A
-
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!
Do You Want A Classic Shard??
- Thread starter Vortimer
- Start date
- Watchers 12
I don't think duping was an issue back them, and I've played since 1997.
There were two major programs out that gave players an advantage. And since one is no longer available and the other is now legal, I will name them. UOExtreme and UOAssist.
Most of the advantages they gave to people in game were things like "last target" and "arm-disarm" which should have been available through in game mechanics.
Beyond that there was no duping. There was nothing to dupe. Back in 1997 making a million gold in game was almost impossible.
Now im pretty sure at a certain point there was some kind of gold dupe around 1999/2000 or so, but I think a GM ended up getting fired/banned for duping/selling Millions of gold on each shard. But this cheat took a GM to do.
At the end of the day the way UO used to be, there was no point in duping because most of the items players used on a daily basis were GM made items.
As other people posted you never saw people PvP or even PvM with nice Vanq weapons. They were always in the bank or safe in houses.
On a side note: there were other bugs that posed serious problems, like the house break in bugs that allowed people to loot your house dry. But that is an easy fix, and has been fixed since.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
You know, its funny, people seem to act as if there arent jerks in UO now. I played the old days, and I rarely ran across anyone who acted like a jerk. I didn't really start seeing jerk like behavior until after trammel. At first, it was slight, just a mouthy kid here and there spouting off some lame F-bombs thinking they are acting tough, maybe stealing a kill or two. But, over time, the bad behavior began to pick up. People started getting nastier, more vulgar, mass kill stealing and griefing.
Oh yes, griefing can happen in a PvE only environment. As a matter of fact, it happens more rampantly than in a PvP environment. In PvP, the worst that happens to you is you get killed and looted. Big deal, run to town, rez, regear, situation over. But in a PvE environment, thats where the griefers get creative. Why? Because there is nothing stopping them. PvP actually prevents a lot of griefing because there are instant consequences for their actions. Try to kill steal in PvP, you're going to get punished by the person you're griefing. The threat of violence is a great deterrent for "Jerks".
Now, if by jerks you are refering to cheaters, hackers, and the lot, then, well, UO is overrun with them to a degree that dwarfs the old days by nearly a thousand fold. As was said before, yes there were cheats and glitches in old UO, but they were nowhere near as bad as today. UO of today is ruled, nay, absolutely dominated, by cheaters and hackers. Why? Because the game's current mechanics allow for it. For the issue of the cheaters to be resolved, you have to take away that which allows them to cheat. Therefore, many of the mechanics that are so easily exploited must be removed. But, since so many people allegedly like the current "server", and I use that word very very very loosely, changing them is out of the question. That leaves only one choice, create servers that predate these exploitable conditions, IE, retro servers.
Couldnt agree more with this. A swift acting GM staff who is quick to ban offenders would show that such behavior is not tolerated.
Wait until after SA? That is an invitation to disaster. From what I have read on SA, its just going to cause more imbalance in an already imbalanced game. Its as if UO has been reduced to rubble and now EA has decided to carpet bomb it. What is it EA, do you hate UO so much that you must continue to abuse it? I'd rather see UO shut down that have SA add another batch of scars and shame to something that was once so beautiful.
Looking at EA's track record of expansions, SA will cause the few players remaining to leave. They'd be better of scraping SA all together and focusing on classic servers. I mean, at least they know that something like T2A is actually balanced. There is no need to test it.
You just dont get it. EX players will return and they will stay. Classic servers are what EX players and the few remaining vets have been requesting for years, since Trammel came about. Its because of those so called bread and butter shards that people have LEFT. You'd have to be blind, or delusional, not to see that. Do you have any idea of how many players are out there, on WoW, AoC, WAR, DAoC, DF, EQ2, EvE, and every other MMO out there who would come back willingly to UO if classic servers were made? Thousands! I've spoken with countless players on all of those games and they all said the same thing: Yes, I would come back and play, even in 2d.
Too optimistic? More like overly dilusional. Unless you're being sarcastic.
Bread and butter shards, HA! Right, because they are so successful, arent they. Thats why half the bloody servers are ghost towns, the bulk of the skills are gimped, and UO is most commonly refered to as EA's B***H as one of the biggest jokes on the net, rivaling that if Leroy Jenkins and Duke Nukem Forever. Oh yes, bread and butter indeed! More like camel dung bread and ipecac syrup.
The player run servers arent UO. They are hacker run virus fests. You think the bugs on the EA run servers are bad, try playing a free server. Your PC will fry faster than a turkey tossed into a volcano. The free shards to no reflect the current state of UO. UO is dying and on very poor life support. If it werent for the asian gold farmers on the asian servers, this game would have less that 20k subscriptions.
EA has one chance, and one chance only to revive UO, and that is to start all over again. To admit, they have screwed up, big time, and to go back to the times that did work and give it another go. Pixel crack may matter to the shallow zombies of the WoW influence, but the real gamers, the true players that UO once held, care about high quality game play. And that is what UO once had, long ago.
It can have it again.... all EA has to do is.... MAKE RETRO SERVERS! The vets and ex's have been saying it for years, I think its high time they listened.
A
AesSedai
Guest
That's all I should say. But aye, I'll add a little more:
First off, which is it:
or
?
Secondly, to think that instantly travelling back in time to return to what was, would prevent 'jerks, cheats, hacks, dupes, etc.'... well, what would you call that?
All of these existed back in the day & it has been an uphill battle to try to prevent as much ever since, nay, long before any UO servers were ever turned on.
Going back in time may appease many, aye. But moving forward (even if that entails creating a new 'classic' shard) is the only way to improve. UO has to keep evolving in order to improve, imho & eventually it might be in a good enough position to provide a retro experience without appearing to jump the shark & as such truly break the shark's tank. SA should most definitely precede anything 'retro'-ish, by my thinking.
But your post did intrigue enough to distract me for a few minutes & now I must get back to more important matters.
Peace
C
Connor_Graham
Guest
This IMO is the #1 reason why UO is dying.
No one wants to play with cheaters.
