UO has apparently given me the patience of a Saint

[phantus]

Server consolidation will be the beginning of the end for UO. If it wasn't for housing this game would have sunk years ago. There are no solutions that will work.

SWG pulled off server merges in a game with in-world housing. It's not impossible. And really, server merges are called for. Many games much younger than UO, stable and successful games even, have done so.

For those that want a more populated shard they can transfer to one within the current system. Those players have already said items are not important to them and housing shouldn't matter.

Problem is every newb who does decide to try UO for the first time in 2011 lands on some empty shard and quits because "nobody plays that game".

As for the client wars, there is a simple solution to that. The devs just need to create an EC only FREE optional patch that allows them to go to a new dungeon with a couple new items. Nothing that is better than anything else in the game but something that people will want. A new system only capable in the new clients. The goal would be to create an experience that others would want to enjoy.

I remember when Ilshenar could only be accessed through the Third Dawn client. We didn't all switch to Third Dawn, we just stayed out of Ilshenar.

The housing wasn't the same. Who is gonna give up their Luna house? Noone. Apples vs oranges. Just because both games had houses doesn't make the situation the same. There is a finite number of prime locations and they are not going to find a solutions that will make everyone happy. Server consolidation will end UO.

You mean all 4 newbs of UO might not continue to play a game that has bad service and 10+ year old graphics because there is not enough people to play with? I think the number of people who don't want a crowded shard will cancel the effect in subs the additional new players might create.

When Illshenar was created there were no artis. There was no item frenzy. You think for 1 second that if you created another Illshenar type addition that was only accessable to the EC and made something there drop crimson people wouldn't be flocking to the EC? You are wrong. All they need is the right carrot and they can make people switch.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

SWG pulled off server merges in a game with in-world housing. It's not impossible. And really, server merges are called for. Many games much younger than UO, stable and successful games even, have done so.



Problem is every newb who does decide to try UO for the first time in 2011 lands on some empty shard and quits because "nobody plays that game".



I remember when Ilshenar could only be accessed through the Third Dawn client. We didn't all switch to Third Dawn, we just stayed out of Ilshenar.

Agree with Skrag on on the points about the server issues. It is not the beginning of the end, Because housing is not taken out of the equation. The issue we have is players want their current house, in its current spot, with its current items, and its current shard "history" and yada yada. At this point we could consolidate all of the Western shards into like 3 shards and still have more than enough room for everyone to have a house, or six. So lets not pretend that housing prevents people from changing shards. Sure you are not going to transfer to atl and place a castle today, but some of those shards have plenty of castle space. Sp excluding Atl what other shard is populated enough to stand on its own? Consider the new player experience as Skrag has pointed out.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

The housing wasn't the same. Who is gonna give up their Luna house? Noone. Apples vs oranges. Just because both games had houses doesn't make the situation the same. There is a finite number of prime locations and they are not going to find a solutions that will make everyone happy. Server consolidation will end UO.

You mean all 4 newbs of UO might not continue to play a game that has bad service and 10+ year old graphics because there is not enough people to play with? I think the number of people who don't want a crowded shard will cancel the effect in subs the additional new players might create.

When Illshenar was created there were no artis. There was no item frenzy. You think for 1 second that if you created another Illshenar type addition that was only accessable to the EC and made something there drop crimson people wouldn't be flocking to the EC? You are wrong. All they need is the right carrot and they can make people switch.

I suppose the only difference between the events that unfolded and the ones our suggest is the "free" part. SA was going to be a KR only release till all the "loud" people spoke out (keep in mind this is not the majority of the UO population as I feel the majority, like yourself, would switch if forced to rather than quit.) But remove luna. Problem solved, Or let those 2 people quit (maybe a slight exaggeration but consider that one person owned 50% of ALL the luna houses on the west coast just 2 or 3 years ago, I just can't feel that bad.) And the CS is not a new player problem, the graphics can be circumvented by you know, better graphics. Why people assume there are so few new players is beyond me, even still what about the scores (yes SCORES) of returning players who stop playing due to lack of population? And there are new players who don't continue to play, mostly because of lack of interaction and the fact you can still download the 2d client (graphics unfortunately kill the game for new players....although the old graphics are still "nicer" they are less defined....)

 

[SchezwanBeefy]

Please take a look at the following thread to continue discussion based on server consolidation. I think this is something UO should consider, but I also would like to hear other people's opinions in the matter and I think it's a good topic of discussion.

I don't think it would be the end of UO. I think it would create larger, stronger, and more involved communities in UO. I would love to hear everyone's constructive thoughts on the topic. =]

http://vboards.stratics.com/uhall/233126-case-server-being-closed.html

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

The housing wasn't the same. Who is gonna give up their Luna house? Noone. Apples vs oranges. Just because both games had houses doesn't make the situation the same. There is a finite number of prime locations and they are not going to find a solutions that will make everyone happy. Server consolidation will end UO.

