M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
I suppose you have some numbers to counter my claim? If so, I'd really love to see them.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
I suppose you have some numbers to support your claim? If so, I'd really love to see them.
N
NorCal
Guest
Classic shard please....
RaDian makes the only valid arguement against it that I've heard from a subscriber about splitting dev time and UO's limited resources. I can understand where he is coming from because he is happy with the game and doesn't want it taking away content due to lack of resources.
It wouldn't be going backwards if the game you still enjoy moves forward with the same amount of dev time and resources. If it was a side project funded sepratly with it's own team it would ease a lot of the apprehension some players have about a classic shard.
For the Devs it is strictly a business decision. Cal doesn't get specific because if he said too much people will take it as a promise.
RaDian makes the only valid arguement against it that I've heard from a subscriber about splitting dev time and UO's limited resources. I can understand where he is coming from because he is happy with the game and doesn't want it taking away content due to lack of resources.
It wouldn't be going backwards if the game you still enjoy moves forward with the same amount of dev time and resources. If it was a side project funded sepratly with it's own team it would ease a lot of the apprehension some players have about a classic shard.
For the Devs it is strictly a business decision. Cal doesn't get specific because if he said too much people will take it as a promise.
Ok Cal... how is this....
Remember, this FACTION thief ALWAYS has cake and loves to leave it in FACTION bases for her FACTION adversaries to enjoy (along with lovely purple decorations usually)...
*wonders if the cake in a faction base with multiple capitalized FACTIONs in the post is too subtle*
Ok, I'll just ask... any updates on factions??????
S
Stupid Miner
Guest
Too funny not to note. Who sees the irony in the phrase?
ARENA IS NOT PVP CONTENT!!!! IT FIXES OR CHANGES NOTHING FOR THE CONTENT OF PVP!
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
I wasn't the one that started up with the "your post isn't factual" garbage...
...but, it is pretty much common sense here. Not that many players are going to quit UO because they develop a Classic Shard. There may be a few because they are angry, but the existence of a Classic Shard doesn't change anyone's gameplay on the existing shards.
On the other hand, there WILL be players that return. I have no numbers, neither does anyone else...but to assume that the number of players that will quit over the creation of a Classic Shard will be greater than the number of players that return is ... well, pretty idiotic.
I'd play a classic shard and I see little reason why it can't be added. Really it needs little up keep, you find a 1999 save date and bango you have a server. Just pick a random date before tram but after t2a and let it rip. Don't update it, never police it(just like every other server), no em's just another slot on the server list.
A
AesSedai
Guest
- To be Just: interesting.
Why did the 3rd party detection get declassified and chunked in with SP info.?
I hope the secondary actions are sufficient enough to dissuade 'more than a few' cheaters from further abusing UO.
...---...
Is it 'just' that the cheaters get away with their actions, only to suffer a minor infraction(s), followed by 'a little fun' that does not include a ban? I do hope we have some plans in place that will curb the enthusiasm that there has been to cheat UO (all that is UO).
I enjoyed the Producer's Update.
Of course I will always wish that more was covered.
Like: what is happening with the 'just' evolution of the new client?
(Work on foundations ~ As this update clearly states that our Devs are working on. Keep working 'em and fix the broken stuff. Fix the broken stuff = a better WoMB ~ Word of Mouth Band. I look forward to hearing about the end of this month. I am quite tempted to goto the Austin GDC.. maybe an unofficial UO Town Hall.. anyone want to visit Austin in October?
if so, let's contact each other and get to it. Could be a lot of unofficial UO Town Hall fun... )
Why did the 3rd party detection get declassified and chunked in with SP info.?
I hope the secondary actions are sufficient enough to dissuade 'more than a few' cheaters from further abusing UO.
...---...
Is it 'just' that the cheaters get away with their actions, only to suffer a minor infraction(s), followed by 'a little fun' that does not include a ban? I do hope we have some plans in place that will curb the enthusiasm that there has been to cheat UO (all that is UO).
I enjoyed the Producer's Update.
Of course I will always wish that more was covered.
Like: what is happening with the 'just' evolution of the new client?
(Work on foundations ~ As this update clearly states that our Devs are working on. Keep working 'em and fix the broken stuff. Fix the broken stuff = a better WoMB ~ Word of Mouth Band. I look forward to hearing about the end of this month. I am quite tempted to goto the Austin GDC.. maybe an unofficial UO Town Hall.. anyone want to visit Austin in October?
if so, let's contact each other and get to it. Could be a lot of unofficial UO Town Hall fun... )
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
It doesn't work that way exactly. There is no proof that the devs even have the old server backups (although I am 99% sure they do). The client has changed since then, and there have been bugs that have been fixed. Not to mention the fact that DirectX versions have changed, etc. There will be some development involved here...don't think there won't. However, if you really take a look at what options the devs have right now to grow the game, it makes sense. The options at the moment are:
- Another new client that is completely 3d.
The biggest problem with this idea is that it is going to be really expensive and development intensive. EA would have to sign off on spending major development dollars on a dying game...which would in turn compete with Star Wars Old Republic...another MMO being released by EA in the next year.
- Advertising.
