Classic Shard #2

[Derium of ls]

As I said before, there is now a big market for a niche sandbox game, a type of game UO used to be. Every MMO now is a WoW clone or a Sandbox failure. It would be perfect time for UO to go back to it's roots when the need for an old style UO game has never been bigger.

All those people that have followed DarkFall and MO are players looking that that old style UO game or atleasta sandbox game in the style UO was.

I was in beta for both of them, both of their servers were FULL of ex-UO players all looking for a new game to play! And both of those games were failures.

There is not a single good sandbox game out there, Hell there is only two! MO and DF.

I bet you anything that if the Devs spent some time on the Darkfall forums and Mortal forums and read the posts from around beta, we would have a classic shard next week.

 

[Derium of ls]

forgive this confused post coming up...


I've been thinking about other ways to help the classic server plus help EA with a few bucks (gotta admit, they won't do it for fun, but for $$$). I'm pretty sure we will not get server births or monthlies seeing they were turned off a long time ago.

But what if they did something like a Raffle system? There are hundreds of server births /monthlies that many people who like to decro (most of us) that we want.

What if say they raffled off a few at a time through their storefront. Costs $5 or something to enter and only 10 or so of each item are given out. If you win then you get a code in your email that you can redeem for the item. This way The items stat uber rare, but also get released into the server so we can have eye candy, plus EA makes some money off of it. Mayb cap so many entries per account of something like that.

It will not mess with gameplay at all. And seeing that most of the codes we can buy not will not be useable for a classic shard, it keeps the balance.

ideas? Flames?

I could go MUCH more into depth with it, but don't want to type it all out in case it's not well received here >_<

Cal! I know you're lurking the boards, is this even possible for you to do?!

 

[Evlar]

many people who like to decro

That someone who likes raising the dead for decorative purposes then?



(Sorry, I just couldn't resist when I saw that.)

 

[Derium of ls]

That someone who likes raising the dead for decorative purposes then?



(Sorry, I just couldn't resist when I saw that.)

Well played sir, hah

 

[Babble]

Selling single items would probably be too much effort.

Better then fully go the item mall system, though not sure how accepted that would be.

 

[Derium of ls]

what if they took all the items and put them into one big "pot" and you would win a random one? would be easier for them, but at the same time I'm sure if people wanted to enter into a raffle. they would want to choose the items to try and win.

 

[Evlar]

Actually, I'm waiting for one of the PK's to claim that as their reason for rez-killing players after that book, that's caused so much argument on the forums lately.

"I only did it for decorative purposes. That pile of bodies, all of the same person... looks great there"

 

[Evlar]

I don't see why they couldn't have random rares that spawned occasionally.

Items for purely decorative purpose, I've never had anything against.

What I did think was a little sad, was implementing blatent copies of things players were able to create themselves through a little imagination. Fish tanks? Fire surrounds? I used to love wandering around houses, looking what people had managed to create, out of some bolts of cloth, a couple of shields and whatnot.

That was true creativity.

 

[Evlar]

Something that just popped into my noggin...

I remember creating a miner/smith/warrior template. With this template, I was often able to stand up to many a PK, even though I was wearing nothing more than a GM made suit and wielding a pick axe.

That's one of the reasons why item-centric gameplay annoys me. A simple but effective template based on skills, rendered more and more useless, by the increased importance of items in game play.

See, where skills fall down now for me, is that I could be a legendary swordsman, yet face a lesser swordsman wielding and uber-weapon and be beaten hands-down. Don't get me wrong, losing isn't the issue. The issue to me is that skills don't really mean anything now. To my mind, it shouldn't matter what quality the weapon is, if someone is really "legendary", they could probably use the most basic weapon and do wonders with it.

A phrase always springs to mind here...

"It's not the size of the wand, but the wizard that waves it."

 

[Derium of ls]

Something that just popped into my noggin...

I remember creating a miner/smith/warrior template. With this template, I was often able to stand up to many a PK, even though I was wearing nothing more than a GM made suit and wielding a pick axe.

That's one of the reasons why item-centric gameplay annoys me. A simple but effective template based on skills, rendered more and more useless, by the increased importance of items in game play.

See, where skills fall down now for me, is that I could be a legendary swordsman, yet face a lesser swordsman wielding and uber-weapon and be beaten hands-down. Don't get me wrong, losing isn't the issue. The issue to me is that skills don't really mean anything now. To my mind, it shouldn't matter what quality the weapon is, if someone is really "legendary", they could probably use the most basic weapon and do wonders with it.

A phrase always springs to mind here...

"It's not the size of the wand, but the wizard that waves it."

I agree 100% with you. I'm tired of the item based game. Eye candy? that's good for this game, items with stats? Nope.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

"It's not the size of the wand, but the wizard that waves it."

Really? My response to this got deleted?

rolleyes:

 

[Derium of ls]

Really? My response to this got deleted?

rolleyes:

PM it to me!

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

Unseriousness can be good, until a point ; where marriage comes into play.

How many marriages would you bet avatar can be put at stake here ? Man and machine counts as one ?

This is not the time to be distracted by waves and wands... times are wearing thin... you should all aim for grace and recursivity !

 

[Connor_Graham]

Unseriousness can be good, until a point ; where marriage comes into play.