You mean all 4 newbs of UO might not continue to play a game that has bad service and 10+ year old graphics because there is not enough people to play with? I think the number of people who don't want a crowded shard will cancel the effect in subs the additional new players might create.

When Illshenar was created there were no artis. There was no item frenzy. You think for 1 second that if you created another Illshenar type addition that was only accessable to the EC and made something there drop crimson people wouldn't be flocking to the EC? You are wrong. All they need is the right carrot and they can make people switch.

You make a good point phantus, shard consolidation will kill UO.

What I have not seen discussed at length is what a consolidation, for whatever reason ... will be seen as by ALL players.

For a "condemnded shard"(what else to call them?) ALL their memories and histories have effectively been rendered worthless.
The survival of the persistant(shrinking) world trumps your imaginary feelings of self worth.

As goes Oceania ... so too goes UO.
It was "just moved" ... uhhuh, true dat. and was accepted how "smoothly? Did indeed "new subscribers" jump up?
Lacking the actual books and metrics ... I can not be "certain".
But I can remain confident in my logic that they did not.

"Play" might have increased, I suspect if it did ...
its due to "easy pickings" on a low pop shard by newly "enabled" (lower ping)Sister shards on that coast.
I imagine that there has been an increase in off shard transfers (Off Oceania) ... primarily of items not characters.

Lacking the actual books and metrics ... I can not be "certain".
But I also suspect that "automatic 6month renewals" have also dropped off game wide(no point in buying green bananas ... not yet, maybe later)
and as well, actual RMT is more focused on poor Oceania ... at firesale take this little bit ... or poof! for you ...
there will likely be falling houses to rummage through ... in truer vulture fashion.

Slowly, as is its nature ...
the stench of decay will spread through out all shards ...
which is only an honest appraisal of "how much time" EA etal
in fact has to SAVE OCEANIA.
She's a bleeding out, slowly, perhaps ... but a bleeding out nonetheless. And the Stench will continue unabated.

Am I wrong and in error in my logic?

I Hope so ... however
This one
Time will tell
sooner rather than maybe someday later.

As goes Oceania ... so too goes UO.
The test is in progress.
Results are pending and approaching.

*raises glass of aged Rye* Oceania !!
Give my regards to Lenore!
I shall follow sometime after,
mark a trail if it will serve you to have me find you.

I won't, but best do what you think best for your "future".

 

[AesSedai]

- Aye, well said.

 

[Jonathan Baron]

Hell, lots of folks returning to the game leave fast because their first stop is, of course, Britain, and nobody's there....doesn't matter the shard.

I'm not convinced that people from populous shards would likely have the best answers to the problem, if it is indeed a problem. And that's a problem: folks from Atlantic like a busy shard. Folks think that what they like others should like....more on that canard later.

The shard population question is a sideshow in a game like UO, a game built around individual pursuits for so many, rather than the forced grand collective of the biggest show on virtual earth at the moment. It assumes that people on smaller shards are suffering some manner of poverty. It's not only condescending but rife with assumptions. Just say the word, Atlantic, to many folks on smaller shards and you'll inspire horror. It's like saying New York to most folks in the States. The guild I belonged to on Lake Austin moved there from Atlantic. They not only don't want to live on a shard like that, they find the very idea repulsive.

I've seen in this game more than in any other the pervasiveness of a belief among many players that they way they play the game is the best way, and it's the way the game should be played. What's up with that in a game that offers such wide diversity of pursuits. I've seen players get agitated because an elder had a suboptimal suit. The player took this an offense of some sort. "But they're such good players," one guy said, obviously irritated. "Why wouldn't they wear the best stuff?" Uh...'cause maybe that's the point. Fighting well with second rate gear proves you are indeed the elder and all perfect suits are an expression of insecurity and lack of confidence. Not saying that's so, but its a valid point of view.

As I touched upon, I'm currently the caretaker of two accounts, one dating back 11 years. There are twelve characters in all, not a 70s suit among them, nary a rune to Luna, all banking and BODs handled in Vesper and many years of joy and entertainment seldom involving another soul. Not two coins to rub together but plenty of rares decorating his two houses. Most are quest items. Some are stealables. No skinned goats or strange and ugly items collected because he saw them on a vendor once for zillions in gold. Gold does not enter his conversations, unlike many who cannot create a complete sentence without the word, gold, in it. It's all an expression of what one player loved. I'm sure he'd just jump at the chance to head to Fat-Lantic and wait in line at Doom. Or maybe Catskills or Great Lakes where most champ spawns are on lockdown by mega-guilds.