As much as I love the concept of UO, having been into RPG's since the P&P D&D days, the actual implementation of UO leaves alot to be desired.
The #1 thing that would bring back players at this point would be the removal of speedhacking, duping and scripting from UO servers. I truely believe there are more honest people in the world, than there are cheaters. Unfortunately though, in terms of UO, most of the honest players have given up and are now giving their $$$ to someone else.
I know I'm not alone in wanting a fair game, not one DOMINATED by cheaters.
V
Vortimer
Guest
Has there been any reply from any of the devs in this thread???
Im at work and dont have time to look thru all the posts sorry!!
Im at work and dont have time to look thru all the posts sorry!!
I have a question for this thread. I would have looked into my 'Ask and Answer' Ball but it keeps fizzling and popping..
How long before a classic shard looses it "Newness" and whatever else you want to call it and people start getting bored with it? Does it have staying power?
Maybe a handfull would last but in true honesty can you really see very many people staying. Especially after have all those arties to play with and now playing without them.
IMHO.. i think this is what ea is thinking about too.
Just curious by-stander..
Luc (I would check out it)
How long before a classic shard looses it "Newness" and whatever else you want to call it and people start getting bored with it? Does it have staying power?
Maybe a handfull would last but in true honesty can you really see very many people staying. Especially after have all those arties to play with and now playing without them.
IMHO.. i think this is what ea is thinking about too.
Just curious by-stander..
Luc (I would check out it)
M
Malimus
Guest
Well that's the UO experience that got me totally hooked. And really the thought of a server or two of that nature possibly coming back keeps me playing. As it stands right now im really thinking of throwing in the towel. I mean getting rid of my accounts and all for good. This monster UO has turned into just isnt very appealing to me now. I have been having far more fun on a FREE T2A shard. Totally Old school.
Only prob with that is when does the guy running a shard with a 400-600 daily population get bored of keeping it maintained for free/donations and shut it down with or without notice.
As for wanting to play with all the nifty little arties and such... I know lots of people that play on a few diff servers. Heck i know a few with almost every char on EVERY server trained up. Little extreme but each to his/her own right? You can always play both a classic and a modern shard. Bored of one... play the other... It's not like were saying choose classic and never go back. Although i promise you, a lot of people wont wanna go back to modern
A
a drunk elf
Guest
I still love you, Morgana! Don't let the negative grouches shatter our dream!
Let's keep this thread going!
There IS enough interest out there in a "Classic Shard" for the developers to take notice.
Keep hope alive.
Let's keep this thread going!
There IS enough interest out there in a "Classic Shard" for the developers to take notice.
Keep hope alive.
kelmo
Old and in the way
Professional
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Dread Lord
*sighs* There are only classic players left. *lifts mug* Here is to you...
D
Dor of Sonoma
Guest
Just going by my own experience, I'd say at least a decade.
That's how long I've been running on hope and memories alone!
S
Sweeney
Guest
So you're saying UO is the nursing home of RPGs.. or the beta supporters in the vrc age?
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
Dammit! I said I wouldn't come back to this thread!! And you went and made me do it!!!
Cheers to you! I hope we get one too!!
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
Ouch.
But yeah.
*Yes...it smells like urine, and the people are old, and it looks like hell...but admit it, its better than going to work in the morning!!!!!!
*
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
Id call it starting over. Its something UO desperately needs to do. Would it prevent the cheats, hacks, dupers, jerks? No. Would it cut down on them drastically and render the majority of their game breaking tactics moot? Yes.
There will always be hackers and cheaters and nothing short of a massive manhunt will stop them. Now, since thats out of the question, the best course of action is to mitigate the damage as much as possible. Yes in the classic days there were jerks, hackers, dupers, etc, but it wasnt game breaking. Oh wow, some piece of trash could dupe 100 suits of GM made armor. Big deal. There were hundreds of other GM smiths making legit armor and selling it that it didnt make a bit of difference if someone was duping armor. The gold dupers back then were a joke. So what if a guy had like 2 billion in gold in his bank, he just killed the game for himself because one of the goals back then was making money to survive. So what if he could afford 20 castles? Good luck placing them all, buddy. It was a waste of time to dupe and the only person it ruined the game for was the person cheating, as it should be.
Classic shards would show where the original UO team succeeded and where the EA teams failed..... epicly.
SA should be scrapped or tossed on the back burner. Then they should make classic servers and actually attract players, instead of making another broken expansion to throw onto the burning heap of glitches, lag, and hacker dominance that is UO now.
The game can move forward, but in order to unlock its future, it must first learn from its past. You speak of evolution and moving forward, but how can anything move forward and succeed without learning from its past mistakes. Thus far, it seems EA has ignored everything since AOS and keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over with each expansion that has happened ever since. They must look to the times when UO was functional and successful and learn from them. What was done then that was done correctly?
Yes, evolution is important, but evolving correctly is even more important. And right now, UO is evolving as horrendously and malformed as colony of inbreeders.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
Oh, sorry, a drag queen like you wouldnt be interested in normal colored gear. I know how you lentlemen love your hot neon pink tokuno anime pixle crack, so standard issue iron plate color just wouldnt do. Now, go back to luna bank and spam about how you and the other "ladies" want to head out to sea. k bye, thx.
First off, I think a classic shard is a good idea and voted yes. Just want to clarify a couple of things so that people have the right expectations when it's released.
It's nothing against you CorrectUO, I am quoting you because you have raised some very valid points. Warning - long post.
Regarding griefing, it is not a PvE only phenomenon, you can very effectively grief people in Fel, say - by some naked character luring mobs on to you (you can kill/rez kill him, but he'll just get rezzed and do it again). Or if you are in Fel, some guy will go through your fields/attack your EVs etc trying to noto you. Also in the old days - people gating monsters.
Many types of griefing methods can be used on both facets. I can name a dozen more, but it'll get the thread locked.