How many marriages would you bet avatar can be put at stake here ? Man and machine counts as one ?

This is not the time to be distracted by waves and wands... times are wearing thin... you should all aim for grace and recursivity !

Seriously dude, why don't you ever share with the rest of us? It's obvious you've got some really good stuff. Quit being a bogart already. It's puff, puff, pass, not puff, puff, then puff some more.

 

[Evlar]

"It's not the size of the wand, but the wizard that waves it."

Really? My response to this got deleted?

rolleyes:

You said something rude perchance?

Better PM me the reply as well!

 

[o2bavr6]

I remember creating a miner/smith/warrior template. With this template, I was often able to stand up to many a PK, even though I was wearing nothing more than a GM made suit and wielding a pick axe.

That's one of the reasons why item-centric gameplay annoys me. A simple but effective template based on skills, rendered more and more useless, by the increased importance of items in game play.

That is what i've tried to explain to most people who hated being pked pre Tram. Most people never even tried to fight back, and if they did, they would have realized that they might just kill the pker.

I posted earlier how so many times i was in a dungeon with 8 blues and 2 reds would appear and everyone would recall out. if they all just fought together they would have destroyed the pkers.

See, where skills fall down now for me, is that I could be a legendary swordsman, yet face a lesser swordsman wielding and uber-weapon and be beaten hands-down. Don't get me wrong, losing isn't the issue. The issue to me is that skills don't really mean anything now. To my mind, it shouldn't matter what quality the weapon is, if someone is really "legendary", they could probably use the most basic weapon and do wonders with it.[/I]

I have been saying this ever since the introduction of AoS. So dumb that a person with much lesser skill can defeat someone with greater skill just because of items.

 

[Evlar]

That is what i've tried to explain to most people who hated being pked pre Tram. Most people never even tried to fight back, and if they did, they would have realized that they might just kill the pker.

I posted earlier how so many times i was in a dungeon with 8 blues and 2 reds would appear and everyone would recall out. if they all just fought together they would have destroyed the pkers.

See, this is something I've touched on in another thread.

Instead of wailing, gnashing of teeth, waving arms around, crying... now and pre-Tram, if people actually took the time to talk to the "red" or the "PK", instead of hurling abuse or taking offence, they might actually learn something.

After the first few times I was PK'd, instead of descending into panic, I decided to stand my ground and fight. Ok, so I lost that encounter. But I ended up chatting to the PK. Wonderful thing that communication is, we actually became friends in-game and I learned how to counter most of what a PK could do, even with a "humble" gatherer.

Problem is, that some people are just so anti anything that doesn't conform to their own preferred style of play and "ethics", they're incredibly blinkered to other possibilities and preferences.

It's a shame really, because UO has always had so much to offer, that there's always been something different to learn and do. I often wonder that some people only actually see and experience about 10% of what's out there in the game.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

PM it to me!

Make that three

 

[o2bavr6]

After the first few times I was PK'd, instead of descending into panic, I decided to stand my ground and fight. Ok, so I lost that encounter. But I ended up chatting to the PK. Wonderful thing that communication is, we actually became friends in-game and I learned how to counter most of what a PK could do, even with a "humble" gatherer.

So true, there were many times that after i died the red would res me. they actually appreciated that someone stayed to fight them.

A lot of pkers weren't about the loot but the fun of the fight.

Also for me it depended on where and when I would attack a red. Usually in a dungeon you had to be ready for a fight, because that is whey they showed up. but at places like the Brit cross roads sometimes they were there just to be social like anyone else.

I miss those days. that game was like no other game I've ever played. sadly those days have been over for a long time now.

Also it was so nice to be able to mage fight someone without having to worry about their connection speed, items, timing and speed hacks. Magery was all about your characters skill and had nothing to do with spell timing and interruption.

I would tolerate how it is today if there weren't so many ways to cheat in this game, or better yet if EA actually spent time correcting those issues. But sadly they are more concerned about the next new release or giving out valentines day cards... what a waste of resources.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

When EA fired me without reason (because some *******s had sold gold on e-bay) well I started hacking the client.

They wouldn't use my prodigal computer skills at merely 14 yo ? Well I went batpoo on them... hopefully they'd realise I held the key to fixing the situation if I hacked so much a whole server would complain about me.

But issue is redtaped you see ? I waited with people who tried to page on me, about 1000 times, without exagerating.

They would page : This guy just stole my whole backpack in one click and I have 4 witnesses, he's even willing to talk with you about it.

My e-mails were all ignored, all those pages were ignored.

You see ?

I stayed there, and looked at them whine about it, noone ever did anything about it.

I still hold the key to fixing all hacks in this game with a small script that takes no computing power or close to none. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows, anyone who's messed a bit with the client must surely know.

 

[Ray_]

And this, in a nutshell, sums up the whole sad argument about a "classic" shard. Because it was that model of gameplay that failed. And why?

It didn't fail. Net subscriptions were gained in every financial quarter pre-UO:R.

You could say that the current model has failed, since it reportedly has less subscribers than pre-UO:R.

So maybe in a world where the internet allows people to be complete jerks no matter how hard you try and do what you think is the right thing, then perhaps MMOs need a seriously strong set of "trammels" upon human behaviour so they don't get away with all that they'd like to make you suffer?