Seems to me that two persistent themes expressed here have untainted resonance: the need to stop expansions for a year to fix bugs and address the new player experience.

Players expressed as much to the dev team, I'm told, at this past year's town meeting. Let's see if they have the power and the will to act on that.

 

[Jonathan Baron]

Ah, that beautiful lament to Oceania came while I was writing that last bit. Nicely phrased.

I don't agree that as Oceania goes, so goes UO. It's contrary to logic that the vanishing of a small shard, if indeed Oceania is turning ghost, would have a large impact on the game. Rather, the smaller the deceased shard the less impact on the game its vanishing would have. That's the heartless, numbers way of looking at things, though.

You're writing poetry, not prose. And you do it well indeed

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

You're writing poetry, not prose. And you do it well indeed

But his bit about Oceania is unfitting to the situation at hand...The complaint is not that it was merged with another shard of its kind, but that it is now unplayable by the audience it is meant to target! But I will leave that topic at that.

UO was once a game about community, it lost that when that community started to diminish, as this happened they made things easier to handle with less and less people until eventually you could do every single thing in game by yourself. Where is the "MMO" that this game COINED I mean really, it has become a single player game. I do not think my "style" of play should be forced on anyone (although I am an open gamer and "feel" like people should at least experience everything in its fullness, but that is a different topic entirely) but I do feel as if interacting with people on a game that is coined as Interactive should be almost required. Thus the population issue comes to hand, The majority of the players have been playing the game long enough to remember that this game once had "Full" servers, and by this I mean simply being able to see another player through out the day, not by searching every town and dungeon and wilderness area until you find someone hiding in their house doing w/e it might be they are doing, but I mean actual people who would greet you when you show up. This is lost now, would merging the servers provide this? Maybe not...but it would promote group activity a bit more since you wont be able to go to your "hiding spot" with out running into someone else. (In theory anyway)

I just don't see the point in playing at all if you are going to play by yourself, go get an emulator and play offline. (But then not like UO is hurting for bandwidth or server space so it makes no difference...)

 

[Jonathan Baron]

Point about UO being a massively single player games was made up top, long ago. The point about it being game systems in search of a game....and so forth. You're right, of course...hell, we all were in one way or another, and Oceania is but another facet of it - it makes your very point but approaches it from a different angle....a rather haunting one actually...well done.

I'm with Mister Atlantic now on this one. This is playing out now into laments and reflections. I'm guilty of it too. We're repeating ourselves but, more importantly, we saying the same things while making identical points over and over, echoing each others thoughts multiple times in triplicate reiteration.

Sorry....that was a bit much. But it's FAR from dead yet. There's passion here as well. There are also pockets of everything remarkable happening somewhere out there in the UO world....player towns, tight communities, hell, even story telling competitions and fine, old fashioned roleplay beyond "aye" and "hail."

I'm not hearing the bell toll.

 

[phantus]

Am I wrong and in error in my logic?

No. The Oceania incident is something that is not only unprofessional but down right dirty. The fact they are playing this off as if it's not a move is unfathomable. They are not fooling anyone and have failed miserably to address the situation in a matter befitting a corporation as big as EA. If I played there I would be asking for a refund for my 6 month sub remainder.

 

[Jonathan Baron]

I can almost hear Iris Dement's distinctive, poignantly cracking voice singing Our Town now.

No, I'm not making light of it...not in the least.

And I love the song.

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

No. The Oceania incident is something that is not only unprofessional but down right dirty. The fact they are playing this off as if it's not a move is unfathomable. They are not fooling anyone and have failed miserably to address the situation in a matter befitting a corporation as big as EA. If I played there I would be asking for a refund for my 6 month sub remainder.

Where did they play it off as not a move? I am pretty sure they said they moved it but did not expect the impact to be as bad as it was...(That part is beyond my understanding though). I agree it was not very professional the way they did it (Not telling anyone it was even an idea)....Cal's "Eluding" to was a huge failure cause what he said, to me at least, sounded like they were trying to improve Oceania's experience, not move it across the world and hope for the best.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Ah, that beautiful lament to Oceania came while I was writing that last bit. Nicely phrased.

I don't agree that as Oceania goes, so goes UO. It's contrary to logic that the vanishing of a small shard, if indeed Oceania is turning ghost, would have a large impact on the game. Rather, the smaller the deceased shard the less impact on the game its vanishing would have. That's the heartless, numbers way of looking at things, though.

You're writing poetry, not prose. And you do it well indeed

Sorry Johnathon ... it may appear "poetic", the lack of "rhyme" keeps it as prose rhetoric.
Poetry does not preclude logic or truth, btw.