This last one regarding gating monsters is an old exploit that was fixed, but these are the kind of things they need to plug before implementing a classic shard. That's why I'd rather they take the time to do it properly once they have the resources after SA is rolled out. I know you would rather they do the classic shard first, but clobbering up a half-assed classic shard half-heartedly will only cause more disappointment and even more damage. I want people to come back and stay, not tricked into coming back to a purely propaganda shard and find that it's full of yesteryears' faults then leave disappointed/disgusted.
If anything, cheats and exploits are fixed pretty quickly nowadays. So I think instead of using an old copy of the server code, they should use the current copy and then disable modules like AOS contents, SE contents, ML contents etc, plus whatever else is required. The advantage of this is they only have a common copy of the code to fix, plus that code would have already fixed the exploits that existed during the UOR era.
TBH, if you take a look at the games out there, new content and constant evolution is needed to keep the main game going. If EA they left the prodo shards stagnant, it will die off. Analogy - Diablo I and II are great games, yes? Bnet is still available, and you can still play Diablo online. But without any new expansions, few people play it anymore. I still play Diablo I/II single player/network once in a while, but I've already done everything there is to do, there's nothing else left for me to explore, and thus my interest in it has waned. Same thing will happen if they let the prodo shards go stagnant.
This is true for all games. New expansions/content and good marketing is needed to keep games alive and bring in more players. The best way to go about it for UO at this moment is to utilize both new content plus creating a classic shard to reattract the old players/keep the existng players.
Repeat: They are putting their time on SA now, so instead of devoting part of their resources into a classic shard, and releasing 2 half-assed projects, I'd rather they finish SA properly, then devote their resources into properly looking at releasing a classic shard that's not full of exploits/holes. If they make a half-hearted attempt to release a classic shard that's broken, it's gonna do more harm than good. That's what I meant by an invitation to disaster.
If you don't believe this, see my Diablo examples above. A stagnant game will gradually lose its player base. New content and choices however, will delay this and good ones will even offset it by bringing in new blood.
I see a classic server bringing back the old timers. I see some of them trying the other prodo shards and liking it there. I also see players on the prodo shards trying the classic shard and liking it there. These kinds of dynamics will give players more choices and serve to keep people interested in UO.
However, we are definitely overshadowed by other games and not doing as well as we could have. The good news is that we still have a respectable following to boot. How many players do you think the game would have today if they stopped coming up with new content since 1998 (but has regular bug fixes)? If you think more than what we have now, consider again Diablo 1 and 2. Leaving a game stagnant for 10 years is not a way to gain more subscriptions. If UO did not evolve, it would have made an even more apt case to rival Duke Nuken Forever.
Here's an interesting list:
Auto Assault
Hellgate: London
Tabula Rasa
SIMs Online
What's the similarity of those 4 games? These are pretty well known games that have recently been shutdown. Here's another list:
Matrix Online
Dark Age of Camelot
Pirates of the Caribbean
Dungeons and Dragons Online
What's the similarity of those 4 latter games? They are some of the many games that have lower subs compared to UO, low enough that they are teterring on the verge of being closed.
The similarity of these 2 lists? They can't laugh at EA's biatch of a laughing stalk...You will find an even larger list of defunct/dying MMOs if you googled.
Quick note - although a bit exaggerated, it has a grain of truth. You are placing your ID and passwords on a database of an individual that may abuse it. Even if not, he may not have the resource to secure it or may have an untrustworthy/scorned bf/gf that will do the same thing (think Tradespot). Those that require a special client that you have to download and run, well, you don't know what backdoor codes they put into that client. Even if not, the server admins can see what IPs you are connecting from. So there are several security risks. They can be migitated of course, but I'd prefer to play on a shard that a well capitalized and reputable public company runs.
Back on point, the popularity and sheer amount of people willing to take those risks to play on these hazardous shards reflects that a lot of people still love and play UO. They just don't play on EA servers for various reasons. Some wish to play on a retro servers is one of them. So if EA can provide a stable, less bug infested server that the admins will not shut down on a whim, or give out arties to their friends, I believe they should be able to win back a good portion of these old timers.
Lowering the subscription fees would be a very good move too. UO is currently one of the more expensive games to play. If they do this too, it'll be a tripple whammy.
It's nothing against you CorrectUO, I am quoting you because you have raised some very valid points. Warning - long post.
Yup, there'll always be jerks and cheaters no matter if it's 1997 or 2009, UO or WoW. Timeline/era/game doesn't matter.
Regarding griefing, it is not a PvE only phenomenon, you can very effectively grief people in Fel, say - by some naked character luring mobs on to you (you can kill/rez kill him, but he'll just get rezzed and do it again). Or if you are in Fel, some guy will go through your fields/attack your EVs etc trying to noto you. Also in the old days - people gating monsters.
Many types of griefing methods can be used on both facets. I can name a dozen more, but it'll get the thread locked.
This last one regarding gating monsters is an old exploit that was fixed, but these are the kind of things they need to plug before implementing a classic shard. That's why I'd rather they take the time to do it properly once they have the resources after SA is rolled out. I know you would rather they do the classic shard first, but clobbering up a half-assed classic shard half-heartedly will only cause more disappointment and even more damage. I want people to come back and stay, not tricked into coming back to a purely propaganda shard and find that it's full of yesteryears' faults then leave disappointed/disgusted.
Following up on what I said above, I am of the view that the existence of cheats and exploits should not be used to justify retro or current servers. The old mechanics allowed even more exploitable conditions for dupes, speed hacks and scripting. They have since gotten smart and closed many of these. Google Mr Tact's papers on cheating in MMO if you want to know more.
If anything, cheats and exploits are fixed pretty quickly nowadays. So I think instead of using an old copy of the server code, they should use the current copy and then disable modules like AOS contents, SE contents, ML contents etc, plus whatever else is required. The advantage of this is they only have a common copy of the code to fix, plus that code would have already fixed the exploits that existed during the UOR era.
Actually, I do in fact have great hopes for SA, like any expansions in other games, there are definitely going to be some balance issues that will become apparent after players have a go with it. SA itself balances certain things now, but is likely to unbalance other things. Though overall, I think it has good potential.