No. It's a matter of choice. You don't have to play a game that you don't like.
Some of us like untrammeled gameplay. Some of you don't. That doesn't mean that all MMOs need to be one way or the other, as you seem to think.

You argue your side well Morgana, but you seem to have an incredible lack of understanding of basic human nature... even when you experience it directly, as above. Nor any understanding of how you will appear in other people's eyes when you state what you think, or try and guess what their motivations are that you yourself admit you don't understand; Spineless? Really? You think you can use that word about a game people play as a hobby?
...
And do you really, really not see how calling people "spineless" for not wanting to spend their free time giving the sociopaths and obsessive the attention they thrive on in a game is just going to be completely insulting to them in real life?

You think you can call people sociopaths about a game people play as a hobby?

... and we aren't going to be on your "classic" shard either, because we know what we like, and it just wasn't that, sorry.

Don't be sorry. Really. It's fine. You shouldn't be on a classic shard, and I really don't want you to be. It's nothing personal, we might get along great in Team Fortress 2 or something. It's just that it's not for you and you shouldn't inflict the emotional and psychological harm upon yourself that would occur by playing such a shard. It's better for you, it's better for me, and it's better for EA if you just stay away.

Respectfully and without any malice, we don't want you on a classic shard.

And you know... when I took my first break from UO, the game that was going to kill it by bring back that "classic" "risk vs reward" was going to be Shadowbane. We didn't go there either, and nor did enough PvPers for that matter.

This is completely wrong and a gross distortion of what really happened. SB had 100k paying subscribers 3 months into release. More than enough to make a tidy little profit. What did SB in and what caused the playerbase to leave in droves was the fact that SB was the most poorly written piece of software you've ever seen. It was more buggy and more laggy than UO has EVER been, and players in 2003/2004 just wouldn't put up with it.

As far as the point that you "didn't go there either" - we know! We didn't want you there. I don't play games to bake break, etc. Shadowbane NEVER targeted you as a customer. Sorry man.

But the only game I know of that has made that "classic" chaos work over any respectable period of time in an MMO setting (but doing so via accepting an incredibly small but devoted fanbase) is probably EvE Online.

Incredibly small? What does that make UO - even at it's peak - then? EVE has over 330,000 active subscribers, more than Ultima Online has EVER had and is still growing after 7 years of release. Much more than we can say for poor UO.

Funny stuff, though.




Oh, and I volunteer too! Monthly with the Special Olympics and quarterly with my employer's community outreach program...that I helped to establish. What does this have to do with anything, again?

 

[Ray_]

I have absolutely no intention whatsoever in playing a classic shard. Guess what? I will add my opinion on the matter whenever I see fit as I hope Adol does. Not that anymore is needed from that well thought out post. It was quite complete.

I'll say what I want and play where I want.

See how easy that was?

Why? Why waste your time? Do you really hate other people that much that you'll argue against something that would bring them a lot of happiness? Is this your way of revenge for being PK'd 10 years ago?

Help me to understand, any of you, why you'd want to deprive me of the best enjoyment I've ever had in an MMO. Please.

Any argument using financial reasons for EA is illegitimate as none of us are in a position to know anything with regards to that. EA is, though, and they'll make the financial decision without any input from Stratics posters, I can guarantee that.


The only valid reason I can think of is malice or spite. I do hope I'm wrong. Please inform otherwise.

 

[Derium of ls]

Why? Why waste your time? Do you really hate other people that much that you'll argue against something that would bring them a lot of happiness? Is this your way of revenge for being PK'd 10 years ago?

Help me to understand, any of you, why you'd want to deprive me of the best enjoyment I've ever had in an MMO. Please.

Any argument using financial reasons for EA is illegitimate as none of us are in a position to know anything with regards to that. EA is, though, and they'll make the financial decision without any input from Stratics posters, I can guarantee that.


The only valid reason I can think of is malice or spite. I do hope I'm wrong. Please inform otherwise.

I'd like the same answer to this question. How are we hurting you? So why hurt us.

 

[Ray_]

When EA fired me without reason (because some *******s had sold gold on e-bay) well I started hacking the client.

They wouldn't use my prodigal computer skills at merely 14 yo ? Well I went batpoo on them... hopefully they'd realise I held the key to fixing the situation if I hacked so much a whole server would complain about me.

But issue is redtaped you see ? I waited with people who tried to page on me, about 1000 times, without exagerating.

They would page : This guy just stole my whole backpack in one click and I have 4 witnesses, he's even willing to talk with you about it.

My e-mails were all ignored, all those pages were ignored.

You see ?

I stayed there, and looked at them whine about it, noone ever did anything about it.

I still hold the key to fixing all hacks in this game with a small script that takes no computing power or close to none. I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows, anyone who's messed a bit with the client must surely know.

Is there anyone that actually buys any of this hogwash?

 

[phantus]

Why? Why waste your time? Do you really hate other people that much that you'll argue against something that would bring them a lot of happiness? Is this your way of revenge for being PK'd 10 years ago?

Help me to understand, any of you, why you'd want to deprive me of the best enjoyment I've ever had in an MMO. Please.