The journey of a thousand miles?
is marked by many milestones ...
I can see Oceania as the first step on that last league.
that last grain of sand tipping on the beach ...
the catastrophic cascade BEGINS there ..

that final thread or straw or microfracture *snick*
That misting of blood on the cough covering hand
that failed step that leans the old lady
just ever so much more than ever before

Y'all just don't
as most humans through history haven't
a sense of the scales of time that are tipping
It won't be as slow and long as india crashing into the asian continent
nor as quick as the blink of a tacyon ...

But it will proceed AT its pace
That >I< noted it as such IS inconsequential
That it occured ... is where the consequences flow from

Everyone thought they had "the first" to likely "go astray"
Siege
*humph!*
Turns out to Be Oce.

 

[Dicimiie]

This thread all boils down to exactly what EA wants to have happen with UO. Do they:

A) go after new players
B) try and retain the current player base and perhaps get a few players back
C) let UO run its course

If option A is the most desired, then they would need a new, much better looking client. Period. I don't believe they could successfully market the current client and expect to see a significant influx of new players. I just don't see it. This option could quite possibly make the veteran player base upset, but if they could gain more new subscribers than what would leave as a result, it would be a positive result overall for the company, at least for the short term. A new and better client could also be utilized to fix cheats that apparently are still running rampant. It could possibly even lessen the possibility of scripting.

Option B lends itself to failure on the onset, because new subscribers are pretty much a necessity for a MMORPG's survival. Since it is inevitable that current players leave for whatever reason, not having new subscribers to replace what is being lost eventually leads to a canceled game. Having said this, if that was what EA wanted to try, they would need to fix the bugs that have plagued the game for years and see to it that the current playerbase was overall happy with the product. If this means adding shards with different rulesets, or adding a plethora of eye candy, or adding yet more artifacts, that would need to be done. I don't prescribe to the notion that more content is necessary to be honest. With the game system being so open-ended, I could always find something different to do if I got bored with one aspect of the game.

Option C, while unpleasant to think about, would mean keeping things the way they are currently. Keep a skeleton crew to handle the players that are left until it is no longer monetarily feasible to maintain the game any longer, thus leading to a canceled game.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

This thread all boils down to exactly what EA wants to have happen with UO. Do they:

nice effort ... for fiction.

Fails to establish validity of its base assumption:
EA has "wants"

It(EA) does not posses emotions.

IF one were able to actually "boil this thread down"
You would acquire only the mush of constituent parts of nonsense and assumptions that it is constructed of ...
not some golden "truth".

upon falling back, reassessing and regrouping with "another try"
You should be able to see that "EA" actually is seeking all three alphabets ... (A, B, C)

yw

 

[Cloak&Dagger]

nice effort ... for fiction.

Fails to establish validity of its base assumption:
EA has "wants"

It(EA) does not posses emotions.

IF one were able to actually "boil this thread down"
You would acquire only the mush of constituent parts of nonsense and assumptions that it is constructed of ...
not some golden "truth".

upon falling back, reassessing and regrouping with "another try"
You should be able to see that "EA" actually is seeking all three alphabets ... (A, B, C)

yw

But then even everything you say is nothing more than well constructed assumptions, So nothing you say should matter either by that assessment?

I don't disagree, but it is not exactly all assumptions, since its original basis is "I am bored with the way the game is, and have patience with other games since it takes uo 10 years longer to accomplish things other games do in weeks, such as fixing a bug from a decade ago" That is not an assumption, it is all fact and feelings. Since then we have expanded on ideas on how to fix that problem, none of which assume anything other than it is an idea and can either fail or succeed as all idea's can.

Also "EA" is a collective of people, and thus as a collective has a collective mind set and set of "wants" So the beginning of the post was nothing more than being rude for no reason.

If you need more proof, look at the same link Definition 2 a. of the transitive verb form. And find that since "EA" is a collective of people, you will find that definition to be true at all times.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

1.But then even everything you say is nothing more than well constructed assumptions, So nothing you say should matter either by that assessment?

2.I don't disagree, but it is not exactly all assumptions, since its original basis is "I am bored with the way the game is, and have patience with other games since it takes uo 10 years longer to accomplish things other games do in weeks, such as fixing a bug from a decade ago" That is not an assumption, it is all fact and feelings. Since then we have expanded on ideas on how to fix that problem, none of which assume anything other than it is an idea and can either fail or succeed as all idea's can.

3.Also "EA" is a collective of people, and thus as a collective has a collective mind set and set of "wants" So the beginning of the post was nothing more than being rude for no reason.

4.If you need more proof, look at the same link Definition 2 a. of the transitive verb form. And find that since "EA" is a collective of people, you will find that definition to be true at all times.

1.False. the Nature of the assumptions would also fallout in the boiling ... Mine(generally to a high degree) will boil over the pot as the tightly packed(parsed) phrasing
(generally again) will prove to be constructed of "true premise(aka assumptions)" that are supported and proved in/on their basis.

