Hmmm. Speaking of this, wasn't that publish on 8/11 supposed to fix the unreachable T-maps locations? A group of friends and I went out last night to dig some newly decoded maps.. The first four were under houses.
*sigh*
-
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!
Hmmm. Speaking of this, wasn't that publish on 8/11 supposed to fix the unreachable T-maps locations? A group of friends and I went out last night to dig some newly decoded maps.. The first four were under houses.
*sigh*
I think they fixed unreachable ones in water and things like that. That location could be reachable if a home wasn't on top of it. Or on a different shard perhaps.
He said "MORE than a few" actually...
If subs are are at 100k, I'm taking a few would mean a around 1,000, while more than a few is anything from 1,000 to 10,000. From what I see in-game, I still believe that a large majority of the player base do not cheat.
Scripter activity have also gone down after Cal's previous announcement. These were probably smart enough to quit cheating while they are ahead.
As long as it is made known that cheating will not be tolerated and punishment is enforced, this in itself will control cheating.
So to me, it's all good.
A
AesSedai
Guest
Arenas - I like the concept and do hope that this system will continue to evolve. Some people have never heard of this being requested; I've requested it before, many years before. I think it is chock full of potential UO entertainment. I do hope it evolves.
Classic Shard - makes perfect sense; I just hope the beans are scrutinized and counted correctly. It reminds me of the solution that became Trammel ~ you can only open the box once.
Cheating - a mention of some progress; I look forward to seeing more progress. I still feel this is more important, for UO, than any other bulletpoint for UO; and yet it didn't even get the bold treatment in this Producer's Update..
Siege Perilous - how these shards are supported is a direct reflection on how all of UO is supported, to me; and that includes future developments, like say Classic Shards, merchant ship houses and cloud cities.
The Live Arc - good that it is happening. I wonder how many that play UO are able to keep up with the details.
Event Moderators - good when you hook up with an event. I do like this type of structured, real interaction with the non-paying side of the game.
Judah Bloom - thanks for your assistance. Good luck with the schooling.
UO - grow, evolve, prosper.
Classic Shard - makes perfect sense; I just hope the beans are scrutinized and counted correctly. It reminds me of the solution that became Trammel ~ you can only open the box once.
Cheating - a mention of some progress; I look forward to seeing more progress. I still feel this is more important, for UO, than any other bulletpoint for UO; and yet it didn't even get the bold treatment in this Producer's Update..
Siege Perilous - how these shards are supported is a direct reflection on how all of UO is supported, to me; and that includes future developments, like say Classic Shards, merchant ship houses and cloud cities.
The Live Arc - good that it is happening. I wonder how many that play UO are able to keep up with the details.
Event Moderators - good when you hook up with an event. I do like this type of structured, real interaction with the non-paying side of the game.
Judah Bloom - thanks for your assistance. Good luck with the schooling.
UO - grow, evolve, prosper.
I think he said more than a few, because saying "A Lot", which I'm sure is the truth, looks worse. And if you think only 1-10% of the population is using scripts, well....
I dont understand the aim of the changes? PvP 1 on 1 is soo old like UO's first code, 4 years ago i remeber duel farm was full of players, but today the players are not there, there are no really PvP interested players anymore or only a few who are playing at the weekend. This will not change if you are introducing this systems, this is too late.
So what you need is a bring back feature and what is a better bringback feature than a remake of the game. You have to say yes we want it, or no we are happy with that how it is now, with changes everytime you can keep PvM content interesting but in PvP a change must be done very carefully and this Mystic changes were not carefully, the first introduce was, thats true, but then you see nobody wants play so you make it overpowered, a Heal which removes all debuffs, poisons and heals more than a Greater Heal, a spell which blocks all debuff removes and makes more damage like a flamestrike, with a casting delay of a harm and no contra against it equal if you have magicresist or not, if resisted the resited damage can be done after the next attack wonderfull! Anything elese to say here?
And then you are talking about an arena system? For what Spell Plague and Cleasing Wind?
So what you need is a bring back feature and what is a better bringback feature than a remake of the game. You have to say yes we want it, or no we are happy with that how it is now, with changes everytime you can keep PvM content interesting but in PvP a change must be done very carefully and this Mystic changes were not carefully, the first introduce was, thats true, but then you see nobody wants play so you make it overpowered, a Heal which removes all debuffs, poisons and heals more than a Greater Heal, a spell which blocks all debuff removes and makes more damage like a flamestrike, with a casting delay of a harm and no contra against it equal if you have magicresist or not, if resisted the resited damage can be done after the next attack wonderfull! Anything elese to say here?
And then you are talking about an arena system? For what Spell Plague and Cleasing Wind?
Note that none of Cal's statements say that they will develop a classic shard at the expense or before they look at the issues you mentioned above.
They are still evaluating if this is feasible.
Like you, I love UO. I want it to grow and to re-attract a user base to rival the largest MMOs. A 12 year old MMO that is still alive and kicking is testament to how good a game it is.
I understand you feel that they will neglect the rest of the production shards over the classic shard.
From what I see, they have consistently shown that they manage projects by a cost/benefit analysis. ie they work on things that will have the largest impact with the least effort. Thus I am confident that they will not neglect the 20+ normal shards over 1 classic shard.
Even if they cannot convince the management for extra resources (eg, from the Warhammer team, who are tending to less servers now), a good project manager can project a manageable delivery time.
That being said, I believe the extra subs it brings in will pay for itself. This includes the use of the classic shard to advertise current day UO.
Lots of old school players on the classic-based player-run shards refuse to give the current UO a try because they believe Trammel/AOS is not the UO they love.
It's kind of like the CC and EC supporters. CC supporters that refuses to give the EC a try will never find out how good it is.
I believe we just need to entice these players to give it a try. Alot of these will undoubtedly test out the rest of the shards and find out that they actually like it. So I don't see it as just simply a classic shard.
Folks on player-run shards represent an existing pool of UO enthusiasts that we can draw back into our folds. Why not start with this existing pool if we want UO to retake it's lead in the MMO market?