Not really all that effective, and expensive. The issue is, advertising UO to today's gamers would be like advertising VHS tapes to Blu-Ray buyers.
- Do nothing, and ride it out to the end.
This would be the cheapest method, and it wouldn't surprise me if we see this as the option that EA chooses.
- Find a way to grow the number of subscriptions WITHOUT any of the above.
This is going to be difficult, because new gamers...people that have never played UO before...are probably going to be turned off by the fact that there is a deeply established playerbase, and a significant barrier to entry for new players (outrageous inflation, need for powerscrolls, etc.). They will also be turned off by the graphics. If you are a gamer that stumbled upon UO in a GameStop or something, and you had never heard of it before...what would make you want to jump in and try it? More importantly, what would make you want to stay if you did?
Bringing back old players is probably the only viable business model out there for growing UO's subscriberbase without creating a sequel, or another completely new client (which may or may not be accepted by the current subscriberbase).
If someone has any ideas to bring any significant number of players back to UO, other than a Classic Shard, I am sure Cal would love to hear them...but right now, of everything on the table, it looks like they are going to at least pitch the Classic Shard idea to the powers-that-be at EA. Not meaning to sound mean, but those that are against might want to consider re-considering their position on it, because if EA green lights it, its probably going to happen.
We live in the same city. Are you sure we don't work at the same company? I have to hear that alll the time too!
A
AesSedai
Guest
- If they did just as you say, then I would agree with the resources spent on developing a classic shard. Only problem I have with it is the magical word called 'image' (EA's image even): once a task is taken on (~classic shard), it becomes a positive or negative situation for whom (~EA.Bio-Mythic) took said task (~classic shard) on.. therefore you are inevitably vested (by the people.. blame it on 'human' nature), once you take on another task.. This demands that resources be spent on the new task in order to maintain a desired image.. This will take money away from what is UO now; whether the money it brings in will offset this, is exactly what I believe Cal has just said they need to consider, prior to making any major decision about yet another task.
C
canary
Guest
Your post was indeed 'garbage'. You posted an opinion as fact. Therefore, please... provide these 'facts' to back up your opinion that you falsely believe is a fact.
We'll be waiting. So, please, by all means, show us this data you've collected.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
A Classic Shard likely won't come in the form of an old backup, or 'free shard' style emulation. It will likely be developed from the ground up, or from existing code making changes. Either way, it will likely represent significant development effort from the devs.
The key question is...will it attract back enough players to justify it. No one knows the answer to that right now.
However...consider this, over the last 7-8 years, the population of UO has been declining steadily. Everything else they have tried to 'breathe new life' into the game has pretty much failed to do so. Expansions, new clients, none of it has done the trick. So what makes anyone believe that yet another client, or yet another item-based expansion, will do it now??
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
I am not going to trade childish insults with you or anyone else here. If you wish to insult me, or attack me, I can easily add you to my ignore list.
Thank You.
G
Goonball FC
Guest
if he aint scared then the detection fails
90% of the people i have met since i have returned are scripting.
C
canary
Guest
I suppose this translates as: 'I have no facts to back up my earlier statements. You are right, canary. I'm sorry.'
Apology accepted. Just a reminder that 'facts' and 'opinions' are very different.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
No, this translates into "I have better things to do with my time than to deal with immature posters on a gaming website"
Too often have I allowed people like yourself on this forum to drag me into heated, silly, and childish behavior, and I simply refuse to do it any longer.
I have posted my say on the matter...you are within your rights to disagree. Time will tell who is correct...but as of today, I haven't see anything from the dev team stating that a Classic Shard is anything other than a distinct possibility. It sounds to me like you are taking your aggression over the announcement out on me.
As they say, don't shoot the messenger.
A
AesSedai
Guest
- Maybe they should work with what is; focus the true fix on the foundation(s) and avoid taking on additional gambles (~added tasks) unless the resources are significantly increased to accomodate such undertakings.
Same as it ever was (David Byrne - Talking Heads
)- Same as aye ever says (in a sense
)
This is my major concern with putting resources into a "Classic" shard:
1) It detracts from DEV time with existing problems that still require attention and fixing.... Hello EC is still in BETA!
2) It brings back people but the Classic Shard isn't all it's cracked up to be and we lose them permanently.... since lets face it they can't even get the T-Maps out the door right and we expect them to fix a whole new shard????? What are you out of your mind!?
3) The pour lots of time and resources into a classic shard and while it brings in a few folk for say ..... 90 days... it soon dies and then EA pulls the plug on UO forever.
I'm sorry but any way I look at this .... it's not good.
1) It detracts from DEV time with existing problems that still require attention and fixing.... Hello EC is still in BETA!
2) It brings back people but the Classic Shard isn't all it's cracked up to be and we lose them permanently.... since lets face it they can't even get the T-Maps out the door right and we expect them to fix a whole new shard????? What are you out of your mind!?
3) The pour lots of time and resources into a classic shard and while it brings in a few folk for say ..... 90 days... it soon dies and then EA pulls the plug on UO forever.
I'm sorry but any way I look at this .... it's not good.