2.Annnnd here you are ... proving the antecedant (My #1 reply) on this minute point.(you ARE by not "disagreeing" ... in support of my #1.)
It is not logical to NOT reference which part your are referencing on this (#2) point. Which, no surprise can also easily be seen as false.
IF you are indeed referencng the OP(with title)

UO has apparently given me the patience of a Saint.
So, to begin this thread, I will say this: I haven't logged into my UO account for probably 3 week now. I have not seriously played for maybe 2 months. This has been the case for several of my UO friends who have played the game for 10+ years.

There are ONLY the "facts" of his feelings ... nes pas? See: Fallacy of appealing to emotions.***
There also existed NO supporting evidence that the poster has become either Saintly OR more patient ... au contrair mon frair.

3.False(specifically as to my "intent"). The reason(fact) that I so bluntly stated the true nature of "EAs existence" is that: in fact EA is at its core: a set of pieces of paper and nothing more.
That the biologicals "represent" their feelings of the papers wants ... while seemingly absurd ... is at the final cut of occams razor:
The biologicals "appear" to have divined "wants" from the paper. And while true: You may shout at that pile of papers. Address the "EA" ... unless one or more of the biologicals "attend" to your shouts. Nothing will (logically) happen. paper might get wet from your spittle ... yes ... but the paper will not express wants/ desires/ differing reasons for "Yes/No" ... it will remain as it was when you approached ... just a little wetter.

4. just proved false on "over generalization" (definition to be true at all times)(above @ My #3)
{EA can be seen as a "group of people" true, it can be seen that way. IS EA a sentient entity capable of "wants"? no ... EA is a collection of papers with a group of biologicals SAYING "the paper told me" ... }
which also goes to completion and refinement of a definition of an object under discussion.

***Fallacies

 

[Dicimiie]

nice effort ... for fiction.

Fails to establish validity of its base assumption:
EA has "wants"

It(EA) does not posses emotions.

IF one were able to actually "boil this thread down"
You would acquire only the mush of constituent parts of nonsense and assumptions that it is constructed of ...
not some golden "truth".

upon falling back, reassessing and regrouping with "another try"
You should be able to see that "EA" actually is seeking all three alphabets ... (A, B, C)

yw

You enjoy playing with semantics a lot it would seem. The first part of your reply means nothing. I would imagine that the vast majority of the people reading what I wrote understood what I meant when I used the word "want." Not sure why you couldn't.

Your last statement is a bit of a problem. In my opinion, there is no way they could make A, B and C work in unison. In fact, I don't think they could make any two of the three work in unison. In order to get new players, they'd **** off quite a few of the old players. If they try and keep the current players, they don't get enough new players. If they leave everything the way it is now, they lose current player and don't get new players.

Of course this is all opinion. Everyone that has posted in this thread has posted opinion. Do I have facts to back mine up? Not really. Did I base my original post on common sense? I think so. If you really want me to explain further, I will. If you get where I'm coming from, that's good enough for me.

 

[Ganondorf00]

To bring UO back to life, not just one of the proposed solutions has to be done, but all of them.

Basically they need to:

a) Merge shards without hurting current houseowners but also without having a merged shard that has alot of maps, just one more map for houses would be ok. The location would be different but who cares!

b) Make it F2P to repopulate the game. Even after the mergers, there would be not enough people online to provide enough entertainment.

c) Fix the bugs, the model of making lots of expansions has failed and it alienates old players. Use the devtime to fix the bugs instead. Fight cheaters as well.

d) Attract old players with classic shards and new players with a fancy 3d client.

Then finally, make a sequel.

 

[Vlaude]

You enjoy playing with semantics a lot it would seem. The first part of your reply means nothing. I would imagine that the vast majority of the people reading what I wrote understood what I meant when I used the word "want." Not sure why you couldn't.

Your last statement is a bit of a problem. In my opinion, there is no way they could make A, B and C work in unison. In fact, I don't think they could make any two of the three work in unison. In order to get new players, they'd **** off quite a few of the old players. If they try and keep the current players, they don't get enough new players. If they leave everything the way it is now, they lose current player and don't get new players.

Of course this is all opinion. Everyone that has posted in this thread has posted opinion. Do I have facts to back mine up? Not really. Did I base my original post on common sense? I think so. If you really want me to explain further, I will. If you get where I'm coming from, that's good enough for me.