We do not know what costs are considered prohibitive by EA. But as with all business decisions, the product manager will need to make a feasibility study. If favorable, this will then be presented to the management.
Also, the art itself probably isn't much of a problem, they are all in the client files. All the original sprites from skeletons to daemons are still there.
The issue is with the server codes. Maybe that shouldn't matter much either. A possible solution is to look at making classic content into a modular system, something like what they do for ML and SA content that can be enabled/disabled, then they can disable modules that contains contents beyond Ren.
Say if a shard's config file has a parameter called "Classic=Yes", then TrammelModule=Disabled, InsuranceModule=Disabled, AOSItemProperties=Disabled etc etc.
If workable, they can then even easily setup multiple shards, all with different rulesets within minutes.
A modular system that uses 1 single set of server codes will reduce a lot of the effort required to maintain separate sets of server codes/bug fixes.
I actually support a classic shard not for nostalgic reasons, but for the future and growth of UO.
What you mean here is that existing players are going to foot the bill on the development costs before any returns on investments are seen.
But please consider the other side of the coin, ie the possibility that once it takes off, it will ultimately generate returns that will enable more resources/manpower to be hired which will help all the other shards.
Every new investment made in the business world from what food to grow, to manufacturing a new car design, to commissioning a new commercial building requires resources/money from the existing company before any returns on investments are seen.
Should this drain on resources automatically mean that we should stop planting crops, making new cars, building new malls? Nope. The decision should be based on whether this is beneficial in the longterm and make the company more money/stable and less prone to risks.
Hence, like any proper business decision, a feasibility study should be made first. And that's all the devs are doing at this moment.
Actually, Siege HAS been properly supported. When has Siege missed a patch that the rest of the servers received? Did the rest of the servers get ungraded tmaps while siege didn't? Did they not get the bard songs? Perhaps they did not get the bane dragon event?
No, the issues Siege is facing is not with server patches/code/exploit etc. It's with a declining population for a ruleset that was forced upon players without a feasibility study. So we got an "advanced" shard with new rules no one asked for instead of a classic shard. Actually, at it's inception, more people were asking for the original Abyss (players turning into dragons, daemons etc) shard than for a classic shard.
And if the dev's study shows that a classic server is feasible, and they assure us that the other shards will not be neglected, are you willing to at least give it a chance first?
And if the dev team actually deals with the cheaters instead of just paying us lip service, will you be willing to re-consider your position on a classic shard?
C
canary
Guest
Please, tell me, do you actually at any time read other people's posts or do you just invent whatever you wish in your head? I am totally unaware of how you come to these ideas.
Your continued insistence at inventing facts that aren't there as well as conversations that are not there boggles my mind.
C
canary
Guest
I'm unsure what dealing with cheaters has to do with wishing for a classic shard. You lost me there.
I'm not opposed to a classic shard. I simply think that the manpower would be better served allocated to fixing the NUMEROUS current problems to this game, many of which have existed for literal years.
A classic option is never going to happen just like UO will never be competitive again. It's amusing in a sense, the game has been driven onto a course that leads to it's destruction, in attempting to emulate more modern MMOs for the past ten years, UO has painted itself as uninteresting in the eyes of the larger gaming population.
In short everything UO has emulated from other games is being done much better elsewhere. Because of this there is no real incentive for UO to be anything more than a gaming backwater.
Ultimately what is UO? it is the great grandfather of WoW with parkinsons and dementia, on it's deathbed and stubbornly holding out for the final rattle.
The game was never perfect, not even in the older times that many of us enjoyed, it had so many issues, but it also had a unique identity that set it apart from other games.
So amusingly enough neither side of this argument wins in the long run. :-D
In short everything UO has emulated from other games is being done much better elsewhere. Because of this there is no real incentive for UO to be anything more than a gaming backwater.
Ultimately what is UO? it is the great grandfather of WoW with parkinsons and dementia, on it's deathbed and stubbornly holding out for the final rattle.
The game was never perfect, not even in the older times that many of us enjoyed, it had so many issues, but it also had a unique identity that set it apart from other games.
So amusingly enough neither side of this argument wins in the long run. :-D
I might have misunderstood your post.
Thought you meant that "you'll see" (and decide) if they are just "dangling a carrot" regarding a feasibility for the classic shard just like you believe that they are paying lip service regarding dealing with the cheaters:
Let me rephrase my question, if they do deal with the cheaters, (which means they are not just dangling a carrot)
- will you at least give them enough benefit of doubt to trust that they are not just dangling a carrot regarding the classic shard? Ie, they mean it when they say that they would to do a feasibility study before deciding whether they would proceed with a classic shard?
M
Morgana LeFay (PoV)
Guest
Just like I do not have any numbers, neither do you...but nice try.
I challenge you, or anyone else, to find any post made by me that claims that a Classic Shard would be as simple as "flip" here's your Classic Shard. Quite the opposite in fact. I have stated on more than one occasion that it is going to require development, time, and resources. Gotta spend money to make money.
That's completely a matter of opinion. What you, and your "ilk" might consider to be "better spent" might be a complete and utter waste (see 3 failed clients) to other players. The rest of your statement is simple hyperbole and will be ignored.
You're still missing the point. The current subscriberbase is getting smaller, not larger. For every customer UO loses, that's profit lost. In order to increase the number of subscriptions (which I believe if you read what Cal has written is the goal of the Classic Shard) something has to change, and nothing that has been presented really presents the opportunity to gain as many subscriptions for as little cost.
Go ahead and tell yourself that no one has ever left UO because of the direction it has gone in...I am not here to dispel whatever delusions you live with. That's between you and your therapist should you chose to see one.
You have nothing to back that up but pure speculation based on the assumption that former UO players would either enjoy the game as you enjoy it, or that they wouldn't play at all.
If the powers that be at EA agree with you, then you won't have to worry about a Classic Shard coming into existence. If there is anything you people need to take from what Cal said, it is that this decision will be made after extensive research is done, and that it will not be made likely. You either trust Mythic/EA to make the right decision, or you don't. Again, there is nothing I can do to quell any paranoia you may be dealing with...take it up with a therapist, not me.