C
canary
Guest
The only thing I'm disputing is that you made a statement of opinion as fact. That is all. I'm unsure where this entire 'I'm insulting you' is coming from.
You painted yourself into the corner, and now since you cannot back up your statements WITH facts you somehow, obtusely, think I'm attempting to 'insult' you. No, I'm just pointing out that you are wrong.
The bottom line is that a 'Classic Shard' is an unsound business move. Cal obviously knows this but is in a deep denial since he fancies himself the savior of UO PvP.
Aside from AoS itemizing UO play, the reason that UO moved past Pub 16 is that 90% of players didn't like what UO had become. Before Trammel, PKs ran rampant - regardless of how many friends you had. When Tram appeared, Fel became a ghost facet literally over night. People voted with their feet. This hasn’t changed.
The majority of UO players aren't interested in non-consentual PvP and are happy with PvM. No amount of shinies spawning in Fel will change this, as time has repeatedly proven. Factions are a joke and Mythic doesn't know how to fix them. (As evidenced by the massive backlash and rejection of their idea for fixes.)
A classic shard isn’t a magic silver bullet for UO. It’s not going to bring in thousands of new players or returning players. There may be a blip in subscription numbers for a few months and then UO will resume its steady decline. How many play on Siege? Optimistically, maybe a few thousand. Realistically, it probably hosts far fewer players then is really needed to sustain it – hence its lack of frequent updates. A classic shard would need to draw in far more players, a feat which I highly doubt it would be able to do and sustain.
A new rule set would take a lot of time, effort and resources to get right, so it appeases all those who are demanding it. Honestly, UO, as a whole, cannot afford this. There is far too much to be done on the current production shards as it is. The EC desperately needs to be finished and the balance pass that was promised us nearly two years ago needs to be started.
Aside from AoS itemizing UO play, the reason that UO moved past Pub 16 is that 90% of players didn't like what UO had become. Before Trammel, PKs ran rampant - regardless of how many friends you had. When Tram appeared, Fel became a ghost facet literally over night. People voted with their feet. This hasn’t changed.
The majority of UO players aren't interested in non-consentual PvP and are happy with PvM. No amount of shinies spawning in Fel will change this, as time has repeatedly proven. Factions are a joke and Mythic doesn't know how to fix them. (As evidenced by the massive backlash and rejection of their idea for fixes.)
A classic shard isn’t a magic silver bullet for UO. It’s not going to bring in thousands of new players or returning players. There may be a blip in subscription numbers for a few months and then UO will resume its steady decline. How many play on Siege? Optimistically, maybe a few thousand. Realistically, it probably hosts far fewer players then is really needed to sustain it – hence its lack of frequent updates. A classic shard would need to draw in far more players, a feat which I highly doubt it would be able to do and sustain.
A new rule set would take a lot of time, effort and resources to get right, so it appeases all those who are demanding it. Honestly, UO, as a whole, cannot afford this. There is far too much to be done on the current production shards as it is. The EC desperately needs to be finished and the balance pass that was promised us nearly two years ago needs to be started.
C
canary
Guest
I believe its called 'dangling a carrot' and I'm curious how he will handle this come years end. Perhaps it will be akin to 'cheaters on an excel list'... stated but never dealt with. We'll see.
It's funny that you continue to spout this as though you have some sort of, you know, valid figure to toss behind it. Please show me where these hundreds of thousands of players who never played UO in the first place are waiting in line to spend $12.99/month for a 14-year-old game with 17-year-old graphics.
And I question the assertion that this will take "a little time," given that others have stated that EA can't simple roll Pub 16 out onto a server. They're going to have to do some developments to downgrade existing UO back to that point, and then, you know, I'm sure whatever they come up with, you will all be happy with and they'll never ever have to develop anything for it ever again.
Right?
Look, fact is, they already don't do a decent job supporting Siege Perilous... but then, we've discussed this before, and you somehow don't see the correlation. You just want your Classic Shard.
[quite]2 - You understand that they are not talking about changing the existing shards back to Classic Era, right? You keep talking about UO 'going back' etc...but the UO that YOU enjoy will not change one iota. There will just be another option for people that do not enjoy what you enjoy. Coke, also Diet Coke...rather than just Coke...and screw you if you have a weight problem or are diabetic. Get it?[/QUOTE]Um... Yeah, I DO understand that it doesn't retrograde the existing shards... You DO understand that in order to do this, it takes development time. Development time that should be spent progressing the game, not regressing it. You think they're just going to put out a server, flip a switch, the existing client's going to be compatible with it (even though it wouldn't be compatible with the ruleset), that everything's going to be hunky dory, and I suppose that in your world, they'll be able to juggle all of this just fine.
Again, go ask the people on Siege Perilous how well the red-headed stepchild of Ultima Online is doing, and then think twice about how well you think they'll be able to integrate a third ruleset into their development routine.
In fact, I dare say it would take a hell of a lot more time to develop for the "Classic" Shard because you folks would still want progression in the development of your "flavor" of UO, but it wouldn't tend to be the stuff that by and large they can put both on Standard and Siege Perilous with little modification (whether or not that's the correct method to approach Siege or not). "Classic" -- which would swiftly spiral away from the "Classic" ruleset you're all fond of -- would require more development time than just "Oooh, look, it's on! Pay us!"