Any argument using financial reasons for EA is illegitimate as none of us are in a position to know anything with regards to that. EA is, though, and they'll make the financial decision without any input from Stratics posters, I can guarantee that.


The only valid reason I can think of is malice or spite. I do hope I'm wrong. Please inform otherwise.

I'd like the same answer to this question. How are we hurting you? So why hurt us.

How about you two go through my posts and find the one where I am trying to deny you a classic shard. Don't spend too long because I have a lot of posts and it's not there. I support the classic shard as I've said umpteen times. What brought me to the classic shard thread was the bleed over into every other thread.

To be perfectly honest I lied. I would actually play on the classic shard on occasion but it would most definately not be one I spent the majority of my time. A break in the monotony between the huge gaps of content that generally plagues UO in any of it's forms.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

It's not for sale sorry, but I do not want you on my friend list, you're just not targetted as a customer.

 

[Evlar]

Derium of ls & Ray...

Don't take phantus' post too literally. I think you'll find that on occasion, as I am want to myself, he can't help but respond with some tongue-in-cheek intent to posts that seem to deserve such a response.

In essence, a leg-puller. I am also guilty of doing that, but I also don't tend to take forum "banter" too much to heart.

It's all in the interpretation of the reader though I suppose.

This topic has indeed spilled over into many other threads. That it's annoying people on these forums is patently clear. Fact is though, there will always be a lot of common ground that can be found between half of the topics on U-Hall, which in one way or another, can be related to the classic shard thoughts.

My best advice to anyone who takes forums seriously... relax, sit back and just enjoy the ride

 

[Derium of ls]

Derium of ls & Ray...

Don't take phantus' post too literally. I think you'll find that on occasion, as I am want to myself, he can't help but respond with some tongue-in-cheek intent to posts that seem to deserve such a response.

In essence, a leg-puller. I am also guilty of doing that, but I also don't tend to take forum "banter" too much to heart.

It's all in the interpretation of the reader though I suppose.

This topic has indeed spilled over into many other threads. That it's annoying people on these forums is patently clear. Fact is though, there will always be a lot of common ground that can be found between half of the topics on U-Hall, which in one way or another, can be related to the classic shard thoughts.

My best advice to anyone who takes forums seriously... relax, sit back and just enjoy the ride

Don't take what seriously? I only read the question I quoted and nothing above it haha. I just wanted the question answered by the 15billion people who refuse to tell us.

Help me to understand, any of you, why you'd want to deprive me of the best enjoyment I've ever had in an MMO. Please.

How about you two go through my posts and find the one where I am trying to deny you a classic shard. Don't spend too long because I have a lot of posts and it's not there.

okay I read the posts a bit higher up and I hope to God one of the "leg-pullers" is phantus saying Adols post was well thought out.

anyways, I just wanted that question answered by people who have tried to block a classic shard. So if phantus never tried to block a classic shard from happening, then why did he answer it? I think if you get defensive about something that doesn't apply to you (as he said) then I think you're maybe hiding something.


unless I'm missing something here, it seems that Ray_ is asking a rather damn solid question to the people who are trying to not let a classic shard happen.

 

[Evlar]

phantus is a

whilst I like to take the

 

[Derium of ls]

your posts always make me happy Evlar haha

 

[phantus]

phantus is a

whilst I like to take the

phantus has never denied being a troll.

phantus has also been a contributing member of Stratics and UO for a very long time.

phantus has his supporters and his enemies.

phantus is not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Evlar]

I like phantus.

phantus adds interest to topical discussion.

 

[Adol]

It didn't fail. Net subscriptions were gained in every financial quarter pre-UO:R.

You could say that the current model has failed, since it reportedly has less subscribers than pre-UO:R.

*snip*

And we can stop right there, I think. A more perfect example of confirmation bias you couldn't help to find; Net Subscriptions? They peaked in March 2003. The decay comes post Age of Shadows. But you phrase it as if the subscriptions stopped gaining after UO:R. They didn't. The game was ever more popular after non-consensual PvP was removed, but slowly dropped due to the shift towards itemization and obsolescence. Nor was the over all MMO market comparable then, and nor has it proven the claims made since; the vast, vast majority of MMOs have gone much further than even Ultima Online in restricted player interaction, and have been wildly more successful than any of the claimed games that would prove the alternative models in the same market and technology generation.

You think you can call people sociopaths about a game people play as a hobby?

Um... yes. One of the DSM definitions of sociopathy is a complete inability to emphasise with others. There is no limitations on where that lack of understanding is expressed, because it's a condition in the mind of the person who has it. But if you would care to make an argument though that goes "When I kill someone and they ask me to at least stop being impolite, I turn the dickishness up to 10" actually does show the quality of empathy, by all means have at it...

Respectfully and without any malice, we don't want you on a classic shard.

Except many of you do, because otherwise you aren't going to get the community of players that you had back then... There's this naive belief that everyone was there, not because it was a new world, or because there wasn't much else in the same market and so forth, but because people thought the entire experience was actually what they wanted. But we didn't, and we aren't going to be there. Your arguments are just illustrating my own points, even if you can't see that it is. You want Ultima Online to be something it never was, and never could be, because your view wasn't accurate to how people actually felt.

This is completely wrong and a gross distortion of what really happened.