No, in my mind it sounds to me like you pretty much don't believe in the concept of a Classic Shard because you feel that no one could possibly enjoy the game the way it was. That's your delusion to suffer under, but I can promise you this...EA is not going to green-light this project if they agree with your position. I think Cal has done enough initial research that he doesn't share your appraisal of the situation however...but again, if you take issue with that, you need to take it up with Cal.
And with that...I am once again out of the discussion. When we get more information (yay or nay), I will resume participation.
You must be aware of that if you don't have any numbers, then the devs should err on the side of caution and ignore the request for a classic shard.
E
Evlar
Guest
...no, we understand just fine. You have a superiority complex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0DUsGSMwZY
Hi, Stratics
Claire from Drachs here. I´m this typical UO player, who reads the boards daily but hardly writes anything. Guess I´m the typical average UO subscriber (for more than 10 years now).
I see no need for any Classic shard or rollback to the past times of PKing and Sh***talk. I remember that UO was a frustrating game for newbs like me before Tram. And what frustrated me the most was this constant "I have a bigger *** than you!" in the early days.
Call me a Carebear. I am.
I´ve exeperienced a great time over the last couple of years and I still am. So I see no reason, why UO should go backwards. Before the programmers take any steps into a classic shard, they should rather turn off the town criers "Tokuno"-news and focus on improving the content of the shards as they are.
Who ever needs a classic shard could have hundreds of them on the free community. But this here is UO, and I expect an advancement every day.
This goddamn story about UO being "true" in the "goodolddays" is a lie! It was chaos and a platform for anti-social behaviour. Period.
Anyway. I find it ridiculous, that anything the developers say ends up in a "classic" discussion.
Thank you for the info, Cal.
*hides back in the shadows of the majority players enjoying UO*
/Claire
Claire from Drachs here. I´m this typical UO player, who reads the boards daily but hardly writes anything. Guess I´m the typical average UO subscriber (for more than 10 years now).
I see no need for any Classic shard or rollback to the past times of PKing and Sh***talk. I remember that UO was a frustrating game for newbs like me before Tram. And what frustrated me the most was this constant "I have a bigger *** than you!" in the early days.
Call me a Carebear. I am.
I´ve exeperienced a great time over the last couple of years and I still am. So I see no reason, why UO should go backwards. Before the programmers take any steps into a classic shard, they should rather turn off the town criers "Tokuno"-news and focus on improving the content of the shards as they are.
Who ever needs a classic shard could have hundreds of them on the free community. But this here is UO, and I expect an advancement every day.
This goddamn story about UO being "true" in the "goodolddays" is a lie! It was chaos and a platform for anti-social behaviour. Period.
Anyway. I find it ridiculous, that anything the developers say ends up in a "classic" discussion.
Thank you for the info, Cal.
*hides back in the shadows of the majority players enjoying UO*
/Claire
Harlequin,
A modular system for servers would require a complete rewrite of the server architecture. That isn’t ever going to happen. The 13+ yo spaghetti code is well beyond the place that this would have been feasible. Were they do redo the UO servers from the ground up, it would be a whole new game: UO2
This part of your argument falls completely flat. Sorry.
Wanting a Classic Shard for the “growth of UO” is quite humorous. As growth is forward movement, not a complete 180 return to something that didn’t succeed originally. The assumption that such a shard would bring scads of people (back) to UO is highly speculative at best, delusional at worst. Again, this repeated argument of the Classic Sharders falls flat as it has no factual basis.
Obviously existing players would foot the bill for any new development, that’s how a business works. It is possible that a classic shard might make EA some money, unlikely, but possible. However, Siege barely has a playerbase – and yet you want a 3rd rule set shard to be created based completely on wishful thinking. Not a sound business strategy. Feasibility studies aside, again another assumption that one is actually occurring, a new shard would take away from ongoing development of the production shards. This is something that’s patently obvious UO can’t afford
Siege has been supported? REALLY? Supported doesn’t just mean that it gets the same patches the rest of the shards get, but that its rule set changes to meet the needs of its players. As any Siege player will tell you, quite loudly in fact, it has not been supported to their satisfaction. They recently got thrown a bone, the first in a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. The support that Siege players want is for their issues to be addressed in a timely manner and for their shard to continue to evolve.
This would be the evolution of UO. Changes over time. Yet for some bizarre reason, a few of you wearing your Rose-colored Glasses want to step back into the “halcyon days of yore” and pretend this will somehow compete with other MMOs.
A modular system for servers would require a complete rewrite of the server architecture. That isn’t ever going to happen. The 13+ yo spaghetti code is well beyond the place that this would have been feasible. Were they do redo the UO servers from the ground up, it would be a whole new game: UO2
This part of your argument falls completely flat. Sorry.
Wanting a Classic Shard for the “growth of UO” is quite humorous. As growth is forward movement, not a complete 180 return to something that didn’t succeed originally. The assumption that such a shard would bring scads of people (back) to UO is highly speculative at best, delusional at worst. Again, this repeated argument of the Classic Sharders falls flat as it has no factual basis.
Obviously existing players would foot the bill for any new development, that’s how a business works. It is possible that a classic shard might make EA some money, unlikely, but possible. However, Siege barely has a playerbase – and yet you want a 3rd rule set shard to be created based completely on wishful thinking. Not a sound business strategy. Feasibility studies aside, again another assumption that one is actually occurring, a new shard would take away from ongoing development of the production shards. This is something that’s patently obvious UO can’t afford
Siege has been supported? REALLY? Supported doesn’t just mean that it gets the same patches the rest of the shards get, but that its rule set changes to meet the needs of its players. As any Siege player will tell you, quite loudly in fact, it has not been supported to their satisfaction. They recently got thrown a bone, the first in a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. The support that Siege players want is for their issues to be addressed in a timely manner and for their shard to continue to evolve.