And... they need a 9+ backup copy of the Classic Client too. That means maintain a 3rd client. Fix the recall bug on that client along with tons of old bugs.. again. Oh and another UO install because the map has changed alot.
Lets see.. 3 months of dev work to release a very bugged changes to T-Maps (think about it.. its only a couple new items and a bugged tmap random location), about 4-6 months to release a "Arena" (that no one has requested, because there are tons of more important things to add or to fix in this game).. so im expecting about 24-36 months "just" to implement a classic shard and another classic client both full of old bugs.
And I agree with most people, nothing was really said on this letter.
It seems Judah the intern was responsible for the Bane & Meer war and left before implementing the Meer part of the event.
Some of us took sides on the war between the Bane and the Ophidians but most of us didnt even care. For the ones particiapted have more than one character slot, they didnt have to stick with one side. Remember the post "How good are you when no one is around?" to describe the event cycle four months ago? So it was obvious that we'd have an evil path available too.
If the easy route is to be transfered a Bane Dragon without fighting for the Bane, then yes, most people preferred that. Oh, and Tia quit UO cause that single Bane Dragon is used by mean people to waste others time while you "just" watched.
And when is Dev cycle time EVER going to be available? There is always something else in the works. Last year you told me it was SA. By the time you get to seeing the changes from the latest update there might be the Classic shard to deal with. Neither is there support from the Live side, and now Siege groupies are no longer deemed worthy enough to have their own "rockstar".Hey Symma. Didn't mean to imply we were done ... but wanted you to know we will make changes as time permits in the dev cycles. Also, I'd like to see the impact of this change before proceeding.
- c
A
Aragon100
Guest
Many thanks for the classic shard update.
UO of today isnt an option for many of these oldtimers, they want their old game back.
The interest for a Siege freeshard is not the same as the interest for UOR and pre-UOR. So this comparison isnt accurate as i see it.
And please get your figures right, Felucca became a ghost facet after AoS not after trammel. Felucca was just as if not more populated and intense after trammel then before. The primetime for good, interesting and skillful felucca PvP was after trammel were introduced, not before.
Look at this subscription numbers over years and see what happened to UO subscription numbers after AoS were introduced and you can even look up what happened to the numbers after trammel were introduced. The numbers of subscribers declined and they declined rapidly after AoS. Where did all these former subscribers go? Many of these players started on all the freeshards that were popping up. The accuracy of these numbers can be discussed, but i think it give us a hint on where the game went after AoS.
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
And claiming that shinies should have brought more interest back to felucca is laughable. The PvP was from bottom up changed and that was the reason so many left the game. Shinies and items wont change that. A classic shard would bring factions alive on a classic shard, same with chaos/order. But it wont have any impact on the shards of today cause these subscribers isnt interested in itembased and insurance PvP.
Why some of the today subscribers attack a classic shard that is ment to be for the ones that lost their UO is to me very selfish behaviour. You have your beloved version of UO (today version) and opening up a classic shard for the ones that lost their game is not affecting your playstyle, does it? You dont have to play the classic server, do you?
And there is loads of us that have searched for a new UO after AoS. Were still searching.
UO before AoS was a one of a kind unique game and i cant understand why they didnt keep a classic shard after AoS for the ones that preffered that playstyle?
And why havent a classic shard seen the light years ago?
You have to understand there is reasons why so many play, played freeshards with UOR and pre-UOR settings.
UO of today isnt an option for many of these oldtimers, they want their old game back.
The interest for a Siege freeshard is not the same as the interest for UOR and pre-UOR. So this comparison isnt accurate as i see it.
AoS was a death sentence to skillful, consequencial PvP. PvP became item/insurance based and would never recover. Full loot and consequences were out the window. UO became a totally different game which wasnt acceptable for the many of the ones that been subscribing since day 1. How many that left the game after AoS is anybodies guess but since i knew just about all that were involved in Europe felucca PvP before AoS and i saw the huge negative shortterm and longterm impact that Pub had on felucca PvP i'd guess the decline was in tens of thousands worldwide.
And please get your figures right, Felucca became a ghost facet after AoS not after trammel. Felucca was just as if not more populated and intense after trammel then before. The primetime for good, interesting and skillful felucca PvP was after trammel were introduced, not before.
Look at this subscription numbers over years and see what happened to UO subscription numbers after AoS were introduced and you can even look up what happened to the numbers after trammel were introduced. The numbers of subscribers declined and they declined rapidly after AoS. Where did all these former subscribers go? Many of these players started on all the freeshards that were popping up. The accuracy of these numbers can be discussed, but i think it give us a hint on where the game went after AoS.
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
A very large part of the ones that subscibed to UO before AoS were mainly interested in the UO PvP. What AoS did was that it alienated the old PvP crowd and many lost all interest in the game since the major part of their interest, PvP, was changed into something from outer space. UO PvP became a totally different game far from the one they learned to love.