No it isn't. For nearly a year before it launched the old UO.com boards were hammered by people claiming Shadowbane was going to kill UO itself. It even continued during the Beta, when people could have pointed out all the bugs that you claim were there; they didn't though, because they were filled with a missionary zeal to prove their own pet prejudices about game design, irrespective of what the actual reality was. Prejudices like...

As far as the point that you "didn't go there either" - we know! We didn't want you there. I don't play games to bake break, etc. Shadowbane NEVER targeted you as a customer. Sorry man.

I'm sorry, do you think I care about that? The market tailors for me very well, thank you. And the 11 million players who like the uber-tram World Of Warcraft for that matter... I'm pointing it out because you seem to be under some terrible misconception that you're an important target audience not just for game design in general, but for Ultima Online in particular. And you're not. Sorry man, EA just aren't that into you. Especially when you won't make welcome the rest of the customers they are struggling to keep.

Incredibly small? What does that make UO - even at it's peak - then? EVE has over 330,000 active subscribers, more than Ultima Online has EVER had and is still growing after 7 years of release. Much more than we can say for poor UO.

Funny stuff, though.

Funny stuff indeed; Answer just one question for us all... What's the highest number of simultaneous log ins that the EvE server has seen?

The answer can be found on the EvE wiki, and it's not quite as impressive as 300k. It's not even much more than UO can expect near it's peak to be providing for either, when you compare like for like.

So yes, EvE has more subscriber numbers; but it also has the ability to pay for accounts from the in game currency, and with only one character per account, it rather puts the actual number of played accounts at any one time into a wider perspective...

Of course, you seem to be labouring under the impression that I want such games to fail. Nope, I hope you are happy in other games, that don't try to attract people like me. I tried EvE, wasn't for me, but I hope it can stay up for people who do like it. But you don't get to claim to that everyone loves you and the things you love either.

Oh, and I volunteer too! Monthly with the Special Olympics and quarterly with my employer's community outreach program...that I helped to establish. What does this have to do with anything, again?

Would explaining it a second time help? Or even pointing out that the comment was in answer to someone else's questions? But you've had 12 years of Ultima Online to listen to why people were leaving that play style. Real people, sat behind those pixels, whom you didn't want where you play... and even now, you still can't understand them.

I don't hate you for the way you want to play; in the scale of things, a computer game is pretty unimportant. But I do pity many of you because even your virtual life has moved on since, and you don't have any clue as to why.

 

[Adol]

How about you two go through my posts and find the one where I am trying to deny you a classic shard. Don't spend too long because I have a lot of posts and it's not there. I support the classic shard as I've said umpteen times. What brought me to the classic shard thread was the bleed over into every other thread.

To be perfectly honest I lied. I would actually play on the classic shard on occasion but it would most definately not be one I spent the majority of my time. A break in the monotony between the huge gaps of content that generally plagues UO in any of it's forms.

I support the classic shard too, but then being a card carrying lefty, I believe in supporting the alternative lifestyles of unpopular minorities . But of course, because we don't love it and want to play on it ourselves, which is the only way EA will ever support it (if they think there's the sub numbers in it for them) we are committing a violent crime against both the cause of, and the illusions about the classic shard...

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

I intentionally haven't posted this in a while, but I just wanted to address the posters here that are wanting to see Trammel included in a Classic Shard.

The problem with including Trammel is that the players will get bored pretty quickly without escalating content in my opinion. I still contend that it was bordem bred by low-risk play in Trammel that led to AoS in the first place.

So with that said, I freely and fully acknowledge that PKing was out of control in the old days, and something had to be done.

With that said, would those of you that are supporting a Classic Shard, but want Trammel included, even consider playing on a Fel only shard if there were checks put in to curtail PKing?

It seems that when the first thread started, the Classic Shard supporters were split, then we came together, and now we are becoming more split again. Perhaps some of that is my fault, perhaps its because of the recent event, but the fact is, we seem to be losing some ground on the things we all agreed upon...at least the bare essentials.

For me, I am hesitant to throw my support behind what some would call a "true classic shard" because I think that it would only attract PvPers, and would eventually lead to Trammel being put into it, or a sister shard being launched that included Trammel.

I am hesitant to throw my support behind a UO:R shard, because I think that would eventually lead to AoS.

The lessons of the past should not be forgotten. We got UO:R because PKs could show no restraint, and we got AoS because the devs took all the risk out of the game, and replaced it with item-based game play.

 

[Ray_]

*snip*

And we can stop right there, I think. A more perfect example of confirmation bias you couldn't help to find; Net Subscriptions? They peaked in March 2003. The decay comes post Age of Shadows. But you phrase it as if the subscriptions stopped gaining after UO:R. They didn't. The game was ever more popular after non-consensual PvP was removed, but slowly dropped due to the shift towards itemization and obsolescence. Nor was the over all MMO market comparable then, and nor has it proven the claims made since; the vast, vast majority of MMOs have gone much further than even Ultima Online in restricted player interaction, and have been wildly more successful than any of the claimed games that would prove the alternative models in the same market and technology generation.



Um... yes. One of the DSM definitions of sociopathy is a complete inability to emphasise with others. There is no limitations on where that lack of understanding is expressed, because it's a condition in the mind of the person who has it. But if you would care to make an argument though that goes "When I kill someone and they ask me to at least stop being impolite, I turn the dickishness up to 10" actually does show the quality of empathy, by all means have at it...