This would be the evolution of UO. Changes over time. Yet for some bizarre reason, a few of you wearing your Rose-colored Glasses want to step back into the “halcyon days of yore” and pretend this will somehow compete with other MMOs.
A
Aragon100
Guest
Rewriting history is not for me but you seem good at it.
Trammel was not hurting felucca in any way. PvP on Europe shard. that i played on, were more intense patch15 and 16 then it was before trammel. UO subscribers were at it's peak just before AoS. Felucca and trammel were both doing fine. Then something happened and that something was called Age of Shadows. The number of UO subscribers went down after AoS. Playing item insurance and item based PvP without consequences was worthless for the older players when compared to the older system. That was the final nail in the felucca chest and that is easily understandable if you followed the game as i have.
Old classic UO was destroyed but it is not forgotten. How many would join if a classic shard opens up is anybodies guess. My guild can provide +20 and im sure there is loads of guilds/players out there that misses the old classic UO.
As I've said numerous times in numerous places, if they can develop a Classic Shard without impact on development for the remainder of Ultima Online, I'm all for it -- but to do so would require more bodies, a larger team, or a separate team.
If it happens they can do so, I'm behind them doing whatever they think is good for the future of UO.
If they cannot do it without spreading the existing team thinner, it should not be done.
A
Aragon100
Guest
My guild alone will provide +20 subscribers. Have you seen the petition where 750 signed? There is not just 10 vocal ones that is interested in a classic shard.
I played on the Europe server and i saw no drop in felucca activity at all. Felucca was more intense and active after trammel and the subscriber peak of UO all time was just before AoS. After AoS the numbers dropped and they dropped cause felucca died. Loads of PvP interested subscribers left the game cause the game they learned to love over the years was gone. And AoS was the reason for this decline in subscribers.
AoS removed the UO spirit from the ground up. There was no consequencial PvP left. Full loot were insurance after AoS. Skilled PvP was item based PvP. UO after AoS was a totally different game and not interesting for the ones that loved the old classic game. This is why UO subscriptions dipped and dipped hard and fast. Developers got the old PvP players judgement and the judgement was not good. I talked to hundreds of old UO classic UO players that left the game and the reason for it was not trammel, it was Age of Shadows.
Yes PvM is important and many of the ones that enjoyed PvM did also enjoy PvP. It is not as the ones that did PvP only enjoyed PvP. What AoS did when it came february 2003 was it removed many of the subscribers that enjoyed the old classic UO PvP system and opened up for more PvM with alot of searching for the best weapons and armors. There was alot of Doom PvM after AoS and less and less felucca activity. It is hard to guess the balance between PvM and PvP before AoS but my guess would be pretty equal.
Yes i want to loose everything i have on me when i die and i want to loot everything my enemy have on his corpse when i kill him. That is a feature that is raising the thrill of combat. The thrill is what you put in the fight, weapons, armors, potions and more not just the thrill of the combat. Full loot is very important. Reequipping is done in 5 minutes and i take that with a cheerful heart cause next time i might be the one doing the looting. Risk vs rewards is what UO was all about but that went out of the window with AoS.
What the developers did was that they first introduced AoS that destroyed the interest of playing felucca PvP. Player react when the game you played is something totally different the next day and it make you loose interest and finally end your subscription. Do you really believe that some shinies will make these players return to the game? Sorry but that is laughable.
A Classic Shard = VAPORWARE VAPORWARE VAPORWARE 
It is astroturfing by a handful of spammers to try to con-vince Cal.
If they do it, it will be like the KR disaster. There was no new content in 2007 for 9 months, and UO lost many 10,000s of accounts. Not only that, if the majority [i.e. the PvEers], see that UO is turning into Darkfall and catering to griefers, many will do what Tina did.
It is astroturfing by a handful of spammers to try to con-vince Cal.
If they do it, it will be like the KR disaster. There was no new content in 2007 for 9 months, and UO lost many 10,000s of accounts. Not only that, if the majority [i.e. the PvEers], see that UO is turning into Darkfall and catering to griefers, many will do what Tina did.
F
Fink
Guest
How many of those does UO have?
I am unsure of the current team with regard to their (prior or current) experience with the game. I only know you're no longer with them, and that is a great pity, but I thought you might know these things.
I don't know myself of any others, but if Vex/Phoenix is still there...
You have any idea how hypocritical this is? First of all.... back in "The day" when you lost "everything" you weren't losing much of anything... And looting someone elses' craptastic armor that is basic and blah is just as craptastical as looting a mongbat.
Truth is beyond the rare vanquishing blah blah whatever a VAST majority of things on somones corpse weren't worth weighing you down to loot.
Really honestly it isn't... OMG I can't loot garbage off a dead guy anymore...... big whopping deal.
I'm sorry but all these types of arguments just don't make any sense at all to me.
S
Splup
Guest
I'm pretty much with you here. Also there's couple very good free Classic Shards with plenty of players and good GM support. That being said, my concern is that Classic Shard would cannibalize existing shards instead of bringing new players who have already found the freeshards.
Dividing codes into sub-routines based on their functions is nothing like writing everything from the ground up.
Actually, that's exactly what companies do to spaghetti code that they cannot throw away/write from the ground up. Clean-up and update it so that it can be better supported in the future, defining functions and sub-routines for different parts of the program.
Instead of looking at the negative side, think of the benefits that properly structured code will offer to the existing servers, no worries of rogue codes messing up the release of new content, adding new functions etc. In fact, that's where it's going to benefit most.
And this is only 1 of the ways I think it can be done. The devs would likely have better ideas than me.
Now, growth doesn't mean just moving forward strictly in 1 direction and never looking back.
Moving forward doesn't mean you must always come up with new designs/inventions. Nor does it preclude re-introducing retro designs.
Mini skirts are are a retro fashion design, New romantic/Punk rock/Heavy metal are retro music, new mansions are built based on retro European architectural designs, Minis/Mustangs/Harleys etc are retro vehicular designs, there's also a surprisingly large market for retrogaming (eg old Sega/Nintendo console games, old dos games, in fact, I just saw a re-re-re release of Fallout 1 and 2 at an electronics shop yesterday).