TBH, if you take a look at the games out there, new content and constant evolution is needed to keep the main game going. If EA they left the prodo shards stagnant, it will die off. Analogy - Diablo I and II are great games, yes? Bnet is still available, and you can still play Diablo online. But without any new expansions, few people play it anymore. I still play Diablo I/II single player/network once in a while, but I've already done everything there is to do, there's nothing else left for me to explore, and thus my interest in it has waned. Same thing will happen if they let the prodo shards go stagnant.
This is true for all games. New expansions/content and good marketing is needed to keep games alive and bring in more players. The best way to go about it for UO at this moment is to utilize both new content plus creating a classic shard to reattract the old players/keep the existng players.
Repeat: They are putting their time on SA now, so instead of devoting part of their resources into a classic shard, and releasing 2 half-assed projects, I'd rather they finish SA properly, then devote their resources into properly looking at releasing a classic shard that's not full of exploits/holes. If they make a half-hearted attempt to release a classic shard that's broken, it's gonna do more harm than good. That's what I meant by an invitation to disaster.
I know that there are alot of old timers that will come back. I don't even need to look at other games, just look at the player-run servers out there. However, realistically, not all players that come back will stay, as Az's mentioned in his post. Just like not all the free shard players will stay with the free shard forever too. It would be delusional to think the old timers will all stay forever. No matter how good a game is, people will move on.
If you don't believe this, see my Diablo examples above. A stagnant game will gradually lose its player base. New content and choices however, will delay this and good ones will even offset it by bringing in new blood.
I see a classic server bringing back the old timers. I see some of them trying the other prodo shards and liking it there. I also see players on the prodo shards trying the classic shard and liking it there. These kinds of dynamics will give players more choices and serve to keep people interested in UO.
I wasn't being sarcastic. At the current rate, there's no indication that it'll be as successful as I thought (in my original comment, I actually meant sold out for the 2nd time within 3 months and needing a 3rd reprint to be shipped). However, I am hoping that SA will be as great as I think it would, and that they will market it properly. I love UO and dearly want UO to become the success it should be and reach its full potential. 10 mil subs should not be a dream. Until then, I will try to help my fellow gamers and at the same time present ideas to make the game better.
Yes, because they really are successful. An 11 year-old game and we are still alive and kickin'.
However, we are definitely overshadowed by other games and not doing as well as we could have. The good news is that we still have a respectable following to boot. How many players do you think the game would have today if they stopped coming up with new content since 1998 (but has regular bug fixes)? If you think more than what we have now, consider again Diablo 1 and 2. Leaving a game stagnant for 10 years is not a way to gain more subscriptions. If UO did not evolve, it would have made an even more apt case to rival Duke Nuken Forever.
Here's an interesting list:
Auto Assault
Hellgate: London
Tabula Rasa
SIMs Online
What's the similarity of those 4 games? These are pretty well known games that have recently been shutdown. Here's another list:
Matrix Online
Dark Age of Camelot
Pirates of the Caribbean
Dungeons and Dragons Online
What's the similarity of those 4 latter games? They are some of the many games that have lower subs compared to UO, low enough that they are teterring on the verge of being closed.
The similarity of these 2 lists? They can't laugh at EA's biatch of a laughing stalk...You will find an even larger list of defunct/dying MMOs if you googled.
So player run servers are hacker-run virus fests with worse bugs that EA servers, which will fry your PCs quickly
Quick note - although a bit exaggerated, it has a grain of truth. You are placing your ID and passwords on a database of an individual that may abuse it. Even if not, he may not have the resource to secure it or may have an untrustworthy/scorned bf/gf that will do the same thing (think Tradespot). Those that require a special client that you have to download and run, well, you don't know what backdoor codes they put into that client. Even if not, the server admins can see what IPs you are connecting from. So there are several security risks. They can be migitated of course, but I'd prefer to play on a shard that a well capitalized and reputable public company runs.
Back on point, the popularity and sheer amount of people willing to take those risks to play on these hazardous shards reflects that a lot of people still love and play UO. They just don't play on EA servers for various reasons. Some wish to play on a retro servers is one of them. So if EA can provide a stable, less bug infested server that the admins will not shut down on a whim, or give out arties to their friends, I believe they should be able to win back a good portion of these old timers.
Lowering the subscription fees would be a very good move too. UO is currently one of the more expensive games to play. If they do this too, it'll be a tripple whammy.
C
Connor_Graham
Guest
Wow. You seem so knowledgeable about the "lentlemen" in Luna. You must spend quite a bit of time hanging out there to know them so well. /sarcasm
And btw, you'd rarely find me in Luna. I only go there to turn in Bods or to make a trade/buy/sell something to another player. But you go ahead and keep hanging out and learning the local crowd. Maybe someday they'll accept you as one of their own.
You might also learn how to take a joke without having to resort to personal attacks, but then again, probably not.
I would rather have a real 3D client. That would shake up the MMO market. With a decent real 3D client you would be able to attract millions of subscribers, which in turn would allow funding of all extras like PvE only shards, PvP only shards, and classic shards.
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
As much as I would love to see it happen, UO will never have millions of subscribers. Those days are gone, and unless there is a sequel, they will never come again, regardless of the client.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
Never said it was a PvE only phenomenon. Yeah griefing happened during the PvP days, but all it usually did was get the griefer killed. As for luring, I dont even consider it to be geifing. People tried to do it to me, all I did was kill the monsters and loot them. I actually enjoyed it when people brought more monsters around, it made things more challenging for me.
Running through field spells has been around from the start. The old "blue PKs" did it all the time. But it wasnt game breaking. Usually the jerk would get killed and his plot for a penalty free kill got foiled.
They fixed monster gating a long time ago, right around the beginning of T2A. Even then, it was really pointless to do it at all. If they tried to gate a monster into town, the guards got it. If they gated it to another dungeon, players killed it. The only thing I remember was people gating the jewler out of what was it, Papua or Delucia? which ever one had the jewler right next to the bank. they did it to kill them for their black sandals.
Many problems were plugged during T2A. Thats why I and many others keep saying thats the Era the retro servers should begin in.
