlimited stat growth is that characters became effectively "dead" once they reached cap. However, the patch notes also state that level cap raises will now occur more frequently, potentially every six months. This raises an obvious question. If level caps are now going to be increased regularly, was removing the progression wall entirely necessary to solve the problem of capped characters? I am not suggesting it was the wrong decision. I am simply questioning whether two separate solutions are now being applied to the same problem. 8. Progression and Alliance Advantages This is probably my biggest concern. For a long time I have argued that the largest issue affecting PvP is not individual mechanics but the increasing value of numerical superiority. The strongest alliances already benefit from: * More players online simultaneously. * Better protection of farming locations. * Better access to contested content. * Greater ability to organise progression. This update introduces: * Endless stat progression. * Continued gains at level cap. * Future dynamic spawn systems. * Greater emphasis on long-term grinding. If progression is now effectively endless, won't the alliances with the most players online gain the greatest long-term benefit because they can protect grinders, control areas, and accumulate progression faster? My concern is whether this unintentionally strengthens the largest existing advantage on the server. If progression becomes effectively endless, then the alliances capable of controlling areas and protecting their players may pull further ahead over time. That does not mean the system is guaranteed to fail. It does mean that the interaction between progression and alliance size deserves serious consideration. 9. Questions About the Assumptions Being Made A large portion of the Q&A effectively reassures players that: * Your build is safe. * Your identity is safe. * Your effort is safe. * Diversity improves. * Players won't all end up the same. Those are conclusions. What is largely missing is actual numerical evidence showing why those conclusions are true. The patch notes spend a lot of time reassuring players about outcomes but provide very little data demonstrating those outcomes. Similarly, the patch notes state that: * New players won't catch up too easily. * Old dead spots are removed. * Progress never stops. * Weaker monsters remain useful. If progression is now smoother at every stage, what specific mechanism preserves existing gaps between players? The notes assert that it does, but don't really demonstrate why. 10. Final Thoughts To be clear, I am not arguing that the update has already ruined the game. Nor am I arguing that players should not be allowed to progress after level cap. What I am questioning is whether some of the promises in the patch notes fully align with the mechanics being introduced. The patch repeatedly states that: * Build identity is preserved. * Diversity is improved. * Players will not converge. * Existing advantages remain meaningful. Those are significant claims. I think it is reasonable for players to ask how those outcomes are expected to occur when many of the restrictions that previously helped create those outcomes are being removed. My concern is not change itself. My concern is whether the long-term consequences of these changes have been fully considered, particularly regarding build identity, character specialisation, character diversity, world progression, and the growing advantage already enjoyed by larger alliances.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="MY_UNICORN"][b]1. Concerns About Long-Term Build Identity and Progression[/b]
Before anyone dismisses this as another complaint thread, I want to be clear that this is not an attack on Finito or an argument against change. In fact, some parts of this update are things I have personally asked for over the years. More progression, a higher level cap, meaningful end-game goals, and reasons to keep playing are all positive ideas in principle.
However, after reading the patch notes in full, I have some concerns about whether the update achieves what it claims to achieve.
[b]2. Build Identity vs Unlimited Progression[/b]
One of the main themes throughout the patch notes is reassurance that players will retain their build identity.
We're told:
* Your build is safe.
* Your identity is safe.
* Your advantage is safe.
* Nothing you've done becomes meaningless.
At the same time, the update removes many of the restrictions that previously defined builds.
Players can now continue gaining stats at level cap. Progression no longer stops. Old dead zones are removed. Secondary stats can continue growing indefinitely.
The notes also state:
* More viable build paths.
* Hybrids become more flexible.
* Players won't all end up the same.
My concern is not that everyone will instantly become identical.
My concern is that over time, the weaknesses that helped define builds become increasingly trainable, and the distinction between builds becomes progressively less important.
Previously, a large part of build identity came from decisions made during progression. Those decisions carried long-term consequences because opportunities to gain stats were limited.
Under the new system, those limitations are significantly reduced.
If hybrids become stronger, weaknesses become trainable indefinitely, and progression never fully stops, where does meaningful specialisation actually come from in the long term?
If weaknesses can be gradually trained away over time, then the question becomes:
What exactly preserves build identity in the long term?