These are all old designs that are popular, some for nostalgic reasons, some because people actually like it, some because these designs are really good, some because it just makes sense.
Yes, alot of people don't appreciate these. But if you have ever noticed how men ogled at a pretty girl in a mini skirt, or the girls wearing one, you have a first hand knowledge that some retro designs just makes sense. You may not share the same view, but it doesn't mean there aren't others who love them.
Otherwise, there won't be mini skirts in the growth of the fashion industry, or retro gaming in the growth of the gaming industry.
Similarly for UO, growth and moving forward does not preclude a classic shard.
You have noticed that this topic comes up repeatedly too. Yes, it could be all just 1 person using different alts to raise the issue. However, having this topic repeatedly come up is cause to look deeper into it.
This is the online petition for those people that bothered to sign:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?bbuo
If you read through the recent classic shard posts over the last few months, you will also see ex-players saying that's what they have been waiting for.
So there is in fact a basis for this. If you ask others for statistics and accuse people of speculation/being delusional, I can also turn your words around and say:
The assumption that such a shard would not bring scads of people (back) to UO is highly speculative at best, delusional at worst. Again, this repeated argument of the Anti Classic Sharders falls flat as it has no factual basis.
First, how do we proof that it's wishful thing? You realize that you are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing, right? You are speculating.
Next, consider that revenue is not just in and of a classic shard itself.
1) We use it to reach out to our pool of ex UO players
2) Extend the game's life for the existing players that want something different
3) Advertising
4) Use it as a vehicle to attract the anti Trammel/AOS folks and have them see that current day UO has it's advantages
In software development, once a product has completed it's development cycle based on the original requirements, any post-live support means fixing and patching any bugs.
Changing how the rules work is changing the specifications of the program and treated differently. Yes, the original specifications did not consider players input, but still, players requesting for the specifications to be changed will always treated differently compared to day to day production issues.
This is why getting the initial requirements gathering done right is very important.
I have the same fears that you have - that the pro classic shard folks are actually 1 person using alts, and the 750 signature petition is actually signed by 1 single person with 750 alts, that the other shards will be neglected etc.
But I am willing to trust that the devs will do a proper feasibility study and make their decisions based on the study. Remember, their jobs/bonus/stock options are at risk here, so they likely have a bigger stake in this than us.
A
Aragon100
Guest
It make sence to most of the ones that used to play the risk vs reward game called classic UO. Age of Shadows did not just end the full loot. We also got itembased PvP and a need for all to take part in intense PvM.
Insurances and item PvP belongs in the same category as a theme park game as WoW. It removes risk vs reward and your money in the bank makes up for your poor PvP performance. Skilled players full loot were taken away cause UO became a much more safe game. Items replaced playerskill to some extent which was not acceptable by many oldtimers. Intense PvM became a necessity even for the most PvP oriented players. New spells and skills also did their part to change the game from bottom up.
Can you understand the negative impact Age of Shadows had to the oldtimer PvP oriented UO veterans when it arrived? If these numbers from http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html is even remotely right i think you should start to wonder about the negative impact AoS had to UO and it's old faithful subscribers that been paying their monthly fee for years. They had no intention to end their subscription but were forced out of the game by unacceptable new features.
The game you play and seemingly enjoy today ended the game experience for thousands of oldtimers. All those faithful subscribers had to look elsewhere to find a replacement game and they is still looking. That is what AoS did to this game.
Now we might be able to play our beloved lost game again. A classic EA/Mythic shard should live on it's own merits. The one's paying subscription money for a new classic UO shard should get their money invested back into that shard.
That's why it is only going to be warnings instead of a mass banning. Mass bannings unfair? Really, in just what way?
What is unfair is the advantage ingame that Mythic (Cal) is allowing the scripters and cheaters to have without any punishment.
"Oh look, I have all these resources built up after 24-7 of scripting for years AND all I get is a warning? Sweet.- Totally."
Looking like I was playing for the wrong team all these years.
Those who scripted resources have long scripted the massive piles and don't do it anymore so much.
You can ignore all the facts that you like in your pursuit for a classic shard but your points come with things you neglict to mention.
But just because you build it, doesn't mean they will come.
This is only if the number of players/subscriptions exceed the cost in running it. Just because you run it and it brings more subscriptions that is means more money.
You can ignore the facts if you want, but what are the chances those players would come back? How many of those people would need to come back to make it worth while? You are ignoring the fact that the risk might be greater than the reward. You are assuming that they will get enough subscriptions to cover the cost, not only cover the cost. But to maintain a good enough profit margin to make it worth while.
But just because you build it, doesn't mean they will come.
Aye, EMs are no more rockstars than the people who volunteer to work for a badge at conventions (GenCon, DragonCon, Origins, ect).
Looks like one of those classes Cal went to was the latest, greatest, thinking 'outside the box' seminars.
I will say this- Being in the vents/teamspeaks of EQ/WoW servers/guilds and talking with friends who still PvP in those games- A good number of them refer to UO as the best PvP MMO. As to their reasons for not plaiyng UO, it varies but includes time, money, they do play on freeshards, scripting, hacking, lack of raiding/guild/party content- and a few still do have their accounts active..... like me.
Just wanted to respond a little for those of us belonging to the ilk who wears rose-tinted glasses.
My posting history regarding classic shards which hopefully shows that I am not wearing said glasses:
http://vboards.stratics.com/showpost.php?p=1180303&postcount=450
http://vboards.stratics.com/showpost.php?p=1140601&postcount=10
http://vboards.stratics.com/showpost.php?p=1214227&postcount=584
http://vboards.stratics.com/showpost.php?p=1147516&postcount=154
http://vboards.stratics.com/showpost.php?p=1160148&postcount=403
http://vboards.stratics.com/showpost.php?p=1132058&postcount=77
http://vboards.stratics.com/showpost.php?p=1132509&postcount=93
http://vboards.stratics.com/showpost.php?p=1132535&postcount=95
Among the threads, I have tried to express what problems it can solve, what it can't, problems with restored codes from a backup, my believe that the AOS is a good improvement, how long it will take, the effort required, proper expectations, what other things to look out for, the good and the bad.