Except many of you do, because otherwise you aren't going to get the community of players that you had back then... There's this naive belief that everyone was there, not because it was a new world, or because there wasn't much else in the same market and so forth, but because people thought the entire experience was actually what they wanted. But we didn't, and we aren't going to be there. Your arguments are just illustrating my own points, even if you can't see that it is. You want Ultima Online to be something it never was, and never could be, because your view wasn't accurate to how people actually felt.




No it isn't. For nearly a year before it launched the old UO.com boards were hammered by people claiming Shadowbane was going to kill UO itself. It even continued during the Beta, when people could have pointed out all the bugs that you claim were there; they didn't though, because they were filled with a missionary zeal to prove their own pet prejudices about game design, irrespective of what the actual reality was. Prejudices like...



I'm sorry, do you think I care about that? The market tailors for me very well, thank you. And the 11 million players who like the uber-tram World Of Warcraft for that matter... I'm pointing it out because you seem to be under some terrible misconception that you're an important target audience not just for game design in general, but for Ultima Online in particular. And you're not. Sorry man, EA just aren't that into you. Especially when you won't make welcome the rest of the customers they are struggling to keep.



Funny stuff indeed; Answer just one question for us all... What's the highest number of simultaneous log ins that the EvE server has seen?

The answer can be found on the EvE wiki, and it's not quite as impressive as 300k. It's not even much more than UO can expect near it's peak to be providing for either, when you compare like for like.

So yes, EvE has more subscriber numbers; but it also has the ability to pay for accounts from the in game currency, and with only one character per account, it rather puts the actual number of played accounts at any one time into a wider perspective...

Of course, you seem to be labouring under the impression that I want such games to fail. Nope, I hope you are happy in other games, that don't try to attract people like me. I tried EvE, wasn't for me, but I hope it can stay up for people who do like it. But you don't get to claim to that everyone loves you and the things you love either.



Would explaining it a second time help? Or even pointing out that the comment was in answer to someone else's questions? But you've had 12 years of Ultima Online to listen to why people were leaving that play style. Real people, sat behind those pixels, whom you didn't want where you play... and even now, you still can't understand them.

I don't hate you for the way you want to play; in the scale of things, a computer game is pretty unimportant. But I do pity many of you because even your virtual life has moved on since, and you don't have any clue as to why.

Lots of putting words into my mouth and blaming your own psychological issues on other people.

I understand you and people like you just fine. You play your games, I'll play mine. No sweat off my back.

What I don't understand is why you would play a game knowing you could be killed at any moment if that idea is such abhorrent to you.

It's like buying Team Fortress 2 and getting psychologically damaged when someone blows up your engineer nest. It's the nature of the game. Other people shouldn't have to compensated for you being an emotional cripple.

Save your pity for the emotional cripples that can't separate video games from real life and label people that play within the rules of the game sociopaths. I pity them. Probably why if someone cried long and hard enough, I'd give them back their loot. I usually rezzed them and gated them to a town of their choice, but some people were just so hurt by being killed that I couldn't help but feel bad


You seemed to take umbrage with me saying you weren't wanted. Sorry you took it that way. It's just that I don't want you to get hurt in real life over a video game, and the best way for that to happen is for you to stay away from games/servers that allow you to be killed by other players. It's me being totally selfless.

 

[NorCal]

I'm sorry, do you think I care about that? The market tailors for me very well, thank you. And the 11 million players who like the uber-tram World Of Warcraft for that matter... I'm pointing it out because you seem to be under some terrible misconception that you're an important target audience not just for game design in general, but for Ultima Online in particular. And you're not. Sorry man, EA just aren't that into you. Especially when you won't make welcome the rest of the customers they are struggling to keep.

As someone that has played both games what makes you think that you are such an important target audience? World of Warcraft does item based gaming with consentual pvp better then UO. It's not something that EA can compete with. UO will slowly die as long as they try to clone WoW. In fact one of the lead designers of WoW was the main force behind AoS. A classic shard would be a niche shard that might not be for everyone. If you don't like it don't play. It's your choice. By the way maybe you have played WoW IDK, but it's not as uber-tram as you make it sound. They have pvp servers that allow non-con pvp and they are just as popular as the pve servers that are strictly consentual pvp. Of course if you really want to get technical all pvp in WoW is consentual because you consent when you choose to log into a pvp realm.

Of course in WoW there is zero risk involved in death. Most pvp even takes place in instances like battlegrounds or arenas. Nobody can grief you while your doing a dungeon because that's also instanced. It still doesn't stop the non-stop complaining about dying in pvp. In the WoW forums 90% of the QQ is about pvp. Countless threads are started because someone died in pvp asking to nerf whatever class beat them. I've just come to the conclusion that some people just can't handle dying in video games to another person. It might be frustrating to die in pve, but it doesn't bother people like pvp.

 

[NorCal]

Not that I want to compair UO to WoW, but a classic UO shard would be they exact opposite of WoW and would offer a different type of gaming experience that might only be a niche, but I think would be refreshing many gamers. The thing I loved about classic UO was that it wasn't an item based game. That it allowed players to decide what end game was. In WoW end game is ladder based pvp or large raids that reward you with the best gear in the game. WoW has to constantly patch the game to provide new gear from pvp and raids that makes the previous content obsolete. IDK how it is in UO now, but in WoW players go where the best gear is.