Second of all, logic would dictate that the devs, if they did make classic servers, would fix the problems before launching it. Heck, thats what all of us who want classic servers have been saying.
Really? the old mechanics allowed for even more exploits, dupes and speed hacks? No, they didnt. As a matter of fact, these were minute problems because the games mechanics mitigated the damage. Duping back in T2A was a joke. Players could dupe gold, castle deeds, and items, but there was no reason to. It was a waste of time considering players could make pretty much every valuable item in the game or otherwise retrieve it through fishing or treasure hunting. the only major items that got duped were the black dye tubs, but even then, who cared? It didnt hurt the game, it just gave people more black dye tubs and access to black clothing.
As for scripting, it didnt happen as much as it does today. Today, there are script bots farming gold and artis to no end. Back in the old days, people who left their character unattended on a script program usually came back to find their character dead repeating the phrase "I am dead and cannot do that" over and over. Why? because people could see that the character was clearly a bot, and in an act of player enforced justice, killed the cheater and got some free loot in the process.
Problem with that. the current coding is now built around the AOS, SE, ML, etc content. Disabling it would cause holes in the server coding. This would lead to massive glitches, new and worse exploits and crashes.
And basically what you are saying to do is to strip the current code down to the old version. Why go through that trouble when they can take the old code and fix what they know went wrong in the past. Thats the beauty of working with old code, you already know whats wrong with it and how to fix it.
Take a look at AOS, SE, ML. Have any of them worked? Have any of them helped to restore UO? Have any of them attracted and actually held players? No. Before AOS, UO managed to attract and hold onto players. This was because the game was functional. It wasnt an eternal item grind like WoW and all of its clones.
You have faith in SA? Then I applaud that faith. But sadly I think it is misplaced.
And guess what, players that play games that have expansions still arent happy. This is due to the fact that, its not how much a game keeps shoveling down people's throats, its the core game play and mechanics that count most. People were happy in the beginning and T2A. An addition like the lost lands was excepted because all it was was a new area to explore. And even then, people found themselves migrating back to the old lands even though there was a new area. Why? Because the old lands offered new experiences every day because the game mechanics allowed for players to make their own adventures and experiences. They didnt need to be lead around by the hand through a series of lame quests. UO used to be an open sandbox game of full exploration. People didnt need to have goals and objectives forced on them, IE the eternal item grind. It was all about finding your own fun. Sometimes this lead to clashes between certain groups, but that was also apart of the adventure.
Now, if expansions are a must and people simply cant live without them, then EA should learn from the lost lands. Add in landmasses, but no new game breaking mechanics.
They've been trying to make the AOS content appealing for nearly 7 years now. Has it worked? Has UO been revivied and super charged by any expansion yet? No, its hasnt. And its frustrating to watch and read over and over these EA devs putting out one failed expansion after another.
As opposed to putting out one half assed project like SA will be? You know what, Ill just let time prove me right. After SA comes out, and its another epic fail, then I will be vindicated. Then I will take that vindication and use it. SA will be the example of failure that I hope will finally be the irrefutable proof that further expansion of all post AOS content is futile and only poisoning UO.
Tell me, is EA even selling SA as a box set? A tangable box that players can have shipped to them, like UO used to have? Are any stores anywhere in the world planning on selling it? and by stores, I mean places like Gamestop, or EBgames or heck, even Toys 'R' Us. If not, then that should be the first indication that the EA is not having success with UO anymore.
Heres the thing, people have moved on, and they are completely miserable with what they have had to move on to. You see, your analogy would be apt, assuming that this were the first time they were leaving and that they have been playing the same types of mechanics and gameplay they were playing since the start. However, because UO changed into something they didnt like, those old time players didnt leave of their own free will, they were forced to leave due to content they disliked.
But, if the game had not changed, and the mechanics had remained the same, players would have stayed. How do I know this? I have spoken with players from several different MMOs. WoW, AoC, DAoC, WAR, EvE, DnDO, EQ2, and LoTRO are all bored and tired of the repetitve game play those games offer. And those games offer expansions. A game can offer tons of new content, expansions, and what not, but if the mechanics and gameplay are lousy, it wont matter. That is the problem faced with UO.
Diablo got old because it was a single player game, even if you could play it on battlenet, that was static. the difference between old UO and Diablo, UO's open sandbox world coupled with its players made the game dynamic and living. Diablo is a static set series of quests that never change nor has any new twists or turns.
Here is where your logic is flawed. You say the old timers will come back and try the prodo shards and like them. But, what you dont seem to grasp is, the old players have already played the prodo shards (and by that Im assuming you mean post AOS). It is because of the post AOS shards that the old players left in the first place. So why are they going to play something they know they already dont like?
No, its like this. The old players will come back and play the classic servers. Why? Because those servers are offering what they have been missing for years now. They will not play the post AOS servers because they know they are not offering what they want and will avoid them like the plague. The old players will never leave the classic servers ever again because they know what is out there, and what is out there doesnt even come close to the experience that the classic UO did. the old players will have what they have been yearning for and will not leave it.
Do you understand now?
I see that you want UO to be great once more. So do I. Thats why I am pushing so much for classic servers. Because, I have seen the trend thus far with EA's expansions and new races. It has not been pretty. The elves are terrible looking and the gargs are looking as though they will follow suit.
No, they are not successful. If they were, then the servers would be packed with players. There wouldnt be ghost towns like there are now. Heck, there wouldnt be ghost facts like there are now.
So, no, the current servers are not successful. True, UO is 11 years old. Forget kicking, UO is like an emphazema patient on a ventilator teetering on the brink of expiring.
This is funny. Diablo 1 and 2 were single player games. they do not even come close as examples compared to UO. UO had a greater, more complex system of dynamics that kept the game fresh without the need for the addition of pixel crack. It gave a sort of natural rush that didnt need to be supplimented.
Second, in regards to expansions, adding in things like new landmasses was fine. There was nothing wrong with adding in places like the lost lands. However, when they started to mess with the games core concept, IE, the open PvP and such, thats where things started to hit the skids. Adding in trammel was a mistake. Granted, it wasnt a huge one, but it was the beginning of the decline. Where they really screwed the pooch is when they added in the AOS mechanics. The game was bascially gutted and replaced with WoWish systems that went against the very essence of UO.