Now remember, when they released the European and Asian shards, it all took initial investments and dev time to implement. Now, they are fully paying for themselves and bringing in a good chunk of the returns that keeps UO and development going. If EA had been afraid of spending the resources for these shards, it would be a missed opportunity and we would have even less resources now.
What I am trying to say here is, do not reject an idea outright.
Like you say, a classic shard could be a total waste of time and resource sink that will prove to be a flop.
However, what if the pro classic shard folks are right? What if it is successful and will bring in the numbers? Should we ignore the potential? Or should we at least get more info to see if it's feasible?
C
canary
Guest
I think they'd get a better return on their investment with decent advertising and a client that is aesthetically pleasing and not riddled with issues (like, I dunno... BOTH the current clients).
Cuz really, let's face facts that KR was not a leap forward, more like a half step to the side.
Cuz really, let's face facts that KR was not a leap forward, more like a half step to the side.
M
Malador
Guest
I agree. It will be no different than any change to the current shards. It will be popular for a little while then the dust will settle and there will be even less people playing than there were the week before
M
Malador
Guest
Then your detection routines are not working correctlyNope. Nothing not manageable
M
Malador
Guest
That is just it genious. He didnt inform us of anything. In fact he very cleverly blew smoke up our asses.
M
Malador
Guest
If you translate what he said it means they have ran thier detection routines for a month and a half now and they number of cheaters is so astounding that they cannot ban or there would not be enough population left to pay for the infustructure.
M
Malador
Guest
LMAO
Well duh, people are just under a placebo effect because he said anything at all.
On a side note if the Areans are for PVPers honestly most of the pvp community doesn't give two hoots about being able to use some dueling feature. I'm sure most of the pvp community wants your efforts pointed at balancing major issues rather then making some faulty system that you have to waste time working bugs out of.
For the past few years on Great Lakes we have had several people that set up dueling tournaments that have worked out just fine with out the need for any of this.
Let me simply respond by saying that "your ilk" wasn't intended to lump all Classic Sharders into the same category. It was meant to lump all of the Classic Sharders who are of the opinion, "You don't support a Classic Shard, therefore you don't understand anything at all," group. There's a specific group (consisting of at least two people in this thread) who become quite bitter and nasty if you happen to post a valid point -- I suspect mostly because they hope that no one at EA is watching or reading aforementioned valid points.
I'm not against a Classic Shard, in theory. You know what could convince me it could be done in a decent way? Table this discussion for a year. Pour whatever resources one might put into a Classic Shard into Siege Perilous. If, at the end of a year, Siege Perilous has markedly improved, and they're receiving more than one adjustment every six months, Bioware Mythic will have convinced me that they are finally ready to move forward with multiple rulesets. But they have to do this while maintaining acceptable progress on the Production Shards, and making extreme improvements to the Enhanced Client.
My issue continues to remain, however, that they simply do not have the resources to do this. And praying that a bunch of people will come running back from Free Shards to pay for Ultima Online Classic (which probably won't be what they're expecting anyway because, like Siege Perilous, I believe the "concept" and the "implementation" will differ significantly) is a HUGE risk. I mean, I could pretty well tomorrow make an online petition and have 750 people sign up for it that says, "Please change UO's graphics to more resemble Hello Kitty Online!" It wouldn't make it a wise idea.
Now -- to the things you provided in your links -- you clearly are thinking above and beyond, "Hey, I just want my free-for-all PvP days back." What I certainly WOULD agree with is that there are long-forgotten lessons that the classic days can teach us, and perhaps there are, indeed, ways to implement things with a classic feel to them.
What I don't really see happening though is "Hey, here's Felucca again, go have at it." And pretending for a moment that they did, I don't see it being successful. In order for UO to develop in a player-justice system, it would have to be reverted to pre-Trammel, yes, but then, above and beyond that, it would have to be forward developed. Thing is, much of that development would need to take place prior to re-launch because the UO that was pre-Trammel was in a state of death. The vast majority of subscribers didn't like pre-Trammel UO as a whole -- they liked the game, they just didn't like constantly dieing to other players. And of course, that all presumes they'd be developing pre-Trammel as opposed to pre-AoS or whatever; there's a lot of question as to what "Classic Shard" means, and while polls can certainly help narrow it down, the more narrowed down it becomes, the less likely it is to be that "thing" that all of these supposed people just waiting to pay EA for UO again if only they'd turn on a Classic Shard are actually expecting and would really pay for.
I don't know... it's a lot of complex theorizing that has no simple answer to it. Which is what sets it up for being ripe for plucking resources away from Ultima Online in order to develop. The state of UO in general is such that in order to have a future, it needs to fix a ton of stuff. It should not be distracted by an alternate ruleset when they can't manage the one that they've already got.
All of this said, sure, there are days I miss the "Golden Era" of UO. There are things I liked about it, and definitely mistakes that EA made in development. The fun I had in those days, however, does not overpower the other rampant issues of those days, which needed -- and by and large, received -- solutions.
S
Sevin0oo0
Guest
Plus
Pets go loose and player is booted til server reset
Z
Zodia
Guest
Letting the intern go probably cut their workforce in half. 
Do we really need any more evidence that UO is now being run on a complete shoe-string budget and an unbelievably tiny staff (a staff that is also being used for/split between other Mythic games)?
They take so long to implement even the smallest of changes.
Months for "features" that used to be weekly updates in the good ol' days.
I let my sub run out in July for the first time since 1997. It will be reactivated when the Classic Shard opens and thousands of us vets stream back into the game.
Do we really need any more evidence that UO is now being run on a complete shoe-string budget and an unbelievably tiny staff (a staff that is also being used for/split between other Mythic games)?
They take so long to implement even the smallest of changes.
Months for "features" that used to be weekly updates in the good ol' days.