We did understand ... Fayled's in-your-face style of posting doesn't achieve the esoteric/erudite image he tries to create for himself, it only makes you want to knock his teeth in (see: Petra's sig):

http://i54.***********/16gk28.png

I agree that there is often a fine line between trying to attract new players and keeping the veteran's happy. I would argue that UO has often times error'd in the way of catering to the vets who probably would have stayed with UO no matter what. New players will start the game out so far behind everyone that they usually won't stick around (which is actually the case with most long running MMO's so onto the next point). UO's in-game new player tutorial doesn't give enough information about the game for new players to really know what is going on, and the game by no means becomes intuitive after that. If it weren't for sites like stratics and UOGuide new players would hardly have a chance of learning the ropes if they couldn't find a player or guild kind enough to explain it to them. One could argue that finding others to learn from becomes the intuitive part of the game, but we've all seen how that has gone in UO's history: ImaNewbie does Britannia

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

You enjoy playing with semantics a lot it would seem. The first part of your reply means nothing. I would imagine that the vast majority of the people reading what I wrote understood what I meant when I used the word "want." Not sure why you couldn't.

Your last statement is a bit of a problem. In my opinion, there is no way they could make A, B and C work in unison. In fact, I don't think they could make any two of the three work in unison. In order to get new players, they'd **** off quite a few of the old players. If they try and keep the current players, they don't get enough new players. If they leave everything the way it is now, they lose current player and don't get new players.

Of course this is all opinion. Everyone that has posted in this thread has posted opinion. Do I have facts to back mine up? Not really. Did I base my original post on common sense? I think so. If you really want me to explain further, I will. If you get where I'm coming from, that's good enough for me.

oh please.
ABC being sought after >and achieved< is the very definition of a "successful enterprise" *shakes head*

It IS, when properly applied
A)providing a safe enjoyable environment to >its natural market< (not by pleasing everyone that lives) but by pleasing the ones that LIKE it, choose it.
B)That environment, when perceived by "the market" (those not in the environment)
WILLINGLY steer their attention to "joining the party" and paying the fee, AND meeting the requirements to come in.(not because it is the only game in town)
C)People TEND to stay in pleasant environs IF they have a choice in the matter. And while "tastes change" so to do "habits form". over time.

Whether or not "the masses" seem to agree with you (from your singular perspective) DOES NOT change the nature of the fallacy that it is built on(EA wants) (assumed to be true, again from your perspective)

Again: See: Appeal to Emotion, take a glance at appeal to popularity while you are at it.
Just as well make sure that you make sure that any other fallacy is not being fallen to, so ... that whole list should not be ignored.

You seem to think (by your words) that I am "playing with words" ...
You might want to take a glance that "the rules" that are being played by ... huh?

You might have a realization (an epiphany even) that your are the one "playing" at something.(without understanding of the applicable rules)

Or was this your textual version of: "Dicimiie Says"?

 

[Dicimiie]

oh please.
ABC being sought after >and achieved< is the very definition of a "successful enterprise" *shakes head*

It IS, when properly applied
A)providing a safe enjoyable environment to >its natural market< (not by pleasing everyone that lives) but by pleasing the ones that LIKE it, choose it.
B)That environment, when perceived by "the market" (those not in the environment)
WILLINGLY steer their attention to "joining the party" and paying the fee, AND meeting the requirements to come in.(not because it is the only game in town)
C)People TEND to stay in pleasant environs IF they have a choice in the matter. And while "tastes change" so to do "habits form". over time.

Whether or not "the masses" seem to agree with you (from your singular perspective) DOES NOT change the nature of the fallacy that it is built on(EA wants) (assumed to be true, again from your perspective)

Again: See: Appeal to Emotion, take a glance at appeal to popularity while you are at it.
Just as well make sure that you make sure that any other fallacy is not being fallen to, so ... that whole list should not be ignored.

You seem to think (by your words) that I am "playing with words" ...
You might want to take a glance that "the rules" that are being played by ... huh?

You might have a realization (an epiphany even) that your are the one "playing" at something.(without understanding of the applicable rules)

Or was this your textual version of: "Dicimiie Says"?

Go back and read what I originally wrote. Forget all about the "EA wants" portion of it, since that seems to be what you're so focused on.

There is no way that I can think of for EA to do all of what *I* proposed as options A, B and C.

Bringing in new players would require advertising. The current graphics would not make for good advertising. The 2d client looks too simple, and the enhanced client is popularly viewed as ugly. Hideous might seem more true, but I'll leave it at ugly.

I have read several posts from people saying they would leave the game if the 2D client were changed or removed. Having said that, if new 2d graphics were introduced, quite a few of the current players would leave. Should the 2d client remain the same, getting enough new players to keep the game going would be next to impossible. This all leads to...

Keeping things the same, with minimal support or changes, means no better graphics, making new players again next to impossible. At the same time, the current player base gets more and more frustrated with in-game bugs, cheats, empty shards, etc., creating an exodus of current players. In-game population dwindles, and the servers are all shut down. Goodbye, UO.

If you can figure out how to make all three of these work simultaneously, perhaps you should send your solution to EA. I personally don't see it happening.