A pure build may still remain ahead, but the gap between strengths and weaknesses appears likely to narrow over time.
[b]3. Preserving Effort vs Preserving Decisions[/b]
The patch notes repeatedly state that past effort is preserved.
I agree that nobody is losing stats.
However, preserving effort and preserving the value of past decisions are not necessarily the same thing.
Many players spent years optimising characters around the limitations of the old system.
Those decisions mattered because the system imposed restrictions.
If those restrictions are removed, then while the effort itself remains, some of the value of the optimisation may be reduced.
That does not mean the update is automatically bad.
It does mean that saying "nothing becomes meaningless" may be an oversimplification of a more complicated issue.
[b]4. Multiple Characters and Build Diversity[/b]
Another concern is how this affects the value of maintaining multiple characters.
Historically, many players created multiple builds because different characters served different purposes.
Different stat paths mattered.
Different strengths and weaknesses mattered.
Different choices had consequences.
The new system promotes:
* More flexibility.
* More viable hybrids.
* Safer experimentation.
* Continued progression.
All of those things sound positive individually.
However, if one character can continually improve every aspect of itself over time, then what incentive remains to maintain several specialised characters?
The patch notes argue that build diversity will improve.
I am not convinced that more flexibility automatically creates more diversity.
Sometimes limitations are exactly what create diversity in the first place.
[b]5. Replacing One Optimisation Meta With Another[/b]
The update argues that the old system punished levelling and forced players to optimise around avoiding experience gain.
That criticism is fair.
However, I am not sure the update removes optimisation as much as it shifts it somewhere else.
Previously the optimisation question was:
"Don't gain too much EXP."
Under the new system it may become:
"Train whichever stat currently gives the best return."
or
"Train the easiest secondary stat first."
The update claims to remove optimisation traps, but it may simply replace one optimisation meta with another.
In other words, the optimisation problem may not disappear.
It may simply change form.
[b]6. Monster Progression and World Progression[/b]
The patch notes state:
"You can always gain something from a monster."
and
"Nothing becomes permanently dead or worthless."
On the surface this sounds positive.
However, historically, monster progression helped create natural movement through the world.
Players moved into increasingly difficult areas because easier monsters eventually stopped being worthwhile.
If every monster remains relevant indefinitely, does that reduce the importance of progression through increasingly difficult content?
I understand the desire to make older content useful again.
However, part of progression has traditionally been moving through increasingly challenging areas and encounters.
If every monster remains valuable forever, how much does that alter the intended progression path through the game world?
[b]7. Does the Cap Problem Still Exist?[/b]
One of the primary justifications for unlimited stat growth is that characters became effectively "dead" once they reached cap.
However, the patch notes also state that level cap raises will now occur more frequently, potentially every six months.
This raises an obvious question.
If level caps are now going to be increased regularly, was removing the progression wall entirely necessary to solve the problem of capped characters?
I am not suggesting it was the wrong decision.
I am simply questioning whether two separate solutions are now being applied to the same problem.
[b]8. Progression and Alliance Advantages[/b]
This is probably my biggest concern.
For a long time I have argued that the largest issue affecting PvP is not individual mechanics but the increasing value of numerical superiority.
The strongest alliances already benefit from:
* More players online simultaneously.
* Better protection of farming locations.
* Better access to contested content.
* Greater ability to organise progression.
This update introduces:
* Endless stat progression.
* Continued gains at level cap.
* Future dynamic spawn systems.
* Greater emphasis on long-term grinding.
If progression is now effectively endless, won't the alliances with the most players online gain the greatest long-term benefit because they can protect grinders, control areas, and accumulate progression faster?
My concern is whether this unintentionally strengthens the largest existing advantage on the server.
If progression becomes effectively endless, then the alliances capable of controlling areas and protecting their players may pull further ahead over time.
That does not mean the system is guaranteed to fail.
It does mean that the interaction between progression and alliance size deserves serious consideration.
[b]9. Questions About the Assumptions Being Made[/b]
A large portion of the Q&A effectively reassures players that:
* Your build is safe.
* Your identity is safe.
* Your effort is safe.
* Diversity improves.
* Players won't all end up the same.
Those are conclusions.
What is largely missing is actual numerical evidence showing why those conclusions are true.