Back when I played UO during T2A era the end game was what players made it. For some people it was crafting, role playing, pvp or maybe owning a mall. When end game isn't just the latest content that provides the best gear players are more creative. UO also had a better community then WoW because that game wasn't all about loot. Nobody in WoW cares about player justice. Reputation isn't important either unless you get labeled as a loot ninja or a terrible player. In WoW even guilds are filled with drama because the reason most people play together is for loot and players in the same guild compete for loot. Unless you have 25 friends that play and have the same schedule you can't raid with just friends. In UO you could have a small group of friends that you play with and not have to worry about drama. UO will eventually die if it tries to copy newer games because it can't compete with them. They just do it better.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Excellent post NorCal!

This is pretty much what I have been saying...and I don't play WoW.

UO has turned into pretty much the same thing. People go where the uber items drop, and once they have them all, they start wanting more content from the devs.

It's a never ending cycle. Unfortunately, that kind of cycle can only sustain itself if there are enough people paying enough money so that the developers can constantly work to create new additions to the game.

UO, sadly, has probably already dropped below that level...and if it hasn't, it probably will soon.

Other alternatives, like WoW, exist...and because they are newer, they attract more players than UO. In turn, they have more revenue to work with, so they can constantly keep adding new content.

UO needs desperately to break away from that cycle if it is going to exist beyond the next two years.

That's just my opinion of course.

 

[Derium of ls]

Keep in mind both of you, the SAME guy that is the lead designer for WoW is the one who made AoS. So comparing WoW to UO is fine, both were designed to go the same direction.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

*shakes*

*goes pale*

It's.... *trembles*... it's ....

...


the prophecy !!!

 

[NorCal]

Excellent post NorCal!

This is pretty much what I have been saying...and I don't play WoW.

UO has turned into pretty much the same thing. People go where the uber items drop, and once they have them all, they start wanting more content from the devs.

It's a never ending cycle. Unfortunately, that kind of cycle can only sustain itself if there are enough people paying enough money so that the developers can constantly work to create new additions to the game.

UO, sadly, has probably already dropped below that level...and if it hasn't, it probably will soon.

Other alternatives, like WoW, exist...and because they are newer, they attract more players than UO. In turn, they have more revenue to work with, so they can constantly keep adding new content.

UO needs desperately to break away from that cycle if it is going to exist beyond the next two years.

That's just my opinion of course.

If that is truely the case UO is doomed. I think what so many people that are opposed to a classic shard are afraid of is that it will become more popular eventually then the production shards. Not only that, but even if it's not more popular it will be more profitable because it won't require constant patches to provide new content. They are scared that it will stop new content, which if what you say is true will happen either way. Once it is no longer cost effective to provide new content it will stop being developed. When that happens in a item based game it's over. It might limp along until it isn't even worth keeping the game alive, but it will happen.

 

[Renyard Foxenwyle]

Keep in mind both of you, the SAME guy that is the lead designer for WoW is the one who made AoS. So comparing WoW to UO is fine, both were designed to go the same direction.

I think the destruction of our sandbox had more than just Tom Chilton to blame. All one has to do is look at that other beautiful sandbox that was destroyed by Sony, Star Wars Galaxies. Anthony Castoro (SunSword) was one of the driving forces behind the infamous NGE that totally stripped out what made Star Wars Galaxies a sandbox and replaced it with a level based gear grind. He was also one of the devs for Age of Sucks. Rick Hall (Stellerex) also was committed to a level based gear grind (just take a look at UO:X). Saying it's all Tom Chiltons fault is kinda like Obama blaming Bush for all the problems that have cropped up lately.

It would be nice if we had Designer Dragon (Raph Koster) back. As much as people want to say the vast sandbox that was UO was Garriot's idea, I think I see more of Raph than Garriot in the design. RG just gave Raph the world to build and let him go wild.

 

[Ahuaeyjnkxs]

"Us And Them"

Us and Them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me, and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, as the lines on the map
moved from side to side
Black and Blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and Down
And in the end it's only round and round and round
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
the poster bearer cried
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside
Down and Out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about
With, without
And who'll deny that's what the fightings all about
Get out of the way, it's a busy day
And I've got things on my mind
For want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died

 

[NorCal]

I think the destruction of our sandbox had more than just Tom Chilton to blame. All one has to do is look at that other beautiful sandbox that was destroyed by Sony, Star Wars Galaxies. Anthony Castoro (SunSword) was one of the driving forces behind the infamous NGE that totally stripped out what made Star Wars Galaxies a sandbox and replaced it with a level based gear grind. He was also one of the devs for Age of Sucks. Rick Hall (Stellerex) also was committed to a level based gear grind (just take a look at UO:X).