And claiming that shinies should have brought more interest back to felucca is laughable. The PvP was from bottom up changed and that was the reason so many left the game. Shinies and items wont change that. A classic shard would bring factions alive on a classic shard, same with chaos/order. But it wont have any impact on the shards of today cause these subscribers isnt interested in itembased and insurance PvP.
This.
Why some of the today subscribers attack a classic shard that is ment to be for the ones that lost their UO is to me very selfish behaviour. You have your beloved version of UO (today version) and opening up a classic shard for the ones that lost their game is not affecting your playstyle, does it? You dont have to play the classic server, do you?
And there is loads of us that have searched for a new UO after AoS. Were still searching.
UO before AoS was a one of a kind unique game and i cant understand why they didnt keep a classic shard after AoS for the ones that preffered that playstyle?
And why havent a classic shard seen the light years ago?
Nice, so you know some players who not only breaks the rules of the game, but also the law. Seems a lot worse than just knowing a few loot scripters.
They could have called this update "Satisfy the stratics whiners", as if the few stratics posters (some who don't even play) represent the game as a whole.
Most of the stuff from the newletter either sounds fine or doesn't concern my playstyle, but I'm pretty confused about the Arenas.
Where does this come from? I don't remember massive wishes for Arenas. Why do we need that? If I want to duel in peace I just recall to some remote place in Felucca, it's not like that facet's crawling with players. And Arenas in Fel? What's the point of that anyway?
I fear this Arena stuff will lower the Fel population even more instead of attracting new player to PvP
Where does this come from? I don't remember massive wishes for Arenas. Why do we need that? If I want to duel in peace I just recall to some remote place in Felucca, it's not like that facet's crawling with players. And Arenas in Fel? What's the point of that anyway?
I fear this Arena stuff will lower the Fel population even more instead of attracting new player to PvP
C
canary
Guest
People have discussed better ways to do consensual PvP, but this wasn't one thing that tended to be a big concern for most. I see a lot of requests for finished virtues, fishing, art, gardening, classic shards, etc... but yeah, arenas were not on the top 10.Most of the stuff from the newletter either sounds fine or doesn't concern my playstyle, but I'm pretty confused about the Arenas.
Where does this come from? I don't remember massive wishes for Arenas. Why do we need that? If I want to duel in peace I just recall to some remote place in Felucca, it's not like that facet's crawling with players. And Arenas in Fel? What's the point of that anyway?
I fear this Arena stuff will lower the Fel population even more instead of attracting new player to PvP
Put it down as another way that the development team doesn't understand WHAT the paying player base wants. Sad, isn't it?
Welp, you heard it from the horse's mouth. Hopefully this will put an end to those "Geeze, a classic shard is so easy" posts. It will cost time and money, that is a certainty.
The thing that is uncertain is longer term return for those dollars if they get spent.
No man can see the future, but my money would be on "it will be a short term winner, longer term loser".
Happy forum camping to all.
Edited to add: F2P has way more potential.
The thing that is uncertain is longer term return for those dollars if they get spent.
No man can see the future, but my money would be on "it will be a short term winner, longer term loser".
Happy forum camping to all.
Edited to add: F2P has way more potential.
- Awards
- 1
If only they had Draconi on the team.
C
canary
Guest
For god's sake just invest the money in a decent art team...
...and please fire the current ones.
...and please fire the current ones.
O
Old Man of UO
Guest
C
canary
Guest
Impossible, that would equate to EA making a smart and logical move regarding UO, something that any vet player knows is impossible.
E
Evlar
Guest
Thanks for the update Cal, concerning all the things you touched on.
With regards to a "classic" option, I and those in these forums (and elsewhere I imagine) who would be interested to play "classic", I'm sure appreciate that it isn't a decision to be taken lightly. Also, it's got to have the right business plan behind it to get it up and running. So, I (and hopefully others of all "views") understand the need for the focus group and exploring if it's totally feasible from not just a gaming perspective, but a business one too.
For all the lively "debate" going on, does it not occur to those so vehemently against the "classic" concept, that it seems pretty clear that it would entirely be a business decision? No matter how much those of us supporting the idea beg for "classic", or those against threaten to rage-quit, or berate the concept, it's a business decision. Plain and simple. I think Cal made that pretty clear.
Now I would suspect, that given it's a business decision, based upon submission to the powers that be (EA Games) of a business plan, part of that plan would require access to additional development funding and possibly also development staff - certainly if the focus group finds that it would offer a sound business opportunity to produce it.
I can safely say that without any additional funding, those of you so vehemently against the "classic" concept, have absolutely nothing to fear.
Your game will remain as it is, because without additional investment funding to get "classic" going, it isn't going to happen. Is that logical enough for you to understand?
Let's switch things around for a moment though...
I can safely say that with any additional funding, those of you so vehemently against the "classic" concept, have absolutely nothing to fear.
Why? If additional funding and staff is allocated to run a "classic" project, it likely won't take anything away from what's providing you with what you prefer and enjoy.
In essence, I suspect that the need to ensure this is a totally business orientated decision, will in effect mean it being an additional project, additionally funded and likely almost separate to current UO.
Therefore all this too-ing and fro-ing, name calling, accusations and idle threats, serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. In fact, it just makes people on this forum look incredibly stupid, selfish, or childish.