The patch notes spend a lot of time reassuring players about outcomes but provide very little data demonstrating those outcomes.
Similarly, the patch notes state that:
* New players won't catch up too easily.
* Old dead spots are removed.
* Progress never stops.
* Weaker monsters remain useful.
If progression is now smoother at every stage, what specific mechanism preserves existing gaps between players?
The notes assert that it does, but don't really demonstrate why.
[b]10. Final Thoughts[/b]
To be clear, I am not arguing that the update has already ruined the game.
Nor am I arguing that players should not be allowed to progress after level cap.
What I am questioning is whether some of the promises in the patch notes fully align with the mechanics being introduced.
The patch repeatedly states that:
* Build identity is preserved.
* Diversity is improved.
* Players will not converge.
* Existing advantages remain meaningful.
Those are significant claims.
I think it is reasonable for players to ask how those outcomes are expected to occur when many of the restrictions that previously helped create those outcomes are being removed.
My concern is not change itself.
My concern is whether the long-term consequences of these changes have been fully considered, particularly regarding build identity, character specialisation, character diversity, world progression, and the growing advantage already enjoyed by larger alliances.[/quote]
|
#1 2026/08/14 10:37:20 |
|
OPENTHEDOOR |
Biggest drought in years and you’ve used AI on something as useless as this
|
#2 2026/08/14 10:48:59 |
|
RAMPART |
You can be anything now. You only need 1 char, pointless making more. You can make mage gear and be a mage str gear and be a warrior or a fucking unicorn if you like
|
#3 2026/08/14 10:59:13 |
|
MY_UNICORN |
"OPENTHEDOOR"Biggest drought in years and you’ve used AI on something as useless as this They are reasonable and logical questions. I get criticised for my punctuation and grammar, so I use AI to help structure my thoughts. The ideas and questions still came from me; AI doesn't play Soma. While I appreciate your comment, it feels dismissive rather than engaging with the points being raised. If you disagree with any of the concerns about build identity, character specialisation, progression, or alliance advantages, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing why.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="OPENTHEDOOR"]Biggest drought in years and you’ve used AI on something as useless as this [/quote]
They are reasonable and logical questions.
I get criticised for my punctuation and grammar, so I use AI to help structure my thoughts. The ideas and questions still came from me; AI doesn't play Soma.
While I appreciate your comment, it feels dismissive rather than engaging with the points being raised.
If you disagree with any of the concerns about build identity, character specialisation, progression, or alliance advantages, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing why.[/quote]
|
#4 2026/08/14 11:06:23 |
|
MY_UNICORN |
"RAMPART"You can be anything now. You only need 1 char, pointless making more. You can make mage gear and be a mage str gear and be a warrior or a fucking unicorn if you like That's exactly the contradiction I'm talking about. The patch notes say build identity, diversity, and specialisation are preserved. Yet your summary is that you only need one character because eventually you can be everything. If that's true, what exactly is preserving build identity in the long term?
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="RAMPART"]You can be anything now. You only need 1 char, pointless making more. You can make mage gear and be a mage str gear and be a warrior or a fucking unicorn if you like[/quote]
That's exactly the contradiction I'm talking about.
The patch notes say build identity, diversity, and specialisation are preserved.
Yet your summary is that you only need one character because eventually you can be everything.
If that's true, what exactly is preserving build identity in the long term?[/quote]
|
#5 2026/08/14 11:08:49 |
|
BEASMITH |
I would like to see the revive scroll brought back :/
Maybe a few tweek's as maybe end game stat concerns Maybe we can ll work together for a good result. |
#6 2026/08/14 11:38:40 |
|
OPENTHEDOOR |
Soma is the busiest it’s been in years. I know lots of people who have returned. I was sceptical of the patch and yes there are problems (no new mobs no new items). But the game is busy and lots of people are trying it out again.
Is it going to stay like this? Of course not. But enough people are playing that there is obviously something good about it so you are in the minority.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="OPENTHEDOOR"]Soma is the busiest it’s been in years. I know lots of people who have returned. I was sceptical of the patch and yes there are problems (no new mobs no new items). But the game is busy and lots of people are trying it out again.
Is it going to stay like this? Of course not.
But enough people are playing that there is obviously something good about it so you are in the minority. [/quote]
|
#7 2026/08/14 11:43:37 |
|
WEDDINGCAKE |
There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke.