For me the end started with UO:R, but the nail in the coffin was AoS. I played until I realized how much everything had changed. Trammell was a mistake anyway you look at it. Not that something wasn't needed about PKing. What should have happened was new pve only shards opening, but with community, characters and items people didn't want to give up to start over. I understand why it went down how it did. It's easy to see that Chilton favors the Everquest style of play. Before he was a UO dev he played Everquest. He tried to bring EQ to UO with AoS. From his time in UO though he learns what a disaster Trammell was and how it divided the community. In WoW they had pve and pvp servers to seperate play styles from the start. He also learned not to allow players from opposing factions to understand eachother preventing trash talking. I think that is all part of his experience working on UO.

He understood Tram was a blunder and should have been handled in a different way.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

This may sound a bit like a wild conspiracy theory, but hear me out anyway.

Developers and producers, and those that sign their paychecks, LOVE item based level grind games. Why? They are easy to create first of all. Everyone starts at the bottom, and works their way up slowly. There is little need for new content for a long time. However, when the time comes for new content, they never give it away...they sell it to you. They hold off on new content, slowly nerf existing templates/classes, and wait until just before the playerbase gets bored and quits, then they announce some meaningless expansion. This gets the playerbase all excited again. So excited that they are willing to go out and pay $29.99 or more for the expansion. Keep in mind, this is a game they PAY to play. This is nothing new. It's been going on since at least the early to mid 90s.

But look at how this works. It's like a drug dealer. Currently, you can download and install UO for free (the first one is always free). Then you have to buy this item, that item, this expansion, that expansion. It never ends. Or does it?

How long can that model last for a game that looks like it was developed in 1997 (either client)? UO has dwindled out of the mainstream, and has become a niche market. Subscriptions slowly leak away month by month. Sure, there are little surges come expansion time, but that's fleeting.

Some say Trammel was a mistake...I think Trammel was the first piece in a very intentional puzzle. OSI abandoned the online world model and adopted the online game model. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before it became just like every other online game.

I'd personally love to see them get back to the online world model with a classic shard.

 

[Evlar]

That's no conspiracy Morgana. That's EA's business model.

 

[northwoodschopper]

This may sound a bit like a wild conspiracy theory, but hear me out anyway.

Developers and producers, and those that sign their paychecks, LOVE item based level grind games. Why? They are easy to create first of all. Everyone starts at the bottom, and works their way up slowly. There is little need for new content for a long time. However, when the time comes for new content, they never give it away...they sell it to you. They hold off on new content, slowly nerf existing templates/classes, and wait until just before the playerbase gets bored and quits, then they announce some meaningless expansion. This gets the playerbase all excited again. So excited that they are willing to go out and pay $29.99 or more for the expansion. Keep in mind, this is a game they PAY to play. This is nothing new. It's been going on since at least the early to mid 90s.

But look at how this works. It's like a drug dealer. Currently, you can download and install UO for free (the first one is always free). Then you have to buy this item, that item, this expansion, that expansion. It never ends. Or does it?

How long can that model last for a game that looks like it was developed in 1997 (either client)? UO has dwindled out of the mainstream, and has become a niche market. Subscriptions slowly leak away month by month. Sure, there are little surges come expansion time, but that's fleeting.

Some say Trammel was a mistake...I think Trammel was the first piece in a very intentional puzzle. OSI abandoned the online world model and adopted the online game model. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before it became just like every other online game.

I'd personally love to see them get back to the online world model with a classic shard.

While everyone says that Trammel was primarily created because of PKing, I still stand by that Trammel was created moreso for housing. I remember the chaos that was Trammel house placing. Kinda goes back to items, since housing was a huge commodity then.

It doesn't surprise me that the diablo-esque item model is so successful, hell, the diablo 2 battlechest is still sold in most stores for 30-40 dollars, and is still a decent seller every month. it's no coincidence that AOS was a half-ass attempt at bringing D2 to UO.

As for UO's on-con pvp development, I think the devs threw in the towel trying to balance justice and enforce the game rules against bored players that just wanted to circumvent the rules to have the advantage, taking into consideration paying accounts.

 

[Evlar]

I'm still of the opinion, that very much like Siege/Mugen, you'll see very little scamming or griefing on any classic shards.

Players who want to hunt weaker "sheep" (as they've been referred to as...), will generally not have much success on a classic shard. Players who choose to play on a classic shard will be more than well aware that it will contain strong elements of PvP. Therefore, they're likely going to prepare their characters better for just such occasions as potential confrontations with other players.

In essence, there will be no sheep as such, because on a classic shard, players will fight back. I doubt this will appeal those who live to "win" against those they know they'll always beat with little or no resistance.

Scammers? Well, with items being of far less importance, there isn't much appeal to those who want to scam people out of high end items is there really?

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

While everyone says that Trammel was primarily created because of PKing, I still stand by that Trammel was created moreso for housing. I remember the chaos that was Trammel house placing. Kinda goes back to items, since housing was a huge commodity then.

Nah, I have to disagree. I think the housing rush was a side effect. If they just wanted more housing space, why didn't they just open a new area that was the original ruleset?

As for UO's on-con pvp development, I think the devs threw in the towel trying to balance justice and enforce the game rules against bored players that just wanted to circumvent the rules to have the advantage, taking into consideration paying accounts.

Oh, that's exactly what it was. Part of the dev team at the time had ideas like Good vs. Evil, and several other punishments that they wanted to add to PKs...but it would have required a lot more work, and probably would still not have satisfied players that believed that they should never be killed by other players.