Now, in regards to your question of whether or not UO would have lasted without expansions, my answer is yes. As a matter of fact, UO would probably be way more successful than it is today. With regular fixes and improvements to certain systems, UO would have been made more functional and the game play would have improved. This would have kept people playing.
What many seem to not understand is why people played UO before the pixle crack. In old UO, it was the community, the player base, that kept things dynamic and fresh. With a solid, good community full of RPers, PKs, Anti PKs, casuals, hardcores, crafters, merchants, etc, things were kept alive. The game had heart and soul to it. That is why the game would not have needed expansions.
Duke Nukem Forever is a joke because it is the poster child for vaporware. UO is a joke now because of everything EA has done to it, IE, everything from AOS on.
UO was never stagnant and it wouldnt have been. And Ill say it again as to why:
In the old UO, it was the community, the player base, that kept things dynamic and fresh. With a solid, good community full of RPers, PKs, Anti PKs, casuals, hardcores, crafters, merchants, etc, things were kept alive. The game had heart and soul to it. That is why the game would not have needed expansions. Stagnantion was never an issue.
No, stagnation didnt start to rear its ugly head until AFTER Trammel. Then it became an issue because the PvE players took over and needed to be handed things to do and to be taken by the hand and guided, instead of making their own way. The player base began to degrade into mostly unimagineative EQers who were used to the amusement park method of MMOs. All of the players and guilds and developers who made the game fun and fresh began to leave because the content that allowed to do so was being phased out or rendered inoperable (IE gimped). In their place, more and more amusement park goes took their place and things eventually wound up the way they are today.
The reason all of these games have been shut down is because they were terribly put together. They all suffered from incompetant development teams, something they share in common with UO.
However, the only difference, UO has the asian gold farmer accounts keeping it afloat. Those games didnt.
TR had a shot, until NCsoft made Garriot and his team change it. If TR is an example of anything, its of what happens when a publisher company over steps its boundaires and doesnt leave the actual development of the game to the developers and puts the bottom line above what matters most: game play, mechanics, and content.
Again, UO has the asian gold farmer accounts. Those games do not. The fact that UO is kept alive by gold farmer accounts makes it even more of a laughing stock.
Those defunct/dying MMOs were, again, poorly developed or ran out of funding to continue development. That is the hazard of thie MMO industry.
But, UO has an advantage. The Classic servers have already been proven to work because of how well UO did in the past. 100k subscriptions within the first 6 months of the game doesnt lie. And this was back in the days of the horrible lag. And that number held for several years. True, things went up after AOS for a while, but not long after that, the sub numbers began to fall to the poultry amount of today. You want to talk hemoraging accounts, look at the decline after AOS. Pre AOS never saw such a drop in subscriptions, now did it?
Its not over exaggerated, its true. I tried a free shard and lost a good PC because of a bunch of nasty viruses I got when I downloaded the client.So player run servers are hacker-run virus fests with worse bugs that EA servers, which will fry your PCs quickly
Quick note - although a bit exaggerated, it has a grain of truth. You are placing your ID and passwords on a database of an individual that may abuse it. Even if not, he may not have the resource to secure it or may have an untrustworthy/scorned bf/gf that will do the same thing (think Tradespot). Those that require a special client that you have to download and run, well, you don't know what backdoor codes they put into that client. Even if not, the server admins can see what IPs you are connecting from. So there are several security risks. They can be migitated of course, but I'd prefer to play on a shard that a well capitalized and reputable public company runs.
Youre also correct in that the free servers cannot be trusted with personal info. They are a terrible risk that players should not have to endure just to play the game they want.
Thats the beauty of classic servers, there are no artifacts to give out because they wont exist.
Actually, at 12.99 a month, UO is cheaper than the standard issue 14.99 a month charged by the more popular MMOs out there. But a lower sub fee, possibly a return to the original 9.99 a month, would help out drastically.
M
MuffinBear
Guest
Making a classic server would bring back hundreds of players, Ive played on freeshards before and the most popular by far are the Pre UOR servers, Hybrid alone had around 800 online 24 hours a day.
I would assume most of those players would come back to an official pre UOR server since it would have stability.
One of the odd things Ive noticed is how much the companies are against "classic" servers....EverQuest for example recently gave players a poll on what they would want their new server to be and they did not give it the option to be classic....then they locked a 4 year old thread that had around 4thousand replies asking for a classic....
Strange stuff :O
I would assume most of those players would come back to an official pre UOR server since it would have stability.
One of the odd things Ive noticed is how much the companies are against "classic" servers....EverQuest for example recently gave players a poll on what they would want their new server to be and they did not give it the option to be classic....then they locked a 4 year old thread that had around 4thousand replies asking for a classic....
Strange stuff :O
I voted NO, as much as I would love a pre Pub16 shard, I think it is too late to go back to those days, with all the changes that have happened in the years since before Pub16, I have adjusted to the new item based system that is now Ultima Online.
As for someone saying that no new people are starting UO, or that vets are not returning, I am afraid on Europa at least that is wrong, I have seen many old vets returning lately, and a lot of them are staying and reactivating their accounts, or just starting new accounts, as well as new players starting and staying, personally, I hope this will continue to be the case.
As I have always said, there is no other game out there or due to come out, that has the depth of play or community spirit that UO has.
As for someone saying that no new people are starting UO, or that vets are not returning, I am afraid on Europa at least that is wrong, I have seen many old vets returning lately, and a lot of them are staying and reactivating their accounts, or just starting new accounts, as well as new players starting and staying, personally, I hope this will continue to be the case.
As I have always said, there is no other game out there or due to come out, that has the depth of play or community spirit that UO has.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
No one is saying you'd have to play the classic servers. You can stay on your item dependant WoW grind. Just because you dont want to play classic servers doesnt mean that those who want to shouldnt be able to.
Well, good for Europa, but the rest of the servers are ghost towns and there are thousands of other players trapped on other MMOs who want to play the UO they loved and remember once again.