 

[canary]

Go back and read what I originally wrote. Forget all about the "EA wants" portion of it, since that seems to be what you're so focused on.

There is no way that I can think of for EA to do all of what *I* proposed as options A, B and C.

Bringing in new players would require advertising. The current graphics would not make for good advertising. The 2d client looks too simple, and the enhanced client is popularly viewed as ugly. Hideous might seem more true, but I'll leave it at ugly.

I have read several posts from people saying they would leave the game if the 2D client were changed or removed. Having said that, if new 2d graphics were introduced, quite a few of the current players would leave. Should the 2d client remain the same, getting enough new players to keep the game going would be next to impossible. This all leads to...

Keeping things the same, with minimal support or changes, means no better graphics, making new players again next to impossible. At the same time, the current player base gets more and more frustrated with in-game bugs, cheats, empty shards, etc., creating an exodus of current players. In-game population dwindles, and the servers are all shut down. Goodbye, UO.

If you can figure out how to make all three of these work simultaneously, perhaps you should send your solution to EA. I personally don't see it happening.

Enough people are addicted (yes, addicted) to UO that I think most who hate leaving 2d would actually come on board, albeit grudgingly.

Simply put, with either client right now, NEITHER is nice enough to seriously attract someone when there are a multitude of better, cleaner, nicer games out there... many which are F2P and require no subscription fee.

Take a screen shot of LotR Online and UO, put them side by side and ask people off the street which one they'd rather play. Then tell them that one is a free to play model and the other costs 9.99 to 12.99 a month and watch them laugh at you.

I love UO, honestly. But I'm also a realist.

 

[Dicimiie]

Enough people are addicted (yes, addicted) to UO that I think most who hate leaving 2d would actually come on board, albeit grudgingly.

You might be right, of course. However, you do have to admit that doing so would be a risky move.

Simply put, with either client right now, NEITHER is nice enough to seriously attract someone when there are a multitude of better, cleaner, nicer games out there... many which are F2P and require no subscription fee.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Take a screen shot of LotR Online and UO, put them side by side and ask people off the street which one they'd rather play. Then tell them that one is a free to play model and the other costs 9.99 to 12.99 a month and watch them laugh at you.

To be fair, LotR is a 3D game, while UO is an isometric game. Comparing the two doesn't seem fair. However, the same could be said between UO and Diablo III. Put the two next to each other, and it's an easy choice... at least for me. Even if Diablo graphics aren't your thing, they could come up with so much better than what they have currently.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

Enough people are addicted (yes, addicted) to UO that I think most who hate leaving 2d would actually come on board, albeit grudgingly.

Simply put, with either client right now, NEITHER is nice enough to seriously attract someone when there are a multitude of better, cleaner, nicer games out there... many which are F2P and require no subscription fee.

Take a screen shot of LotR Online and UO, put them side by side and ask people off the street which one they'd rather play. Then tell them that one is a free to play model and the other costs 9.99 to 12.99 a month and watch them laugh at you.

I love UO, honestly. But I'm also a realist.

pfffft! no need to trouble with a comparison between "like genre's"(lotr-o vs uo)

Be adult(each individual reader) and take a "first look" at the "State of the art" as proudly displayed on the front page here
UO Stratics - News - Main

Bear in mind this IS a "hobby" and as all hobbies ... it is an ACQUIRED taste.
The genre of "Games" is wider than >Just MMO< for consideration of some game as a hobby ...
That it evolved from the roots of pretend and D&D, should be allowed to influence your perspective.

Looks fun to some types ... yes. Is it as fun as solitary? depends
on taste
and there is no established "valuation" of Taste.
unless I missed a memo.
checked ... I have not.

Being of the same nature as a HOBBY ... Devoid of >emotional entanglements<(I prefer ergo everyone should too)
Be adult and take a "first look" at the "State of the art" ... an objective look as IF it were a favored child ...
be honest
At least be as honest with yourself as you want YOUR parents to be ...

*ahem*
Know yourself, know your enemy. truth is deeper than the surface might indicate.
*shrugs*

 

[canary]

To be fair, LotR is a 3D game, while UO is an isometric game. Comparing the two doesn't seem fair. However, the same could be said between UO and Diablo III. Put the two next to each other, and it's an easy choice... at least for me. Even if Diablo graphics aren't your thing, they could come up with so much better than what they have currently.

Or Titan Quest, released in 2006. Or Diablo 2, which was released in 2000. Why is a client like EC so tragic?

Personally, I want to update my client. I just won't as the EC client still has odd issues (it 'waves' as you run, things flicker on screen) and the art still in the game from KR is ugly. Don't get me started on the paperdolls that are universally reviled.

 

[Fayled Dhreams]

There is no way that I can think of for EA to do all of what *I* proposed as options A, B and C.