I let my sub run out in July for the first time since 1997. It will be reactivated when the Classic Shard opens and thousands of us vets stream back into the game.
Using my crystal ball, here is what I see will happen if the Classic shard goes ahead...
90% of UO players are PvEers. When the announcement is made, many of them will see that EA wants to turn UO into Darkfall, focused on only catering to griefers, and they will leave to play free PvE friendly focused games like LOTRO, Everquest II and D&D Online. Tina left, many others will too.
Then just like KR and every other MMORPG ever made, it is not going to be released on time. In 2007, there was 9 months of no new content and UO lost several 10,000s of accounts. KR is still in beta, right??
So the one or two thousand returning players for the Classic shard [existing players dont count], will not make up for the greater loss in players from PvEers and also players leaving when there is a lack of new content.
90% of UO players are PvEers. When the announcement is made, many of them will see that EA wants to turn UO into Darkfall, focused on only catering to griefers, and they will leave to play free PvE friendly focused games like LOTRO, Everquest II and D&D Online. Tina left, many others will too.
Then just like KR and every other MMORPG ever made, it is not going to be released on time. In 2007, there was 9 months of no new content and UO lost several 10,000s of accounts. KR is still in beta, right??
So the one or two thousand returning players for the Classic shard [existing players dont count], will not make up for the greater loss in players from PvEers and also players leaving when there is a lack of new content.
this won't happen, i know a lot of people that would comeback and stay for a long while if a classic shard existed, people that have moved onto other MMOs years ago would come back in a heartbeat. For example, I play darkfall as well and many players played uo from 97 to 99 and were pks, griefers etc, they too would play UO again if a classic shard came out. If you build it, they will come
you aren't alone, but there are only a few of you, you don't realize how great the game was back in the day, I started playing a few months after tram came out and I would be thrilled if the game went back to felucca only even, as long as its pre-aos though is all i ask for, atleast that much. I dunno why people like you act this way about something, if you dont wanna play the classic shard don't, but don't talk bad about it either. Personally, if it somehow sped up the process of a classic shard coming into existence, id have the entire EM team dismissed and put that money into a classic shard
umm... no? if you're hinting darkfall has 3400 subscriptions, the numbers are far greater than that and are only improving. for some strange reason that i don't understand, many people that play MMOs like to be able to do everything in game without risk of dying and losing stuff, to me that makes it more fun and worth playing, UO had the right idea back in the day, its a shame that it took about 12 years for another mmo to come out with a similar idea which by the way is very successful, and the classic shard will be a huge success, i can't wait to prove the doubters wrong. I have a feeling most people that are agaisnt a classic shard used to spend all day mining and got pked 24/7...
id say its a pretty factual post, and you are acting very childish
its a damn shame that 90% of players didn't like uo back then, the days when pks ran rampant were the glory days of UO, people need to understand this, UO was made as a pvp game so im not sure why so many people subscribed back in the day knowing what could happen if you didn't like it. Pks and griefing made the game special, the first of its kind, tram forced the true pvpers off of the game, and aos made it completely worse, Itembased and insurance? i was fine with tram only and i liked killing people in fel and looting everything off of them, but then you kill someone and get insurance gold... no incentive, full loot was great
then how do free pre: UOR servers exist?
3400 FACT!! Add up the Actives on the 2 servers...
http://darkfallinfo.com/pmap/index.php?mapserver=us1&page=serverstats
http://darkfallinfo.com/pmap/index.php?mapserver=eu1&page=serverstats
FACT. If a Classic Shard goes ahead, UO will lose ten times as many players as it gains in returning players. 10,000s will leave like in pre-Trammel, if EA decides to cater to griefers. PvEers will leave, just like Tina has recently, and play MMOs like Everquest II or LOTRO or D&D Online that cater to PvEers. Furthermore 10,000s will leave like when KR stopped any new content being released in 2007 for 9 months straight.
I have every idea of what the game was like back in the day. I've been playing since October 23, 1997. I've seen it all, been through it all, and this "golden age" of UO that certain folks seem to think existed really didn't. Was the game fun back then? Absolutely. I wouldn't have continued to play if it wasn't. Was it going to continue to succeed if it didn't make the changes it made back then? Absolutely not. AoS didn't kill UO. Neither did Trammel.
What is slowly killing UO has been a steady stream of declining development, a lack of any forward momentum on updating the game engine to a modern standard that would attract new players, a stellar failure to update systems so that they wouldn't be confusing to new players (ie: why are there 3 or 4 different ways of initiating, doing, and completing a quest?), and putting internal instruction in the new player experience that actually TELLS a player ALL basic aspects of how to play the game (this specific one, by the way, is precisely why SWG had its "sandbox" core ripped out and replaced by a leveler engine -- because for basic players, without instruction and clear guidance as to what skills do and how to use them together, they get confused and leave).
Putting the minimal money spent on EMs back into a Classic Shard would be a horrible idea at best.
I'm curious as to where these LARGE AMOUNTS OF PLAYERS READY TO PAY TO PLAY CLASSIC UO figures are coming from. I mean, let's be honest... it's been over a decade since Trammel split. It's been seven years since Age of Shadows. There are not thousands upon thousands of players clamoring to pay $12.99 to play Classic UO. But I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree until something happens one way or another.
The irony of that statement is that if, indeed, UO had it right back in the day, the number of successful MMOs with subscription figures that far outweigh UO's peak (this includes, by the way EverQuest) would not have been successful.
But see, this is where people who think dieing and losing stuff is part of some sort of challenge that people should enjoy.
However, one standard, practical axiom of gameplay is that people play games to enjoy themselves. Whether that enjoyment comes through overcoming challenge, solving a puzzle, just running around gardening, whatever, they all have one thing in common, and it's this axiom that makes UO and the VERY few games like it the ones that still don't seem to get it: No one, not in game nor in real life, enjoys losing everything and having to start over from scratch. There is no enjoyment to be found in it. This is why video games generally are designed with save points, why most MMOs don't punish you in death by making you give up what you gained in life, and so forth.