The only way that "classic" and "current" are likely to rub against one another, is if a large quantity of "current" players decide they prefer "classic" (but perhaps haven't spoken up thus far, or are reserving judgement until/if it actually happens) and jump their "current" shards in favour of "classic". The impact would potentially be a fall in "current" shard numbers, further reducing "current" populations. That could lead to a fall in development funding/support for "current" in favour of "classic", if "classic" becomes more popular.
So, reading between the lines of Cal's comments, I doubt that there would be sufficient "loss" of development time/resources for "current" players to be concerned about at this stage. Indeed my reading, is that this business decision will be something entirely additional, if they feel it makes business sense. Almost as if they were producing another seperate game entirely. Many developers do actually run and maintain multiple titles you know. UO is not the only game that the wider BioWare-Mythic team works on either.
So essentially, "classic" will happen if it presents a valid, sustainable, well supported business opportunity, based upon the findings of the focus group and any other exploratory investigations and research. It won't happen if they don't think it will run a profit over the longer term. Perhaps Cal didn't make it as clear as I have just done, but that's the short and tall of it.
With regards to a "classic" option, I and those in these forums (and elsewhere I imagine) who would be interested to play "classic", I'm sure appreciate that it isn't a decision to be taken lightly. Also, it's got to have the right business plan behind it to get it up and running. So, I (and hopefully others of all "views") understand the need for the focus group and exploring if it's totally feasible from not just a gaming perspective, but a business one too.
For all the lively "debate" going on, does it not occur to those so vehemently against the "classic" concept, that it seems pretty clear that it would entirely be a business decision? No matter how much those of us supporting the idea beg for "classic", or those against threaten to rage-quit, or berate the concept, it's a business decision. Plain and simple. I think Cal made that pretty clear.
Now I would suspect, that given it's a business decision, based upon submission to the powers that be (EA Games) of a business plan, part of that plan would require access to additional development funding and possibly also development staff - certainly if the focus group finds that it would offer a sound business opportunity to produce it.
I can safely say that without any additional funding, those of you so vehemently against the "classic" concept, have absolutely nothing to fear.
Your game will remain as it is, because without additional investment funding to get "classic" going, it isn't going to happen. Is that logical enough for you to understand?
Let's switch things around for a moment though...
I can safely say that with any additional funding, those of you so vehemently against the "classic" concept, have absolutely nothing to fear.
Why? If additional funding and staff is allocated to run a "classic" project, it likely won't take anything away from what's providing you with what you prefer and enjoy.
In essence, I suspect that the need to ensure this is a totally business orientated decision, will in effect mean it being an additional project, additionally funded and likely almost separate to current UO.
Therefore all this too-ing and fro-ing, name calling, accusations and idle threats, serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever. In fact, it just makes people on this forum look incredibly stupid, selfish, or childish.
The only way that "classic" and "current" are likely to rub against one another, is if a large quantity of "current" players decide they prefer "classic" (but perhaps haven't spoken up thus far, or are reserving judgement until/if it actually happens) and jump their "current" shards in favour of "classic". The impact would potentially be a fall in "current" shard numbers, further reducing "current" populations. That could lead to a fall in development funding/support for "current" in favour of "classic", if "classic" becomes more popular.
So, reading between the lines of Cal's comments, I doubt that there would be sufficient "loss" of development time/resources for "current" players to be concerned about at this stage. Indeed my reading, is that this business decision will be something entirely additional, if they feel it makes business sense. Almost as if they were producing another seperate game entirely. Many developers do actually run and maintain multiple titles you know. UO is not the only game that the wider BioWare-Mythic team works on either.
So essentially, "classic" will happen if it presents a valid, sustainable, well supported business opportunity, based upon the findings of the focus group and any other exploratory investigations and research. It won't happen if they don't think it will run a profit over the longer term. Perhaps Cal didn't make it as clear as I have just done, but that's the short and tall of it.
C
canary
Guest
The fault with your post, Evlar, is that you, like everyone, can only ASSUME what will be involved and the outcome.
I mean, they may just turn around, decide to not invest, and use our current team to create the classic shard, which means development of 'current' UO would be delayed, held up and pushed back.
You just. Don't. Know. They've done it before, with soulstones, character transfers and other things. Who here doesn't recall the months of nothing while they worked on character transfers and it was its own publish?
I mean, they may just turn around, decide to not invest, and use our current team to create the classic shard, which means development of 'current' UO would be delayed, held up and pushed back.
You just. Don't. Know. They've done it before, with soulstones, character transfers and other things. Who here doesn't recall the months of nothing while they worked on character transfers and it was its own publish?
E
Evlar
Guest
Yes, there is assumption, but considered assumption based upon what I read into Cal's comments on the matter. I believe he explained pretty well where things stand at the moment. Perhaps it might have been better if he'd explained things in basic terms though...
· If we think it's good business and get extra funding/resources, we'll do it.
· If we think it's bad business and can't get extra funding/resources, we won't do it.