Let’s revert back to 30usercount because you don’t like something…. 🤣🤣🤣 |
#8 2026/08/14 11:55:13 |
|
SB99 |
You have access to technology that literally argues and writes for you and you still can't write something coherent.
|
#9 2026/08/14 12:12:12 |
|
MY_UNICORN |
"WEDDINGCAKE"There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke. i doubt that; if there are that's a lot of players on multiple accounts or you can't count. |
#10 2026/08/14 12:44:15 |
|
SLIMBRADY |
"MY_UNICORN""WEDDINGCAKE"There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke. Tried finding a hunting spot last night, every single one was packed, so yes there are loads playing currently
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="WEDDINGCAKE"]There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke.
Let’s revert back to 30usercount because you don’t like something….
🤣🤣🤣[/quote]
i doubt that; if there are that's a lot of players on multiple accounts or you can't count. [/quote]
Tried finding a hunting spot last night, every single one was packed, so yes there are loads playing currently[/quote]
|
#11 2026/08/14 12:55:12 |
|
MY_UNICORN |
"SLIMBRADY""MY_UNICORN""WEDDINGCAKE"There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke. chaarcters yes players no
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="WEDDINGCAKE"]There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke.
Let’s revert back to 30usercount because you don’t like something….
🤣🤣🤣[/quote]
i doubt that; if there are that's a lot of players on multiple accounts or you can't count. [/quote]
Tried finding a hunting spot last night, every single one was packed, so yes there are loads playing currently[/quote]
chaarcters yes players no [/quote]
|
#12 2026/08/14 13:01:52 |
|
SLIMBRADY |
"MY_UNICORN""SLIMBRADY""MY_UNICORN""WEDDINGCAKE"There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke. You think people are botting multiple chars with current stat loss system?
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="WEDDINGCAKE"]There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke.
Let’s revert back to 30usercount because you don’t like something….
🤣🤣🤣[/quote]
i doubt that; if there are that's a lot of players on multiple accounts or you can't count. [/quote]
Tried finding a hunting spot last night, every single one was packed, so yes there are loads playing currently[/quote]
chaarcters yes players no [/quote]
You think people are botting multiple chars with current stat loss system? [/quote]
|
#13 2026/08/14 13:05:32 |
|
SQUARES |
"SLIMBRADY""MY_UNICORN""SLIMBRADY""MY_UNICORN""WEDDINGCAKE"There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke. You only botting 1 now then?
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="SQUARES"][quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="WEDDINGCAKE"]There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke.
Let’s revert back to 30usercount because you don’t like something….
🤣🤣🤣[/quote]
i doubt that; if there are that's a lot of players on multiple accounts or you can't count. [/quote]
Tried finding a hunting spot last night, every single one was packed, so yes there are loads playing currently[/quote]
chaarcters yes players no [/quote]
You think people are botting multiple chars with current stat loss system? [/quote]
You only botting 1 now then?[/quote]
|
#14 2026/08/14 13:49:27 |
|
SLIMBRADY |
"SQUARES""SLIMBRADY""MY_UNICORN""SLIMBRADY""MY_UNICORN""WEDDINGCAKE"There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke. Only person to catch a full IP ban and i was innocent i tell you Others got a single account banned, i get full ip and i barely played in over a year. If Only I wasnt DL i might have got special treatment.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="SQUARES"][quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="SLIMBRADY"][quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="WEDDINGCAKE"]There is 150+ online at times and you think the game is broke.
Let’s revert back to 30usercount because you don’t like something….
🤣🤣🤣[/quote]
i doubt that; if there are that's a lot of players on multiple accounts or you can't count. [/quote]
Tried finding a hunting spot last night, every single one was packed, so yes there are loads playing currently[/quote]
chaarcters yes players no [/quote]
You think people are botting multiple chars with current stat loss system? [/quote]
You only botting 1 now then?[/quote]
Only person to catch a full IP ban and i was innocent i tell you
Others got a single account banned, i get full ip and i barely played in over a year.
If Only I wasnt DL i might have got special treatment.
[/quote]
|
#15 2026/08/14 14:00:40 |
Please sign in with one of your characters to reply