Actually, UO is a lot like WoW now. The community is dominated by item obsessed pixle crack addicts, hackers, cheaters, scripters, and other dregs of the MMO world. The community and spirit was strong, years ago. But now, well, the less said the better.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
The reasont they are against classic servers is because they are in essence an admition of failure. Its like them saying "Okay, everything we've been doing since X time has been a waste of money, resources, and player's time". They are too arrogant to admit something like that. But they less they admit it, and the more they press on, it just makes things worse.
F
Fayled Dhreams
Guest
You, sir or madam, as the case maybe ... are a fool ...
and in no position to speak of any personal motivations that the devs may or may not have ...
pure and simple ... the arguments come down to money
they always have and always will
And in yet again another failed poll
yes 194 55.75%
No 154 44.25% ... an 11% spread ... is hardly a mandate
when balanced against the "rivers of gold" that the "ayes" still (as always) profess
ie. a "river of gold" Would Be Sufficient for the devs to swallow their pride
repent
and attempt "it" ...
Surgeries (as usual) says it best (*nods and waves to AesSedai*)
Darkfall IS classic UO ... long determined BEFORE your presence ... Long distained as "vaporware" ... well ... it is here(wherever it is) ...
There is your "proof of concept" ... in all its glory ...
oops
I am: Your Fayled Dhreams
R
RichDC
Guest
Ill agree with ^^ post, you are a fool.
Have you seen GL or Atlantic??
Many new players and returning vets eager for SA.
Maybe your shard is dead but then again maybe thats because theres alot of people bad mouthing the game, so they move on to a better shard with more community.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
Oh, ouch, I am so defeated, argh..... NOT. And here's why:
And you call me a fool. No, you, sir or madman, and its pretty obvious which the case is, are the fool. Money, is that your excuse? Because if it is, its pathetic, much like the person who suggested it, IE, you.
If making classic servers are sooooooooo expensive and money is such a huge issue, then how come a guy, working at taco bell and is in college, can find the money and time to set up and maintain a free server for years on end, but EA, a multi-million dollar company, cant? Are you saying that EA has less money than a guy working at Taco bell and is running a free server? Well.... it would explain a lot......
Answer that one, because so far, no one has been able to, not even your friends Surguries or AesSedai. How come independent programers who have access to way less resources are able to code, rent (thats right, rent. these guys dont own their own servers), and run free servers, but EA cant make retro servers? It cant be money, so then what is it?
It also can be programing, because, well, if one independent programer can set up and run a server, a team of "skilled" programers that work at EA could surely set up and run 10. But, oh wait, I forgot, this is EA we're talking about. 10 EA programmers are less skilled than 1 independent one, aparently, and they need their item slave fanbois of their dying game to rush to their defense because they cant back themselves up with their own work.
The yes' still lead it though. And if more of the vets who left actually believed that EA would make classic servers, the yes' lead would be dominating. but, unfortunately, thanks to EA's track record of instead of taking the time to save a game, they just let it die, no one believes they will do it.
Darkfall is not classic UO, it doesnt even come close. The reason its failing: Horrible interface, imbalanced PvP, terrible gold sinks, and its a hackers dream.
Old UO was nothing like that.
If any era of UO is like Darkfall, its the current one. Dominated by hackers, scripters, and cheaters, imbalanced PvP/PvM, lousy interface, shotty economy, gee, sounds like Darkfall to me.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
Right, because the word of a fanboi is so relyable......
Just because Luna has some 1 or 2 new banksitters in neon pixle crack, that doesnt mean the game is recovering, it just means some scripter made a few new characters.
Theres badmouthing, and then there is speaking the truth. And the truth is, UO is dead. Its empty. All that remains are asian gold farmer running off of the remaining item slaves who think they are ub3r and l33t in their neon ninja and samurai armor.
People like you are the fools. And selfish ones at that. You speak of players having choice and that they should be able to enjoy UO the way they want, but when someone says they want to play UO the way it used to be, you insult them and act like yours is the only way things can be. You're not only a fool, you're a hypocrite.
All people like me, true old school vets, are asking for is classic servers. It doesnt affect your precious item monopolies you and your fellow item slaves have. Personally, I think you're all afraid of classic servers because they will prove to be more successful and steal away the captive audiences you have on the post AOS servers. No more people to charge millions of gold for some crappy artifact or power scroll. No, they would be on the fuctional servers playing the real UO.
And thats just something people like you cant handle. For that, I pitty you.
H
Heartseeker
Guest
Fayled, did they let you out for some fresh air?
Must be recess.
Must be recess.
F
Fayled Dhreams
Guest
pats head ... missed point darling, but made it yet again VERY WELL
0 cost for Maximum profit = they Would "do it"
feelings and reputation can be bought
and Would Be bought ...
but for the lack of money ...
fool
Welcome to posting with surgeries. A total waste of space.
That's hilarious!!!
A spread that shows that more than half of the respondents would like to see this happen (which if statistics show anything) prove that there is a HUGE freaking demand for this.
Oh how the trammies have only to argue for the sake of arguing... good jerb newbs!
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
There is nothing wrong with open dialog and free speech. You are not going soft, you are embracing the truth.
kelmo
Old and in the way
Professional
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Dread Lord
Maybe... I know what it is like to be the underdog. I like to feel I get heard. I know what it is to be ignored. When the argument turns from the idea and to the person...
I have to flash the badge then. No matter my personal feelings on the issue.
Umm....You really think people allowed to get away with insults are "underdogs?"
Look at the dictionary definition please.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/underdog
#1 implies the predicted loser of a contest. The supporters of a custom rules-set shard (to call it a "classic" shard is to hand them the debate by terms of discourse) are going to win this; I'm nearly positive of that. Even if I'm wrong and EA never does a custom shard, they've effectively won on these boards by making Stratics change its policies (remember when custom shard threads were locked? remember when insults, and comparing your opponents to hunters' prey is insulting by definition, were actioned upon by the moderators), and by defining the terms of the debate. Why not "old" shard? The most accurate term is a "custom" shard, as the most vocal supporters of the idea have basically cherry-picked different aspects of old rules set and designed a custom rules set that corresponds to no actual period in UO history, hence not "classic." The answer is that the supporters have already won that part of the debate. Hence, by definition, not "underdogs."