If the business plan and proposals fail though, I see it as highly unlikely that the "classic" options will see the light of day. UO will carry on it's merry path as it has for the last, nearly fourteen years. The "classic" debate, will then effectively be over.
That said though, if they didn't get the additional development resources and funding required, yet did go ahead with the "classic" options, it would be a very bad thing for both what's available now and what they could offer by way of the "classic" option. Indeed, it would do neither cause any good and both a great deal of damage.
I've made no arguments counter to those against the "classic" option, when they've based their argument on potential loss or sharing of development resources, detracting from what they enjoy. I understand their concern and appreciate their standpoint fully.
I and many hopeful others, would like to see a classic option. The vast majority of us would rather it gets separate funding and doesn't detract from what people playing "current" UO enjoy. Personally, I would hope there's a place for both camps to fully enjoy what they love about UO, without either or the other losing out on anything.
I mean, come on here... we all love UO. Be it past, present or future. We just like different aspects or eras of the same game. Why does there need to be so much animosity? Frankly, I'm fed up of all the bickering and just want to play the version of the game I prefer, if it happens...
AMEN!
Calvin how about this:
1. Instead of a classic shard, invest those resources into cloning technology.
2. Make three or four Draconis.
3. Alter the brain slightly so that any desire for wealth is replaced by the urge to sit in a 5x5 room with no windows... thinking about UO.
As for the Update... well it has been about as interesting a the new content lately. But thanks for the effort.
Its about 10 very vocal people who want their nostalgia fix. Again, this is not a sound business move for Mythic.
Aside from the figures on that char being highly suspect, I played when Tram was shoddily tacked onto UO. I watched as all the Fel hot spots DIED overnight. Sure, some die-hard PvPers still played around a few of the gates and dungeons, but 90% of the players went to Tram and stayed there. Those are the majority of current subscribers.
AoS just added EQesque item properties. Nobody thinks it was the best choice, but we have to live with it. If you read the chart, you'll notice that UO's subs dip in 2004 (whenever/however the numbers were divined).. Now, what powerhouse MMO came out in 2004? Oh yeah, WoW.
Your correlation between UO subs and AoS is possible, though potentially flawed. It is far more likely that UO hemorrhaged subs due to the shiny new MMO on the block.
Sorry, but no. PvPers are still outnumbered by the PvM crowd by a large margin. Again, certain other MMOs with far flashier combat systems lured them away from a rather tired looking, old MMO.
If you want PvP, why worry about whether or not people have insured items? It’s all about the thrill of the combat, not the loot... Right? If it’s all about the fight, wouldn't you want to get rezzed, loot your corpse and get right back into the fray? Or are you going to tell us that "Down time is fun!" and "I like having to re-equip after each dirt nap and dry looting!"
As far as shinies spawning in Fel, that was what the Devs did to try to lure people to the facet. It failed. The vast majority of UO players don’t want nonconsensual PvP. They don’t want to feel like they will be ganked at every opportunity. A classic shard would run with the original rule set UO started with. People didn’t like it, hence it changed. People aren’t going to flock to a shard that has a rule set they don’t like.
They “attack” the idea of a classic shard because it is:
A) Not going to benefit UO as a service
B) Will take Dev time/resources away from current & future content & client updates (thus affecting their playstyle)
C) Is of no interest to them
As for EA not keeping a classic shard around, that one is easy. Money. You wouldn’t make them enough money to justify the server’s existence. You still won’t.
UO doesn’t have a lot of cash to throw around and Mythic can’t handle another disaster.
Nice to see you Draconi, you are missed.
Thank you for your honesty as well.
Bingo. “time, resources, popular support, and return-on-investment” This would be the nail in the classic shard’s coffin. At present, the Dev team doesn’t have any of those requirements.
QFT X2 This.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
You are wasting your time Elvar. There are certain people that post here that just against a Classic Shard because they cannot wrap their minds around the concept that it is possible for anyone to enjoy something outside of what they personally enjoy. They also cannot seem to wrap their minds around the concept that a Classic Shard would NOT target the existing playerbase.
Will a Classic Shard take something away from current UO development? Most likely...regardless of how you look at it, Mythic has a budget to work with, and that budget will, or will not, include development of a Classic Shard based on what return Mythic and EA believe they will get on that particular investment.
It is pointless to debate it. The decision will not be made by people on message forums...not you, not me, not them. It will be made by bean counters that will study projections based on market research.
And you know what? That's exactly as it should be. If they decide to go ahead with it, there will be a few players that will rage-quit. If they decide not to go ahead with it, there will be a few players that will rage-quit. That is inevitable (and don't ask me to proved proof or numbers to back this up...it is a general statement, and not one that is quantifiable at this time). The primary difference is that if they decide not to go ahead with it, none...or few, of the fans of Classic UO will return to the game. So the real question is, are the subscription dollars of old players enough to justify the cost of development, because the number of players that rage-quit due to not getting their way is likely to be a wash.
Will a Classic Shard take something away from current UO development? Most likely...regardless of how you look at it, Mythic has a budget to work with, and that budget will, or will not, include development of a Classic Shard based on what return Mythic and EA believe they will get on that particular investment.