There's the rub then ...
I not only CAN ... I HAVE thought of proposed and upon acceptance of my "plan" sought out and acquired and assembled and trained and put in the field and from the trail of time
ACHIEVED said goals ...

By the way:

Forget all about the "EA wants" portion of it

is not a logical suggestion.
It neither corrects the fallacy, NOR, the quality of outcome.

as shown above

 

[Coppelia]

Dicimiie, I don't know what you expect from replying to Fayled Dhreams but I suggest to just let him play the comedy in his sandbox.
I agree with you and canary that the problem of EC is more than the "naked people" bug that Jonathan Baron is mentioning, or the inconsistency of the choices of buttons in the interface. The graphic part is very problematic : it's clear that the lighting is very wrong for example. When the texture is burnt to a flat tone in some places while blond hair appears black, there's a big question mark on the skill of the dev team. They may do all the efforts they want to make nice characters, if they shoot their own feet with such a poor rendering of their work, how can one expect quality?

It's sad because the EC is a good idea in theory. UO needs it, as well as a merge because as Jonathan Baron says, it's a ghost world when you travel around. However if some parts are interresting, like the possibilities of the interface, some parts are of a lesser quality than the old client. And that's simply not acceptable. If EC was good, it could be used to bring new players that's sure. As it is, devs should be shameful to have released it.

And about UO going F2P... well it'd better do, EA doesn't have my billing info anymore. EA is between two stools. When they'll choose either to make UO F2P + uogamecodes or to make it P2P with everything injected right in the game in the appropriate sections, I'll think about giving them money. No choice, no money. They have to take the risk. I don't care if it's not sure that F2P would save UO. That's life. But I don't want to bath in the murky pool that's become UO's management. I'd rather contribute to the illegal community of UO.

 

[Jonathan Baron]

<tempted by the "two stools" bait, but passes>

Well...you could say they're full of stools <falls for the bait after all>

Alas, we've reverse gestalt at work here. UO has become less than the sum of its parts, however thoughtfully those parts were conceived and inserted. And because of it, debate has moved toward debating just that....parts.

 

[Dicimiie]

Dicimiie, I don't know what you expect from replying to Fayled Dhreams but I suggest to just let him play the comedy in his sandbox.

I think I jumped on the defensive after reading his response. It was an irritability due in part to the fact that he decided to pick apart my choice of words rather than address what I said directly, and partly due to the horrible typing style he >has<.

I guess it boils down to temporary insanity.

My original point still stands. Although I did not directly say this, one would assume that what I was basically trying to say is that the graphics are still, to this day, keeping new players from even trying the game out and keeping any serious advertising from being put together for UO. Without new players, the game will end. It's just that simple. And this is true whether or not the current, or veteran, players like it or not.

Do the current graphics affect me on a personal level? Not really, since I actually like the 2D graphics just fine. Not only that, but I currently don't even play production UO. I cancelled soon after AoS for game mechanic issues. But that's completely beside the point.

UO is trying to be an itemized game like all of the others. Unfortunately, its doing it with substandard graphics, and like it or not, graphics matter for sales.

 

[Saphireena]

I think many players would love a high resolution 2d client as Saphireena has made threads on. The problem many 2d lovers have is not that they don't want change, but if they're going to change they want a client that looks good.

After all the fuss was made over those hi-res images long long ago, I decided to start work on a full screen image of UO. It's fine to take one particular item or a small cutout of a scene, but what would UO look like in it's full screen size? This has been something I've worked on from time to time, but each time it does inspire me to see a little more of a hi-res legacy art version revealed. Granted, it's a lot of work. Way too much work, so as the devs have said in the past - not a realistic option really. Still fun to fantasize and see though .

Here is the original screenshot in original size: (remember to use the zoom tool and the "expand to original size" button which can be found in the lower left corner when the image opens up. Alternately, you can open the images straight from the URL.

http://www.andrea.net/uo/general/art/gfx/grecian_isle_original.jpg

Here is the same image doubled in size and in indexed mode, as not to get any anti-alias mush messing things up.

http://www.andrea.net/uo/general/art/gfx/grecian_isle_zoomed.jpg

And here is the same zoomed in picture with a lot of polishing done to it. However this image is still under construction. Things that are ready are mainly the houses and the items within, where as the environment, some of the characters, the gumps and the horses are still to be polished. But seeing the houses alone gives some idea.

http://www.andrea.net/uo/general/art/gfx/grecian_isle_under_construction.jpg

This is huge in size, and for many of you the game area fills the whole screen, but note that the original screenshot was taken with the largest resolution setting, so just like folks would have done back in the beginning, who had smaller res screens, they'd have used the smaller setting in UO as well which shows a smaller portion of the game area.