Why people think that it's "fun" to risk losing everything on you, and equate that to challenge is beyond me. Sure, I get that PvP can be fun and entertaining -- I don't do PvP on UO because the systems are limited and you run into dishonorable cheaters more often than not, but I have done PvP in UO in the past, and it wasn't the fear of losing my items that made it fun. It was the challenge of facing off against another human opponent. To be honest, I could have cared less what crap he was carrying on him. There are artificial, acceptable ways to implement risk v. reward that don't require you to lose everything on your body.
No offense, but stating opinion as fact doesn't make it factual.
That's hysterical. No, really, it is. UO wasn't made as a PvP game at all in any way, shape, or form. It was, at its inception, designed as a social experiment where they believed that the greater good would outweigh the more nefarious elements.
It. Failed.
You read old developer blogs, interviews, commentary, and so forth, and the ideas they had were lofty, and they had high hopes, but they all admit that they had no idea how impactful the PvP/PK/grief element would be on the game. When they speak of that impact, they speak of it in a negative way, because it was literally driving players from the game.
What I think is odd is that while you seem to acknowledge that 90% of the playerbase expected a different play experience, you seem to hold onto the notion that your idea of a good play experience is what UO should have been. I don't understand the disconnect where you fail to see that had UO not changed, it wouldn't have survived to 2005, much less 2010.
Umm... that's sort of a funny thing to say, considering that UO was pretty much the first of its kind in nearly everything it was doing. UO ushered in the modern MMO era, and it made some mistakes along the way.
PKs... they didn't make the game special, they nearly killed it. This isn't to say I don't see a place in UO for PKs and PvP, but it certainly isn't in a free-for-all run rampant playstyle. Though, if you want that, you could always hook up on Siege Perilous.
Griefers don't make ANY game special, and EVERY game has them. To say griefers made the game special gives special insight into your mindset on the matter, however.
Well, let's see here... the engines they run on were developed way back when, or are modern interpretations of what they believe pre-UOR should be. They were specifically designed that way by the people who implemented them. They certainly aren't using UO server code to run them, and, if you pay attention behind the scenes, they run quite a bit differently.
Oh, and in order for a Classic Shard to work at all, EA would have to issue cease and desist orders to all of those free pre-UOR servers you speak of to shut them down so that they would have no option but to pay for Classic Shard access. Sure, some might, but I suspect many others would be pissed at EA for shutting off their illegal form of entertainment and find ways to continue to play for free just to spite EA. But then, that's just me and years of historical data taking a wild stab at this.
A
Aragon100
Guest
I played UO since beta and some 6 months after AoS went live. Then different freeshards up til now. What killed my game was AoS and i talked to so many old PvP oriented players both on AoS before i left and on freeshards and they all have in common that they left the game cause of AoS. Subscribers went downhill in a very rapid speed after AoS went live. The old PvP crowd in felucca left the game and that were not a small amount of the existing subscribers to UO like some claim. Some even claim that felucca PvP died after trammel which is wrong. Felucca PvP were at it's highlight patch 15 and subscribers have never been higher then just before AoS went live. We all know what happend later. Trammel didnt bother me the slightest cause my playstyle were in felucca and felucca were booming during patch 15 and 16.
Just about all PvP subscribers leaving the game is the true fact behind these lower subscription numbers. They left the game after AoS to never return and that will show up in the figures. That is also the reason why tens if not hundred of thousands of players made accounts and played on all the different freeshards with a classic settings. They enjoyed the old classic UO. Claiming that a updated game engine would bring back these oldtimers or even new players to UO is highly overestimated as i see it, a classic shard would bring back alot more both old and new subscribers. You have to remember that many players that never were subscribers back then learned to love the old UO on all these freeshards that popped up after AoS. Graphics ment very little to this PvP oriented crowd, it were all about gameplay.
Some freeshards with classic UOR settings have had +1000 players online same time during peak hours. And that is just one freeshard. So how many will pay subscription for a old classic shard? That is to be seen but i have experience from these very crowded freeshards and those players have always said they would join instantly if EA opened up a classic shard.
UO went (excuse me but i have to say it) "carebear" with AoS and afterwards there havent been a similar MMO in a fantasy setting made of a big AAA company with much rescources, so what game should this old abandoned UO PvP crowd play? WoW, EQ? Yes im sure many played those games and im sure they continued to look for a replacer to UO and they is still looking. And im fully aware that UO was not just a PvP and griefer game but that was a big chunk of the old UO wether people like it or not. They leaving in drowes after AoS did of course effect the numbers of subscribers.
It's not for everyone but then again you dont have to take part in it. You have your UO and i misses mine.
First version of UO, before AoS, was the one i and many prefered. The risk was what made my game more fun and challenging. That was both in PvP and in PvM. When you lost something in old classic UO it was easily replaced so it didnt affect anyone that much. But it added a thrill that was gone after AoS.
If you put something into the pot then you add thrill and excitement both to a pokergame and to MMO gaming. Without something at stake it gets uninteresting very fast.
UO might not have been thought to be the PvP game it became and PvP was a very big part of old UO. PvP draw more players to the game, not away. The ones that didnt enjoy PvP had trammel as a safe heaven so there was no reason for them to leave the game, was it? Felucca was very populated before AoS and was more or less abandoned after AoS had had it's way. So AoS might have added some new subscribers to trammel but removed same time more or less the interest in the facet called felucca. And that was one big reason why the subscribers went down for years to come.
So how do you explain the huge interest in old classic UO on freeshards? These players that play a classic setting seems to prefer that type of UO gameplay.
PK:s added alot of thrill and exitement to old UO. I had a hate/love towards them. The ones that played felucca during patch 15 knew what they were getting into when they entered Deceit. Most werent surpriced when they were killed by a red. I enjoyed felucca with it's risks and would never play UO without it. Siege Perlilous have never been an option for me and will never be, and im sure most of the ones that is in favor of a classic shard feels the same. Griefers and scammers was a part of UO and had it's place in the game. Not a shiny, fluffy part but that is not the game i prefer either.
Yes i agree that would be a good move.