It is pointless to debate it. The decision will not be made by people on message forums...not you, not me, not them. It will be made by bean counters that will study projections based on market research.
And you know what? That's exactly as it should be. If they decide to go ahead with it, there will be a few players that will rage-quit. If they decide not to go ahead with it, there will be a few players that will rage-quit. That is inevitable (and don't ask me to proved proof or numbers to back this up...it is a general statement, and not one that is quantifiable at this time). The primary difference is that if they decide not to go ahead with it, none...or few, of the fans of Classic UO will return to the game. So the real question is, are the subscription dollars of old players enough to justify the cost of development, because the number of players that rage-quit due to not getting their way is likely to be a wash.
Wrong, ding, thanks for playing anyway.
It is without question (except by those whose jaded memories like to revise history because it fits their own needs) fact that UO's playerbase increased significantly AFTER the introduction of Trammel because non-con PvP was no longer the dominant "playstyle" of the game. Trammel was created SPECIFICALLY because non-con PvP was driving the playerbase down.
It is also fact that UO's playerbase was the absolute largest POST AoS, not pre, which leaves me to question the remaining statements you've made.
Is there a segment of players who still think pre-UOR UO is viable? Yes.
Are those same players still playing on free-shards? Probably.
Will they come back if EA releases a classic shard? Probably not.
Will releasing a classic shard divert attention from other important development? Absolutely.
There's a lot of chicken bone throwing, stone reading, tea leaf predicting on the part of the Classic Sharders, but in truth, very little of it holds up to actual scrutiny.
Two words: Siege Perilous.
No offense to any designer past, present, or future, but whatever studio was in charge of UO at any given time historically has been unable to pay the needed attention to alternate rulesets in order to keep them viable. Adding a third ruleset to the mix doesn't sound viable given EA's history on the matter.
I think you and I can both agree that the term "classic ruleset" would apply for about the first two months until changes and expectations developed, and while it would very likely take a different path than current UO, the whole idea of an MMO is forward progression that by definition means that the "classic ruleset" wouldn't stay classic for long.
At that point, you've opened the door on "classic rulesets" and then every time any change is made to the game (by the way, someone has already suggested this on Stratics much to the pain of my sides after I was done laughing in a fit on the floor), anyone who dislikes it starts crying out for (yeah, you see it coming) a "Classic Shard!"
Are there things from the "classic ruleset" that could effectively be reimplemented into UO? Perhaps. Non-itemization really isn't one of them though. In order for UO to adapt and grow, it needed to change how itemization worked. People can hem and haw all day that "back then" it was about "skill," but then, we also know it was also about "the program that shan't be named," knowing things that were considered to be bugs, exploiting little known game strategies and so forth. Itemization hasn't changed that, and taking it out won't suddenly restore that nostalgic era. While AoS's delivery could have been handled better, itemization was a necessary step forward in UO's evolution. If we, today, were still playing with "Indestructible Supremely Accurate Long Swords of Vanquishing," there'd be far fewer of us, because the game would have failed to evolve in necessary ways.
Are there lots of things that current UO needs to do to fill the gaps, fix certain things, and so forth? Absolutely. Hell, we still have useless skills that have been useless for years. Those definitely need re-evaluated. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from a classic ruleset in that regard.
But starting a "classic ruleset" server... it's not an answer, it's a crutch, and a temporary bit of nostalgia that I strongly suspect would not live up to expectations further than the flash in the pan it was dropped in.
I'm pretty sure that plenty of us have never once used this argument. I get, understand, and know that there is a small handful of players who would enjoy this niche.
What you and your ilk don't seem to understand is that it's not a matter of *flip* here's your Classic Shard.
Your Classic Shard, whether you like it or not, would detract from resources better spent on the whole of UO rather than on a niche audience that while admittedly would gain some swift revenue for about six months would die off faster than dinosaurs after a meteor strike.
No... And it's hysterical you keep using these illusory correlations to try to detract from the valid arguments presented.
We understand that it wouldn't be targeted at the existing playerbase.
That's.
The.
Problem.
The existing playerbase is what supports Ultima Online. Therefore it's the existing playerbase that has expectations about the future of Ultima Online. The implementation of a Classic Shard pulls resources away from Ultima Online and focuses them on retrograding Ultima Online into some rose-colored depiction of Ultima Heaven.
It's unwise in UO's current state with a limited development team with limited resources to go flying out wildly on tangents that are extreme risks at best.
Why extreme risks?
Because while the addition of a classic shard(s) would bring in short-term revenue, in the long run, it will take up more time and resource than its worth, thus not adding anything back into the resource pool that it pulled from.
Eventually, if they go through with it, Classic Shard Ruleset will become just like Siege Perilous Ruleset: The red-headed step children of UO that get attention if and when someone has time for a pet project to give it a little bit of love.
In short, it makes no sense to travel down this road, period.
But of course, all of my arguments in your mind will be reduced to, "Well, see, you just don't understand..." Whatever. You want a Classic Shard, and as I've said, if EA spun it off into its own little company with its own resources that had no way of ever touching UO's resourcebase, I'd be all for it.
You, I, and every developer over at Bioware Mythic knows that'll never happen.