#2 implies the victim of injustice or prejudice. How are they that? Not everyone who hasn't yet had a favored policy enacted by the powers-that-be is a victim of anything, let alone of injustice or prejudice. Especially not when they are favored by the representatives of the powers-that-be. (Ever notice, for example, that it's only Siege players, who are also generally supporters of the custom shard proposals, who get to discuss Shard-specific issues in U-Hall? How many times in your UO life have you seen Stratics change its policies as a result of agitation?)
-Galen's player
L
Lord Zephyrus
Guest
Just a idea but why not put up a 1 month only Test version of a classic shard coupled with a 2 week welcome back to ultima and watch the numbers. Because actual implication and forums are a little bit different. Oh and marketing, either by youtube,myspace, or television.
3 things on why I disagree with this statement.
1. The game mechanics worked and were well balanced before Pre-Age of Shadows. What I mean by this is that I could put on an orc mask and RP an orc in the game because it didn't negatively effect my characters potency in PvM or PvP. Not only that, but the PvP was fun because it was more skill based than item based (the staple of what we long for since UO still has the best PvP of any MMO out there... even though Darkfall is looking more like it will surpass it.)
2. It was a sandbox. The reason people played was the sense of community and working together. Player run towns, senses of purpose (defending them... hunting reds... making a name for yourself... so on and so on. People still sign on years after they've been there/done that because of their strong ties to their friends and communities... something UO has been enjoying the fruits of for 9+ years now and why it's still a viable game.
3. EM Events - The biggest thing going for Old UO was that players added to the world. I completely agreed with you that players leave when they are bored, but I completely disagree with you (and the industry) that you need to just randomly "switch things up" on players to keep them entertained. Content, events, things to do are what keep them entertained and the EM program (revolutionary in the industry) is the way to go about it.
My 2 cents.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
No, you missed the point. EA does have the money to make classic servers.
Money cannot be the issue. There are people with vastly less money than EA who rent server space to run free shards in their spare time. Thats right, spare time. They dont have a team of developers like EA does, no, its just one guy or two guys running the show.
So, unless EA has less money than the people running free shards, I do not see a financial reason as to why EA cannot make classic servers. They can do it.
And thus, your argument is rendered moot.
C
CORRECTUO
Guest
Agreed, except about the Darkfall part, but thats another issue. Players and the freedom the game once offered were what kept things fresh and entertaining. EA didnt need to go and mess everything up with their "new" content. All they did was take something good and ruin it.
S
Sharantyr
Guest
I haven't voted yes because there's no option for UO:LBR or classic item properties UO2
I wouldn't vote no though, just to spoil others hopes. That would be silly.
I wouldn't vote no though, just to spoil others hopes. That would be silly.
If you know where to look, there is a Shard out there like this that's T2A.
The real issue is, do you have as good a memory about the way it actually was, for example not being able to keep your house key on you in case you die. Having to lock your house every time in and out, and detect hidden to make sure a stealther didn't sneak by and clean your locked down chests out while you were away.
How about the old style craft menus that took forever to actually make anything.
Do you want to count each step you take again stealthing and hit stealth each time you take 8-10 steps?
There a lot of things I like about old school UO, but there are a lot more I dislike. Maybe It's something some of y'all would enjoy, but it wasn't for me. I'm just gonna live out the rest of my days on Siege Perilous.
The real issue is, do you have as good a memory about the way it actually was, for example not being able to keep your house key on you in case you die. Having to lock your house every time in and out, and detect hidden to make sure a stealther didn't sneak by and clean your locked down chests out while you were away.
How about the old style craft menus that took forever to actually make anything.
Do you want to count each step you take again stealthing and hit stealth each time you take 8-10 steps?
There a lot of things I like about old school UO, but there are a lot more I dislike. Maybe It's something some of y'all would enjoy, but it wasn't for me. I'm just gonna live out the rest of my days on Siege Perilous.
Obviously not a question of can they afford it.
the question, is what era of UO, and like siege,
can they take time to manage it progressively or not.
or should they even.
the question, is what era of UO, and like siege,
can they take time to manage it progressively or not.
or should they even.
Maybe this is the gamble EA needs to take to help UO survive.
Either put development time into the creation of a classic server, and hope they get enough old school players to return (because I'm sure someone who has never heard of UO would not be interested in a classic server)
OR
Put development in future expansions, trying to get new players, knowing that at some point the long time players may eventually lose interest in the game and leave. I am looking forward to the SA expansion, however from what I know about it by official EA information on the site, it looks like there maybe 1-2 months of content there, assuming you play a few hours every day.
I'm curious how many people who voted in this thread read this post of Draconi's on 3/19 and have been mulling it over since then:
http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?p=1168101#post1168101
http://vboards.stratics.com/showthread.php?p=1168101#post1168101
Hadn't seen that statement.
I knew the supporters were going to win, though, as soon as Draconi posted his statement months back about what his idea of a classic shard would be.
To engage the debate that clearly was about the same as saying "we're going to do it."
I fully, 100% recognize that all of my efforts here are very likely completely in vain.
-Galen's player
Z
zorrah
Guest
Sorry if I missed something (and no this isn't a dig, but a broader question.. I've read maybe half the entries in this thread and probably missed a lot!).. but why is it that you say that your efforts are likely completely in vain? I've gathered that you are against the idea of a classic shard, but I have yet to see someone formulate a rational, reasonable argument *against* creating a classic shard(s).
From my point of view, just because it's created, does not mean it must be played. Just as there is Siege, Mugen, and Test Server with largely different rules of play than what we have on standard production shards, you are still free to play your home shard(s) now, and with the advent of a classic shard, your options would be no different.
And so, I ask again, why are your efforts in vain? How would creating a classic shard truly *hurt* anyone? My apologies if I've missed decent argument for this question, as I said, I may have missed it.